National employment support works better than postcode lotteries

The new prime minister’s ambition to bring employment support closer to local communities is understandable. Local authorities know their areas, understand local labour markets and often have strong relationships with employers and community organisations.

In theory, devolving greater control over employment support should create services that are more responsive to local needs. In practice, however, the evidence suggests the opposite. If the goal is to help more people into sustainable work, the government should resist further fragmentation and instead strengthen a nationally commissioned employment support system.

Recent experience provides a clear warning. The rollout of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Connect to Work programme has exposed significant variations in the speed and capability of local commissioning. Some authorities have moved quickly to establish procurement processes and delivery partnerships, while others have struggled to mobilise services. These differences are not driven by levels of unemployment or economic inactivity. They are driven by differences in institutional capacity. As a result, access to support risks becoming determined by where a person lives rather than the barriers they face.

This creates the danger of a postcode lottery in employment support. A jobseeker with a health condition in one area could receive high-quality, coordinated assistance, while someone with identical needs elsewhere encounters delays or limited provision. National programmes commissioned by DWP provide consistency, common standards and clear accountability. They help ensure that citizens receive a broadly comparable service regardless of geography. Fairness should be a fundamental principle of public policy, and that principle is weakened when support varies significantly between local areas.

There is also a practical question about whether local and (in devolved areas) strategic authorities are best placed to commission large-scale employment programmes. Local authorities perform a vital role and are already under immense pressure. They are responsible for social care, housing, public health, local infrastructure and a range of other essential services.

Employment support, particularly for people facing multiple barriers to work, requires specialist expertise in procurement, contract management, labour market engagement and performance monitoring. These are highly specialised functions that many councils have had limited opportunity to develop, especially after years of financial constraints and workforce reductions.

That is not a criticism of local government. It is an acknowledgement that employment support is a specialist discipline. The organisations that deliver successful employability programmes have often spent years building employer networks, developing intervention models and refining approaches based on evidence. Attempting to recreate this expertise within every local area risks duplication, inconsistency and wasted resources.

The challenge is greater in areas without elected mayors or established combined authorities, where governance structures are often less mature and depend on collaboration between multiple councils. Decision-making can be slower, accountability less clear and strategic leadership more diffuse. Devolving major employment support budgets into such environments risks creating additional complexity without improving outcomes for jobseekers.

This does not mean local authorities should be excluded from employment support. On the contrary, they have an essential role to play. Local leaders understand employer demand, economic priorities and community challenges. Their insights should help shape programme delivery. But influencing employment support is different from commissioning it. There is a strong case for a model where the DWP retains responsibility for programme design, contracting and performance management, while local stakeholders help tailor delivery to regional circumstances.

Such an approach offers the best of both worlds. National commissioning provides consistency, economies of scale and accountability for public spending. Local partners contribute intelligence, help coordinate services and ensure programmes reflect local realities. Instead of building multiple commissioning systems across the country, policymakers should focus on creating stronger mechanisms for local influence within a national framework.

Jobcentres already demonstrate how this balance can work. Through the flexible support fund, local managers can address specific barriers to employment, fund targeted interventions and respond to local labour market conditions. Although these budgets are relatively modest, they provide a degree of flexibility while maintaining national oversight. Expanding and refining such mechanisms would be a more sensible path than wholesale devolution.

The debate should not be framed as a choice between national control and local involvement. Effective employment support requires both. National government should set objectives, commission major programmes and ensure consistency. Local partners should shape delivery and integrate services around community needs.

The lesson from recent experience is clear: devolving responsibility does not automatically improve outcomes. What matters is capability, accountability and consistency.

If the government is serious about reducing economic inactivity and helping more people into sustainable employment, it should build on national strengths while harnessing local knowledge. A nationally commissioned system with targeted local flexibility is not only the most practical solution, it is also the fairest.