Increasing the powers and responsibility of England's regions?

The call by the West Midlands mayor for control of police powers has sparked fierce debate

It was reported in the Guardian this week that:

"The West Midlands mayor should be handed the powers and responsibilities held by the police and crime commissioner, the current mayor, Andy Street, has told the home secretary.

Street, a Conservative, said crime in the region had “more than doubled” in the year to June 2023 and he had concluded “that enough is enough and crime in the West Midlands has now reached a point where something has to change”. He proposed that the transition should take place after the next mayoral election.

He referred to new powers that the government holds under the Levelling up and Regeneration Act, allowing it to transfer the powers of PCCs to elected mayors. Such a move would also help coordinate working on projects such as regeneration, he said."

His statement, however, has not been well received across the board, with current police crime commissioner essentially calling the move undemocratic.

What this story highlights is the old saying that "devolution is a process, not an event". In other words, many proponents of devolution expected newly created sub-national government bodies would be granted greater powers, and therefore influence on the lives of the inhabitants of these regions, beyond those originally legislated for. It raises important questions, therefore, about where this "process" ends.

Task

Consider the above information, as well as the arguments surrounding greater English regional devolution (see below) and answer the following question: do you agree that there should be more devolution for the English regions?

These can be considered as the arguments in favour of English regional devolution

• It is much more efficient to have the regions concerned with policy delivery involved in the formulation of policy,
• On a related note, this would additionally this would relieve the burden on central government.
• Evidence from the Celtic arenas suggests that there are clear benefits to bringing the government closer to the people since policies can be designed to fit the needs of the people in different regions
• The governmental structures we have now are in need of remodelling: local government was designed to fit the needs of the mid-nineteenth century and central government expanded in the middle of the twentieth to meet the demands of that time.
• Since the (unelected) Regional Development Agencies were scrapped in 2012 there is a lack of strategic co-ordination across many regions (except London, and Greater Manchester for example) with regards to economic development, regeneration, plans to boost employment, and so forth.
• It would provide a counter-point to London-centricism; it is difficult to think of another polity that is so dominated economically and politically by its nation’s biggest city.
• The regions in England need to have a platform that will give their area a voice enabling them to lobby central government for increased funding.

These can be considered as the arguments against English regional devolution

• If every region in England were to have some sort of devolution, then regions would be fighting amongst themselves for the same amount of money that was available before.
• Government would not be brought closer to the people unless the devolved powers assume real powers – as in Scotland.
• Any new structures would merely add an extra layer of bureaucracy.
• Regional assemblies would do little to improve economic performance within the regions.
• Claims that devolution would usher in a new form of politics have not been borne out by experiences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.