Life outside the bubble

If the polls are right, Labour is on course to win a historic majority, one which would beat the landslide of 1997. In such a scenario, Keir Starmer’s government would have a real opportunity to rethink attitudes towards devolution and the ramifications could be felt across the UK.

The devolution begun by the last Labour Government in 1997 was hailed, rightly, as tackling the problem of the UK’s overcentralised governance, beginning with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly (now Senedd). Yet, when people in Scotland voted for devolution in a 1997 referendum, national identity trumped any ideas of decentralisation. What emerged began to look lopsided in population terms – 5. 5 million people in Scotland and 3 million in Wales enjoyed devolved powers while 55 million in England, apart from London, did not.

At the time, Labour’s critics wanted to counter this with an English parliament, rather than artificial attempts to bolster “Englishness”. What they failed to understand is that the English identity is particularly complex – many of the population feel British, rather than English and the pattern of migration across the British Isles over the years has resulted in many residents of England having roots elsewhere in the UK.

This narrative serves little purpose. Devolution should be seen as bringing government closer to people, rather than an expression of regional or even national identity. It brings decisions back to the lowest appropriate level which was previously overlooked. Here, an English parliament might look like a neat solution to some federalists, but it merely reproduces the problem of Westminster centralisation.

The make-up of the UK means that devolution is unlikely to be symmetrical. With identical powers devolved to all nations and regions, mayors across many areas of England should be allowed to give those areas greater autonomy in such fields as transport, economic development, training and cultural policies. But it must also involve a rethink of the workings of central government.

First, Starmer would need to ensure that elected mayors are regularly consulted by Westminster on all major policy proposals affecting their cities or regions. In short, there needs to be far more engagement from Westminster with elected mayors.

Starmer’s government must also reevaluate how data is collected. Given the size of the English population, constant comparisons between the nations mask important information where a regional breakdown could highlight where Westminster’s policies are failing to deliver outside the London bubble.

Next, an office for the union must be established. The aim would be to stimulate ideas for future cooperation within a commitment to high economic and social standards for all UK citizens. Inspiration here can also be taken from devolution elsewhere across Europe, such as France and Spain, taking evidence on what works and examining different funding models and mechanisms for joint working.

While it has been proposed, the creation of a second chamber of nations and regions will, in all likelihood, slide down the priority list in the aftermath of the election. Instead, the regional imbalances in the House of Lords should be tackled first which could remove a serious, but often unrecognised weakness. Labour can achieve this by making it a formal requirement for the appointment process to prioritise equal regional representation.

The NHS was introduced by a Welsh health secretary, in a government headed by an Englishman who was leading a party founded by a Scotsman. The struggle for decent working conditions and the creation of a UK welfare state united communities across the UK.

Could these things have been achieved under our present system? The answer is yes, but only if devolved governments worked together. It’s this spirit Starmer must foster.

Baroness Quin is a member of the House of Lords and vice president of European Movement