We need talk about the future governance of England

Whatever the outcome of the Scottish Referendum we are going to need a decision about the future governance of England.

If “No” wins, then Scotland looks set to attain “devo max”. At this point the discrepancy between the powers that Scotland has to take decisions and the complete absence of any devolution for England’s regions becomes unsustainable. They may not have a national identity but all the other factors such as resentment at rule from London, economic issues that require regional solutions, and enduring Tory rule when they didn’t vote for it, are the same.

If “Yes” wins and the rump UK has 41 fewer Labour MPs, then England’s northern regions will wake up to the increased likelihood of Tory governments they didn’t vote for and seek to get power devolved so that we can at least enjoy social democracy in a couple of regions even if the prospects of it nationally are much reduced.

It’s a shame that this will mean even more time and energy chewed up debate constitutional issues and not just dealing with the country’s economic, social and security problems, but we are where we are.

My view is that in either case we will need an English Constitutional Convention, consisting of representatives of all the political parties and civic society (faith groups, trade unions, business, local authorities, NGOs etc.) to draw up at least one, but possibly multiple proposals to put to the electorate.

These options should be voted for in one England-wide referendum. I am not in favour of allowing yet more asymmetry (varying degrees of devolution) to come about by different regions voting to have or not have devolution – that would just lead to a West Durham Question instead of the West Lothian Question – i.e. questions about the legitimacy of MPs from regions that had embraced devolution voting on the questions at Westminster that only affected the residual un-devolved regions. Let’s have symmetrical devolution with every English region having the same powers.

I would anticipate three options in the referendum:

· A unitary English Parliament with no devolution to regional level.

· Devo-Max with each English region (and by implication Wales and Northern Ireland) having the same powers that have just been offered to Scotland i.e. fiscal autonomy.

· A more restrained version of regional devolution with fewer powers held at regional level.

The English Constitutional Convention would need to agree the exact extent of the powers to be offered to regions in the third option. There are a range of international options that could be looked at, ranging from systems like France where the regions are relatively weak, have no legislative powers and are concerned with education and infrastructural development, through to more federal systems like Germany where the states can do anything that isn’t constitutionally reserved to the central government and have legislative powers.

A key question to be addressed in formulating this third option would be whether the regions would have legislative power.

At a minimum, the powers that could be moved to the regional level are those that London already has i.e. policing, public transport, economic development and regeneration, strategic planning, housing strategy, environmental strategy. The unpopular Police and Crime Commissioners could therefore be abolished. It probably makes more sense for the English regions to have powers that mirror those of the Welsh Assembly in referendum option three, to remove another layer of asymmetry.

The English Constitutional Convention would also need to propose boundaries for the regions that it puts to a referendum. The quick way to do this is to put forward the current boundaries of the nine English statistical regions but I suspect there will be pushback and need for a great deal of public consultation.

In some cases major urban areas such as the former West Midlands County Council area or Greater Manchester may feel they have enough population to want to be a small urban region by themselves, without the encumbrance of a rural hinterland with different politics and culture, and that this urban focus would help them compete with London. The problem is that this might leave rump rural areas that did not have the economic kernel to make strong regions.

In other cases counties on the periphery are not quite sure which region they fit into e.g. is Cumbria best part of a North West region or a Northern one where it is paired with the North East. In the South East regional identity is particularly weak and the current huge statistical region sweeping from Banbury and Milton Keynes all the way to Margate via the Isle of Wight has little that unites it other than the looming presence of London. There might be a case for splitting this one in two (Kent/Sussex/Surrey and Hampshire/Oxfordshire/Berkshire/Buckinghamshire/Isle of Wight).

If there is going to be public acceptance of a regional level of governance then it is vital that it does not include a fat additional layer of politicians, and also that it does not create rotten boroughs that have an inbuilt permanent majority for one political party. Therefore aspects of the London model of governance make sense – a small assembly of 24 members on lower salaries than MPs, elected by a mixed system of large constituencies and a proportional top-up list. The aspect of London’s governance that I don’t think would be wise to mirror in the other English regions is the directly elected mayor/leader. Rather one would have a regional cabinet chosen by and from the assembly. An alternative model is indirectly elected assemblies elected by and from local councillors but I can’t see this flying given the scale of the powers being proposed.

Either of the regional options in the referendum could also be reflected in the composition of the upper house of Parliament at a national level – we could ensure that a replacement for the House of Lords was wholly or partly composed of representatives of the regions, Wales, Northern Ireland, and if there is a “No” vote on Thursday, Scotland.