A summary of the White Paper
The English Devolution White Paper sets out a new framework aiming to redefine the relationship between local and central government in England. It proposes a more integrated and expansive approach to devolved governance, emphasising the creation of Mayoral Strategic Authorities and the reorganisation of local government structures. The government aims to extend devolution across the country by creating combined authorities, encouraging local councils to form larger regional partnerships and introducing elected mayors with wide-ranging powers.
The framework prioritises the establishment of Strategic Authorities that encompass multiple local authorities over a “strategic geography,” with an optimal population of 1.5 million. The powers of these authorities span areas like transport, housing, economic development, and climate change. Mayoral Strategic Authorities can request additional powers and participate in decisions regarding national policies that impact their areas. This includes a streamlined funding system with consolidated grants for housing, transport, and local growth initiatives, providing these areas with greater financial flexibility.
Key proposed changes include abolishing district councils in some two-tier local government areas to establish unitary authorities. Such reforms would impact decision-making structures and could centralise power, shifting responsibilities like planning and education to fewer elected representatives. Critics highlight the risk of distancing local governance from communities, potentially creating “devolution islands” where smaller councils are left isolated.
Furthermore, the paper outlines plans for long-term financial settlements for devolved regions, an expansion of mayoral powers in planning and infrastructure development, and enhanced control over regional transport systems. The introduction of Local Growth Plans is expected to align devolved decision-making with broader national economic objectives. However, concerns remain regarding the potential loss of democratic accountability, with increased powers being concentrated in regional mayors.
The white paper also proposes reforms to local audit systems and councillor conduct, including mandatory codes of conduct and suspensions for repeated breaches. Proposals such as aligning local authority and strategic public service boundaries, enabling remote attendance at council meetings, and reviewing standards boards are designed to modernise and standardise governance across England.
The government’s ultimate goal is to have all regions of England covered by Strategic Authorities, believing this will enhance local decision-making and align with broader national objectives. However, questions persist about the lack of direct public input into these reforms and whether they address the real needs of local communities.
TUNBRIDGE WELLS GREEN PARTY’S RESPONSE
The recently proposed English Devolution White Paper represents a significant shift in how local government operates, but it raises serious questions about democracy, transparency, and fairness. While we welcome conversations about improving governance and delivering better services, this proposal seems to concentrate power at a higher level rather than devolving it down to local communities, which runs counter to the spirit of devolution.
We are deeply concerned that this is being pushed through without proper public consultation, and it was not included in Labour’s manifesto. Why isn’t there a referendum for such a fundamental change to how we govern our communities? The public deserves a say, especially when the outcome will have such far-reaching implications for our councils and the services they provide.
The idea of improving transport infrastructure to a level similar to what we see in London or Manchester is appealing in principle. However, achieving this across a geographically diverse and financially constrained county like Kent seems highly unlikely without significant and sustained funding. There’s a real risk that this promise will remain unfulfilled, leaving residents frustrated and underserved.
At its core, this proposal feels like a power grab. It dismantles district councils, abolishes key local decision-making structures, and consolidates authority into the hands of a regional mayor and a small group of elected representatives. While we do support reducing waste and inefficiency within the current system—such as cutting the number of costly directors and chief executives—a shift this dramatic risks sidelining local voices in favour of centralised control.
For West Kent, there is a case to be made for a combined council structure. Sharing resources and running services like waste contracts across a broader area could bring cost savings and improved efficiency. This is already happening to some extent, with partnerships between Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge & Malling Borough Councils. However, whether Maidstone would fit into this structure without creating something too large and unwieldy remains an open question.
We are also worried about how this plan will impact the poorer parts of Kent. All councils in Kent already bear responsibilities for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, however, some councils, like Dover or Thanet, can be disproportionately affected leaving us to wonder how this issue would be addressed in the new system. Will they receive the funding and resources they need or be further stretched? Similarly, there’s a risk that more affluent areas like West Kent, despite having pockets of real deprivation, could be penalised in funding allocations.
The current system is undeniably flawed—fragmented, wasteful, and inefficient—but this proposal does not seem to be the solution. Instead of centralising power, we should focus on creating a governance structure that genuinely delivers decision-making closer to the people it impacts, supports those most in need, and ensures resources are fairly distributed across the county. Anything less is a missed opportunity and a disservice to the communities we represent.
THE WIDER GREEN PARTY’S RESPONSE
The Green Party has long championed the importance of local councils, not only as the closest representatives to their communities but as crucial drivers of the large-scale change we need to see in areas such as building warmer homes, cleaning up our rivers, reforming social care, and greening our local economies. It is clear that meaningful change begins at the local level, with the people and institutions who know their communities best.
This White Paper is a step in the wrong direction. By taking power further away from councils and local people, it risks deepening the disillusionment and cynicism about politics that we are already seeing in communities across the country. For local democracy to thrive, it must be built on trust and genuine decentralisation of power. That means giving local councils the resources, investment, and authority they need to make decisions that have the greatest impact where it matters most.
The Green Party believes that devolution must mean real decentralisation, not just a reshuffling of power to larger, more distant bodies. That is why the party will continue to stand up for local government to remain truly local and to be made more democratic so councils like yours can deliver the vital improvements your communities deserve. Specifically, the party are calling for:
- Decisions to be taken as close as possible to the people most affected;
- Trusting local communities to know what is best for them;
- Providing councils with the investment they need to deliver meaningful change;
- Fair voting in local elections through proportional representation.
Co-leader Adrian Ramsay’s statement was picked up by the Guardian live blog: “This White Paper steals power away from local people and risks making the real changes required harder to achieve… We should trust local communities to make the right decisions on homes, food, energy, nature and adapting to the climate crisis. Instead, these plans risk moving power away from local councils to huge remote super councils and regional mayors.”
The Canary included Adrian’s social media reaction to the White Paper: “This proposal is a dangerous erosion of local democracy. It steals power from communities & risks alienating people from the democratic process.”
In the Commons, Green MP Ellie Chowns challenged the government over the ‘democratic deficit’ in the proposals. She asked the minister: “A local tier in some places will be replaced by a more distant mayoral tier. Does the Minister recognize this risks creating a bit of a democratic deficit? So really we should be trying to keep the local in local government as much as possible.” She also asked whether the government would introduce fair and proportional voting in local elections. See her intervention and the minister’s response on Twitter, which also featured on BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester this morning. You can read Ellie’s full statement here.
Zoe Nicholson, Green Party leader of Lewis District Council, told the BBC the plans are a “power grab” and “the death knell for local democracy.” She accused Rayner of “bringing down the elected institutions that stand in her way” to force through planning decisions about new house building.” She added: “We cannot allow the government to ride roughshod over the democratic rights of residents and hand yet more power to men in grey suits.”
Caroline Topping, Green Party Leader of East Suffolk Council, told the Ipswich Star: “We will need time to consider the full implications of the Government’s White Paper, however our view of devolution and the principles of local government reorganisation remains unchanged. We must focus on how proposals in the White Paper benefit the residents of East Suffolk, preserve or strengthen real local democratic accountability, and ensure a close link between residents and the councillors who represent them.”
Green leader of Maidstone council, Cllr Stuart Jeffery, said the White Paper was “what we expected.” He told Kent online: “We need to make the best of something that is the centralisation of power which, to me, goes against the concept of devolution. It’s putting power into the hands of one person, but I would welcome more money coming into Kent.”