In a speech published for the Remaking the State annual conference 2026, the Government set out a programme of constitutional and administrative reform aimed at moving power away from Whitehall. The speech opens with a case built around regional disparity, stating that seven of the ten poorest regions in Northern Europe are in England and that London combines the country's highest average incomes with poverty levels above the national average. The central argument is that these outcomes are not only a question of income or investment, but also of where authority sits. Ministers describe England as one of Europe's most centralised systems and present reform of the state as a route to growth, more responsive services and greater public confidence in politics.
The Government's approach rests on three connected principles. The first is 'devolution by default': decisions should sit as close as is strategically sensible to the people affected, following the principle of subsidiarity set out in the speech. The second is place-based delivery, drawing on neighbourhood working and the earlier Total Place approach. That means more pooled budgets at local level, so resources can be redirected to locally defined priorities rather than held in separate departmental silos. The third is a rebalancing of power between service providers and service users, so residents have a larger role in shaping how public services operate.
The speech says the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act establishes devolution as the default option for England. In policy terms, that changes the baseline. Rather than treating deeper local powers as exceptional, the Government is presenting them as the standard route for areas that want a devolved settlement. According to the speech, the Act gives mayors additional powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and the Government says every region that wants devolution will be able to secure it. Those functions are closely linked in practice: control over one without the others often limits what local leaders can achieve. A wider package gives combined authorities more room to align housing growth with infrastructure, land use and local economic strategy.
Ministers also signal that statutory devolution is only the starting point. The speech calls for deeper fiscal devolution on the basis that local areas should have a clearer stake in the proceeds of local growth and less dependence on short-term, fragmented grants from the centre. The first example offered is the Overnight Visitor Levy. The speech says England records more than 130 million overnight visits each year and argues that tourist areas should be able to retain a locally raised stream of funding for local priorities. If applied consistently, that would mark a shift away from competitive bidding rounds towards revenue that can support longer-term planning.
The Government is also using a capacity-based model for further transfers of power. Under the Right to Request, mayors can seek additional functions as local institutions mature. The speech says the first round concluded in May 2026 and that all mayors will now have the final say on mass transit projects in their regions, including tram schemes. Alongside this, integrated settlements are presented as a central delivery tool. These single settlements bring together budgets for transport, regeneration, housing, skills, the environment, health and public service reform. The speech points to early use of that flexibility, including new stations in Liverpool City Region, land opened for housebuilding in West Yorkshire and bus network upgrades in Greater Manchester.
The speech links devolution to public service reform as well as economic policy. Ministers acknowledge that service boundaries remain misaligned across health, local government and other systems, and argue that stronger boundary alignment will be needed if mayoral authorities are to play a larger role. Examples already identified include new Deputy Mayors for Health in Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, alongside pilot work in Liverpool, South Yorkshire and the North East on education, the arts and flood management. The speech also notes the case for greater local control over skills and employment support, citing the fact that one in six young people are not in employment, education or training.
A further strand of the programme is neighbourhood-level control. The speech describes this as more than a transfer of powers from Whitehall to city regions; it is framed as 'double devolution', with communities expected to exercise more direct influence over budgets and services in their own areas. That approach is reflected in the Pride in Place programme, which the speech says will provide up to £20 million to almost 300 of the poorest communities, with local people deciding how the money is used. The policy logic is that resident knowledge can improve prioritisation, strengthen accountability and produce services that are more preventive and more responsive to everyday conditions.
Several case studies are used to illustrate how this model is intended to work, including resident management of housing, locally designed responses to youth violence and community-led market renewal. In the speech, these examples are presented as evidence that local institutions, voluntary groups, businesses and residents can often identify practical solutions when funding and decision-making are decentralised. For councils, combined authorities and public service leaders, the immediate significance lies in funding design, governance and accountability. For residents, the test is more concrete: whether wider local control produces better transport, housing, skills support and neighbourhood services. In practical terms, delivery will depend on whether departments align funding streams, reduce routine approvals from the centre and sustain local discretion over time.