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.

---

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.

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.

Biased Consultation Proposed at Sheffield City Region Meeting?

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 26th October 2015

This meeting turned out to be more informative than I expected. Not, however, because of the information volunteered by the chair of the meeting but because I could see, through the door of the meeting room, the presentation they received about the proposed consultation on the new 'Devolution Deal'.

---

There is nearly always a pre-meeting on these occasions, an opportunity for the members to discuss matters they don't wish the public to hear. This means that when the public portion of the meeting arrives they are able to race through the agenda in practised style, with little potential for controversy or need for debate.

It leaves something of a gap in the idea of transparency and open decision making. We do not get to see our representatives in action on issues that may cause disagreement, giving a false idea of an authority in complete consensus.

---

So, what did I learn from this pre-meeting slideshow? I learned that the proposed consultation is in danger of being flawed and biased. The comments on the presentation indicate a bias towards a positive message on the 'deal' and emphasising why the 'deal' is right for the City Region. Potential therefore that the documents in the consultation will be positive on acceptance of the 'deal', rather than neutral and equitable.

Phrases like “good deal”, “supported by the private sector”, “City Region at the forefront of the Northern Powerhouses”, leading the way”, “new money – new powers”, “protects sovereignty of Councils”, “residents & businesses well served by negotiations”, "Mayor & Combined Authority as partners”, “appropriate checks and balances”, all lead to the conclusion that the consultation is being seen as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a process to enable our representatives to assess our point of view before making up their own minds.

At the end of the full meeting Vicky Seddon (Sheffield for Democracy) and myself took the new officer employed for this role to task. We emphasised the need for the consultation information received by the public to be unbiased and that if members of the Combined Authority wished to voice support for the 'deal' that should be a matter for them rather than for the supposedly neutral public servants carrying out the consultation.

It is unfortunate that the City Region put an officer in this position in the first place and that their desire to emphasise the positive aspects of the deal should be considered as something appropriate for official papers about the consultation. The officer appeared to take this on board and agreed to feed our comments back to the Combined Authority but I suspect we will have to keep a very close eye on this consultation.

---

In the main meeting I asked three questions related to the 'Devolution Deal'.

1 Will the Combined Authority clarify the exact voting arrangements for each Council, constituent & non-constituent? The Chair's response was (in short) that only constituent members need to consent to the 'Mayor' aspect of the 'deal' but that the 4 constituent members, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham, and the non-constituent members form N Derbys & N Notts would need to consent to the 'deal' in the Combined Authority decision.

2 Can the Combined Authority comment on the detail of the timescale from this point onwards? Response was that the Combined Authority would be asked to endorse the 'proposed deal' today. The City Region would then carry out consultation during November and December (but dates were not given) before individual Councils were expected to make their decision between January and March of 2016 and the final City Region decision would have to be made before 16th March. The 'deal' would them be implemented from 1st April (interesting choice April Fools Day).

3 Can the Combined Authority assure the public that the next draft of the 'deal' will be written with less openness to interpretation? (Para 4 seems to offer a Mayor's veto) Response was that the final document will be a 'Ministerial Order' which will be very detailed and technical and that all the relationships in the proposal were still subject to further negotiation. There is no intention at this time to give the Mayor a veto.

The final two sentences are a bit concerning, we are to be consulted on a draft rather than a final agreement (what changes may be made in secret, again) and a half hearted assurance on Mayoral veto powers (at this time?).

---

The meeting later progressed to endorse the proposal, subject to the consultation etc. James Newman, Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership, (private sector businesses) commented that the LEP would undertake a similar consultation with local businesses over a similar timescale.

The meeting did nothing to assuage my concerns about aspects of this 'deal' and raised even more concerns over the neutrality of the consultation process. Keep an eye out for more in the next few weeks.

Sheffield City Region 'Devolution' Deal, with comments by Nigel Slack

This post details the devolution deal as currently written and signed by the leaders of the four Councils of South Yorkshire and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have added my own comments to the post, highlighted, expressing areas of concern and areas where clarification is needed or questions should be asked.

I hope you can each get something from this, despite the sometimes opaque or vague wording and that it will prompt further reading, and questioning of your elected representatives as a result.

---

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Devolution Deal

This document sets out the terms of a proposed agreement between Government and the leaders of the Sheffield City Region to devolve a range of powers and responsibilities to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and a new directly elected mayor. Building on the City Deal, agreed in 2012, the Growth Deals, agreed in July 2014 and January 2015 and initial Devolution Agreement, agreed in December 2014, this Devolution Deal marks the next step in the transfer of resources and powers from central Government to the Sheffield City Region. All of these deals negotiated in secret and without public consultation or approval

The devolution proposal and all levels of funding are subject to the Spending Review and Sheffield City Region consulting on the proposals and ratification from the local authorities. But only the 4 Metros, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham This agreement is subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation (The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill and the Buses Bill), and to parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation implementing the provisions of this agreement. None of this is guaranteed. If one council disagrees it can be forced to accept, two refusing will sink the deal.

This agreement will enable Sheffield City Region to accelerate the delivery of its Strategic Economic Plan, strengthening its position as a world class centre for advanced manufacturing and engineering.

Summary of the proposed Devolution Deal agreed by the Government and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority with the support of the Local Enterprise Partnership

A new, directly elected Sheffield City Region Mayor will act as Chair to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and will exercise the following powers and functions devolved from central Government:

Responsibility for a consolidated, devolved transport budget, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the Spending Review. £ Unknown

Responsibility for franchised bus services, which will support the Combined Authority’s delivery of smart and integrated ticketing across the Combined Authority’s constituent councils. Metros only

Responsibility for an identified Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be collaboratively managed and maintained at the city region level by the Combined Authority on behalf of the Mayor. Metros only?

Powers over strategic planning, including the responsibility to create a spatial framework for the city region and to chair the Sheffield City Region Joint Assets Board. Less control for Sheffield City Council?

The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCR CA), working with the Mayor, will receive the following powers:

Control of a new additional £30 million a year funding allocation over 30 years, to be invested to boost growth. Cuts to Sheffield Council alone in 2016 £50M

Responsibility for chairing an area-based review of 16+ skills provision, the outcomes of which will be taken forward in line with the principles of the devolved arrangements, and devolved 19+ adult skills funding from 2018/19.

Joint responsibility with Government to co-design employment support for the harder-to-help claimants, many of whom are currently referred to the Work Programme and Work Choice. SCR will also bring forward a proposal to pilot more intensive support for those furthest from the labour market. City Region workfare system?

More effective joint working with UKTI to boost trade and investment, and responsibility to work with Government to develop and implement a devolved approach to the delivery of national business support programmes from 2017.

In addition: None of which demand a Mayor

To support the development of the SCR Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, the Government will offer the Sheffield City Region expert advice and support to ensure they are able to put forward a City Region led proposal to undertake a Science and Innovation audit.

The Sheffield City Region will work with HM Government to achieve their ambitions for a national Institute for Infrastructure within Doncaster.

HM Government will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to agree specific funding flexibilities to a Spending Review timetable. The joint ambition will be to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority a single pot to invest in its economic growth.

Further powers may be agreed over time and included in future legislation. Carrot to ensure good behaviour?

---

Governance

1 Sheffield City Region (SCR) has taken bold steps in securing effective and accountable governance arrangements. The SCR Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was part of the first wave of LEPs established in 2010 and has been one of the strongest performers since then. The SCR was the first to submit plans for its Combined Authority under the Coalition Government, which was established in April 2014. The Combined Authority enables decisions on economic growth and development to be taken in an open and transparent way in one place for the whole of the SCR. Scrutiny and transparency still not established 1 year on

2 As part of this proposed agreement, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will adopt a model of a directly elected city region Mayor over the Combined Authority’s area with the first elections in May 2017. Interim arrangements? The existing Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will also be strengthened with additional powers. This takes the next step in transferring resources and powers from central Government to the Sheffield City Region. There is no intention to take existing powers from local authorities without agreement. Intention?/But if they agree? The agreement will protect the integrity of local authorities in the Sheffield City Region.

3 The directly elected Mayor for Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will autonomously exercise new powers. The Mayor will chair the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, the members of which will serve as the Mayor’s Cabinet. Leaders of the 4 metros? The Mayor and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be scrutinised and held to account by the SCR Overview and Scrutiny committee(s). Still in establishment phase The SCR Mayor will also be required to consult the SCR CA Cabinet on his/her strategies, which it may reject if two-thirds of the members agree to do so. 3 0f 4 Metros The SCR Cabinet will also examine the Mayor’s spending plans and will be able to amend his/her plans, if two-thirds of the members who have been appointed by constituent councils agree to do so. 3 of 4 metros

4 Proposals for decision by the Combined Authority may be put forward by the Mayor or any Cabinet Member. The Mayor will have one vote as will other voting members. Any questions that are to be decided by the Combined Authority are to be decided by a majority of the members present and voting, subject to that majority including the vote of the Mayor, Suggests Mayors Veto unless otherwise set out in legislation, or specifically delegated through the Authority's Constitution.

5 The Sheffield City Region Mayor and the other members of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be required to work closely together. Specifically:

a the Mayor will provide overall leadership and chair Combined Authority meetings; and

b the SCR Cabinet Model, where the leaders have a clear portfolio of responsibilities, will act as a supporting and advisory function to the Mayor and Combined Authority in respective policy areas. (1 This will be based on the constituent members of the Combined Authority but can be extended to include any other members of the Combined Authority that change their member status from non-constituent to constituent. )

c The Mayor will also be a member of the LEP, alongside the other members of the Combined Authority, recognising the importance of the private sector in any growth strategies or delivery. Main power lies with Mayor and Local Enterprise Partnership?

6 The recent changes to strengthen the governance arrangements in the Sheffield City Region by formally establishing five Executive Boards that have delegated decision making powers from the Combined Authority, are expected to continue as part of this agreement.

7 Economic growth is a shared endeavour and is vital in delivering the Northern Powerhouse ambitions. The Mayoral Combined Authority will continue to work very closely with HM Government for the benefit of the public. Whose definition of benefit?

8 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership commits to work with partners across the North of England to promote opportunities for pan-Northern collaboration, including Transport for the North, to drive northern productivity and build the Northern Powerhouse.

---

Skills (19+)

9 The Government will enable local commissioning of outcomes to be achieved from the 19+ adult skills budget starting in academic year 2016/17; and will fully devolve budgets to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority from academic year 2018/19 (subject to readiness conditions). These arrangements do not cover apprenticeships.

10 Devolution will proceed in three stages, across the next three academic years:

a Starting now, the SCR Combined Authority will begin to prepare for local commissioning. It will develop a series of outcome agreements with providers about what should be delivered in return for allocations in the 2016/17 academic year. This will replace the current system of funding by qualifications as providers will receive their total 19+ skills funding as a single block allocation. This new arrangement will allow the SCR Combined Authority to agree with providers the mix and balance of provision that will be delivered in return for the block funding, and to define how success will be assessed. Assumes privatised providers?

b For the 2017/18 academic year, and following the area review, Government will work with the SCR Combined Authority to vary the block grant allocations made to providers, within an agreed framework HMG Strings

c From 2018/19, there will be full devolution of funding. The SCR Combined Authority will be responsible for allocations to providers and the outcomes to be achieved, consistent with statutory entitlements. Government will not seek to second guess these decisions, but it will set proportionate requirements about outcome information to be collected in order to allow students to make informed choices. A funding formula for calculating the size of the grant to local / combined authorities will need to take into account a range of demographic, educational and labour market factors. Reward for good behaviour?

11 The readiness conditions for full devolution are that:

a Parliament has legislated to enable transfer to local authorities of the current statutory duties on the Secretary of State to secure appropriate facilities for further education for adults from this budget and for provision to be free in certain circumstances

b Completion of the Area Review process leading to a sustainable provider base

c After the area-reviews are complete, agreed arrangements are in place between central government and the Combined Authority to ensure that devolved funding decisions take account of the need to maintain a sustainable and financially viable 16+ provider base

d Clear principles and arrangements have been agreed between central government and the Combined Authority for sharing financial risk and managing failure of 16+ providers, reflecting the balance of devolved and national interest and protecting the taxpayer from unnecessary expenditure and liabilities Most risk to City Region?

e Learner protection and minimum standards arrangements are agreed

f Funding and provider management arrangements, including securing financial assurance, are agreed in a way that minimises costs and maximises consistency and transparency.

---

Skills (16-18)

12 HM Government commits to an Area Based Review of post-16 education and training leading to agreed recommendations by February 2016. The outcomes of the Area Based Review will be taken forward in line with the principles of the devolved arrangements. The review will be chaired by the Combined Authority and will include all post-16 education and training provision in the initial analysis phase. Recommendations will be focused on General FE and Sixth Form Colleges, however the Regional Schools Commissioner and the relevant local authorities will consider any specific issues arising from the reviews for school sixth form provision.

13 To ensure continued local collaboration following the Area Based Review, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work in partnership with local colleges and providers to publish a local skills strategy. This will aim to help ensure that post-16 providers are delivering the skills that local employers require. It is expected that the Combined Authority will then collaborate with colleges and providers, with appropriate support from EFA, to work towards that plan.

14 Following the Area Based Review, HM Government would expect the Regional Schools Commissioner to continue to engage with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to ensure local links and working are maintained.

15 HM Government will work with Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to ensure that local priorities are fed into the provision of careers advice, such that it is employer-led, integrated and meets local needs. In particular, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will ensure that local priorities are fed into provision through direct involvement and collaboration with HMG in the design of careers and enterprise provision for all ages, including collaboration on the work of the Careers and Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service. Vagueness about private/public provision

---

Employment

16 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work with DWP to co-design the future employment support, from April 2017, for harder-to-help claimants, many of whom are currently referred to the Work Programme and Work Choice.

17 The respective roles of DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority in the co-design will include:

a DWP sets the funding envelope, Sheffield City Region Combined Authority can top up if they wish to, but are not required to. Enables HMG to cut their share

b Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will set out how they will join up local public services in order to improve outcomes for this group, particularly how they will work with the Clinical Commissioning Groups/third sector to enable timely health-based support.

c DWP set the high-level performance framework and will ensure the support appropriately reflects labour market issues. The primary outcomes will be to reduce unemployment and move people into sustained employment. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will have some flexibility to determine specific local outcomes that reflect local labour market priorities, these outcomes should be complementary to the ultimate employment outcome (for example in-work wage progression). In determining the local outcome(s) Sheffield City Region Combined Authority should work with DWP to take account of the labour market evidence base and articulate how the additional outcome(s) will fit within the wider strategic and economic context and deliver value for money. Minimal autonomy in implementing workfare

d Before delivery commences, DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will set out an agreement covering the respective roles of each party in the delivery and monitoring of the support, including a mechanism by which each party can raise and resolve any concern that arise. Therefore not part of deal yet

18 In addition, in the event employment support for this group is delivered through a contracted-out programme, Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will co-commission the programme with DWP. the respective roles of DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will include: Pressure to privatise?

a DWP sets the contracting arrangements, including contract package areas, but should consider any proposals from Sheffield City Region Combined Authority on contract package area geography. DWP set the rules

b Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be involved in tender evaluation.

c Providers will be solely accountable to DWP, but DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority’s above-mentioned agreement will include a mechanism by which Sheffield City Region Combined Authority can escalate to DWP any concerns about provider performance/breaching local agreements and require DWP to take formal contract action where appropriate. DWP in charge

19 In the event that alternative delivery mechanisms are put in place, comparable arrangements will be put in place.

20 Sheffield City Region will develop a business case for an innovative pilot to support those who are hardest to help. The business case should set out the evidence to support the proposed pilot, cost and benefits and robust evaluation plans, to enable the proposal to be taken forward as part of the delivery of this agreement, subject to Ministerial approval. City Region solution to workfare unlikely

---

Housing and planning

21 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Mayor will also exercise strategic planning powers to support and accelerate these ambitions. This will include the power to: Huge influence over local planning

a Create a spatial framework, which will act as the framework for managing planning across the Sheffield City Region, and with which all Local Development Plans will be in strategic alignment. The spatial framework will need to be approved by unanimous vote of the members appointed by constituent councils of the Mayoral Combined Authority. This approach must not delay any Local Development Plans, and will build upon the local plans being developed.

b Create supplementary planning documents, subject to approval processes in paragraph 21a.

c Create Mayoral Development Corporations, which will support delivery on strategic sites in the Sheffield City Region. This power will be exercised with the consent of the Cabinet member in which the Development Corporation is to be used. Interference in local planning

d Be consulted on and/or call-in planning applications of strategic importance to the City Region. Interference

22 Sheffield City Region and HMG will continue to discuss the devolution of housing loan funds to a Spending Review timetable. Sheffield City Region intends to develop further a proposition on a Housing Investment Fund, for discussion and development with HM Government. Carrot for good behaviour?

23 HMG will work with Sheffield City Region to support the operation of the Joint Assets Board, and support better coordination on asset sales. This will include ensuring the representation of senior HMG officials on the Joint Assets Board, using that Board to develop as far as possible and consistent with the government’s overall public sector land target, a joint programme of asset disposal using a portfolio approach, and to explore whether a right of first refusal for 28 days on all central government land and assets due for disposal can be developed that accelerates the pace of disposal. Through the Joint Assets Board, SCR and HMG will explore increased opportunities for using the public estate to generate low carbon energy. HMG sponsored Assett stripping?

---

Transport

24 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be responsible for a devolved and consolidated local transport budget for the area of the Combined Authority (i.e. the areas of the constituent councils), including all relevant devolved highways funding, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the Spending Review. Functions will be devolved to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority accordingly, to be exercised by the Mayor. Why the Mayor?

25 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will by 2017 exercise functions, devolved to the Combined Authority, for the franchising of bus services in the area of the Combined Authority, subject to local consultation. This will be enabled through a specific Buses Bill, to be introduced during the first Parliamentary session, which will provide for the necessary functions to be devolved.

26 This will help to facilitate the delivery of integrated smart ticketing across all local modes of transport in the city region, working as part of Transport for the North on their plans for smart ticketing across the North. This includes the production of a regional implementation plan for smart ticketing which Transport for the North will put forward to government by Budget 2016. Stalled in Greater Manchester

27 Government remains committed to the development of Phase Two of the HS2 network and will announce the way forward on Phase Two later this year.

28 Government is committed to building a Northern Powerhouse and remains strongly committed to the work by Transport for the North to identify and present to government a prioritised list of scheme options for the TransNorth rail enhancement programme and options for strategic road investment, including options for a new TransPennine Road Tunnel, by Budget 2016. Rail electrification on hold

29 Government, in consultation with Sheffield City Region, will continue to explore options to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority more control over the planning and delivery of local transport schemes, particularly in preparation for HS2. This could include changes to the way that Transport and Works Act Orders are granted, if practical proposals for improving and speeding up the process are identified.

30 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will take responsibility for an identified Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be collaboratively managed and maintained at a city region level by the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority across the areas of the constituent councils. Metros only

---

Trade and investment

31 HM Government commits to strengthening support available for both trade and investment in the Sheffield City Region. None of which needs a mayor

32 On co-location, HM Government will review the Inward Investment resource location of regional (IST) staff across the three levels of: Partnership Managers; Business development and Key Account Management teams, currently in 8 locations nationally. HM Government will also look at options for co-location, under UKTI/IST management, without harming the overall efficiency of the working of the investment model.

33 On governance, HM Government will set up a joint governance structure (or join an existing one), with quarterly meetings attended by a Director level representative from both UKTI investment and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. These will provide a forum to discuss progress on co-location, and on account management activity by both parties in the region. HM Government will wherever possible also use this structure to review key decisions and initiatives planned and/or implemented by both parties, including building a better shared understanding of the inward investment opportunities available in the region.

34 On international links, HM Government will provide a strengthened partnership between locally delivered services and embassy/consulate contacts through project Matchmaker.

35 On the Great campaign, HM Government will explore what options exist for using a portion of GREAT campaign budget for overseas based activity aligned to Sheffield City Region sector strengths with delivery managed by UKTI Marketing teams with input and influence from Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. This activity should be supported by sector based resource in overseas posts who have been specially briefed to have a strong understanding of Northern Powerhouse and Posts who are Matchmaker partners for Sheffield City Region sector strengths.

36 HM Government will also work with Sheffield City Region to build attractive regeneration/ investment propositions.

37 On trade: HM Government will ring-fence trade services resource within Sheffield City Region, develop an agreed export plan with a dual key approach to activities and reporting on outputs and outcomes to Sheffield City Region. Ring fenced resource remains subject to departmental budget changes. Subject to austerity cuts

38 An export plan will be agreed between SCR and UKTI HQ which will allow SCR flexibility, such as a specific local sectoral focus for Passport to Export and mid-sized business schemes or a different mix of products.

39 HMRC will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to provide relevant trade statistics data, within existing data protection assurance frameworks and policies, to assist with understanding the City Region’s export market.

---

Innovation

40 The Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, centred around the Advanced Manufacturing Park is a nationally important asset and already delivers growth through innovation, productivity and high value employment. The City Region has an ambition to make the District world-leading – attracting investment and major industry to the area.

41 To support this HM Government will offer the Sheffield City Region expert advice and support to ensure they are able to put forward a City Region led proposal to undertake a Science and Innovation audit. This work will enable an evidence based approach to deepen the understanding of the City Region’s Science and Innovation strengths and provide a new and powerful way to understand how to maximise the economic impact from the UK’s research and innovation investment nationally. They will, for example, provide government with part of the evidence base on which to make decisions on catapults and could be used to explore how to further the Sheffield City Region’s advantage in advanced manufacturing.

42 HM Government will also offer Sheffield City Region Combined Authority dedicated workshops with the Smart Specialisation Advisory Hub to help areas identify their innovation strengths.

43 Through utilisation of the additional resources in the single pot it is expected that Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will bring forward a set of ambitious proposals to enhance the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District.

44 The Sheffield City Region will work with HM Government to achieve their ambitions for a National Institute for Infrastructure within Doncaster. The Sheffield City Region will take forward discussions with HM Government to explore the potential for alignment of the new National College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR) based in Doncaster with the new Institutes of Technology to help meet a wider set of national infrastructure challenges. LEP lead not mayor

---

Business growth and support

45 HM Government agrees to continue to work with the Sheffield City Region to develop and implement proposals for a devolved approach to the delivery of national business support programmes from April 2017 onwards, subject to the outcomes of the Spending Review, and in line with the Devolution Deal agreed in December 2014.

46 Government and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree a joint programme to create the right environment to drive the commercial rollout of ultrafast broadband. Government will also support the SCR Combined Authority to reinvest funds into creative solutions to supplying superfast broadband to the last 5%.

47 Building on the currently agreed Enterprise Zone geography, Sheffield City Region will receive additional Enterprise Zones and/or extension of existing zones, subject to the current bidding round for further Enterprise Zones.

48 The Sheffield City Region LEP has requested additional flexibility on the use of Enhanced Capital Allowances within its Enterprise Zones. The government is open to further discussion on this providing proposals are compliant with State Aid rules and are fiscally neutral. Vague and not yet agreed

---

Fiscal

49 HM Government is committed to working with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to achieve Intermediate Body status for ERDF and ESF for the Combined Authority. HM Government will work with Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to test whether it will be possible to implement and if so, HMG and SCR will work together to agree a timetable to put this in place.

50 HM Government agrees to allocate an additional £30m per annum of capital and revenue funding for 30 years, which will form part of and capitalise the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority single pot. This will fund key City Region priorities and will be composed of 60% capital and 40% revenue. The fund will be subject to 5-yearly gateway assessments to confirm the spend has contributed to national growth. £30M becomes £12M revenue targetted at growth/economy and may disappear in 2020 if economy not improving nationally?

51 HM Government will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to agree specific funding flexibilities to a Spending Review timetable. The joint ambition will be to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority a single pot to invest in its economic growth. This pot will comprise a flexible, multi-year settlement providing the freedom to deliver its growth priorities, including the ability to re-direct funding to reflect changing priorities, whilst upholding their statutory duties. This local freedom will be over a range of budgets to be determined by SCR and HMG in the run-up to and beyond the Spending Review, including as requested the Regional Growth Fund or its equivalent successor. HM Government expects to disburse this agreed settlement to the Sheffield City Region annually in advance. Vague and uncertain

52 The Cities and Local Government Devolution bill currently in parliament will establish the principles which will govern further prudential borrowing for combined authorities. Following Royal Assent, central government will consider how these powers could apply whilst ensuring no fiscal impact. Another PFI ?

53 HM Government will pilot a scheme in Sheffield City Region Combined Authority which will enable the area to retain 100% of any additional business rate growth beyond expected forecasts. What forecasts by whom? These pilots will begin in April 2016, subject to further detailed discussions between the Combined Authority and HM Government. HM Government will also discuss wider localisation of business rates with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. Commitment to current business rates to be returned to City Region? Forced competition between rates areas? Losing redistributive effect of tax.

---

Under this geography:

54 The Mayor for the Sheffield City Region will be elected by the local government electors for the areas of the constituent councils of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The Mayor and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will exercise the powers and responsibilities described in this document in relation to its area, i.e. the area of the constituent councils of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. 4 Metro councils only

55 Funding that is allocated to the SCR LEP, now and in the future, will continue to be allocated on the basis of the existing overlap formula.

56 Additional funding or budgets that are devolved as a result of this agreement will go to the SCR Combined Authority.

57 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority must exercise functions in relation to its geographical area. Accordingly, if any of the Combined Authority spend is on activities of projects outside of its area, those activities or projects must in some way relate to the area – for example, be for the benefit of the area; they may also relate to some other area. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, subject to parliamentary approval, can enable combined authorities such as the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to take on a broader set of functions than economic development, regeneration and transport, dependent on secondary legislation.

58 Under the Mayor model, it is not expected that the role of the LEP or private sector be lessened.

---

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority commitments

59 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority is accountable to local people for the successful implementation of the Devolution Deal; consequently, HM Government expects Sheffield City Region to monitor and evaluate their Deal in order to demonstrate and report on progress. The Cities and Local Growth Unit will work with the Sheffield City Region to agree a monitoring and evaluation framework that meets local needs and helps to support future learning.

60 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work with HM Government to develop a full implementation plan, covering each policy agreed in this Deal, to be completed ahead of implementation. This plan will include the timing and proposed approach for monitoring and evaluation of each policy and should be approved by the DCLG Accounting Officer. Agree to proposal then work out details?

61 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to set out their proposals to HM Government for how local resources and funding will be pooled across the city region. Taking away from City Council?

62 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree overall borrowing limits with HM Government and have formal agreement to engage on forecasting. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will also provide information, explanation and assistance to the Office for Budget Responsibility where such information would assist in meeting their duty to produce economic and fiscal forecasts for the UK economy. Borrow from whom against what security?

63 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree a process to manage local financial risk relevant to these proposals and will jointly develop written agreements with HM Government on every devolved power or fund to agree accountability between local and national bodies on the basis of the principles set out in this document.

64 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to progress programmes of transformation amongst authorities to streamline back office functions and share more services and data, including on assets and property. Joined up thinking or formal combination

65 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to adhere to their public sector equality duties, for both existing and newly devolved responsibilities.

---

Overall lots of wriggle room for HMG to change the goalposts along the way and for various areas of funding to become subject to austerity cuts in the future. Moreover there appears to be no mechanism to reverse out of this commitment if it proves detrimental to the City Region or to the City Council. The agreement will require City Region Councils to implement a version of Workfare and to continue the transformation of 16+ education into a employer biased training programme rather than an education system. Continuing negotiations are still secret and not subject to public approval.