Putting devolution into practice

Policy submission

Civil Liberties Action asks government to make the practical transfer of responsibility visible. Each substantial devolution arrangement should publish a schedule of the decisions moving out of central government, the resources and capability supporting them, the approvals being withdrawn and the protections that remain national. An annual account should show whether those changes happened.

This is a general policy submission prepared for circulation. It is not a response to a verified open consultation or parliamentary call for evidence. It concerns English devolution and does not propose changes to the constitutional settlements of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The immediate opportunity is implementation. The education provisions of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 are in force, with separate statutory rules governing when functions become exercisable by different authorities. The task is to make the resulting division of work understandable and usable. Our proposal should not be presented as legislation already enacted. [L1, L2]

We ask government to adopt four requirements in future agreements and reviews of existing arrangements. First, identify decisions and the lawful decision-maker, including choices that can be exercised by councils and providers. Second, reconcile funding with service commitments and make transition and accountability costs explicit. Third, withdraw unnecessary approvals and duplicate reporting, while preserving justified national safeguards. Fourth, require an accessible public account of participation, scrutiny, complaints and action taken.

National government should retain responsibility for the national framework of rights, fair allocation of resources and functions that require national coordination. Any retained approval should have a published reason. Any intervention should identify its legal basis and provide appropriate review. The proposal does not assume new local tax powers or automatic central powers to resume a devolved service.

The NAO’s 2026 work identifies important unresolved funding and accountability questions. CLA’s own three-authority review has examined published arrangements, not established their effectiveness. We therefore propose testing the Devolution Guarantee within one existing adult-skills programme and publishing the method and results. The test should include learner access, scrutiny follow-through, reporting effort and continuity arrangements. [E1]

We would welcome a named departmental contact for this work and a discussion involving the relevant adult-skills policy and administration teams, the authority and local scrutiny. A useful first outcome would be agreement on the information required for one decision schedule and a six-month test. No authority has yet agreed to participate.

Model authority resolution

The following wording is proposed for adaptation by an authority’s governance team. It should be used by a body with the relevant competence and amended to reflect the authority’s constitution, existing delegations and budget process. It does not itself transfer a statutory function, authorise expenditure or adopt a new complaints jurisdiction.

The authority resolves to explore a time-limited test of clearer public accountability within one existing adult-skills programme, using the principles described in Civil Liberties Action’s Devolution Guarantee.

The authority requests a report from its responsible skills officer, with finance, legal, scrutiny and complaints input, identifying a suitable programme and the decisions, funding conditions, provider responsibilities and learner rights that apply. The report should identify a choice on which learners or residents can have meaningful influence and an accessible means of taking part.

The report should include the proposed costs and lawful funding sources, the baseline measures, arrangements for independent review, the three- and six-month review dates, and a continuity plan for learners. It should explain how public findings and material corrections will be published while protecting personal and legitimately confidential information.

Any pilot is to return to the competent decision-making body for approval before expenditure is committed, contracts are varied or non-public data are shared. Existing statutory responsibilities, scrutiny rights, complaints processes and external remedies continue to apply.

The authority invites the appropriate scrutiny committee to consider the proposed measures and how it will follow recommendations through to a recorded response and completed action. Any final agreement with CLA or another partner is subject to the authority’s ordinary legal and financial approvals.

Covering note for policy recipients

We are seeking a bounded discussion about implementation, rather than endorsement of a general case for devolution. The attached Whitehall paper sets out the proposed division of work. The study protocol explains how we intend to test resident access and follow decisions through the public record. We would particularly value evidence that challenges our assumptions or shows that a proposed safeguard would add burden without improving accountability.

Correspondence: Frank Reed, Civil Liberties Action, frank.reed.cla@gmail.com. The submission is available for adaptation once a specific policy recipient or evidence invitation is identified. No submission has yet been lodged with government or Parliament.