The Evolution of English Public Policy Since Devolution in 1999

Devolution in 1999 created new legislative bodies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, yet England continued to be governed primarily from Westminster. Over the following decades, a series of administrative and political responses have reshaped how English public policy is made, from fiscal arrangements to governance of cities and regions. This analysis examines the key shifts, ongoing tensions, and likely directions ahead.

Recent Trends

Since the mid-2010s, a pattern of asymmetric devolution within England has accelerated. The process began with city-region deals and elected metro mayors, most notably in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, and the Tees Valley. These arrangements have expanded policy remits for transport, skills, housing, and in some cases, health and social care integration. More recently, the government has pursued county deals and "trailblazer" deeper devolution agreements, though the scope and funding mechanisms differ across areas. Meanwhile, the English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedure, introduced in 2015 and later suspended in 2021, attempted to address the West Lothian question but left the underlying balance of representation unresolved. Another key trend is the growing divergence in areas such as tuition fees and prescription charges, where English policies now contrast sharply with those in devolved nations.

Background

The 1999 devolution settlement did not create an English parliament or assembly. Instead, England’s public policy remained the responsibility of the UK Parliament and Whitehall departments, often applied uniformly. Early attempts to address this gap—such as the 2004 proposal for elected regional assemblies in the North East—were rejected in a referendum. Subsequent governments shifted focus to the local level, expanding the powers of local authorities and, from 2010, promoting voluntary combined authorities. The London Mayor and Assembly (established in 2000) provided a model but not a template for the rest of England. Over time, fiscal constraints and the push for “levelling up” have spurred a series of bespoke devolution deals, each negotiated separately, creating a patchwork of powers rather than a consistent framework.

User Concerns

• Democratic accountability: Critics argue that the current patchwork of combined authorities and metro mayors lacks the democratic mandate and visibility of a full English parliament, leaving key policy areas (e.g., NHS, education) with limited local input.
• Funding inequalities: The Barnett formula, originally designed for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, does not apply to England. Instead, English regions often rely on competitive bidding processes and time-limited deals, leading to uneven investment and perceived unfairness.
• Coordination gaps: With multiple metro mayors and county deals operating under different rules, cross-regional coordination (e.g., on transport networks, economic clusters) can be fragmented. Small businesses and service users sometimes face inconsistent regulatory or support regimes.
• Health and social care: The integration of health and social care—a policy priority—has seen pilot devolution in a few areas (e.g., Greater Manchester), but many users worry about a postcode lottery of services and unclear accountability when funding lines are split between central and local bodies.
• Housing and planning: Local planning authorities have gained some autonomy, but developers and residents alike report lengthy processes and a mismatch between regional infrastructure plans and local decisions.

Likely Impact

The evolution of English public policy since devolution is likely to continue along a path of incremental, negotiated devolution rather than a single constitutional overhaul. The immediate impact can be expected in three areas:

• Greater variation in service delivery: As more areas sign bespoke deals, disparities in transport fares, adult education funding, and local taxation powers will widen. This may increase pressure for a more standardised “floor of rights” for English citizens.
• Strained central-local relations: The Treasury and Whitehall departments will need to adapt to a growing number of co-decision making forums. Without formalised fiscal devolution, negotiations over annual budgets may become more contentious.
• Erosion of the uniform “English” model: Policies on apprenticeships, police governance, and even aspects of criminal justice may diverge across local areas. This could complicate national data collection and performance comparisons.

What to Watch Next

• Next round of devolution deals: Observers should track whether new county or regional deals include tax-raising powers (e.g., business rates retention, council tax flexibility) and whether any include health, justice, or energy policy.
• English Governance Commission or review: Political pressure may lead to a cross-party review of the overall settlement, potentially revisiting the idea of an English parliament, a federal UK, or strengthened regional governance.
• Fiscal frameworks: Watch for changes to how English regions are funded, such as the review of the Local Government Finance Settlement or any introduction of a needs-based formula for infrastructure spending.
• Devolution to other tiers: Proposals for “double devolution”—passing powers from metro mayors to neighbourhoods or parish councils—may gain traction, affecting how local communities access decision-making.
• Inter-governmental relations: The mechanisms for cooperation between UK Government, devolved administrations, and English combined authorities will be tested during overlapping crises (e.g., pandemics, economic shocks). Their ability to coordinate will shape public confidence.