In October 2025 the Bristol Civic Leadership Project submitted evidence to the Public Bill Committee that is examining the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Our evidence suggests that the Bill should be strengthened to include a clause to provide constitutional protection for all elected local authorities in England and we recommend the deletion of Clause 57 (which proposes the abolition of the committee system of local governance in England).
This evidence was first published on the UK Parliament website on 14 October 2025:
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Written evidence submitted by Emeritus Professor Robin Hambleton BA MA PhD MRTPI FRSA FAcSS. (EDCEB29)
About the author
My name is Robin Hambleton. I am Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol and I have expertise in three main areas relating to the English Devolution Bill: civic leadership, city governance and community empowerment.
I have held professorships in town and regional planning, city management, public administration, urban policy, and city leadership in universities in the UK and the USA. My international research has focussed on how to improve local and city governance. Alongside my academic work, I have provided consultancy advice to national governments, including the UK government, and to city governments in many countries. I was the founding President of the European Urban Research Association (EURA), and I served as Dean of the College of Urban and Public Affairs (CUPPA) at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA.
Summary of recommendations
Recommendation 1: Introduce into the Bill a clause, or clauses, enshrining, for all elected local authorities in England, the right to exist, the right to tax, and the right to take action to improve the quality of life of their citizens as they think fit.
Recommendation 2): Delete Clause 57 from the Bill.
Key starting point: recognising the current threat to our democracy
1. I welcome the bold aims the government set out for devolution in the English Devolution White Paper published last December. In her Foreword to that paper Angela Rayner, the then Deputy Prime Minister, states, correctly in my view, that: ‘The controlling hand of central government is stifling initiative and development throughout the country… If we are going to build an economy that works for everyone, we need nothing less than a completely new way of governing – a generational project of determined devolution.’ [1]
2. A major flaw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is that, as drafted, it will not succeed in delivering on this important objective. This is because the Bill manifestly fails to recognise the current threat to democracy in our country. In this submission I will argue that, if this threat is to be averted, it is essential to bring about a major constitutional shift – one that expands significantly the formal powers of place-based elected and accountable local authorities and protects them from unwarranted interference from a future central government. In taking such a step the government would be establishing an approach to local/central government relationships that is commonplace in other western democracies.
3. All areas of the country, and particularly the so-called ‘left behind’ localities, need to be given a much stronger voice in the governance of their communities if we are to combat the growing mood of public alienation. Devolution needs to deliver, not just ready and open routes for grievances to be expressed, but also to ensure that elected local governments have the powers and capacity to respond to these concerns in a way that is both responsive and effective. By bringing about a significant constitutional expansion in the power of all local authorities the Bill can help to win back trust in government.
4. The rise of far-right extremist groups in the last eighteen months gives renewed urgency to this task of developing, what the White Paper describes as ‘a completely new way of governing’. The signals indicating the need for radical action grow louder with the passing of each month. The response to the troubling street riots that took place in July and August 2024 were inadequate – they tended to focus on ‘law and order’ concerns. The need to address more fundamental issues, notably racism and feelings of disempowerment, were not recognised. [2] It is, then, not surprising that, during the last few months, far-right extremist groups have become much more active in seizing upon local concerns about disempowerment to fan hatred and promote division in many communities within England.
5. Public demonstrations came to a head with a major ‘unite the kingdom’ protest held in London on 13 September 2025. The speakers on the platform at this rally spread misinformation and hatred of immigrants. Downing Street fiercely condemned the ‘dangerous and inflammatory’ language used by some of the speakers. The event exemplified what Professor Paul Jackson describes as ‘Pride in prejudice’. [3]
6. It is important to record that, while the speakers on the platform were clearly far right extremists, many protesters who attended did so, not because of racial prejudice, but because they feel abandoned by mainstream politics and politicians. Kenan Malik, a leading expert on race relations and multiculturalism, who has interviewed protesters at many demonstrations including the London rally, concluded the following:
‘What the march illustrated was the way sections of the working class can be drawn to the far right not because they are hardcore racists but because most of the old political outlets for their discontent have eroded…’ [4]
His conclusion is that politicians need to do much more to address the issue of wages, housing and the loss of dignity and belonging that pervades many working-class communities. He stresses that the widespread belief that many people have – ‘Nobody listens to us’ – must be countered.
7. In this context Clause 58 of the Bill, which will require on all local authorities, in England, to establish effective neighbourhood governance, is to be warmly welcomed. The main goal here is to move decision-making closer to residents, so decisions are responsive to local concerns and priorities. Provided the forthcoming regulations relating to neighbourhood governance deliver significant and important powers to local communities, it is possible that this measure could play an important role in rebalancing power relations between the state and local citizens. It could, alongside other measures, demonstrate that the government really is listening to excluded voices, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods and localities. Research carried out in the last thirty years, both in the UK and elsewhere, demonstrates that strong neighbourhood governance can be effective in bringing excluded voices into the political process. Moreover, it can lead to the co-creation of innovative solutions and can fortify community cohesion. [5] But neighbourhood governance is not a panacea – it can only form part of the strategy for rebuilding trust in government.
8. Crucially, alongside developing neighbourhood governance across the country, effective devolution needs to rebalance the power relationship between local and central government. It is well known that England has become one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. [6] A radical shift of formal power to elected local authorities would lead to more effective and accountable government and would also help to win back trust. In addition, it would be a wise protective measure. It is important to understand that UK society is, because power has been over-centralised in Whitehall over a long period, entirely vulnerable to a far-right takeover at the next General Election.
9. Over a year ago, and before the summer riots of 2024, I argued that English elected local governments needed constitutional protection as part of a strategy for stopping the advance of the far right. I used Hungary’s unhappy experience to illustrate what could happen here. [7] Partly because elected local governments in Hungary do not have constitutional protection it was not difficult for Viktor Orban, the populist Prime Minister elected in 2010, to enfeeble the power of all elected councils in a very short period. He also weakened the powers of the judiciary and eroded press freedom. Hungary changed quite quickly from being a society characterised by active citizen participation and respected local governments to one in which power is now exercised by national politicians who have become increasingly authoritarian and repressive. The Bill should be modified, as I explain below, to put in place, as soon as possible, solid constitutional protections for all elected local governments in England. Unless action is taken the UK could end up following a path similar to the one suffered by Hungary.
Rebalancing local/central power relations in England
10. A little over ten years ago it was an honour for me to be invited by the Local Government Association (LGA) to carry out a small action/research project on devolution in England. This led to the production of a short international review of different models of city region governance. It was rewarding to work with a group of senior leaders in local government to identify principles of good governance on a cross-party basis. Launched at the LGA conference in 2016 this study fed into the ‘Devo Next’ national debates then being promoted by the LGA. [8] Executing this study prompted me to carry out further work on local/central relations in England. I was startled to discover that the so-called ‘devolution’ policies then being pursued by Conservative Government ministers were, in practice, super-centralisation policies ‘dressed up’ as so-called devolution. [9]
11. The English Devolution White Paper makes it clear that Government Ministers are determined to move away from the ‘cap in hand’ approach of the previous government. But despite this, there are no proposals in the bill to provide formal constitutional protection for elected local authorities in England. This would be a serious omission even if the rise in momentum of far-right anti-immigration groups was not taking place. Unfortunately, as explained in paras 4-6 above, far right racist groups now present a worrying threat to local democracy in this country. Where to turn to seek insights on what constitutional protection for English democracy might look like?
12. In my ongoing international comparative research on local governance I have become increasingly impressed with the performance of local governments in Sweden. In articles for the UK local government press I have drawn attention to how Sweden’s very strong system of local government helps to explain why the country is delivering far better economic growth than the UK. Sweden also outperforms the UK on a whole raft of social and environmental indicators. In addition, the country continues to be successful in tackling inequality – the country has no need for food banks – and civic engagement is outstanding. Voter turnout in local elections in recent years has been over 80%, which compares with figures of less than 40% for local elections in England. [10]
13. Sweden also provides us with an attractive approach to constitutional protection for local democracy. Local self-government, including the right to tax, is enshrined in the Swedish constitution. The Swedish Instrument of Government (1974) ensures central government cannot ride roughshod over the heads of local voters. It also ensures that, should a far-right party be elected to the national government in Sweden, it would face very effective opposition from localities across the country. This is because governmental power is dispersed, and democratic practices have deep local roots. Many other western democracies also have constitutions that provide legal protection for their elected local governments.
14. Taking account of the arguments presented above I invite the Public Bill Committee (PBC) to introduce a clause, or clauses, granting all elected local authorities in England: 1) The right to exist, 2) the right to tax their citizens, and 3) The legal power to take action to enhance the quality of life of the citizens living in their locality as they think fit. I stress that I am not attempting to suggest here the detailed wording of a clause or clauses. The wording will require further careful thought. I invite the PBC to consult the Local Government Association, as they may have already carried out work on the drafting of such a clause or clauses. It would also be wise to study the constitutions of other countries that include measures for protecting the independence of elected local authorities.
Recommendation 1: Introduce into the Bill a clause, or clauses, enshrining, for all elected local authorities in England, the right to exist, the right to tax and the right to take action to improve the quality of life of their citizens as they think fit.
Retaining the option of a committee system
15. Clause 57 of the Bill proposes the abolition of the committee system of local governance in England. The government has offered no evidence to justify this extraordinary centralisation of state power. To make such a suggestion without presenting evidence is a troubling example of top-down government and it is, of course, out of step with the aims of the government’s own White Paper which explicitly states that micromanaging from the centre is harmful. I published an article in August explaining why this Clause is misguided and I invited the local government minister to provide the evidence to back this decision. [11] None has been forthcoming. Clause 57 is both an unnecessary and an unacceptable intervention in the detailed working arrangements of democratically elected local authorities.
16. For those who believe in local democracy this measure is wrong in both principle and practice. The committee system was introduced into English local government by the Municipal Corporation Act 1835. This legislation recognised the importance of moving away from closed municipal corporations towards bodies that would be far more accountable to local taxpayers (or ratepayers as they were then described). The historical record demonstrates that English local authorities have, for close to two centuries, achieved startling progress in tackling in an imaginative way a very wide range of societal problems – in environmental health, housing, economic development, education, social services, transport, culture, city planning and so on. These achievements have been accomplished by local councils operating a committee system of local governance – literally all of them up until 2000. Clause 57 pays no attention to these remarkable achievements.
17. Critics of the committee system may claim that, while it clearly served society well in the past, times have changed, and the model is no longer appropriate or effective. This would be an entirely false claim. In my international book Leading the Inclusive City I examine the performance of some of the most innovative cities in the world. [12] Following five years of research I identified 17 cities and localities in 14 countries, that were widely seen as breaking new ground in tackling the growing challenges facing modern societies. Some of the cities celebrated in my book have directly elected mayors – Portland, Oregon is a fine example. But the evidence shows that some of the best run cities in the world operate, right now, a committee system of local government. Here are just a couple of examples from my book.
Malmo
18. Earlier (paras 12-13) I mentioned how the Swedish approach to local governance delivers far better economic growth than the UK and that it outperforms our country on a wide range of social, environmental or civic indicators. All local authorities in Sweden operate a committee system of local government. Allow me to take one world leading example to drive home the point. In 1994 the civic leaders of Malmo were faced with the economic collapse of their city, a slump that was rather like Liverpool’s. The civic leaders had to come up with a radical shift from viewing their city as a ship building centre into something else. The elected councillors, working with a committee model of governance, accepted this challenge, and they have established Malmo as a leading European eco-city.
Copenhagen
19. In June, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Copenhagen replaced Vienna as the world’s most liveable city. [13] Like all other local authorities in Denmark, it has a committee system of governance. Its achievements are rightly celebrated because of its people-centric approach, the vital role of all elected local councillors, its focus on sustainability and its very strong commitment to citizen participation. Additionally, Copenhagen has been recognised for its low crime rates and high levels of trust to the point that, in 2021, it was named as the safest city in the world. My book explains how civic leaders transformed a car-oriented, polluted city into an eco-friendly place in which five-year olds can now cycle without fear around the wonderful city centre. It is worth noting that the previous holder of this title (it is now second) is Vienna which also operates a committee system of governance.
20. Coming closer to home, two cities in England – Sheffield and Bristol – have conducted (at considerable public expense) referenda, in May 2021 and May 2022 respectively, in which citizens at large have voted in favour of having a committee system of governance for their city. It would, clearly, be a denial of the will of local people if the central state were to decide, without offering any evidence, or an opportunity for a new referendum, to introduce a Bill that overruled the results of these local referenda.
21. Removing this clause would be an important step in strengthening the Bill. It is entirely cost-free to do this. More important, it would signal that the government is not aiming to micromanage, in a completely unjustified way, the internal organisational arrangements of independently elected local authorities in England. The government should allow local authorities to retain and/or adopt a committee system of governance.
Recommendation 2): Delete Clause 57 from the Bill.
Conclusion
I thank the committee for considering the evidence presented in this statement and I hope that my two recommendations will be supported by the committee.
3 October 2025
[1] HM Government (2024) English Devolution White Paper. Foreword by the Deputy Prime Minister. 16 December.
[2] Runnymede (2024) Beyond crisis. Analysing responses to the racist riots. Policy Briefing. October.
[3] Jackson P. (2022) Pride in prejudice. Understanding Britain’s extreme right. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[4] Malik K. (2025) ‘No one listens to us: the working-class despair fuelling the rise of the far right’. The Observer, 21September, p.30.
[5] Burns D., Hambleton R. and Hoggett P. (1994) The politics of decentralisation. Revitalising local democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press; McLaverty P. (ed) (2002) Public participation and innovations in community governance. Abingdon: Routledge; Smith I., Lepine E. and Taylor M. (eds) (2007) Disadvantaged by where you live? Neighbourhood governance in contemporary urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press; Moulaert F., Swyngedouw E., Martinelli F. and Gonzalez S. (eds) (2012) Can neighbourhoods save the city? Abingdon: Routledge; Brownill S. and Bradley Q. (2017) Localism and neighbourhood planning. Power to the people? Bristol: Policy Press; Frontier Economics (2025) The evidence for neighbourhood-focussed regeneration. A report for the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods. London: Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods.
[6] Pope T., Dalton G. and Coggins M. (2022) Subnational government in England: An international comparison. London: Institute of Government.
[7] Hambleton R. (2024) ‘How to resist the threat from the far right’, Local Government Chronicle, 30 July.
[8] Hambleton R. (2016) English devolution. Learning lesson from international models of sub-national governance. June. London: Local Government Association.
[9] Hambleton R. (2017) ‘The super-centralisation of the English state – Why we need to move beyond the devolution deception’, Local Economy, 32 (1) pp3-13.
[10] Hambleton R. (2022) ‘Economic growth Swedish style’, Local Government Chronicle, 30 September.
[11] Hambleton R. (2025) ‘Show evidence for committee system abolition’, Local Government Chronicle, 26 August.
[12] Hambleton R. (2015) Leading the inclusive city. Place-based innovation for a bounded planet. Bristol: Policy Press.
[13] Economic Intelligence Unit (2025) Global liveability index. June. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2025/
Bristol Civic Leadership Project 