“Devolution must mean devolution, not duplication.” That was the sharpest line in the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s speech at the Re:State conference in London, and it will ring true well beyond Westminster. For readers across the North, it speaks to a familiar frustration: plenty of promises about shifting power out of London, then the same old approvals, checks and hold-ups when local leaders try to get things moving. In the Cabinet Office speech on how to “remake the state”, the minister argued that Britain will not fix weak growth by treating Whitehall as the answer to every problem. Cities and regions were put front and centre in that case, with Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Belfast named alongside London as places that need the freedom to thrive if the wider economy is to recover. (gov.uk)

His starting point was simple enough: government is too slow. Too many sign-offs, too many people invited to comment, and too few given the power to decide. That diagnosis will not shock anyone who has watched a transport scheme, housing plan or town-centre project get stuck somewhere between a ministerial promise and a civil service process. What matters here is not just tidier management. When decisions are dragged back into the centre, places outside London lose time, money and confidence. That argument will feel familiar to northern councils, metro mayors and combined authorities that are often asked to deliver change while still waiting for somebody in Whitehall to wave it through. (gov.uk)

The minister used the speech to set out the changes he says have already been made inside Whitehall: fewer top-tier priorities for departments, shared data through an integrated delivery dashboard, and clearer accountability for both ministers and senior officials. He also pointed to a tougher approach on performance management, including formal key performance indicators and merit-based pay progression across the Senior Civil Service. (gov.uk) Strip away the official jargon and the message is easy enough to follow. If government says a project matters, somebody should own it, somebody should measure it, and somebody should answer for it when it slips. For communities that are tired of headline politics and thin delivery, that is a fair standard to demand. (gov.uk)

There was also a direct attack on what he called bureaucratic “sludge” clogging up delivery. He linked that culture to projects being pulled through repeated reviews on spending, commercial rules, digital checks and property approvals, with HS2 cited as the kind of scheme that can end up slower and dearer while everybody has a say and nobody takes a decision. He also pointed to the creation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and to Project RESET as part of the answer. (gov.uk) His argument was that central checks should be reserved for the biggest and riskiest work, not scattered across every smaller decision. For places across the North, that point lands quickly enough. Regions do not just need money announced from a lectern in London; they need a state that can act before another year disappears in process. (gov.uk)

The speech was not only about cutting bureaucracy. It also made a strong case for using technology properly inside government, with the No 10 Innovation Fellowship held up as proof that public services can be built around how people actually work and live. The examples were practical rather than flashy: AI tools to reduce prison officers’ paperwork and a childcare website designed to help parents check entitlements, compare costs and find local providers more easily. (gov.uk) That matters because people in the North know what poor state systems look like in daily life. It is the parent chasing three websites for one answer, the business owner waiting weeks for a basic decision, or the public servant stuck feeding the machine instead of serving the public. Good technology will not fix every failing in the state, but bad systems are still wasting time that many places can ill afford to lose. (gov.uk)

He also argued for a stronger delivery culture in every department, including dedicated delivery units and project expertise close to ministers, alongside a new National School of Government and Public Services to train both civil servants and ministers. The point, again, was that government should stop assuming good intentions are enough and start treating delivery as work that needs skill, discipline and proper backing. (gov.uk) There was a political edge to this as well. The minister said government is losing ground in the modern battle over information and public trust, and that scattered branding and weak communication are part of the problem. That should not be brushed off as a Westminster media complaint. If people cannot see change in their own street, workplace or city, they will not believe the slogans coming out of SW1. (gov.uk)

But the section that will travel furthest outside London was the one on devolution. The minister questioned why combined authorities still have to go through Whitehall departments instead of dealing more directly with the centre, and he said plainly that devolving powers while keeping or even growing headcount in London risks creating duplication rather than freedom. It was a blunt warning that over-centralisation can choke off growth just as surely as a lack of investment. (gov.uk) For readers across the North, the test is now a practical one. If ministers really believe Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool should help drive the country’s recovery, then those places will need room to make decisions on investment, skills and public services without London hovering over every form. Anything less is not devolution. It is Westminster keeping the keys and asking the rest of the country to be grateful for the lift. (gov.uk)