SCR Mayor Election – A Unique Experience?

Friday the 4th May 2018 was the day the first Mayor of the Sheffield City Region, and possibly the only Mayor of the SCR was elected.

---

Polls closed Thursday at 10pm but the count did not start until 9am the next morning. The result was expected around noon but, as ever, things did not go quite to plan. I was given accreditation to attend the count as part of the Sheffield Live TV contingent, with a view to securing some interviews with candidates during the count or after the result.

One candidate was missing from the off, Ian Walker (Conservative) was apparently in Japan for a business engagement, perhaps a sign they did not expect to make much impact. The rest of the line up of candidates were all present each with various degrees of confidence being displayed, I ran into Dan Jarvis MP as we both arrived at about the same time and, consummate politician that he is, he demurred my suggestion he was a likely winner, expressing hope rather than certainty.

---

Connecting with Sheffield City Council Chief Executive, John Mothersole I asked for an update on the count and the likely declaration time. He seemed confident that this would be before 1pm. However, 1pm came and went and despite a calm atmosphere overall there was clearly something not quite going to plan.

It transpired when SCR staff updated the candidates and then the press that there was an issue in Barnsley over an imbalance between verified votes and the actual count. In other words when the ballot boxes were first opened and invalid papers removed the remaining valid ballot papers came to one number but, after the individual votes for candidates were counted and totalled, those numbers did not match. This is not allowed.

Consequently we had not one but two recounts before the two numbers from Barnsley matched and still it was not over. To a certain amount of surprise amongst many, although in the lead after the first preference votes were counted, Dan Jarvis MP received only 47% of the required 50% to win. There were looks of trepidation in the Labour camp. We were now into a period of counting second preference votes. This would add at least another hour or so to the expected declaration time.

---

Probably one of the more interesting aspects during all this hanging about was catching some of the gossip and spotting the local politicos who were or were not there. Mayor Ros Jones from Doncaster was there but declined to say anything in front of camera, as an observer only. Sir Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Council was not there. Whether this is indicative of the relative interest from the two dissenting Councils is still to be seen. Meanwhile, there were also appearances from Julie Dore (Leader of Sheffield Council), Paul Blomfield MP & Alan Billings (South Yorkshire PCC)

Of the gossip, hearing someone call Steve Houghton as having seemingly gone rogue was surprising and may not bode well for an early resolution of the current impasse.

---

I decided at this time to try and grab some of the first round losing candidates for interviews. Hannah Kitching (Lib Dems) was first up as she was also standing in the local election in Barnsley, where she later won the Penistone Ward. The English Democrat, David Allen left immediately so no interview there but the rest of the candidates were happily forthcoming. and I also managed to line up interviews with a senior officer from the City Region and the Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

Of the interviews, Dan Jarvis MP, the winner was the last as following the declaration he suddenly became the property of the SCR and the press handlers stepped in to control his exposure. The full results can be seen here. The compilation video of the interviews is below, along with the new Mayor's speech.

---

Labour's Dan Jarvis elected as South Yorkshire region mayor from Sheffield Live on Vimeo.

---

The Mayor's first formal SCRCA (or will it now be SCRMA?) meeting is 11th June and this will mark 3 months with no apparent political or public oversight of the City Region's activities. It will be interesting to see whether the Mayor has a view on when will be his last formal meeting, 2020 or the legislated 2022?

---

Support my work by clicking on the orange button below.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting - 9th March 2018

Unusually the meeting started late, nearly 15 minutes late. Are we to assume the 'secret' part of the meeting had some controversy? Certainly the public meeting was down to be all business, despite a public question from me.

---

The formal public meeting started with the usual preamble around apologies, items for the exclusion of press etc. Interestingly and for me disappointing there was a complete lack of any potential or declared Mayoral candidates at the meeting. This is the Authority they will be leading after the election in May and they missed the opportunity to attend and see the theatre for themselves.

I can say that the candidate for the Yorkshire Party, Mick Bower of Rotherham, has attended several previous meetings but not a single candidate or potential candidate for the major parties has ever, as far as I know, attended a City Region Meeting. The next meeting of the SCRCA is planned for April 30th, during election Purdah, so this was their only opportunity to see the Region Leaders in action before the election.

---

The only people in the 'public gallery' a grand title for half a dozen chairs against one wall of the meeting room, were myself and two ladies from Moorends, in the Doncaster Borough. They were there to present a petition from the village about bus services. It was nice to see them there, in the right place to ask about Public Transport issues and that they got at least a partial response.

The Chair, Chris Read (Leader of Rotherham Borough) acknowledged the petition, thanked them and promised to refer it to the Transport Committee (part of the SCRCA structure). Ros Jones – Mayor of Doncaster, responded to say she supported the petition and the need for a service to Moorends. Julie Dore – Leader of Sheffield City Council also responded to support the petition being put to the Committee and to suggest, if they had one, to Doncaster's Bus Partnership.

---

My question was next up; What Skills Training or Apprenticeship contracts for SCR are currently delivered by Learndirect Ltd?

An Ofsted inspection in 2017 found the company “inadequate” and a Government DfE spokeswoman said: "The government is ending Learndirect's contract to provide apprenticeships and adult education, because of its failure to meet the high standards expected.”

What will be the impact of this report and this statement on SCR learners?

BBC News Report 2nd March 2018

The response came from the Chair, Chris Read to the effect that; Officers confirmed this is a National Contract so no direct delivery of services for SCRCA by Learn Direct but there will be some impact on local Learners. That information was not immediately available but Officers would be tasked to provide the detail.

A reasonable answer, I'll await the complete response.

---

The meeting was settling into it's usual routine of brief reports from Officers on financial, committee and Executive Board operations. Few matters of interest though, those with a good memory, will note that the initial forecast of costs for the Mayoral Election has risen from £1M to nearly £2M but no comment on why and no query of this from any of the political leaders in attendance.

---

On the Capital Funding side of things it looks likely the CA will be underspent by nearly £10M and officers are now negotiating(?) to retain this money for next year rather than return it to Government. In this same report we may have found this month's source of irritation between the Council Leaders

"2.19 Local transport capital pot This element is a proposed new component of the South Yorkshire transport capital programme and accounts for 8% of the overall programme. It is proposed to split the pot (£3.5m) across Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham according to their population estimates. Further details about this element of the programme can be found in a separate report which will be presented to CA Leaders on 9th March 2018."

---

Julie Dore started by asking where this £3.5M came from and what was the rationale that allocated the money to only 3 of the relevant districts on a per capita proportionate basis? Also were there any other examples of where this had been done before?

Response from Officers indicated this was part of the overall borrowing in the Capital Programme for the Passenger Transport Authority. The programme of spending for Sheffield City had been agreed and this further amount was therefore allocated just to Barnsley Doncaster & Rotherham. Julie Dore reiterated her need for a rationale behind that decision if the overall South Yorkshire PTE pot was where this money came from. It is to be noted the previous reports do not refer to this 'pot' being restricted to only 3 of the 4 Councils.

---

It was at this point that moods deteriorated and pointed comments were made over the cost of Supertram (benefitting only Sheffield) as a negative impact on SCR budgets and that Barnsley taxpayers deserved this pot. Barnsley and Doncaster were essentially saying Sheffield got enough and they wanted something just for the smaller distrticts. Rotherham tried to keep the peace but when it came to a recorded vote, the three districts outvoted Sheffield. Was £3.5M worth the further bad feeling this will generate between Council Leaders?

---

The rest of the reports passed by without comment or questions from leaders again and the meeting was wound up soon after.

Next Meeting - 30th April 2018, 2pm, AMP – This falls during election Purdah and may be subject to change.

---

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 29th January 2018

The agenda for the meeting was all business and this suggested to me a timescale within the half hour. Not unusual for this increasingly pointless bit of theatre.

---

Before the meeting however, I was seated in the waiting area chatting with Nigel Brewster, Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (the business end of the City Region) and a partner in the Brewster Pratap Recruitment Consultancy.

We were both bemoaning the pretence of the 'public' meeting and he expressed a concern that it made the Sheffield City Region political membership look like they either don't care or that all the decisions had already been made and this was nothing more than the public facing, so called, engagement. I agreed with this comment and that the meeting behind closed doors that takes place before the 'public' meeting was where any disagreements would be aired. For me this means that the Combined Authority are not serious about public engagement and indeed are trying to work around the 'problem' of people wanting to know what is going on.

I highlighted the fact that despite the turmoil around the devolution project in general and then the collapse of Carillion, neither of these items had made it to the agenda. Having to put questions to the meeting seven days in advance means that unexpected issues cannot be brought up for some seven weeks or more. Hardly a responsive or flexible public engagement strategy.

---

We were then called into the 'public' meeting. The chair was taken, for the first time officially, by Cllr Chris Read Leader of Rotherham elected last meeting to replace Barnsley's Cllr Steve Houghton. All the nine leaders appeared to be in place and the meeting began, once a missing Secretariat minute taker was back from his comfort break.

Items 1 to 6 on the agenda went past a brisk pace, they generally do being about voting rights, declarations of interest and exclusion of press & public items. Item 7 held a minor positive for active citizenry. In his brief time in the pre meeting mingling Nigel Brewster had clearly brought some of my comments to the attention of Cllr Julie Dore (Sheffield Leader) and, during this item on questions by members, she butted in before it was glossed over to ask a question, on my behalf about the impact of Carillion's collapse on the City Region. There was a bit of a stumble but, interestingly one of the Officers was able to respond that, fortunately, there were no outstanding contracts with Carillion within the City Region's remit. My thanks to both Nigel Brewster and Julie Dore for this helpful approach.

Beyond that the rest of the items on the agenda galloped by with a handful of approvals to previously prepared reports and the meeting closed after just 15 minutes.

---

Again the meeting came across as a piece of theatre and the lack of discussion or comment about the content of the reports being presented reinforces the appearance of a bureaucratic machine rather than a collaborative public authority. The unexpected response to the question at item 7 was illuminating, suggesting they can deal with questions at little or no notice if they wish to.

---

Next meeting is the 12th March 2018.

---

An Odd Week in Politics.

It's been an odd week. Organising and preparing has been the core of what I've been up to and of course the ever present distraction of social media mayhem amongst public & politicians.

---

As many will know I have launched a fundraising drive to try and secure some income to enable me to continue the work I undertake to push transparency and further accountability in local corridors of power. There is much needs to be done and, although I have had some truly generous subscriptions started and some one off donations I was not expecting, it is not enough to keep the wolf from the door yet. So, please continue to like and share my donations page, set up a subscription if you can afford to and I'll keep you updated on progress.

In the interests of my own transparency I will be setting up a page to thank my supporters but, recognising not everyone will want their name made public in this context, let me know if you prefer privacy. On that page I will also show the current total tally for the subscriptions and donations I receive.

---

In other news, look out for details of an upcoming course for the Workers Education Alliance, about the issues leading up to the expected Mayoral Election in May and looking at how and why devolution has become such a complex issue. I'll be delivering the course with Vicky Seddon, co-ordinator of Sheffield for Democracy and I will post details as they are available.

This will coincide with the process of the Labour Party choosing their candidate for the election and, no doubt, other parties declaring their positions on the Mayoral Election. It is a timely reminder as we are consistently seeing the electorate struggling with the concept of the Regional Mayor and confusing the role as one that has power over the City of Sheffield, which it does not.

The current list of potential candidates for the Labour Mayoral candidacy is in and, not wishing to be party political I will simply say they are unsurprisingly Male, Stale & Pale. All are career politicians and unlikely to rock the boat.

I'm also continuing to put together some plans for creating more active citizens and helping 3rd sector organisations be better at their public engagement and their engagement with our political and other institutions. This means more meetings this week with at least some of those groups that may benefit.

---

Looking forward, tomorrow brings the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting. You might imagine, that with so much comment in press and by numerous politicians about the issue of devolution in South Yorkshire and indeed the whole of Yorkshire, there would be an update planned for the agenda. There is not, it's all business.

This does not, unfortunately, surprise me the SCRCA have, at least in their formal meetings, been tight lipped and unforthcoming with information. There will undoubtedly be comment in the private meeting beforehand but nothing to ruffle the feathers will be included in the 'public' meeting. I will however be there to see what might be gleaned behind the scenes.

---

The fallout around PFI deals is continuing. There is no apparent news about the 250 Carillion jobs in Sheffield but Sheffield celebrated the new flood protection scheme in the Lower Don Valley, completed by Carillion before they went bust, without any mention of the contractor.

The Amey/Streets Ahead PFI continues to make news, between the first MP to visit the scene of a felling protest calling for a halt to the 'unsustainable' programme, to a curious story of allegedly poison tea. All set against continuing violence on the streets and a refusal of the Council's Cabinet to condemn that violence.

---

As I said, an odd week. Look out for a potentially short report on the SCRCA meeting later in the week and more detail on the WEA devolution course.

---

Sheffield Devolution – Decline & Fall?

The 18th September 2017 may have been the final death knell of Sheffield City Region Combined Authority as we know it.

---

I first wrote about the Sheffield City Region devolution deal in October 2015 as it burst forth from behind closed doors. The secret talks held between regional & national politicians resulted in a devolution agreement presented by George Osbourne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the four leaders of the South Yorkshire Metro Councils. I have written on this deal 12 times since then.

As has been widely reported, the meeting which included those same four Councils failed to agree on further consultation on a scheme of governance that essentially reverted back to the devolution proposals original form.

---

My analysis of the original deal in October 2015 highlighted some serious concerns about the way the deal was written and agreed by the South Yorkshire Councils, without any public consultation, and also drew attention to certain aspects of the deal like the veto power of the Mayor on voting issues and the generally unfinished state of many of the 'powers' to be handed down to the City Region.

Some of the concerns I expressed were taken up by the Council Leaders and, in particular, the removal of a Mayoral Veto became a red line for Sheffield's Julie Dore when it came to finally ratifying the deal. Throughout, despite the signing ceremony with Osbourne, this devolution deal was referred to as a proposal requiring public consultation and ratification by elected Councillors in each Council.

The pressure from HMG however meant the public consultation was hasty and, in some opinions, flawed or even biased and the final ratification was laid before the full Councils of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham & Sheffield in March of 2016, a scant 5 months on.

---

By July 2016 things had changed. Osbourne was no longer Chancellor and the champion of this kind of devolution was gone. The Department for Communities & Local Government now took up the reins of delivering the deals already agreed and the Minister therefore lacked the leverage over the Treasury that Osbourne had enjoyed.

The opportunity for Chesterfield & Bassetlaw, non voting members of the City Region, to become mainstream members and therefore take part in the Mayoral Election came and went. Decisions were delayed by consultation requirements, a Judicial Review called by Derbyshire County Council. Which the Regional Authority lost. Plans for a new consultation and a General Election in June 2017.

A year was lost to this back and forth, meaning the planned election for the Mayor was put back to 2018 and, following a Conservative victory in Derbyshire, the final withdrawal by the non South Yorkshire Councils in June 2017. This abandonment of a supposedly 'appropriate geography' was rationalised by themselves and the Metro Councils but was also an indication of cracks in commitment to the deal.

---

As a result, almost immediately after this in July the City Region chose to delay a final decision so that Barnsley & Doncaster could explore the burgeoning demands for a 'One Yorkshire' devolution deal. The Council Leaders of Barnsley & Doncaster continued at this stage to express commitment to the Sheffield deal but for many commentators, the writing was on the wall. HMG continued to insist that a 'One Yorkshire' devolution discussion was not on the table but an alleged 'coalition of the willing' of 17 of 20 Yorkshire Councils continued to discuss the idea.

Come the 11th September 2017 the City Region Meeting that was supposed to kick off the final leg of the deal, consultation, papers to the Secretary of State, Parliamentary vote, second ratification by the four metro Councils, stumbled once more and put the decision off until the following week at special meeting.

One has to assume frantic back room conversations were taking place, a fact confirmed to me by a senior LG Officer, to avert what was becoming an obvious crisis. At the Extraordinary Meeting on the 18th the axe finally fell. The City Region executive presented a paper on the options available to the four leaders. Each of the leaders stated their positions on the paper's options and with two for and two against the main recommendation, full devolution powers and £30M a year, this option was not agreed.

---

Much has been written on the mood and recriminations within and after the meeting but the simple fact is that any hope of a serious devolution deal in time for Mayoral Elections in May 2018 vanished in that puff of selfish political game playing and righteous indignation. The roots of the fall out between the four Labour Councils will be debated for a while I suspect but the main impact will be felt by the people of the region whose futures are less certain and probably less prosperous as a result of what appears to me to be individual hubris amongst Council leaders from the same political party.

---

What happens now?

---

It would seem that the automatic fall back position is the one outlined in option 3 of the SCRCA report. This would result in an election being held in May 2018 for a Mayor with no powers and no £30M a year. The four Councils would also be responsible for paying for this election, estimated at £1M, and paying for the mayor's Salary and any administrative support, cost unknown. It also reintroduces an element of the Mayoral Veto, with the mayor having to consent to any governance changes such as boundaries and membership of the Region.

Julie Dore, as leader of Sheffield City Council, has indicated conversations are ongoing about all these issues but there is no indication of any progress. However, a week is a long time in politics, so who knows what will happen next? The 'One Yorkshire ' deal is already under pressure as some of the 17 in the coalition of the willing are supporting the HMG position that the deal should not include any of the South Yorkshire Councils. You will not be surprised that these are the Conservative authorities that are expressing doubts.

---

As I have commented on a number of occasions, getting the 17 Yorkshire Councils to agree to anything over the long term when the 4 South Yorkshire Councils are unable to agree where the sun comes up will be like plaiting fog.

Devolution on the Wane?

The devolution agreement for the Sheffield City Region was first broken to the public, essentially as a done deal, in October 2015. At that point I wrote about it on this page.

---

It was hailed by many local politicians as a positive proposal that would return real power to the region and a benefit to the economy. The detail of the deal suggested otherwise to me and I made that clear. Despite local apathy and or concern over the deal it then began a lethargic progress through the decision making chambers of the the various Councils and the City Region itself.

Over 12 months later and after a couple of poorly received 'consultations' we are now into a period of wait and see. Wait and see whether the Derbyshire County Council legal challenge can derail the process. Wait and see whether the continuing failure of new deals to fall into line make this deal a less attractive option for the Region.

Since this challenge was launched in August, three other devolution deals have fallen by the wayside and others have failed to materialise.

---

In September four out of seven North East Councils voted down the deal they were offered and currently there is no new deal on the table or expected. The stumbling block here was Brexit and a lack of guarantees from Government on the loss of EU funding.

In November both the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal and the Norfolk / Suffolk devolution deals came off the rails. In Greater Lincolnshire's case it was the imposed elected Mayor that caused the deal to fail. The deal was voted against in the County Council by 43 to 17. Without the elected Mayor there is no deal.

The Norfolk / Suffolk deal was stopped by a single Council, King's Lynn & West Norfolk, voting overwhelmingly against the deal and, as a result the Norfolk County Council never voted on the deal. Suffolk meantime may be offered a solo deal but that appears to be more like extra powers for the County rather than the devolution deals we have been told are vital to Regional powerhouses.

---

Other deals are simply failing to progress, at least as far as the public are concerned. The West Yorkshire deal, based around Leeds, has not been mentioned on their web site 'news' since August. York & North Yorkshire's deal appears to have barely moved since March.

It seems, to me, clear that this format of imposed devolution, requiring strong, elected mayors, and forced to accept a level of devolved austerity is failing to inspire the majority of politicians at the local level. It is also, largely, a mystery to the general public. They have not been involved in any of the ideas behind the move and therefore seem to care little for the outcome. It will, for most people, appear to be yet another level of bureaucracy squandering the taxpayer's money.

---

Will politicians listen to this grumbling groundswell against imposed solutions to local problems? .......Probably not.

Raining on the Devolution Parade?

October's Now Then Magazine has an article from me that is a brief review of where we are on the devolution process for Sheffield City Region .

A week however, as they say, is a long time in politics and although the end of the process is in sight, the uncertainty is getting worse. Since I wrote the article, there have been developments. The City Region Combined Authority met on September 12th and item was to receive the report on the last consultation about regional governance and an update on the rest of the process. Minutes of that item are here. A link to the summary and the detail of the consultation is at the bottom of those minutes.

The main thing to note for me is that the City Region has a population in excess of 1.8 Million, whilst the public responses to the consultation amounted to 2,719. That equates to 1 in 660 people responding or 0.0015%. The response for Sheffield itself was 292. That's around 1 in 2,000 people that live in the city or 0.0005%. Putting this another way, incredibly poor engagement and understanding by the public.

Despite concerns being expressed, at the meeting, over this appalling response rate, the outcome was as expected. The meeting agreed to forward all the relevant papers to the Secretary of State, so he can prepare the draft order to be placed before Parliament. It is this order that will give legitimacy to the changes in both geography, including Bassetlaw & Chesterfield as constituent councils, and implementing the change to a Mayoral Combined Authority. In the meantime the Officers of the Authority will continue to try and get clarification on Theresa May's recent comments about devolutionary Mayors and the impact of the legal proceedings undertaken by Derbyshire County Council.

That draft order should arrive back on SCRA desks in time for it to be considered at the meeting on the 24th October. If that meeting agrees, the order will then go before Parliament for a vote as soon thereafter as possible, probably by mid November. Only then will the Electoral Commission begin work on the Mayoral election process, which should be finalised around the New Year.

The election of the Mayor will then take place in May of 2017.

As I point out in the article for Now Then, however, there are still questions to be answered about Chesterfield's status and, yet again, about which of these processes, Parliamentary vote or legal dispute, will take precedence overall. This devolution deal could still sink without trace, expect more on this in the next month.

The First 100 Days – The Mayor of Sheffield City Region

On the 14th July I attended an event organised by the Centre for Cities, an independent cities think tank. I won't comment on their political colour, check out their website and judge for yourself. It was hosted by the Centre's Chief Executive, Alexandra Jones.

---

The panel for the event were Lord David Blunkett - Chair of the Sheffield City Partnership Board, June Smith – Engineering Employers Federation(EEF) and Dr Craig Berry – Deputy Director of Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute(SPERI). The audience amassed about 50 or so, mostly male, all white and generally over 50, reflecting the general apathy around this whole debate.

Alexandra Jones introduced the event as part 4 of the continuing programme of discussion on the priorities of City Region Mayors, to be elected in May 2017, focussing on the first 100 days of the role. She described the historic nature of the changes and the success of the Manchester Region in securing further deals above and beyond the original devolution agenda. She did also however express concern over the lack of certainty for the whole devolution agenda with ongoing changes in the Cabinet and the acknowledged role of Osbourne as the champion for these deals.

As she was speaking I have to say my own thoughts were more about this not being the least bit historic, as it was not a constitutional change, but just one more in a string of local governments re-organisations dating back to the 70's. My thoughts on the Manchester deals was around the £1Bn hole in their Health budget and their recent accession to the 'Justice' system powers due to have budget cuts of 25 to 30% next year. Devolution of powers or austerity & blame?

---

The first speaker was Lord Blunkett. His first comments were to clearly state that he was not going to put himself forward for the Mayoral job. That list is getting shorter by the day. He then went on to outline three areas he felt the Mayor should concentrate on in the first 100 days. Briefly these were; To have created a manifesto based on the ideals of the Sheffield 'Fairness Commission', to work to heal the divide in the city and the Region and to bring all the Councils together in common cause, recognising that sometimes the rivalries within the region and further afield were counter productive. To reach out to councils & councillors and ensure a definite role for them in the region. To look at the role of the public & civic society and potentially take on the lessons of the 'citizen's assemblies'. To develop something more than just an economic policy role for the Mayor, adding social policies as well. He briefly commented on Europe and envisaged a potential for the Mayor in engaging with EU cities to bridge the 'Brexit' gap and potentially a new Hanseatic League to foster European ties.

---

The next speaker was June Smith of the EEF. Her main points were about the Mayor's role in business and local government working together to optimise growth for the region. Getting planners to understand the needs of businesses and develop pro-business policies. There were also comments about the diversity of businesses in the region and the need for a broader range of businesses to be heard by the region and the Local Enterprise Partnership(LEP) and that the EEF could help with that. Finally that the Mayor's role with transport should ensure it supports growth of business and develop a consistent approach to business support.

---

Dr Craig Berry rounded off the speakers and he started with a warning that the current model of devolution was unlikely to deliver sustainability and growth particularly after Brexit. The theory on which the city regions were expected to succeed, 'agglomeration' around economic benefits, showed no evidence for developing successful cities and that the most successful cities were where the state had an integral role in involving social policies in the regions. He also commented that agglomeration was a divisive type of growth as it meant winners & losers. He asserted that we need to go further in to the basics of power and discuss on a national basis where powers should reside and make devolution plans appropriate to that outcome, before city regions could be truly successful. He was also concerned that the model in place would only further entrench the adversarial politics under which we currently operate, illustrating an assumption that seemed common to the panel that only political parties would field candidates.

---

The chair then opened the discussion to comments and questions from the floor. I won't try to provide comprehensive coverage, as the event will probably be available online in due course. My own comments and question were around the earlier comments I made on the lack of constitutional settlement for these devolution deals and the doubts around Manchester's deal and the transfer of austerity blame as well as powers. My final comment and question was to highlight the forecast by Barclay's that the UK is about to enter a year of recession and what would happen to promised funding if the city region failed to meet growth targets.

The responses were weak and centred around the idea that a positive and ambitious approach to the devolution deals and the Mayoral model will give business confidence enough to continue to invest. The crux of my question about the funding link to growth and the consequences of failing to meet those targets was not responded to by any of the panellists.

---

Where does that leave us? For me I feel the whole devolution agenda is now in serious trouble. Brexit has undermined the funding basis for a great deal of the regions ambitions, particularly for the Universities and the 'knowledge economy' they represent. The sacking of George Osbourne removes the champion of devolution from the game and with a cabinet minister at DCLG (Department of Communities & Local Government) who is a proven centraliser, he is responsible for the decision to close the Sheffield office of the Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) department, there may be precious little enthusiasm for continuing or expanding the whole process of devolution.

We are all whistling in the dark and hoping that the nightmare goes away. Meanwhile uncertainty and chaos reigns in Government and Opposition and the UK continues to drift.

Sheffield City Region Devolution - The Brexit Impact

On Monday 27th June 2016 I attended the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) to hear the answer to a series of questions I put to them about the impact of the Referendum result.

---

The reason I was putting questions at this early stage was to see what the impact of the decision would be on current City Region projects and on the whole 'devolution' process for the region.

These are the questions I asked.

Urgent Questions to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 27th June 2016
Q1 How much of the SCRCA and LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) funding is directly related to EU membership? (value & percentage please)
Q2 What will be the impact of the referendum result on the SCRCA's Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)?
Q3 What will happen to the EU funded business support services?
Q4 What will be the impact on 14-19 year olds on the Employment Support Fund (ESF) support programmes?
Q5 Does the SCRCA expect agreed funding to now be frozen during exit negotiations?
Q6 Does the SCRCA expect 2014-2020 funding already spent to be clawed back?
Q7 How does the referendum result affect the draft scheme papers being considered by this meeting and should these proposals be delayed until the impact is fully appreciated?
Q8 Where does this leave the whole devolution process if the SCRCA are to be underfunded and unable to meet their growth commitments?
Q9 Was any of this discussed with Government ministers before the referendum and if so what was their response?

I admit my questions were given at short notice, over the weekend, but I was hoping that some of the matters in the questions would have been considered before the referendum took place. It certainly was by some as Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) held a series of round table discussions on the subject, one of which was in Sheffield and at which City Council and City region leaders were allegedly present.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to be informed by the Chair of the SCRCA, Sir Steve Houghton, (Leader of Barnsley Council) that none of this information was immediately available and some of the impacts would only come out over several months. I understand the comments on the impacts being slow to emerge but am more than somewhat shocked that they were unable to give a figure on the amount of EU investment we receive in the region. Surely this was information they used in their campaigning during the referendum.

---

At that point I suggested that I thought they would be able to at least answer question 9. The Chair had to check what that question was, (had he not read them before the non-answer I was given?) and then responded that, since the result they'd had discussions with Civil Servants about the devolution process and were advised by them to assume everything would carry on.

That was that. The meeting went on to rubber stamp the rest of the agenda items, setting the stage for the new devolution and the City Region Mayor, with barely a comment from any of the political leadership in attendance.

---

The responses or lack of them indicate to me a level of complacency within the City Region leadership about the referendum itself, the potential for a 'Leave' result and an almost negligent approach to their forward planning. What sort of organisation fails to consider all the potential outcomes of such an historical vote?

The Region and it would seem the Authority meant to be in charge of it are now floundering in the dark and for who knows how long? To carry on putting time and money into a project with such an uncertain future would seem to me to be the height of folly.

Devolution – Now What? - Afterword

Once again this year, for the spring season of Sheffield's Festival of Debate, I hosted a panel discussion on devolution. In 2015 the panel debated what we were looking for from devolution for the city in the run up to the General Election. This year we were to look at what the recently agreed devolution looked like and where devolution might go next.

---

Another great panel, of diverse views, came together at the Central United Reformed Church to get to grips with it all. Jenny Cronin is Chair of Unlock Democracy Manchester, there to give a community activist opinion, seen from a City Region further down the line than Sheffield. Andy Gates is Head of Policy for Sheffield's City Region Executive Team, responsible for making devolution work and part of the team that negotiated the current deal. Dr Arianna Giovannini is a researcher at Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute based in the University of Sheffield, with a particular interest in devolution and territorial identity. Louise Haigh MP was elected in 2015 as Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley and has had a very busy first year with her appointment to the Shadow Cabinet. Robin McAlpine is a Director of Common Weal the Scottish 'think and do tank' campaigning for social and economic equality in Scotland and was the only returning panellist from 2015. Finally we had Dr. Andy Mycock, Reader in Politics from the University of Huddersfield with strong opinions on the Devo Manc deal. He also researches on devolution, & the development of active citizenship.

Whilst I don't have space for a blow by blow account of the evening I will try to give shape to the overall discussion and the Q&A that was the major part of the evening. Picking out particular points of interest will be difficult, as a devolution geek it was entirely fascinating for me, but I'll do what I can. That means a wordy post I'm afraid but that can't be helped.

---

Each panellist gave an initial opening comment, on how they thought the current crop of deals panned out and what the future might look like. Without exception it was highlighted that the current 'devolution' or 'city deals' were light on real power transfer and were aimed almost exclusively at economic development rather than political power. There was also a significant consensus that the deals were an 'elite to elite' process and that the public were excluded, apart from some very weak after the fact, consultation. That lack of public involvement has lead Andy Mycock to a new campaign, in Manchester, called the 'People's Plan' to address the deficit.

There was concern expressed that the Sheffield deal was an unnatural combination of councils, in respect of identity, crossing county borders and that this would make consensus decision making more difficult. Andy Gates reinforced the point that this reflected the economic region, which was in line with the economic development content of the deal. This also led to some panellists being concerned that the deal was simply a way to pass the blame for future funding cuts to the devolved authorities rather than central government.

Looking to the future, all panellists agreed the public needed to be more integral to what happens with devolution next. Whether that was as architects of the next stages or simply through better informing them and better consultation over the plans, was a point of contention. It was, as Robin McAlpine is fond of saying, the difference between doing devolution for ourselves or having devolution done to us. He also reminded us that the path to Scottish devolution was neither easy nor fast. This brought up other concerns from panellists about the pressure for quick decisions on the current deals and the resultant ad hoc nature of different deals for different regions.

---

The Q&A centred, essentially, around four issues. The lack of knowledge and therefore engagement of the public, the imposition of the model and particularly the Mayor for the region, The very little amount of real power and even less money actually provided by the deals and the competitive nature of the negotiations and, despite the rhetoric, the danger of the regions becoming competitors for growth and economic development.

For some of the audience the make up and purpose of the city region was confusing, including which councils were members and why? Andy Gates stressed the economic footprint of the region, with Sheffield as the main driver of growth and development in the region but with the other councils being strongly bound to that economy. Arianna pointed out the difficulties of that combination in terms of developing a regional identity beyond economics when the region crosses County boundaries and Andy Gates and I further complicated matters by trying to explain the different types of Council membership. Which electorates can and can't vote for the Mayor etc.

On engagement Robin commented on the strength of the Scottish referendum campaign, being the depth and breadth of discussions, from pubs and street corners, to community halls and major debates, public involvement was at the heart of the campaign and the reason so many were involved at the actual vote. The 'elite to elite' negotiations of the English devolution deals on the other hand has purposefully excluded the public and for the City Region, Andy Gates saw this as a problem and one they hope to overcome for future devolution progress.

---

The concerns around the imposition of the same general model of a mayoral authority was universally seen as a problem by the panellists. Particularly because, despite this general model, each region was being given different versions of the model. Louise Haigh admitted that the opposition had lost control of the devolution debate in Parliament, unable to offer an alternative. In response to one particular question, it was also universally acknowledged by the panel that the devolution agenda and the 'Northern Powerhouse' was almost entirely about the Chancellor positioning himself for higher office.

The position and powers of the Mayor were also of concern to the audience and the panel. In the agreement, the Mayor has a veto over all decisions made by the combined authority, even though this is supposedly to be addressed by the authority's constitution. Even if, and it's a big if, that is the case, there was much comment from the panel on the confusion about who votes for the Mayor and what powers they will wield over those areas that don't vote for them. It was also commented on by both Andy Mycock and myself, in response to a question, that the process of the election of the Mayor is still a mystery, even though the vote is within a year and the candidates for Manchester are beginning to declare themselves. One member of the audience also asked about any recall powers, following the problems over our local PCC, such recall is not currently part of the agreement.

---

With questions on the region's powers and the new monies being made available, the panel all agreed the cash was never going to make up for the cash lost to austerity cuts in any individual council of the region, never mind the region as a whole. Andy gates indicated the money coming forth for all the aspects of the deal would now be in a common pot, rather than just the £30M a year 'extra' money but how this impacts on the expectations of parts of the deal, around what the region must achieve on behalf of central government targets, is still unclear. More than one panellist also gave voice to the concern about this being a means for passing the blame for austerity on to councils in budgets, particularly in Manchester, where future cuts were expected. (ie. Fire, Police & Health)

Lastly, on the questions about growth and competition between regions, there was no clear answer. It was accepted that retention of business rates growth would lead to reduction of the redistribution effects for more deprived areas and potentially competition for development funds within the city region. Inevitably in the current world economic uncertainty there may also be competition between devolved regions as their ability to meet government targets become harder. As to what happens if growth stalls completely, no-one really wanted to broach that issue.

---

At the end of the Q&A each panellist had time for a brief review of their initial views. The consensus remained on the need to engage the public better in future progress. As did the consensus over the desirability of devolution as a concept. From the community and academic point of view there seemed to be general agreement that the public should be in the driving seat of future devolution plans and from Louise there was the concession that opposition parties needed to start talking alternative models and also the potential of convening a form of constitutonal consultation or assembly to thrash out the best way forward.

---

I'd like to express my thanks to all the panellists for their time and their really valuable contributions. I doubt I've really done them individual justice. Thanks to the audience for engaging in the debate with thought and enthusiasm and finally my thanks to the Festival of Debate for indulging my passion for devolution and allowing me to host this event under their banner.

---

On one final note, there is something we all need to be aware of. This devolution is not a constitutional change. It is no more than a piece of legislation that alters the local and regional governance of parts of England. The next government could change the rules, the shape and the powers of these deals with another piece of legislation. Perhaps we shouldn't get too used to this devolution, it may not last.

Sheffield's 'Devolution' Deal – The Last Lap?

Friday's special Full Council meeting voted to approve the ratification of the so called 'devolution' deal that first came out of it's closet in October last year.

---

Until October, following Manchester jumping first, the deal was in the offing but because of secretive negotiations, any details were entirely unknown. The deal hit the ground running with a public signing ceremony complete with the Chancellor and the four Metro Council leaders of South Yorkshire looking cosy, right before the Conservative Party Conference. Despite later insistence from the council leaders that this was a 'proposal', a signed document committed them to a process to agree the deal, either as it stood or subject, as it turns out to some further negotiation.

From that point on and with the relentless pressure of Government timetables snapping at their heals, the councils of the Combined Authority have acted with what some would call undue haste to ensure a deal was done. Questions and concerns from community groups and members of the public were played down, particularly around issues of a Metro mayor with veto powers and the wide range of clauses within the deal that were vague and uncertain. Funnily enough the Mayor's veto later became a 'red line' issue for Sheffield council.

---

So, by leaps and bounds, the process moved on. Discussions continued, behind closed doors, yet until late December the public was largely omitted from the process. A public consultation did happen over Christmas & New Year, (great timing) and the results were finally reported to the City Region mired in positive spin. Then councils started their ratification processes. Barnsley, Rotherham & Doncaster voted for the deal in very short order. No surprise really, the leader of Barnsley had commented at a Sheffield City Council scrutiny meeting that 'without this deal he would be unable to provide public services in Barnsley in the very near future'.

The North Midlands councils voted in favour, some agreeing to become full constituent members of the City Region, enabling them to vote for the Mayor. Only Sheffield remained. Before the meeting on Friday, Julie Dore's 'red lines' were apparently resolved to the council's satisfaction and the stage was set for a yes vote.

---

As a Full Council meeting there was a space for public questions. Only two members of the public were there to ask questions and, no surprise, I was one of them. In my question I outlined the litany of broken promises, pledges and targets typical of the last six years of 'austerity' and the essence of my question, rounded out by a number of technical points, was;

“Does the Council believe it can trust the current Government to honour it's commitments with respect to this so called 'Devolution' deal?”

The response came from Julie Dore, as Council Leader. The response was, essentially, no we cannot trust the Government. The Council will have to work ceaselessly to ensure the commitments are met and if they renege on any of the promises within the deal, we will withdraw. She also pointed out that until the order approving the deal went before Parliament there was still time to do so.

The Leader commented that this was the only deal available at the moment and that no-one could afford to miss the boat. Without this deal our city and our economy would fall even further behind the rest of the Cities in the country and that, even though the Government continue to control the purse strings, they can cut funding now or in the future with impunity anyway.

---

The chamber then went on to debate the deal amongst the political parties. At this point it all becomes quite acrimonious and playground behaviour. The gist of most of the contributions however were to the same effect. It's the only deal on offer, we know we can't trust the Government, any extra money is better than none, we make better decisions locally.

The missing links for me were around responsibility and blame. Nobody really acknowledged how the deal will enable the Government to place some of the responsibility for future austerity in local hands as well. If the deal falls apart through funding cuts, no matter what the facts of the situation, the blame will fall on the City Region and therefore the councils. That may not be true nor fair but that is how it will play out in the political spin olympics in Parliament and in the hostile media.

---

So with fingers crossed and hearts full of hope and dread in equal measure, it would seem, the Labour and Lib/Dem Councillors in Sheffield have set sail on Osborne's great experiment. The final act will be the ratification of the deal by the City Region Combined Authority , on the 31st March, followed by frantic, no doubt secret, discussions to try and get all the uncertainties resolved before an order is laid before Parliament towards the end of the year.

'Devolution' – Decision Day.

Sheffield City Council have announced a special meeting of the Full Council on Friday 18th March at 5pm in the Town Hall, to consider and vote upon the latest version of the Chancellor's 'Devolution' offer to the City Region.

I have written about and asked questions of Council, Cabinet and City Region, endlessly it sometimes seems, on this subject. Now, although the two matters deemed 'red line' issues for the Council have been largely clarified, many of my concerns remain unanswered and may remain so for many months after the decision.

Initially, when I raised my concerns over the 'mayoral veto' in October 2015, I was told 'that paragraph' would be changed during redrafting of the proposal. Strange then that this issue should have to become one of the Council's 'red line' issues before HMG conceded that the veto could be superceded by the City Region's Constitution. Cllr Julie Dore, at the Cabinet meeting of 9th March 2016 confirmed that the Constitution of the SCRCA would have primacy in law over the devolution agreement between SCRCA and HMG. Let's hope this never has to be tested in court.

So the first 'red line' issue is sort of dealt with, The second is somewhat trickier and illustrates the divisions in the City Region.

Regional Geography was always going to be an awkward issue. I raised the problem of a City Region Mayor that would only represent the 4 Metro Councils back in October 2015 and it was clearly an uncomfortable issue for the City Region as a whole. The decisions about who could vote on which issues and decisions in City Region meetings were constantly part of the background uncertainty of this geography. In effect, there was to be a two tier Region, Tier 1, the 4 Metro Councils with votes on all matters. Tier 2, the district Councils, attached both to the City Region and to their County Councils, able to vote on a restricted number of matters.

The changes that Sheffield negotiated into the 'Cities Bill' have enabled the 2nd tier councils to choose whether to be a full member of the City Region or remain connected to their County Councils. This was a red line with the city as they wanted to ensure a City Region that would fully involve both types of councils not just the 4 Metros. As it stands, only Chesterfield has chosen to become a full member so far and Bassetlaw is likely to be the second to agree on the day before the Sheffield Council meeting. This is, apparently, enough for Sheffield to consider the geography issue resolved, even though 3 of the 5 North Midlands Councils will remain 2nd tier and unable to vote for the Region Mayor or on many other matters before the City Region.

So two 'red lines' bodged and now Council are full steam ahead to ratify the agreement and commit the City to a future as a regional powerhouse. Though recent government decisions seem to suggest that it may be in name only.

Personally, I think it is essential that the city is part of a larger power bloc in order to combat the centralising mindset of the Civil Service and of many MPs as well, I continue to doubt if this is the right solution. The very fact that the Chancellor and the Treasury are so adamant that this will happen rings alarms for me. I've had private discussions with Department for Communities & Local Government officers that suggest they are equally unhappy with the current steamroller of devolution deals and that should concern us all. They comment on the lack of public knowledge of the deals, the lack of consultation and the secrecy of the negotiation process as their concerns, all of which I share.

---

Other concrete issues are also left up in the air for some future negotiation and agreement. So that, even after the Council make their decision, the details and context of the agreement may shift subtly and probably against local interests. If you read the article I wrote in October 2015, and compare that to the relentlessly positive comments within the Council documents and particularly looking at Appendix 4 and the comments that try and spin any negative to a positive in the public consultation you will understand they mean to have their way on this, despite the public's doubts and even the doubts within Cabinet and Party at city level.

---

You now have a few days to let your Councillor know how you feel about this issue before the vote on the 18th, I hope you will, I shall be firing off emails, just in case my local Councillors don't read this article.

Power to the North? - the jury is still out.

I attended an interesting event on Friday 22nd of January, in Leeds University, entitled “Power to the North? Prospects and Challenges to Devolution & City Deals in the North of England” and the aim of the event was to “gather views from across Yorkshire and the North of England on devolution, the Northern Powerhouse, and ‘City Deals’, so as to reflect on and understand the impact, potential and challenges of the new agenda.”

---

A weighty aim by any standards for a one day event but an aim that was largely met. An opening address by Professor Martin Jones of the University of Sheffield highlighted the way government has and continues to get in the way of local government running their own affairs. He commented on a governmental pathology of re-organisation over the last forty years or more and the plethora of strategies, programmes and 'deals' that have been applied, willing or not, to local government in the same period.

He also outlined the contradictory tensions inherent in the current dash for 'devolution deals' with the city regions. Localism and it's impact on the centre, Accountability and how it's created, the role of the Private Sector in these deals & Governance models, imposed or otherwise.

---

This was followed by a keynote speech by Lord Bob Kerslake, a name famous or infamous in Sheffield from his years as the City's Chief Executive. Having recently retired as a head of the civil service and been elevated to the Lords, he is chairing an all party inquiry into 'better devolution'

The interesting bits in this speech were his comments that the public were so far missing in this conversation about the devolution programme. We, the public, have noticed this. He also suggested that devolution is not universally approved of within central government because it is disruptive to the civil service and their own central programmes. This comment in particular explains for me why so many parts of the Sheffield deal are still under negotiation or are based on delivering central government targets rather than targets set locally by the city region.

---

We then broke for a light lunch and although he was in a hurry to catch a train I did manage to ask if Lord Kerslake might consider standing as the elected mayor for the Sheffield City Region. He demurred, commenting he would not wish to do that job.

---

The afternoon session was a series of 'roundtables'. Groups of speakers commenting from their perspective on the challenges of the 'devolution' deals. The first was politicians and senior council officers. The consensus amongst them was that the deals were the best available at the moment and that without the deals, austerity would ensure that Northern councils would continue to perform poorly compared to their Southern counterparts. They also espoused the need for co-operation between the Northern cities but also managed to snipe about Sheffield having spoiled a Yorkshire consensus, even though Manchester was the first deal of this nature in the North and that this broke the consensus.

The second round table was composed of community campaigners. The politicians of course left so they would not have to hear what the public thought about the issues. The consensus from the communities was one of uncertainty. Whether about the secrecy of the negotiations process, the lack of public involvement through meaningful consultation or the didactic imposition of structures and governance for the regions.

Finally there was a round table of academics. They were broadly in agreement with the community panel, concerned about lack of public understanding and support for the process and the resultant deals. The report by Dr. Brenton Prosser on the Assembly North events in Sheffield highlighted that the general public are more than capable of analysing and debating complex issues around constitution and devolution and that, in many cases, their ambition for the regions and cities of the North is far greater than the 'pragmatist' ambitions of the political classes.

---

Overall therefore, an interesting day. Disappointing that the politicos failed to stay for the presentations of the community and academic panels but no real surprise. It is as if they are unwilling to listen to the alternatives in case they find they agree with them. Central Government has local politicians scared to refuse the offers on the table, even though they are not what they want or what the public want. I guess the ambitious devolutionists amongst us must continue to press for more, even if we are being treated like Oliver in front of Mr Bumble.

City Region Devolution - A Deal on the Brink.

The Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal is a bit like the weather this winter, unsettled.

---

The deal is currently available for public consultation and finally, with just a few days left, it is now linked on the front page of the Council's website . The next stage should be a formal decision, in February, by the Sheffield City Council to support or reject the deal. This decision then goes forward to a meeting of the Combined Authority in March where they will vote on the same question.

If the vote is in favour of the deal then it is intended that the implementation would start on the first of April. Exactly what that would look like though is still not clear at this stage, as Council officials involved in the negotiations with central government have admitted that all the details of the full agreement will not be completed even at that point.

---

In the Public Questions item on this last Wednesday's Full Council Meeting I asked a number of questions about the devolution consultation, including exactly when the proposal would be brought before council for a decision.

Julie Dore (Leader), commented that the two 'red line' concerns of the City Council were still not resolved. That is, the removal from the proposed agreement of the paragraph giving the elected mayor a veto on all decisions of the Combined Authority (a far more powerful role than any initially expected) and clarification on the impact of the amendment to the 'Cities & Local Government Devolution Bill' with regard to Combined Authority councils that are currently part of two tier County Council structures.

In other words, Sheffield wants the power of the Mayor to be circumscribed to specific areas of decision making and they want to know what happens if a North Derbyshire council wants to drop their County and become full 'constituent' members of the City Region.

I've been pushing concerns over the first of these 'red lines' since the proposed deal was first released to the public in October 2015 negotiators have now caught on to this veto clause too. The geography question matters because the financing of two tier council's is bound to their County and how this will play out if a council decides to switch sides is still unclear. Things like police funding, fire services, education, transport and highways are all complex matters that need to be clarified before any such move might be contemplated.

---

Most interesting about Councillor Dore's comments, however, was concerning the timing of the decision making process for the proposed deal. All along the City Region has been dancing to the beat of the government's drum. The deal was announced in time for the Conservative Party conference, and the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. The pressure to have the deal signed sealed and implemented in April is from the Government.

Julie Dore plainly stated at the council meeting that she will not bring the proposed deal before the council until these 'red line' issues are resolved. She has made it doubly clear that she will no longer follow the HMG time scale but will take as long as necessary to get the deal right even if that means missing the deadline for the February Council Meeting, or the March Combined Authority Meeting or the proposed implementation on April first.

---

The Devolution Proposal is now on the brink of failing. If HMG won't budge and Council won't budge we enter uncharted waters. Will council step away from devolution at this time? Will HMG move on to other potential deals with other authorities? Will the Northern Cities find their courage to fight for true devolution rather than this expanded 'City Deal'?

---

In the Meantime please continue to have your say by completing the Devolution Survey and I will continue to try and keep you aware of the developments.

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE
SHEFFIELD CITY REGION DEVOLUTION SURVEY

---

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SHEFFIELD CITY REGION DEVOLUTION AGREEMENT

Sheffield Devolution – The Merry Go Round.

The resemblance between the proposed devolution deal for the Sheffield City Region and a fairground roundabout has become more evident as time goes by.

---

The public consultation on the 'deal' is finally underway and it is being presented to the public covered in bright lights, gaudy new paint and upbeat loud music. Like a merry go round, however, the deal seems to be constantly shifting, of uncertain safety and already some people are thinking about jumping off.

The devolution proposal was signed by the Chancellor and various local leaders in October. At this stage Osborne made it look like a done deal but local Council leaders have always maintained the 'proposed' deal status in their meetings. Following the signing of the proposal I read the document quite carefully and published, on this blog, my initial concerns and comments about the potential pitfalls of the devolution deal here.

---

Although this article contained many comments, my biggest concerns were over the imposition of an 'elected Mayor' for the Region and the apparent power of veto that the Mayor would wield within the Combined Authority. I raised these concerns at the next meeting of the City Region Combined Authority. Before the meeting officials suggested that the way the agreement was written might be interpreted as a Mayoral veto but that this was not the intention and would be clarified in the further negotiations.

In fact I asked three questions and the minuted answers can be found here. The second of my questions asked about the consultation process and the timescale. This was proposed to start on the 16th November and finish after five weeks. Fortunately, prior to that there was a unique opportunity for the public to get an early say on the deal and the alternatives.

---

Over two weekends, 17th &18th October and 7th &8th November the Assembly North, a pilot 'citizens assembly was being conducted by Democracy Matters , a partnership of four universities and the Electoral Reform Society. The lead researcher was Professor Matt Flinders of the Crick Centre of the University of Sheffield.

Over those two weekends the participants, chosen by an independent polling organisation and representative of the four South Yorkshire council areas, were treated to a hothouse atmosphere, listening to various experts and advocates, myself included, about different forms of devolution. They debated amongst themselves, facilitated by Democracy Matters volunteers, and finally took a series of votes on the potential devolution prospects for the region.

The Assembly's initial conclusions are detailed in the press release here and the results may have knocked a little of the shine off the merry go rounds message. Apart from asking for more extensive devolution than the deal allows, the Assembly also voted two to one against accepting the current deal. A vote also came out strongly against the Mayoral model. This despite receiving strong positive pitches from John Mothersole (Chief Exec Sheffield City Council), Sir Steve Houghton (Chair of the City Region Combined Authority & Leader of Barnsley Borough Council) and Mike Emmerich (Founding Director at Metro Dynamics Limited) who currently advises other combined authorities about their devolution deals.

---

Since then the formal public consultation has been an on again off again affair. It certainly didn't arrive on the 16th November as promised. By the 29th November there were conflicting suggestions that it might start on the 1st December. On that date the consultation made a brief appearance on websites for the City Region and on the City Council's 'consultation hub' but, by the evening, had disappeared again.

The consultation formally went live on the 2nd December, yet on the same date in answer to a question at Full Council from me and supported by a press release the same day, Sheffield's support for the deal came under doubt. It seems the concerns I had raised early on were also being felt within the leadership. The leader of the Council, Julie Dore has always maintained her opposition to the Mayoral model for the Region but was willing to accept the imposition from Government if the deal was good enough.

Now, however, the potential for a Mayoral veto on Regional decisions is sharply in focus and they are reportedly in renewed negotiations with the Government to amend this part of the deal. Cllr Dore has gone so far as to state that she cannot support the deal if the Mayoral veto stays. The report on this new stance from the BBC here.

---

The latest spin on the devolution merry go round is a single issue meeting of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on Thursday 10 December 2015 4.00 pm in the Town Hall. This committee's role includes “Lead the scrutiny of high level cross-cutting and city-wide issues.” They will therefore use this meeting to discuss and come to some conclusion about the devolution deal. The agenda for the meeting is here. I would urge anyone who is about on Thursday, that can, to attend the meeting and see the Council's scrutiny function in action.

They will look to answer two broad questions;
What are the potential benefits of the proposed devolution agreement for Sheffield and the City Region?
What additional powers are required from Government to generate the economic impact we are seeking?
These questions and the background papers attached to the agenda are unremittingly positive about the deal and none of the concerns or pitfalls, apparent to many of us, are provided for balance.

More curious for me is, how is it possible address and scrutinise this deal when the detail is so vague and with large parts of it subject to further negotiation? The committee could end up supporting or opposing a 'deal' which bears no resemblance to the final outcome. It will be interesting to see.

---

I continue to have huge reservations about any devolution deal that has been negotiated in secret, imposes any model of governance that we, the public, have not been able to have a say on via the ballot box and that is being pushed through at breakneck speed for Government and the Chancellor's own reasons.

The deal however is here and we have just this one chance to have our say as members of the public. So get involved and fill out the consultation survey here. If you want to do more than that, get in touch with your councillors, tell them directly your views and ask them to represent your opinion in the vote that comes to Full Council in February or March.