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.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting of 17th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

This Combined Authority is the body that the Government will address with it's plan for so called 'City Region Devolution' that I have discussed in previous posts. The meeting was held in Barnsley at the offices of the South Yorkshire Joint Secretariat. The meeting room has the facility for webcasting meetings but this was not available on this occasion.

---

The reason I was attending the meeting was fairly singular as there was nothing of particular note on the agenda. It was simply to get answers to my questions about the potential devolution deal. I sent advanced notice of three questions, with 5 working days notice. These were;

Has SCRCA been approached by the government about the potential for a so called devolution deal similar to the one accepted recently by Greater Manchester Combined Authority, or indeed any deal at all that might be framed as 'devolution'?
Did members of the SCRCA attend the Northern Futures event in Leeds and if so who?
Will the SCRCA allow a public consultation and vote on any devolution deal offered by the government, of whatever political party?

My regular followers will know that two of those questions were answered by the Sheffield City Council Cabinet meeting on the 12th November. I therefore already knew that there was an approach over the deal as the answer to one of my questions that day, from Julie Dore (Leader), was that there would not be time to consult the public on the matter, as a decision is being slated prior to the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on 3rd December. This also covered my third question to the SCRCA.

---

So, to that part of the meeting that addressed my inquiries. As part of a report into some small changes in the Governance of the SCRCA and the subsuming of the Joint Secretariat functions into Barnsley MBC, Ben Still the Chief Executive of the City Region LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) reported on the approach they had received from the Cabinet Office about a devolution deal. He confirmed that discussions had begun and that he would report back to the SCRCA on details as they emerged. He also commented that it was hoped to agree at least what are phrased as 'Heads of Terms' in time for the Autumn Statement.

It was also suggested by Ben Still that the deal would be aimed at helping to fulfil the SCRCA Strategic Economic Plan. The chair of the meeting Cllr Steve Houghton of Barnsley MBC commented that the detail would then be subject to considerably more negotiation. The chair then went on to answer the three questions I addressed to the meeting. First, yes they were in discussion about an approach regarding 'devolution'. Second, Julie Dore and John Mothersole (CEO Sheffield City Council) were the only two members of the SCRCA to attend the 'Northern Futures' event in Leeds, though they were missing from this SCRCA meeting. Third, a public vote is not required nor expected by the Cabinet Office in order to agree the 'deal'. The SCRCA will discuss it with the LEP but the decision is for the SCRCA alone.

---

That would seem to be that then, simple. Well not quite. As usual some of the most interesting information came out in casual discussion after the meeting. There will apparently be a press release in a few days concerning the potential deal. It would seem however this may well be designed to say very little, as little seems to be known. It was also clear that the odd voting arrangements of the SCRCA will make for a strange decision apparatus. Unlike in Greater Manchester, the authorities that make up the SCRCA cover three distinct geographic areas. South Yorkshire Metro's, North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire. Only the South Yorkshire Metro's get to vote on any 'deal' so it is unclear whether the other councils will fall in line or not.

Add to this a distinct feeling that some of the Metro's are to say the least antipathetic to the idea, particularly if attached to the idea of a City Region Mayor, then there would seem to be little assurance that it will happen at all. I guess now only time will tell but it seems certain that nobody wants the public to have a say in this arrangement, neither central nor local government.

---

This must not be the end however, there are still concerns that need addressing. One, a deal that addresses the economic performance of the SCRCA rather than the democracy of powers devolved to them is simply not devolution. It is nothing more than an extended 'city deal'. Two, there is no apparent fiscal devolution beyond what is being offered to deliver certain central government policies. Three, without public or possibly even local councillor's being involved in any conversation, this is just top down reorganisation not devolution. Four, If this deal can be decided by the four Metro's where will that leave the five other councils in the SCRCA? Five, what are the heads of terms? I struggle to believe that with just two weeks to the Autumn Statement, nobody has addressed this yet.

There is much about the organisation and transparency of the SCRCA that concerns me and, considering that it may soon hold great sway over substantial parts of our daily lives, we need to be holding them to account.

sheffield city council, budget conversation of 21st october 2014, by nigel slack.

---

A quick headcount at the start of the meeting suggested some 100 or so people there and the mix was fairly even in genders but largely older adults with a scatter of younger ones. Better than the usual collection of older types that inhabit these events (Me included).

A brief opening statement by John Mothersole (Chief Executive) was followed by some context for the presentation by Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member Finance & Resources).

As part of that context he reminded us that the figures discussed were not definitive but subject to change depending on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, which would indicate the extent of Government plans to further cut public spending, and the announcement in late December of the Local Government Settlement, which would give exact figures for the cuts to each council's grant from government.

The headline figure however forecasts a need to reduce council spending by £60M in 2015/16. It was noted at this stage that this is in the year when the Chancellor, George Osborne, had predicted that austerity would be over. The slides for the presentation are here, and are relatively self explanatory.

SCC budget Presentation Slideshow

---

The rest of my comments will be to highlight points brought out in the presentation not on the slides and to report something of the question and answer session. The first few slides were there to illustrate the level of the cuts to local government budgets, the highest percentage cuts apart from the welfare budget, and that there is significant opinion and evidence that the cuts are not being applied either evenly across all councils or taking into account different levels of need.

The latter slides in Cllr Curran's part of the presentation attempt to illustrate the scale of the cuts already made, 2015/16 will mean £300M lost from council spend since 2010, and the administration's belief that they have been able to maintain their principles and their ambition for the city. This included the plans for 5,000 new homes built over the next three years, thousands of apprenticeships to try and tackle our youth unemployment levels and introducing the living wage to all council employees and 80% of contract company employees. (a subject I chased with both councillors and officers from an early stage)

---

The presentation then moved to John Mothersole for the more detailed facts and figures and the approach the council were considering.

The initial slides in this part illustrated the relatively small amount of the budget that the council has discretion over. From a total £1.4Bn budget most is spent on services fixed by either government, education or housing needs. This leaves only £477M of discretionary spend. So with the 2015/16 cuts the contribution to the city from government grants will have fallen by 50% and that discretionary budget by 30%.

---

All this is being done in the face of a growing population in the city and a weak economic outlook for both the city, the country and the world. The growing population and cost pressures such as inflation also mean there is less service can be delivered with the same amount of money from this budget.

The presentation then went on to discuss the approach the council are looking to take and some of the things already done to achieve savings in the past. It also illustrated some changes that may have a positive impact on the city's budget, such as the New Homes Bonus and Community Infrastructure Charge on developers which could raise over £11M in the medium term, so not all for 2015/16. An even greater impact would be for central government to release more of the business rates they keep, £129M back to the city, without this it remains difficult for the council to reduce business rates (for start up small businesses etc.) without further impact on budgets.

One slide shows the confused position on money available and what is available to cut. Total public spending in Sheffield is £4.5Bn, the council's share of that in direct services is £800M much of the rest is spent via the council but on things like schools, health, transport and emergency services. Ringfenced money. Of the £800M some of that is also ringfenced for fixed budgets and so the money where the council can find cuts is only £477M. The council is therefore aiming to try and get more control over the total £800M and be able to use it more imaginatively and effectively as a result. Whether government will let go of these strings is questionable, whatever colour is in power.

---

The final slides were about how we, the public, can get involved. I think this is important, because without some offer of alternative ideas we will be stuck with whatever the councillors decide. The council think this is important because they can then say we were asked even when we don't like their answers.

The event then moved into a question and answer phase. The questions were mostly about clarification off certain budget areas and things like the difference between capital and revenue. The short answer to that is capital money is for one off projects (usually buildings etc) and revenue is for day to day running expenses. Like buying a car, that is capital. Petrol, insurance, car tax, that's revenue.

One person asked about the way the government fixed the amount of the money they distribute to councils. The answer essentially was that it is now based on population in the main and the need or deprivation of a council area is less and less important in the calculation. This is illustrated by the way city councils are proportionally worse hit by cuts than leafy rural southern counties, some of whom have seen increased levels of government grant.

I asked whether the new Sheffield City Region Combined Authority would be able to look at shared services between authorities to benefit from economies of scale and service efficiencies over bigger areas. The response was that this was possible in the medium to long term but unlikely to be in time to affect 2015/16 budget. I also asked whether there was any sign that the government might move it's position on the business rates retention. The response to this was a flat no.

---

The meeting wrapped at 7.30pm but there will be much more to come on this. I urge everyone to look at the information on the slides, think about the services they receive or contribute to and what could be done differently. We can't get away from this and even a change in government looks unlikely to change the impact for 2015/16, much as we might hope they would come to their senses and realise that austerity and spending cuts are making matters worse not better. Lobby your councillors, lobby your MPs, make your voice heard in the community and in the corridors of power.

Finally, the council's twee video presentation is below. It views a bit like a budget for toy town but I guess it helps get the basics out there and hopefully makes people think.

SCC Budget Video Presentation.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 15th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Cabinet meeting had a few interesting nuggets this time round, so this is quite a long report. First I'll deal with my 'part' in the meeting. After the usual preamble and agreeing the minutes of the last meeting we headed in to public questions. This is generally more relaxed than in the Full Council meetings and I took the opportunity to advertise the Sheffield for Democracy PCC Hustings event on Tuesday 21st October at the United Reform Church in the city centre.

Here's the audio of my comments.

This was followed by my first question. The question was inspired by the article in the Guardian on Tuesday about the MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier) conference that is normally held in Cannes, South of France, but has an inaugural UK version in London this week. The Guardian article suggests the conference is THE place to be if you are a council wanting to sell off the family silver, or housing estates, that type of thing.

To quote from the article.

"For the past 25 years, this conference – Mipim for short – has been held in Cannes. It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia’s Lend Lease paid for Southwark’s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knock-down price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for “social rent”."

I therefore asked whether this was the same conference that Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business ,skills and development) had attended last year and whether Sheffield attendees had any restrictions placed on them about selling off the city's family silver? Leigh Bramall and Julie Dore (Leader) both responded, Cllr Bramall indicating that it was the same conference, explaining that he and the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, roughed it in cheap bedsits whilst there and that they only attend these events to attract investment in the city for projects like the retail quarter. Cllr Dore added emphasis to the question of restriction making it very clear that any decisions on anything that came out of such conferences would be made in Sheffield by the council.

Question 1 audio below.

My second question was based on the report on Grounds Maintenance being approved at this meeting. The report itself recommends keeping ground maintenance in house but changing some of the structural management elements. The part of the report that got me interested was comment on the weighting of the decision making process. The key outcome weightings determine what are considered the most important aspects of the decision. In this case it fell out as follows.

Customer First 30%
Value for Money 30%
Council considerations 20%
Employee consideration 20%

I asked whether the same weightings were applied to all council contract decisions whether currently outsourced or not and how this would affect the consideration of contracts for which the council no longer had the 'capacity' to bring in-house.

Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) responded that weightings were used in all decisions of this nature but that they were different depending on the service under review. Services that were mainly internal processes would not have the same level of 'customer first' weighting. Service quality, however, was always factored in and they did not always choose the cheapest option. He passed no comment on the second part of my question. I guess the follow up will be to get some breakdown of the types of contracts and the corresponding weightings, to see if they are reasonable in the eyes of the public.

Question 2 audio below.

After further questions from members of the public the meeting moved on to consider a number of reports brought for approval. Item 9. was the first on the subject of the Grounds Maintenance arrangements for the council. In brief the report recommended the retention in-house of this service with some structural changes to how it was managed. The outcome was straightforward with the recommendations approved. The interesting bit was in comments on the report where Cllr Julie Dore asked whether the 'Sheffield Standard' which they were applying to the quality of the maintenance carried out could be extended to those private landlords (like housing associations) who were supposed to maintain their own grounds. Although the response was not a complete yes, it suggested that discussions on this were already under-way with those landlords.

The report at item 11. on Independent Living Solutions, was essentially about the various aspects of the city's independent living strategy for older and vulnerable people in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group. There was one element of concern for me in this, or more correctly in the language of the presentation to cabinet, where the council officer referred to the Health and Care economy. The problem is this suggests an approach where the considerations are about money first and people second. This may not be the case but that is certainly the perception. In such a context words are important and should be chosen with care to reflect the truth of a statement.

The final part of the meeting went on to look at budget reports and in the first report we, the public, got our first glimpse of the chilling future for the city's budget in 2015/16. The indications are that the Government grant to Sheffield for next year will drop by £45 Million or 29% and the projected shortfall in the city's budget would consequently be some £38M. Another serving of austerity that will be very difficult to swallow.

The audio of the comment is here.

---

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com
To 'like' on Facebook click here
To follow on Twitter click here
To support Nigel's self-funding Indiegogo campaign click here

Sheffield City Council meeting agenda with links to reports.

---