The Guardian view on Burnham’s devolution plans: power must be accompanied by scrutiny | Editorial
This Guardian editorial examines the accountability gap facing Andy Burnham's proposed devolution plans, which would grant England's mayors significant new powers and money, including a share of local income tax. The piece argues that while Burnham is right to want to shift power away from Whitehall towards communities, the local scrutiny infrastructure needed to keep such power in check has been steadily eroded, most notably by the 2015 abolition of the Audit Commission, leaving a governance vacuum that has already produced council bankruptcies and scandals.
The editorial cites the Teesworks development under Tory mayor Ben Houchen as a warning example, where a 2024 government report found a "culture of excessive confidentiality". It welcomes recent moves such as making mayoral chief executives "local accounting officers" and the 2026 devolution bill's creation of a Local Audit Office, but argues these do not go far enough, backing the idea of "local public accounts committees" modelled on Westminster's version. It also flags the decline of local journalism, noting 4.4 million people in Britain live without a dedicated local news outlet, and suggests a tax on social media firms to fund local reporting as one possible remedy.
In short
- Burnham's devolution plans risk lacking sufficient local scrutiny and accountability
- 2015 Audit Commission abolition weakened oversight of council spending
- Editorial backs local public accounts committees and funding for local journalism
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Giving mayors substantial powers and funding could bring decisions closer to communities, make government more responsive to local needs and reduce reliance on Whitehall. Because those powers would carry significant public responsibilities, stronger independent audits, local public accounts committees and sustainable local journalism could help residents see how money is used and hold leaders to account.
The case against
Devolution can improve local responsiveness, but adding layers of audit bodies and formal scrutiny may increase costs, slow decisions and duplicate existing oversight. Supporters of a lighter approach could argue that clear duties, transparent reporting and existing elected councils provide proportionate checks, while a levy on social media firms to fund local news risks burdening businesses or influencing editorial independence.
Explained simply
Devolution is the transfer of some decisions and funding from central government to elected leaders in towns, cities and regions. In England, mayors such as Andy Burnham and Ben Houchen lead combined authorities, which bring neighbouring councils together to make decisions on shared issues.
Giving local leaders more power can let communities shape decisions closer to home, but public money and decisions still need independent checks. Councils and regional bodies have faced financial failures and disputes over how projects are managed, while the Audit Commission, which once audited local public bodies, was abolished in 2015.
Local auditors, elected councillors and journalists can help the public see how decisions are made and money is spent. The debate matters because scrutiny affects whether people can hold local leaders to account as more responsibilities move out of Whitehall.
Business Government Politics UK World