Power Closer to People

Democracy & civil liberties · Devolution

Decisions close to people. Public power open to challenge.

Power Closer to People is Civil Liberties Action’s campaign for devolution that people can understand, influence and hold to account. We want decisions made at the closest level to people that can exercise them effectively, with fair funding and strong protection for everyone’s rights.

Read the research · Read the Devolution Guarantee · Take part · Check the sources

What we are asking for

Every transferred responsibility should come with a public Devolution Guarantee. It should explain who decides, what resources follow, how residents can influence decisions and how failure can be challenged. The guarantee should be available before a transfer and kept up to date afterwards.

We call on the UK Government to make this guarantee a standard part of English devolution arrangements, and on mayors and council leaders to adopt it for responsibilities they already hold.

Our initial focus is England. We respect the distinct constitutional settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and support cooperation across borders. The arrangements proposed here for English regions are not a template to impose on those nations.

How devolution should work

Start at the most local level. Move a decision upwards where its effects cross boundaries, shared provision offers a demonstrable advantage, or a rights or capability requirement cannot be met locally. Publish the reasons and review them. Where capability is the obstacle, provide a funded development plan.

The following is CLA’s proposed model for England. Existing powers differ between places; each transfer needs a clear legal basis and effective date.

National government

Protect rights; set and fund minimum standards; redistribute resources; manage national infrastructure and problems crossing regional boundaries.

Accountability: Parliamentary scrutiny, independent audit and applicable legal challenge.

Strategic authorities

Coordinate decisions that need a wider geography, including regional transport, spatial strategy, skills and investment.

Accountability: Elected leadership, scrutiny independent of the executive, published decisions and accessible resident challenge.

Local councils

Lead local services and neighbourhood decisions within their legal functions, with resources matched to duties.

Accountability: Councillors, public meetings, service complaints and relevant scrutiny and audit.

Communities

Shape local priorities and control clearly delegated community budgets and assets where practical.

Accountability: Open participation, transparent selection and spending, and safeguards against exclusion.

Each function should have a named political decision-maker and an accountable officer. Where several bodies retain legal responsibilities, identify each one and provide a coordinating lead with a timetable for resolving disagreements. That lead must not be presented as having powers the law gives to someone else.

A practical example

Consider a proposed bus route linking homes, a college and an employment area. In our model, the regional transport authority coordinates the network decision; councils address relevant street and local access issues; the skills authority and college coordinate provision; and passengers influence route and timetable options. The guarantee identifies the budget, decision dates and separate complaint routes. This illustrates the proposal; it is not a report of a completed project.

Eight demands for effective devolution

1 Transfer real authority

Publish which decisions move, which remain national and which approvals end. Give local institutions discretion over delivery within lawful national standards. Any retained ministerial veto should have a defined purpose and a published explanation when used.

2 Match responsibility with dependable funding

Move the necessary budgets, staff and information with each function. Work towards rolling five-year settlements, with clear spending-review assumptions and parliamentary approval where required. Permit sensible funding combinations and carry-forward. Cost transition, scrutiny and public participation as well as service delivery.

3 Share resources fairly between places

Use transparent funding rules reflecting need and the cost of delivery. Share the benefits of growth while protecting places with weaker tax bases or sudden shocks. Any additional local tax or borrowing power should have clear democratic authority, affordability safeguards and published distributional effects.

4 Give communities decisions they can influence

Publish accessible options before major decisions. Support participation through in-person and offline routes, accessible formats and reasonable participation expenses. Use independently facilitated, broadly representative resident panels for complex choices, with a published response from elected leaders. Delegate suitable community budgets and report who participates.

5 Make scrutiny capable of changing decisions

Resource scrutiny separately from executive communications and policy promotion. Provide access to papers and independent advice, effective review before major decisions are implemented, and a public register of recommendations and responses. Assess the practical operation of existing and forthcoming scrutiny arrangements, including protection against conflicts of interest.

6 Protect rights throughout the transfer

Preserve equality and human rights protections, access to information and effective routes to remedy. Publish the evidence on how proposals affect different groups and poorer neighbourhoods. Give residents a clear explanation of complaints, applicable appeals and independent oversight. Majority support should never excuse unlawful discrimination.

7 Build permanent public capability

Fund the financial, commercial, workforce and analytical skills needed to deliver. Publish costs and responsibilities for transition, protect service continuity and consult affected staff. External support should leave public teams more capable. Claims of savings must account for implementation costs and continuing oversight.

8 Judge results and correct failure openly

Report a small set of relevant outcomes alongside cost, access and distribution of benefits. Publish failures and corrective action. Define proportionate intervention thresholds, review dates and exit conditions, with independent challenge. Support improvement while preserving necessary national intervention where rights, safety or public money are at risk.

The evidence and the opportunity

The legislation is already in place

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. It provides a framework for Strategic Authorities and includes changes to mayoral powers and scrutiny. Its provisions do not all take effect together: the explanatory notes describe commencement on different dates and through regulations. [1] [2]

The campaign concentrates on implementation, further changes needed and whether residents can use the promised accountability mechanisms.

Scrutiny is a live implementation question

In a parliamentary answer on 16 September 2026, the government said Local Scrutiny Committees would apply to Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities from 2027 and extend to all Mayoral Strategic Authorities from 2028. The answer distinguishes these committees from constituent councils’ own scrutiny arrangements. [3]

There is already a government Scrutiny Protocol covering matters such as committee capability, access to evidence and public questioning. It is non-statutory guidance supplementing legislation and statutory guidance. Our demand is for effective operation, adequate resources and visible follow-through as the new arrangements are introduced. [4]

Flexible funding needs credible local accountability

The National Audit Office’s July 2026 report describes Integrated Settlements as a promising change, while identifying a heavier reporting burden than envisaged and the need to strengthen and test local accountability. Its scope does not establish the wider economic effects of devolution. [5]

Government’s February 2026 funding note confirms that Integrated Settlements combine funding across policy areas and departments. CLA’s proposed rolling five-year approach is a further policy demand, not a description of a uniform existing entitlement. [6]

Funding and rights must be part of the design

The NAO’s February 2025 report identified systemic weaknesses in local government financial sustainability and the need for effective accountability and independent assurance. Those findings support examining whether resources are sufficient before transferring further responsibilities. [7]

The public sector equality duty already requires public authorities in Great Britain to have due regard to specified equality considerations. Our proposed guarantee would make the evidence and practical routes to challenge easier to find; it would not replace that duty. Northern Ireland has a distinct equality framework. [8]

The question we will test

Can residents identify who decides, influence a meaningful choice, see how money is used and obtain an answer when something goes wrong? We will examine those questions directly. We will not claim that a change in institutional structure alone proves better services, higher growth or financial savings.

What we will do first

We have published an initial evidence review and a worked adult skills Guarantee, and prepared a comparison of published accountability arrangements in three areas. We will seek one willing authority to pilot the guarantee. Before publishing comparative findings, we will give authorities an opportunity to correct factual errors. Our records distinguish published arrangements, unverified information and evidence of effectiveness.

These are campaign objectives. A pilot partnership and endorsements have not yet been secured. Our assessment will apply the same standards to authorities of every political composition. We will publish methods, limitations, responses and corrections alongside our findings.