THE DEVO 3.0 REVIEW LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR MORE AND BETTER DEVOLUTION - An Audit of Devolution Decision Makers' and Opinion Formers' Views for ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE DEVO 3.0 REVIEW LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR MORE AND BETTER DEVOLUTION An Audit of Devolution Decision Makers’ and Opinion Formers’ Views for the UK2070 Commission Review conducted by Steve Barwick and Jack Hutchison of February 2020 devoconnect.co.uk
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION 8
METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE 9
PART I: THE CITY REGION METRO MAYORAL MODEL 11
Summary of Responses:
1. Is the Mayoral or combined authority system working? 11
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing city region Metro
13
Mayoral or combined authority models?
3. Views on existing devolution: 18
• o city region Mayors and combined authorities have sufficient
D
powers and funding?
• Is the Government right to be cautious and limit the scope of
devolution?
• Should the Government’s approach to English devolution be more
systematic/comprehensive?
• Is an elected Mayor a pre-requisite of a devolution deal?
• Are proposals to ‘level-up’ Metro Mayor powers for all combined
authorities a good idea?
4. What are the key actions city region Metro Mayors and combined 23
authorities should take to:
• Reduce inequalities between and within regions?
• Achieve productivity and growth in the wider region?
• Increase democratic participation in decisions?
5. What does central Government need to do next? 30
2CONTENTS
PART II: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DEVOLUTION 33
Summary of Responses:
1. What are the lessons from Devo 1.0: the devolution to Regional 33
Assemblies – later Leaders’ Boards – and RDAs in the 2000s?
2. What are the lessons that can be learned from devolution in Scotland, 35
Wales, and Northern Ireland?
3. Views on future devolution, whether: 37
• The next chapter of devolution should be accompanied by local
government reform?
• The Government should commit to real devolution for certain
policy areas?
• arliamentary Committees and Cabinet positions to reflect
P
trans-regional needs of the North, Midlands, South East,
and South West should be introduced?
• Devolution deals should be rolled out across the whole of England?
4. What is the future purpose of devolution in England? 42
5. What does better devolution look like? 45
EMERGING CONCLUSIONS: 47
TEN PRINCIPLES FOR DEVO 3.0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 48
3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE HARD EVIDENCE
UNCOVERED BY THE
UK 2070 COMMISSION
SHOWS THAT WE
REMAIN ONE OF THE
MOST UNEQUAL AND
DIVIDED NATIONS
IN EUROPE.
It therefore concluded that devolution and, in particular, devolving greater
powers and decision making, could be the key to rebalancing the UK economy
as well as civic and democratic renewal.
Recent and increased political interest in Forty two individuals central to the future
English devolution has been welcome but it of devolution - including Metro Mayors, key
does not add up to a vision of a third wave local authority leaders, think tanks, advocacy
of devolution. DevoConnect was therefore groups, quangos and business associations
commissioned to undertake an audit of as well as Parlaimentarians who have been
decision makers and opinion formers to particularly active on the issue - responded
review the strengths and weaknesses to a questionnaire. This report is both a
of the Metro Mayoral model of devolution qualitative and quantitative summary of
and identify what in the long term more their responses.
and better devolution looks like.
4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I: THE CITY REGION METRO MAYORAL MODEL - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The overwhelming majority of those audited Opinions on whether it should be necessary
considered that the Metro Mayoral model for an area to have an elected Mayor as a pre-
was working well or very well. It was felt requisite of any devolution deal that includes
that Metro Mayors are delivering three delegation of significant sums were divided:
key benefits: 20 disagreed, 15 agreed.
• joined up, longer term policy solutions In order to reduce inequalities between
regions Metro Mayors should take action
• better accountability and leadership
to secure: transport and infrastructure
• by doing politics at the level of a place, investment; education and skills investment;
they are ensuring more engagement and the further devolution of powers.
To reduce inequalities within regions Metro
Conversely, four main weaknesses Mayors should deliver inclusive growth with
were identified: a focus on: employment and skills; transport
infrastructure; and health.
• insufficient power and resources
To achieve productivity and growth the top
• that devolution has been a piecemeal, actions Metro Mayors should focus on are:
somewhat inflexible, stop-start, top transport/connectivity, particularly intra-
down policy made in Whitehall regionally; skills investment; closer working
with the private sector; and the creation of
• overlapping roles with other
local industrial strategies.
organisations are creating confusion
To increase democratic participation in
• it does not provide for sufficient scrutiny
decisions the top actions Metro Mayors
or engagement
should take are: consulting the public directly
The overwhelming majority disagreed that on decisions; increasing the visibility of
existing devolution arrangements provided decisions and the impact they have; and the
sufficient powers and funding to Metro devolution of further powers (increasing the
Mayors. The overwhelming majority also importance of the decisions made.)
disagreed that it is right for the Government
The next Government should provide
to be cautious in limiting the scope of
Metro Mayors with a positive and
devolution.
determined, permissive and flexible,
The overwhelming majority agreed that approach to devolution; more powers;
the Government’s approach to English and more funding.
devolution should be more systematic/
comprehensive and that the proposal
to ‘level up’ Metro Mayor powers for all
combined authorities is a good idea.
5EXECUTIVE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY
PART II: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DEVOLUTION - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The lessons identified from ‘Devo 1.0’ (the A small majority agreed the Government
devolution to the English regions in the should introduce Parliamentary Committees
2000s) are that: devolution needs to be and Cabinet positions which recognise and
linked to a real sense of identity (‘not a point respond to the trans-regional arrangements
on a compass’); one size never fits all; and of the North, Midlands, South East, etc..
devolution should be done properly not There were, however, some notable
half-heartedly - it cannot, for example, be reservations.
a temporary ‘creature of Government’ but
The overwhelming majority agreed
something long term, ‘owned’ by the people
devolution deals should eventually cover the
in that area.
whole of England and the majority said that
The main lesson learnt from devolution in five years was an appropriate timeframe for
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is such devolution to be rolled out.
that the genuine devolution of political and
A large majority of respondents said the
fiscal power has had a noticeable positive
purpose of devolution in England was either
impact on a national sense of identity and
improved economic performance, including
an enhanced sense of ownership of the
rebalancing the economy, or better, more
democratic institutions.
democratic government, including better
The majority agreed that the next chapter public services; or both.
of devolution should be accompanied by
A majority said better devolution was a
reform of local government (but it should
principle and a process not a blueprint
not be a pre-condition or a reason for
or an event; others put forward a specific
further delay).
proposal or outcome such as a federal UK,
Almost all agreed the Government should fiscal devolution, or better life chances. The
deliver real devolution for certain policy areas Government should provide clarity, certainty
and not delegation or co-decision-making. and coherence regarding devolution and
The priority policy areas for such devolution make devolution one of its top five priorities.
were: transport; education and skills,
housing; and health and social care.
6EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EMERGING CONCLUSIONS: TEN PRINCIPLES FOR DEVO 3.0
The following consensus conclusions emerge as potential principles that should inform the next
wave of devolution:
1. D
evolution must be a top five priority 6. The Government should publicly
for the Government which should acknowledge that devolution is a
be clear about the purposes of process as well as a principle: something
devolution: supporting a new that can, and will, only be delivered
Treasury objective of rebalancing the in partnership with existing elected
economy geographically; creating more Mayors and local government as well as
democratic governance; and the better business and other stakeholders.
delivery of public services.
7. The next wave of devolution in England
2. The Government needs to have a should not be conditional on local
coherent and systematic approach to government reform but ultimately what
devolution. The goal should be to agree is needed is triple devolution: to
devolution deals across the whole of local government; to the sub-regional
England in the next five years. (Mayoral) level; and to the sub-national
level, i.e. the North, the Midlands,
3. The Government should commit to a
London and the wider South East.
national dialogue on the benefits of,
and need for, devolution as well as a 8. The next wave of devolution must not
programme of focused dialogue with be ‘half hearted’ nor ‘one size fits all’.
sub regional partners. Devo 3.0 needs to signify the end of
imposed blueprints and shift the
4. In the short term, there is a need for
emphasis towards local and sub-regional
a settlement with existing elected
partners taking the lead in agreeing
Mayors focused on the devolution of all
deals. The Metro Mayoral model should
adult skills funding and powers; NIC’s
not be the only model permitted.
recommendation on devolving transport
and other infrastructure spending; and 9. A number of important issues need to
some elements of fiscal devolution. be better understood and addressed:
the diversity deficit, especially regards
5. In the medium term, the Government
gender; and the arrangements for
must set out a clear devolution
scrutiny of devolved structures at the
framework, or continuum, showing the
sub-regional or city region level, as well
range of current Government powers
as Westminster and Whitehall levels.
and funding suitable for devolving and
which can be accessed as capacity 10. A Secretary of State should be
and competence, as well as leadership appointed to lead the implementation
and demand, becomes available at the of devolution. All Government
devolved level. Departments - including HMT and
relevant quangos - need to be genuinely
committed to the principle, and
support the process, of devolution and
rebalancing the economy.
7INTRODUCTION
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE
SPENT THE LAST 50 YEARS TRYING
TO REBALANCE THE UK ECONOMY
AND CREATE A FAIRER AND
STRONGER NATION.
However, the hard evidence uncovered by the UK 2070 Commission shows that
we remain one of the most unequal and divided nations in Europe. 72% of the
UK’s regions have productivity rates lower than the national average, with some
places only 65% of the average and others at 172%.
The 2070 Commission Second Report DevoConnect were therefore commissioned
concluded that devolution and, in particular, by the UK2070 Commission to undertake
devolving greater powers and decision an audit of decision makers’ and opinion
making, could be the key to rebalancing formers’ views: specifically to review the
the UK economy as well as delivering civic lessons of devolution to the regions in the
and democratic renewal. It identified seven 2000s (Devo 1.0) and the current Metro
national priorities for action including: Mayoral wave of devolution (Devo 2.0); and
identify what, in the longer term, more and
“accelerate devolution: devolve decisions
better devolution looks like, particularly how
about regional economies to all regions,
it might help redress both spatial economic
not just those with government-sanctioned
inequality and the democratic deficit.
deals; introduce Parliamentary Committees
and Cabinet positions which recognise and The Devo 3.0 Review is designed to re-
respond to the Powerhouses of the North, invigorate the debate on better devolution
Midlands, South West and South East.” and provide a solid foundation and
evidence base to consider increasing and
Recent and increased political interest in
strengthening devolved decision making and
English devolution has been welcome but
powers. Its conclusions will be of interest
so far what has been said or promised does
not only to the UK2070 Commission but to a
not add up to a vision of what a third wave of
wider audience, including all those who are
devolution (‘Devo 3.0’) should look like; how
considering future policy development on
it could be a solution for all parts of England:
devolution.
and what is required over the long term to
redress regional economic imbalance and
systemic democratic centralisation.
8METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
79 DECISION MAKERS AND OPINION
FORMERS WITH A WELL-KNOWN AND
HIGH LEVEL INTEREST IN DEVOLUTION
WERE INVITED TO CONTRIBUTE - BY
EMAIL, ONLINE SURVEY OR THROUGH
INTERVIEW - TO THE AUDIT.
These included all Metro Mayors, local authority leaders, think tanks, advocacy
groups, and business associations as well as MPs and Peers who have been
particularly active on the issue, for example a chair of one of the regional APPGs.
Requests to contribute via a questionnaire LA Leader/Mayor or spokesperson
were sent out in the middle of October with a
Cllr Judith Blake, Leader, Leeds City Council
deadline for submissions of 13th November.
Rebecca Cox, Principal Policy Advisor,
In all 42 were returned. Of these 12 did not
Local Government Association
wish their comments to be quoted directly.
Cllr Susan Hinchcliffe, Chair WYCA
There was a high level of response from each
and Leader, Bradford Council
group of invitees - as identified above - with
Cllr James Jamieson, Chairman,
the exception of MPs, for whom the general
Local Government Association
election intervened.
John O’Brien, Chief Executive,
This report is a summary of what was said in London Councils
response to the 27 questions. Where possible Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol
we have sought to include a quantification Dick Sorabji, Corporate Director of Policy
of the views expressed but largely this and Public Affairs, London Councils
should be read as a qualitative survey of the Tom Warburton, Director of City Futures,
opinions of a group of extremely experienced Newcastle City Council
devolution experts drawn from across the
political spectrum. Those who contributed
Peer or MP
to the Devo 3.0 Review were:
Lord Foulkes, Co-Chair, Reform
Decentralisation and Devolution APPG
Metro Mayors
Lord Michael Heseltine, former
Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Deputy Prime Minister
Jamie Driscoll, North of Tyne Lord Jim O’Neill, Vice Chair, Northern
Dan Jarvis, Sheffield City Region Powerhouse Partnership
James Palmer, Cambridgeshire Lucy Powell MP, Manchester Central,
and Peterborough Chair APPG for Greater Manchester
Mayor of London’s Office Lord Wrigglesworth, former Deputy
Mayor of Liverpool City Region’s Office Chairman Regional Growth Fund
Mayor of West Midlands’ Office Advisory Board 9METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
Think tank/advocacy/business group Academic/independent commentator
Sir John Armitt, Chairman, National Sir Howard Bernstein, former Chief
Infrastructure Commission Executive, Manchester City Council
Phillip Blond, Director, ResPublica Duncan Bowie, Senior Research Associate,
Richard Blyth, Head of Policy, RTPI Bartlett School of Planning, University
Arianna Giovannini, Interim Director, College London
IPPR North Des McNulty, Assistant Vice-Principal,
Mark Goldstone, Head of Policy and University of Glasgow
Representation, West and North Yorkshire Rt Hon Nick Raynsford, Former Minister and
Chamber of Commerce Deputy Chairman, Crossrail
Mike Hawking, Policy and Partnerships Jane Thomas, former Director, Campaign for
Manager, Joseph Rowntree Foundation English Regions
Jim Hubbard, Head of Regional Policy, CBI
Mark Livesey, CEO, LEP Network
Kathryn Mackridge, Policy Officer for Public
Services, TUC
Adam Marshall, Director-General,
British Chambers of Commerce
Sasha Morgan, Head of Secretariat
for Social Mobility Commission
Chris Murray, Director, Core Cities
Henri Murison, Director, Northern
Powerhouse Partnership
Akash Paun, Senior Fellow, Institute for
Government
Edna Robinson, Chair, People’s Powerhouse/
Trafford Housing Trust
Ben Rogers, Founding Director,
Centre for London
Jonathan Werran, Chief Executive, Localis
10PART I:
PART I: THE CITY
REGION METRO
MAYORAL MODEL
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
1 Is the Mayoral or combined
authority system working?
Question: How well does the Mayoral or combined authority system work in
your area (if applicable)?
27 respondents answered this question The West Midlands Combined Authority and
with 13 respondents saying ‘well’ - including Mayor system is performing very well, based
‘reasonably well’, ‘pretty well’ or ‘fairly well’ on progress against public commitments, the
- and a further 11 saying ‘very well’ (88% of Annual Plan, national recognition given to
respondees) . A number of respondents said good performance in specific functions, and
it was important ‘not to over claim’ but said outcomes such as the recent performance
Metro Mayors were now firmly established of the regional economy. Anonymous
within the political firmament. Just three respondent on ‘added value’
respondees made a negative comment. 15
Greater Manchester and the West Midlands,
said the question was not applicable to them.
as well as London, were frequently cited
You can’t imagine anyone wanting to get as examples of where the Mayor was
rid of the Mayor role or taking significant ‘embedded’, had ambition and was
powers back to central Government, which is delivering ‘signature’ projects that would not
usually a good sign that reforms have been have happened without devolution. However,
embedded and also make sense to voters all seven Metro Mayors who responded
and people at various levels of Government. commented that, although it is early days,
Akash Paun, Senior Fellow at the Institute collective working with a figurehead is
for Government making a difference:
Yes, we are looking at projects or
opportunities that were previously beyond
possibility. James Palmer, Mayor of
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
11PART I:
Very well considering the extent of powers Those who were negative referred to a
which have actually been devolved. specific set of circumstances, for example
Anonymous respondent the situation in North of Tyne which does
not have the same boundaries as the North
There is a growing sense that devolution
East Combined Authority, which ‘limits the
is a solution to the chaos of Westminster.
development of transport’. South Yorkshire
It’s green shoots here - dysfunctional
was also cited for slow progress due to its
there. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater
local authorities being divided over their
Manchester
long-term devolution ambitions.
WYCA works well - leaders come together
What the South Yorkshire model has exposed
and decide priorities and we stick with them.
is that unless there is significant buy in from
We need to keep working on relationships
the start for an agreed geography you are
but there are benefits for all constituent
going to encounter problems. Much is made
members. West Yorks growth deal means
of the GM model but that was a plan
we are unique amongst CAs without a Mayor
20 years in the making. Jane Thomas,
but we do have some money! Transport
former Director of the Campaign for
work is very good. Three more new stations
English Regions
delivered and one more planned. The
Combined Authority is part of us - part
of the five local authorities - we are very
collective, sometimes go bit slower but we
do go together. We have all got things which
wouldn’t have got without CA. Cllr Susan
Hinchcliffe, Chair of the West Yorkshire
Combined Authority (WYCA),
12PART I:
2 The strengths and weaknesses of
existing city region Metro Mayoral
or Combined Authority Models
Please state the strengths of the existing city region Metro Mayoral or combined
authority models
Respondents referenced three main resources are available, working together
strengths of the existing models: with the business community. Dr Adam
Marshall, Director General of the British
• Delivering joined up, long term
Chamber of Commerce
solutions
The current bus consultation in Greater
• Acting as spokesperson and providing
Manchester demonstrates that significant
clear accountability
change, such as to introduce London style
• Doing politics at the level of a place bus networks, is already possible. Henri
ensuring more engagement Murison, Director, NPP
Delivering joined up, long term solutions Acting as spokesperson and providing
(21 respondents, 50%) clear accountability (17 respondents,
41%)
Where the model allows the integration of a
number of aspects of Government spending An elected Mayor’s key strength - in the
at a place level it is particularly beneficial. view of the majority of respondents - is their
Richard Blyth, Head of Policy at the RTPI accountability combined with their ‘soft’
powers - such as convening - which provides
Key strength is that it helps those city for a more coherent regional voice. For Jamie
regions to coordinate a more ambitious and Driscoll, Mayor of the North of Tyne, this is
more comprehensive infrastructure policy ‘long overdue’ pointing out that in his area
which can be linked to skills and housing ‘there is now regional leadership for the
and therefore deliver broader economic first time in years’. Conversely, Cllr Susan
development. Sir John Armitt, Chair of the Hinchcliffe, Chair of the West Yorkshire
National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) Combined Authority, pointed out that a
weakness of the West Yorkshire Combined
We think the major strength of the model
Authority is that there is no direct mandate
is to give a path by which leaders can
from the public.
implement much longer-term plans for their
region reflecting local priorities linked to As Chair of the Combined Authority, and
local accountability. Sasha Morgan, Head of also as a member of the LEP, the Mayor
Secretariat for Social Mobility Commission provides strong leadership and a single point
of democratic accountability to integrate
The ability to convene across the public and
and streamline decision-making on local
private sector; to bring together a medium
programmes and investments. Dan Jarvis,
to long term strategy; and to prioritise what
Mayor of Sheffield City Region 13PART I:
Metro Mayors are a more accountable It starts from a better place - ie it is
representative for making significant predicated on place which is a better
decisions concerning the area, rather than an foundation than Westminster’s starting point
unknown civil servant in Whitehall. Kathryn which is based on primacy of party. And in
Mackridge, Policy Officer at the TUC the current Westminster impasse it is hard
for a party to deliver radical agenda. Andy
Jonathan Werran, Chief Executive of
Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester
Localis, said Mayor’s greatest strength
is ‘their convening power - their ability Bringing local leaders together in this way
to secure business and civic backing for means more decisions are being made
change.’ This was a view echoed by an much closer to the people they affect rather
anonymous contributor: than being done nationally in Westminster.
This means the decisions can better reflect
‘Businesses in areas with devolution deals
the needs and priorities of local places and
have cited a range of positives that have
communities. Dan Jarvis, Mayor of Sheffied
come from a deal. They include the raised
City Region
international profile that having a Metro
Mayor brings, clarity over the strategic Businesses in areas with devolution deals
direction, increased collaboration with have cited a range of positives. They included
neighbours across the region and the the raised international profle, claity over
country, as well as a greater focus on strategic direction, increased collaboration
inclusive growth, and momentum on key as well as a greater focus inclusive growth.
local policy decisions.’ Anonymous respondent
Another anonymous respondent said: The TUC were very positive saying that ‘there
‘the Mayor of London is one of a handful of are some examples where good governance
politicians who can command the front page structures have been established to ensure
tomorrow.’ access and representation of key partners
and decision makers. For example, the TUC
A Mayor, distinct from local authority
Midlands has a co-opted observer seat on
leaders, does strengthen accountability and
the West Midlands Combined Authority.’
leadership and gives central Government
confidence in quality of leadership and Some comparisons were made between the
makes them more willing to devolve. Ben London Mayoral model - twenty years old
Rogers, Founding Director of the Centre in 2020 - and the Metro Mayor model. Two
for London chief differences were noted. First, that in
London there is no statutory requirement
Doing politics at the level of a place
for joint decision making by the Mayor with
ensuring more engagement
the Leaders of the London Boroughs. In the
(17 respondents, 41%)
Metro Mayor model, the Mayor is the Chair of
There was a clear view that the focus on meetings of the constituent local authority
‘place’ creates better politics, including Leaders, with whom joint decisions are
that it affords greater participation and mostly made. Second, the London model
consultation. In effect, this amounts to a provides through the Assembly a clear
different way of doing politics as Mayors can scrutiny function, whereas in the Metro
draw on local knowledge which is better than Mayoral model how decisions, and decision
relying on multiple Whitehall departments. making, is scrutinised is less clear.
14PART I:
It was acknowledged that there were Given the potential of the Metro Mayor model
tensions between the Mayor for London and - by which the Mayor and all constituent local
the Boroughs, although others pointed out authorities can agree and then get behind
that the ‘connection with the Boroughs has a plan - one respondent suggested that, for
been better over past 10 years and that there the five key strategies for which the Mayor
are now partnership boards and a bi-annual of London is responsible, formal agreement
Congress of Leaders’. with London Borough leaders should be
considered.
In many senses, the GM model is far superior
to London which lacks the engagement of
the local authorities - in other respects it
isn’t as good. I see the GM model as more
effective in terms of streamlined governance
and local authority buy-in to metro strategy
but it lacks some of the powers of London.
Bus regulation and franchising is the
obvious area where London has had massive
advantages, as well as infinitely greater
Government funding support, for decades
now. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater
Manchester
Please state the weaknesses of the existing city region Metro Mayoral or
combined authority models
Respondents reported four main There were also comments from a
weaknesses: Conservative and Labour Mayor respectively
such as ‘trying to pedal with the brakes
• Insufficient resources and powers
on’ and ‘holed below the water line.’ One
• A piecemeal, inflexible, stop-start, top Mayoral office spelt out why it currently feels
down policy made in London like ‘devolution with strings attached’:
• Overlapping roles with other The Combined Authority’s policy toolkit
organisations creating confusion is incomplete, meaning we occasionally
have to compromise fidelity or clarity, or
• Does not provide for sufficient make circuitous arguments for investment
scrutiny, engagement or diversity - for example in the areas of wellbeing
and environmental action. The lack of
sustainable funding is a significant barrier
Insufficient resources and powers
- this relates to capital, revenue and admin.
(19 respondents, 45%)
It makes it complicated to plan long term
One anonymous contributor typified investment strategies and pipeline with
many responses when stating: ‘there is a full confidence in their delivery. Similarly,
lack of resources and an ongoing reliance reporting lines between sub-regional and
on centralised decision making from national government are complex. The
Westminster.’ relationship with Departments is positive
but still suffers from a client/master deficit. 15PART I:
The Mayor of London’s Office condemned The models are generally imposed top-
the inability to levy taxes to meet the down by Government and don't necessarily
needs of the city: ‘Other cities around the recognise the different geographies,
world have way more freedom.’ Henri histories, relationships and priorities of
Murison, Director, NPP, answered the different areas. What has been devolved is
question succinctly: ‘The lack of significant actually relatively small in comparison to the
meaningful fiscal devolution’. Andy challenge of rebalancing and local growth,
Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, and is functional, not fiscal. Budgeting is still
pointed to a fundamental problem with short term and only done across a limited
current arrangements: set of areas, with the possible exception of
Greater Manchester, and even there, does not
A Mayor inevitably creates expectations as
include a full-enough set of responsibilities
a focal point for complaining but has not
and spending ability for skills.
got the powers and funding, for example
on transport, so you have accountability There was criticism too of the Government’s
without genuine responsibility. inconsistent approach, for example, the
apparent insistence on deals only for
One respondent referred to this as the
‘functioning economic areas’ and then
‘devolution deception’ - the mismatch
agreeing the North of Tyne deal, which
whereby a Mayor is held accountable for
excludes Gateshead and South Tyneside
an issue but does not have the powers or
travel to work area (TTWA).
funding to properly address - improve or
reform - the issue. Sir John Armitt, Chair of Lord Heseltine suggested there may be
the NIC, put it this way: a role for the Boundary Commission to
recommend readjustments in Metro Mayoral
Not sure I would want to put myself up for
boundaries so that local economics can be
that role without the fiscal freedom/financial
better reflected.
wherewithal to ensure I could deliver.
Politically Mayors are in a difficult position.
Overlapping roles with other
organisations creating confusion
A piecemeal, inflexible, stop-start,
(10 respondents, 24%)
top down policy made in Whitehall
(13 respondents, 31%) There was a clear view that the role of a Metro
Mayor and how they work with the Combined
A number of contributors pointed out that
Authority or other organisations is not
the fact that the Government was only
understood and is often confusing.
interested in one specific model meant
large parts of the country - especially rural The British Chambers of Commerce pointed
and coastal communities - are without out that business communities had reported
devolution. In some areas, after delay, deals different levels of engagement from Mayors
were offered but local party politics often on both strategy development and delivery,
took over causing further delay and on at with some reporting a more positive
least one occasion, ‘by the time the local experience than others. Dr Adam Marshall,
partners were positive again the Government Director-General of the British Chambers
had lost interest.’ of Commerce
16PART I:
There were some comments on ‘internal My sense is that the scrutiny mechanisms at
squabbling about where investment takes the devolved level are relatively weak and
place’ which can lead to ‘the need to if people are making case for significant
spread the jam.’ Nick Raynsford, Deputy further powers/autonomy to be transferred
Chairman of Crossrail, referenced what to combined authorities then more attention
he saw as the inevitable tensions between to scrutiny of those powers and how that
local authorities and Metro Mayors given money is spent will be needed. Akash Paun,
the Mayor has both strategic and delivery the Institute for Government
powers. One respondent pointed out: ‘If
Mayors should really worry about making
the constituent parts of the Combined
mistakes - the fact that others will pick up the
Authority are not working well together the
pieces is really the only credible argument
Mayor can be ineffective.’ Another simply
against devolution. So far Whitehall has
said ‘parochialism is endemic’. Others
produced unreasonable solutions so a third
were disappointed that party politics still
party should come up with an answer for
dominated Mayoral politics and emphasised
accountability. Anonymous contributor on
the importance of the Mayor’s personality.
getting the failure regime correct
Some called for clarity of Combined
Others suggested the National Audit
Authority functions which should be
Office (NAO) could have a bigger role in the
assessed within the context of ‘constrained’
future and could audit decision making
local authorities. In this respect, the model
including value for money and that greater
was criticised for paying insufficient attention
scrutiny by way of a city or sub regional
to the importance of ‘double devolution’ - the
Select Committee of MPs - eg for Greater
need to empower local authorities as well as
Manchester or the West Midlands - was
Metro Mayors. The issue of Local Enterprise
‘an interesting idea’.
Partnerships (LEPs) was also raised:
Some businesses found that the Metro Mayor
The balancing act with multiple LEPs is
had brought about additional bureaucracy
a weakness and should be resolved by
and complexity. The British Chamber of
a rationalisation of LEPs in combined
Commerce pointed out that the failure by
authorities and co-terminosity. Jonathan
some Mayors to engage business as an
Werran, Chief Executive of Localis
equal partner - both in their strategizing and
delivery - was a notable weakness. Others
Does not provide for sufficient commented on the lack of gender diversity.
scrutiny, engagement or diversity
A lack of opportunity for genuine public
(5 respondents, 12%).
engagement, other than at the ballot box.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) were The lack of diversity within local government
one of a number of organisations to point out leadership has led to a gender imbalance in
that Metro Mayors, unlike the London Mayor, Mayoral Cabinets - though attempts have
currently lack formal mechanisms for scrutiny been made to address this artificially by
of their decisions. creating ‘deputy’ cabinet members. Mike
Hawking, JRF
17PART I:
3 Views on existing devolution
The existing devolution arrangements provide sufficient powers
and funding to city region Mayors and combined authorities
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree agree or disagree agree or
disagree disagree
All respondents answered this question and At present the approach has been piecemeal
the majority, 38 respondents (90%), either and ad hoc with no clear strategy or
disagreed slightly, disagreed or strongly roadmap for how devolution will emerge. It
disagreed with this statement, with all of is not clear whether those with deals are on
the Metro Mayors stating they wanted more a path to further devolution or indeed what
powers and funding. the strategy is for rolling it out to those areas
without devolution deals. Henri Murison,
Although, the question was formulated as an
Director, NPP.
agree-disagree question, some respondents
took the opportunity to expand on their Elements of power have been devolved
initial response. The primary theme of nearly across a lot of the important areas but it’s
all negative responses was criticism of the quite partial in all of those areas and the
extent of existing devolved powers, with power is still subject to constraints imposed
one respondent as previously noted going from the centre. That makes it harder for
as far as to describe them as the ‘devolution any single devolved body to join up and be
deception’. strategic as they are being held to account
in different ways by separate Government
Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater
departments. Akash Paun, Senior Fellow at
Manchester was typical of those who
the Institute for Government
disagreed: ‘If you’re going to go for
devolution, you need to really go for it. Only two respondents agreed. Lord
‘Dipping your toe’ does not work’. James Wrigglesworth thought that the powers
Palmer, Mayor of Cambridgeshire and were sufficient ‘for the time being.’ Mayor of
Peterborough, put this more strongly: Bristol, Marvin Rees, who neither agreed
‘The deals are weak, which means we have nor disagreed, suggested that the powers
to go to Whitehall every time. That’s not devolved should depend on the effective
devolution, that’s devolution as long as you working of the Combined Authority with its
do what Mummy says.’ ‘constituent authorities’, highlighting the
sometimes unresolved tensions between CAs
18 and LAs.PART I:
It is right for the Government to be cautious in limiting the scope of devolution?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree agree or disagree agree or
disagree disagree
All respondents answered this question Henri Murison, Director, NPP, took a more
with 35 respondents (83%) disagreeing with nuanced view:
this statement. Six agreed with one neither
The government was right to initially be
agreeing nor disagreeing.
cautious in devolving power and funding as
One anonymous response, typified many transparency and accountability in public
who disagreed with the statement, stating: spending decisions are of course incredibly
important. However, where new structures
I do not see why the Government should
have shown that they have the capability
be cautious… the problem is that there
and capacity to deliver devolution then the
has always been a cautious ‘half baked’
government must be bolder in devolving
approach.
further powers and funding where it makes
Another anonymous contributor was more sense to do so.
critical:
Of those who didn’t disagree with the
Fear of a broken fingernail has been statement, nearly all cited a lack of clear
used too long to stop progress towards objectives or purpose on the part of the
devolution. Government in the area of devolution. For
example Duncan Bowie, Senior Research
Associate, Bartlett School of Planning,
UCL, stated ‘The Government is unclear as to
its objectives in relation to devolution.’
19PART I:
The Government's approach to English devolution should
be more systematic/comprehensive
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree agree or disagree agree or
disagree disagree
The majority of respondents agreed Others pointed out the question of the form
or strongly agreed, with 38 out of 42 of devolution for each area should not be
respondents - 90% - agreeing. Two neither answered by the Government:
agreed nor disagreed, one disagreed, and
Requirements may be different in different
one chose not to answer.
places, i.e. counties may need fewer powers
Many respondents who agreed with than cities. Dr Adam Marshall, Director-
the statement suggested that central General of the British Chambers of
Government needed to be clearer on what it Commerce
thought the purposes of devolution were:
Lord O’Neill neither agreed nor disagreed,
The Government’s approach in recent years stating that ‘systematic’ devolution was
has been ad hoc and conducted without an “against the spirit of devolution [which]
overarching framework to work within or can only happen where local authorities
a national goal to aim towards. Mayor of want the extra accountability to go with the
London’s Office responsibility.
There was a general sense even within those
who agreed that, as Arianna Giovannini,
Interim Director of IPPR North, noted, a
‘one size fits all approach’ was not a good
idea, and a large number used that exact
phrasing or similar language.
20PART I:
It should be necessary for an area to have an elected mayor as a pre-requisite
of any devolution deal that includes delegation of significant sums
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree agree or disagree agree or
disagree disagree
All respondents apart from one answered There was a different response from the
this question. Overall, more respondents Metro Mayors themselves. Four of the
disagreed than agreed, with overall seven Mayors who responded agreed to
20 respondents disagreeing (49%), one extent or another, including Mayor of
15 respondents (37%) agreeing and 6 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough James
respondents (15%) neither agreeing nor Palmer, who stated that his reasons for
disagreeing. doing so centred on accountability: ‘You
need somebody who is answerable and
Sir John Armitt, Chair of the NIC, echoed
that’s tremendously important’.
many other respondents by qualifying his
support for the Mayoral model with a clear Andy Burnham neither agreed
suggestion that devolution proposals should nor disagreed, but rather “strongly
respond and adapt to places and not the recommended” the Mayoral model for other
other way around. He stated: areas, adding, ‘If someone is accountable
then that helps with delivery .. but
Other models of accountability may work.
devolution by definition cannot and should
What is important is getting the right option
not be imposed. And certainly, less valid/
for the right area.
appropriate in rural/dispersed areas.’
Ben Rogers, Founding Director of the
Jamie Driscoll Mayor of the North of Tyne
Centre for London echoed this, slightly
indicated that he strongly agreed for city
disagreeing with the statement and saying:
regions but neither agreed nor disagreed for
‘I don’t think the case for a Mayor is so
more rural areas.
compelling that if an area doesn’t want
a Mayor that it should get in the way of
devolution’. Henri Murison, Director,
NPP, neither agreeing nor disagreeing said:
‘the focus should be less about a specific
structure and more about powers and
responsibilities’.
21PART I:
The proposal to 'level up' Metro Mayor powers for
combined authorities is a good idea
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree agree or disagree agree or
disagree disagree
All but two respondents answered this Phillip Blond, Director of Respublica, said:
question, with a clear majority agreeing. ‘we wouldn’t want Manchester to become a
28 of those who responded (70%) agreed ceiling on devolved powers.’ Lucy Powell,
and just 4 respondents (10%) disagreed. MP for Manchester Central, who neither
8 respondents (20%) neither agreed nor agreed nor disagreed with the statement,
disagreed. echoed this: ‘we would rather not have
Manchester’s devolution settlement seen as
This response is consistent with previous
a ceiling; Manchester instead should be the
answers where there were clear majorities
forerunner.’
for the view that the Government had not
devolved sufficient powers and funding and Out of the Metro Mayors who participated,
had been too cautious in limiting the scope of four of those with less powers than Greater
devolution. However, it should be noted that Manchester or London agreed, indicating an
no respondent expressed the view that the eagerness to move beyond the powers as
powers already devolved to Manchester were currently devolved. Jamie Driscoll, Mayor
sufficient. This was emphasised by Andy of the North of Tyne, took a more nuanced
Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, position, stating that he would strongly
disagreeing with the statement agree with the statement ‘if it were true’
but complained that this was ‘not what the
Levelling up is a problematic concept as
Government has offered in practice.’
it implies levelling up to areas that have
reached their optimum devolution and there Echoing the suggestion of Andy Burnham,
is plenty more that Greater Manchester Jamie Driscoll, Mayor of the North of Tyne
and London want. What is required is a also said his alternative vision would be ‘a
devolution framework/continuum and then devolution framework that takes us all the
different areas can move up towards full way beyond the powers London currently
devolution as and when is appropriate has, and where the powers and budgets can
for them. be drawn down when the regions choose
and are demonstrably capable of
22
managing them.’PART I:
4 Key actions city region Metro Mayors and
combined authorities should take to:
Reduce inequalities between regions?
All respondents but one answered this • Education and skills investment
question. Opinion was divided between (9 respondents, 28%).
those who thought that reducing inequalities
Education and skills investment came a
between regions should be a priority for
close second, often linked directly with
Mayors and those who thought it incidental to
the suggestion of transport investment.
their work to reduce inequality within a region.
Mark Goldstone of the West and North
However nine respondents thought such Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce,
action was outside the scope of a Metro said that Metro Mayors and combined
Mayor’s remit. authorities should ‘ensure that transport
and infrastructure strategies take account
Henri Murison, Director, NPP, said
of adjoining regions so that people are
‘the primary way to narrow the north-
able to access education and employment
south economic divide is to eliminate the
opportunities between regions.’
productibvity gap….One primary cause [of
which] is poor transport between and within • Further devolution of powers
regions. Education and skills would be the (8 respondents, 25%).
next area of priority.’ In total three strands
Many of the respondents were keen to
emerged among the 32 respondents; 76%,
suggest that further devolution of powers
felt there was a role for Mayors to reduce
could reduce inequality between regions.
inequalities:
Mike Hawking, Joseph Rowntree
• Transport and infrastructure Foundation, for example, suggested
investment (17 respondents, 53%). asking ‘for further devolution of powers
and funding.’ One respondent suggested
The most popular answer was investment
‘fiscal devolution for London leading to
in transport and infrastructure because
less reliance on national funding could
physical infrastructure crosses regional
have knock on effects; creating incentives
boundaries. Jim Hubbard, Head of
to invest across the whole of England.’
Regional Policy at the CBI suggested
that, after education and skills, ‘transport An anonymous Mayor made the case
links that widen access to labour’ were for ‘significant, single-pot devolution of
the most important investment Metro funding to CAs to invest in the delivery of
Mayors could make, though this was their local industrial strategies.’
framed as a proposal to unlock regional
growth rather than reduce inequality.
Dan Jarvis, Mayor of Sheffield City
Region suggested that Metro Mayors
could employ ‘joint working, as through
Transport for the North, on major
transport infrastructure programmes.’
23PART I:
Of those who thought reducing inequalities Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees added, ‘is
between regions was beyond a Metro it the responsibility of Bristol to reduce
Mayor’s remit there was a split between inequality in Grimsby? What I can do, is
those, the clear majority, who said they to advocate for devolved leadership to
shouldn’t take action on this and the minority Grimsby.’ Duncan Bowie, Senior Research
who said Metro Mayors couldn’t take action. Associate, Bartlett School of Planning,
Des McNulty, Assistant Vice-Principal of UCL, simply stated ‘clearly they can’t as any
the University of Glasgow suggested this powers are limited to their own area.’
should not be part of the Mayoral role, asking
However, Andy Burnham, Lucy Powell,
‘why would a Metro Mayor do that? I presume
and Edna Robinson - senior figures within
Metro Mayors would be seeking to get the
the politics of Greater Manchester and the
best for their particular region.’
Northern Powerhouse - thought that this
work integral to the role of the Metro Mayor.
Reduce inequalities within regions?
All but three respondents answered this Three key areas were cited where Mayors
question with many mentioning inclusive could take action to help reduce regional
growth or the importance of balanced inequalities within regions:
growth within a region. Mike Hawking,
• Employment and Skills
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, for example,
(26 respondents,66%),
couched his suggestion of transport
investment around the need to: ayor of Sheffield City Region, Dan
M
Jarvis, said that he would like ‘the
ensure that policy making in their regions
ability to fully influence the education
is conscious of the differing needs of
system in its entirety, with a defined
places within their region and ensure that
role in primary, secondary and
investment isn’t just concentrated in the
tertiary education.’ Sasha Morgan,
regional centre.
Head of Secretariat for Social
A number of those who cited inclusive Mobility Commission was also keen
growth in their response also noted the to emphasise education powers,
complexity of the problem of inequality and suggesting that combined authorities
the need for an integrated approach across needed to see, ‘better integration
multiple fronts. Des McNulty, Assistant between education and skills planning…
Vice-Principal of the University of Glasgow Particularly thinking about how Metro
suggested that Mayors and Combined Mayors work with the academies,
Authorities ‘need policies that tackle place Regional Schools Commissioners, and
disadvantage but also types of disadvantage the FE college sector.’
like health, ethnic minority, etc., it’s a very
complex process.’
24PART I:
• Transport and infrastructure Other contributions included one that
(11 respondents, 28%) suggested much inequality could be reduced
by ‘ensuring better coordination of activity
Mike Hawking, Joseph Rowntree
between Health/DWP/Education/Police and
Foundation specifically suggested that
Councils.’ Another said that the 33 Fairness
‘intra-regional transport should be a
Commissions ‘up and down the country’
particular focus for addressing intra-
should be looked at for what they are doing
regional inequalities… and Mayors
to try ‘to iron out inequalities’.
should utilise powers around the delivery
of bus services.’
• Health (7 respondents, 18%)
A number of respondents stated health
as a key area in tackling inequalities
for example Phillip Blond, Director of
Respublica said: ‘None of the factors
that influence health are all controlled by
the NHS and yet Local Authorities don’t
have control over health outcomes. Local
Authorities should be the institutions
for health of the 21st century, not the
NHS.’ Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol,
suggested investing in health should be
a foundation of tackling inequality within
a region, stating that one of the most
important public policy priorities should
be ‘investing in mental health and public
health to get early interventions for
people to build a foundation’. Jonathan
Werran, Chief Executive of Localis,
suggested more specific proposals,
putting forward the idea of a ‘Public
Health Premium, modelled on the Pupil
Premium’ in order to prioritise local areas
with poor public health outcomes.
25PART I:
Achieve productivity and growth in the wider region?
All but five respondents answered this • Invest in transport/connectivity,
question. There was a split between the particularly intra-regionally
majority who suggested specific priority (19 respondents, 51%)
policy areas and a minority who emphasised
Transport came an equal second to
the frameworks within which these policies
investing in education and skills with
should be delivered. Lucy Powell, MP for
19 respondents mentioning it, often in
Manchester Central, for example, was keen
relation to other areas of policy.
to ensure that her answers were understood
within an inclusive growth framework, adding Sir John Armitt, Chair of the NIC, for
that: ‘Cities need to benefit the towns. Towns example, noted that: ‘linking transport,
should not be competing with cities for things housing, skills, and employment is
such as foreign direct investment.’ essential.’ An anonymous respondent
spoke from personal experience in
Another anonymous respondent said that
advocating for improved transport
city regions and combined authorities needed
infrastructure: ‘I believe inter-regional
to: ‘understand the economic interactions
connectivity is critical to productivity.
and flows within the wider region based
National connections are good but inter-
on evidence, seeing these as two-way, and
regionally they are very poor.’
agreeing a package of investment between
cities, city regions, and nearby places’ • Achieve closer working with the
private sector (7 respondents, 19%)
To achieve productivity and growth in
the wider region Metro Mayoral areas and A broader category which could be
Combined Authorities need to be able to: termed ‘closer working with the private
sector’ was suggested. This covers
• Invest in education and skills
attracting inward investment into an
(19 respondents, 51%)
area, and working together toward
Investment in education and skills was closely-aligned goals. Dr Adam Marshall,
often seen as an investment in people Director-General of the British
over physical infrastructure, a distinction Chambers of Commerce suggested
made by a small number of respondents. that local areas needed to: ‘develop the
strongest possible partnership with the
Lord Wrigglesworth, for example, stated
business community; businesses want
that: ‘Regional economic development
to be treated as equals and not just as
often focuses too much on physical rather
stakeholders, working together on the
than human assets… the focus should be
development and execution of growth
people and changing culture in deprived
strategy’.
areas to instil ambition’.
Similarly, Des McNulty, Assistant Vice-
Principal of the University of Glasgow,
said, ‘Skills and talent development
should represent the key sticky capital of
the area rather than new buildings and
new infrastructure’
26PART I:
• Develop Local Industrial Strategies
(5 respondents, 14%)
Whilst Local Industrial Strategies were
sometimes mentioned alongside further
private investment they are considered
as key to productivity and investment.
Kathryn Mackridge, Policy Officer
at the TUC noted that the creation of
‘high-quality employment standards’
was crucial to this objective and should
form the core of ‘any skills strategy/local
industrial strategy.’ Others called this
approach a ‘growth strategy [which]
puts growth into hard and soft economic
metrics.’
Jane Thomas, former Director of the
Campaign for English Regions, said:
Go back and revisit the Productivity Reports
of the Treasury in the noughties. Nothing has
changed in terms of identifying the problems
ie productivity issues, pull and push factors
with labour markets, investment in transport
and infrastructure, skills, etc.
27You can also read
