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 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.

---

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.

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.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting 3rd August 2015, by Nigel Slack

The City Region meetings are always curious affairs. The bulk of their business is conducted out of the public gaze followed by a brief (½ hour) formal meeting to receive reports, public questions and make formal decisions.

---

This was where I was able to get the responses to my questions about their approach to the potential imposition of an elected City Region mayor.

Below is my question, annotated with the responses delivered by Sir Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Borough Council and the Chair of the SCRCA.

---

"It seems that the new 'Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill' may take some time to progress through the legislative process. The Chancellor however is saying he is already in negotiation with the 'Northern Powerhouse' cities about the new so called devolution powers and the imposition of an elected Mayor."

"His agenda is, yet again, deliberately tight no doubt to try and prevent the Combined Authority from consulting the public on the conditions and restrictions that the deal includes. (Some nods of agreement from other members to this) Last time the Authority resisted the pressure to agree to an elected mayor and as a result were granted fewer powers than Manchester City Region. The same blackmail approach seems to be in the offing again."

"What will be the SCRCA approach this time?"

Who is leading the negotiation?

Ben Still (Executive Director Local Enterprise Partnership) and his team will lead the negotiations, supported by the Council Chief Executives and reporting to the SCRCA

Will they accept a directly elected Mayor?

The preference of the Combined Authority would be to retain the current governance arrangements but, if Ministers insist on some form (and there are several) of Mayoral model, it will depend on whether the devolution deal and its benefits will be worth it.

Will the public be consulted and their opinion sought?

If the deal negotiated includes any form of Mayoral arrangement then there will be consultation with the public across the City Region but there will be no referendum.

Will the individual Councils and most importantly their councillors be consulted and their opinion sought?

That would be a matter for each Council but judging from the nods around the table most probably.

Will the SCRCA resist a deal that is inappropriate for the make up of the City Region with it's cross county ties or will it compromise it's principals through fear of falling behind an imagined brighter future gifted to Manchester through their wholesale capitulation? (This caused some amusement from around the table and a comment from Steve Houghton that Manchester might disagree with that comment)

The SCRCA preferred approach is for all the Councils to be involved but they are aware of the problematic nature of the Regions cross border arrangements.

---

This was about as full an answer as I might hope for at this time but clearly not giving away any of the SCRCA red lines when it comes to the negotiations. Only time will tell whether the SCRCA version of a good deal will match that of the public in this city and the region.

---

Coincidentally the next item on the agenda was an update from Ben Still on the Devolution Deal. He reported that government were asking for proposals from the City Regions by the beginning of September. The SCRCA would put forward a deal if their own discussions on what they should be asking for were concluded in the next few weeks. He also commented that they would be looking to try and ensure a common approach from both Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. The key issues would include the concerns over the geographic anomalies of the Sheffield region.

---

At the conclusion of the meeting Vicky Seddon and myself had a brief chat with the Vice Chair, Cllr John Burrows (Leader, Chesterfield Borough Council) who commented on the general antipathy within the SCRCA for any Mayoral model but also hinted at the need for the region to be pragmatic about the offer from the government. In fact they had spent a couple of hours already that afternoon trying to agree what the SCRCA should be asking for from government as their initial proposal.

Now that is the meeting I wish I'd been observing.

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.

When is Devolution Not Devolution? by Nigel Slack.

---

Since the Greater Manchester Combined Authority 'came out' as the first of the Northern Cities to be offered and to accept the Clegg/Osbourne version of devolution I have written about my concerns. I have written not only about their sudden acceptance of an imposed elected mayor but also about the weaknesses of the deal and the impact for the other Northern cities of this split in their, until then, united front.

---

Click here for the previous article Divide & Conquer the North? - by Nigel Slack - 3rd Nov 2014.

---

Since then there has been discussion and debate amongst a broad range of people as to whether this type of deal would be offered to Sheffield City Region and whether they would fall for the rhetoric. I use the word rhetoric because for me the Greater Manchester deal is full of holes, both in the freedom it alleges it will give Manchester and in describing it as devolution at all. The deal as outlined by the Daily Telegraph seems to be nothing more than an extended version of the 'City Deals' that have been around for a while now and which enable government to target funds at Local Councils in return for them following agendas and targets agreed between the two.

The freedoms being offered in the 'devolution' deal are similarly ringfenced with specific policy aims;
Housing Investment Fund £300M, to build houses.
Planning Powers, but no detail and presumably still bound by current planning law.
Local Transport, something already in negotiation in the North with Rail North and attempts to reintegrate bus services.
Pooling of Health & Social Care budgets, probably could be negotiated without this deal.
Greater responsibility for business support and economic regeneration, already being targeted at the City Regions through the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
£100M for 'welfare to work' making local councils responsible for administering National Policy on benefit claimants.

Why do I say this is not devolution? If you look at devolution as exhibited in Scotland you have some monies and policies determined by Westminster but, most importantly, a significant amount of money is given by way of a block grant with no strings attached and the Scots powers can decide how this money is spent. They can vary the way they spend that grant to achieve not only their legal obligations but also determined by their local policies rather than those handed down from on high.

That is devolution. In addition it is backed by legislation not some shady back room deal. Without an Act of Parliament the deals being bandied about by Clegg/Osbourne can be withdrawn by any future Government on a whim.

---

So where does that leave us in Sheffield? On the 5th I asked in the Full Council meeting a number of questions about the city's view on the Clegg/Osbourne deal. I knew something was amiss when a question I would normally expect to be answered by the Leader, Julie Dore was instead responded to by Leigh Bramall with his business and economy hat on. Then at the beginning of this week I was being told by a different city council cabinet member that there was no deal on the table.

Fast forward to Wednesday morning when I attended a meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board , that body of leaders from the city's public services, private sector and VCF sectors that influences the direction of policy within the city. The first hour and a half of the meeting was a closed session, public excluded.

Attending the open session it soon became obvious, from a number of dropped comments that the closed session had been discussing something about the 'devolution' deals doing the rounds. At the end of the meeting I enquired why the devolution discussion had been held in closed session and it became crystal clear that they had been discussing an actual offer on the table for the City Region to decide upon. I imagine and to some extent hope they were being asked their view, but possibly it was no more than an information session.

---

I was due to attend the City Council Cabinet meeting that same afternoon so drafted a quick question asking if the public would get an opportunity to consider and offer an opinion on the 'devolution' deal for Sheffield currently on the table, before the City Region decided? The answer, this time from Julie Dore was a straightforward No. She explained that they were under pressure to agree the deal before the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and therefore there would not be time. Just like that the option for any democratic debate on a huge decision for this city and this region is squashed.

The decision will now, presumably be made by the ten council leaders that make up the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. Not by their Council's elected representatives debating the benefits or pitfalls of the idea, not by consultation and consent of the Millions of people over whom they will govern but by ten men and women behind closed doors negotiating and consenting to secret deals. That is why this is not devolution, it is not even democracy.

---

Finally we have to ask, why is the government so keen to have this deal decided before the Autumn Statement? The autumn statement is where the Chancellor reveals the Local Government settlement for the next financial year. In other words he will be telling local councils how much money they have to spend or cut over the following year. Could it be that once the City Regions have signed on the dotted line there will be a nasty clause in the small print that they have all overlooked? I guess only time and George Osbourne will tell but I wouldn't trust him would you?

The Sheffield TTIP Roadshow, Compare & Contrast, by Nigel Slack.

---

The organisers - Vs - The participant.

---

It has taken me a little while to get hands on the organiser's view of this event (from 1st October) but, having done so, I've been able to compare that to a report I received from a participant shortly after the event. The contrasts are interesting and I hope illuminating. Both mention the problems now at the forefront of public and political campaigns against this TTIP deal but the organisers inevitably spin the positive.

For background, British American Business is a hugely influential and hugely well funded lobbying group. They suggest they are like an international Chamber of Commerce but one look at their website shows the reach they have and the influence they believe they can exert. They fund the influential 'All party parliamentary group on EU-US trade & investment' and the keynote speaker, John Healey MP (Labour), is the chair of this group.

I will make the comparison by quoting from the BAB report and then highlight using italics any discrepancies from the 'participants' comments. My own additional comments are in [square brackets]. The first discrepancy is actually nothing to do with the meeting as such but the preamble to the BAB report. This states;

“On October 1, 2014 BritishAmerican Business and the Sheffield City Region invited businesses and stakeholders from government and local business and trade organisations to participate in a TTIP Roadshow event in Sheffield. Nabarro LLP kindly hosted the event.”

According to my notes from the Full Council Meeting of the same day (1st October) Cllr Dore commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence, as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

---

However to continue to matters within the event itself.

After introductions came a keynote address by John Healey MP. His key points were;
“First, this is the best prepared bilateral trade deal in history. Prior to the launch of negotiations, governments on both sides of the Atlantic had been assessing the potential and the feasibility of an agreement concluding with the recommendation to launch negotiations for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. Second, in light of growing competition from other economic regions in the world, TTIP is the opportunity to set a common set of high standards that may function as a template worldwide. Third, this agreement could be beneficial to consumers, workers and businesses in the UK.”

He also suggested;
“If the UK wants to keep its economy successful, it will need this deal.”

On the concerns of the public he said;
“That political leaders and negotiators on both sides have pledged that a trade agreement between the EU and the US will not lower standards and that the National Health Services (NHS) will be protected. However, he also stated that he saw no case for an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system in an EU/US agreement and that this issue should not be a stumbling block for the entire deal.”

Missing comments;
Any deal must be democratically approved by leaders and government (JH thinks it should go to parliament itself).
[Suggests BAB don't like his comments on ISDS or need for democratic debate]

---

First speaker from the panel was Mark Robson of UK trade and investment. (Gov dept that promotes exports and foreign investment in UK) His comments were;
“pointed out how important the economic and Investment-relationship already is for the Sheffield region and the UK as a whole. Many businesses of all sizes and sectors in the Sheffield region already export to the US, but market access for companies is still limited in various sectors. TTIP can help to remove those limitations to increase the trade and investment relationship.”

Missing comments;
NHS – turn argument on its head, our health companies can be looking to sell services to US; UK provides springboard for US companies to reach Europe so they like to invest here; US market is not easy for UK companies despite common language. [missing comments infer the imbalance of power in transatlantic economic relationships]

---

Next was Richard Currie of UPS (US parcels & logistics company) he commented;
“TTIP represents an opportunity to remove existing “bottlenecks” in the transatlantic supply chain, and facilitate trade for businesses and consumers. For example, if TTIP results in an increase of the ‘de minimis’ threshold (the value of goods below which customs duties are not applied) to $800, lower value goods could be transported at a lower cost and with less administrative effort. Furthermore, studies have shown that the removal of tariffs, could boost transatlantic trade by $120 billion over a 5-year period. Richard emphasised that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers should be the main beneficiaries of a comprehensive agreement.”

Missing comments; Regulatory compliance or acceptance of each others’ standards (NOT “harmonisation” – Jeffries also rejected that description) – would be especially helpful for pharmaceuticals and locomotives.
[Centred on good for UPS, still suggests ability for US food and agriculture, including GMOs, to be allowed into EU]

---

Then came William Beckett, CEO of Beckett Plastics, who commented;
“offered an insight into the current challenges small companies face when trading with the US, in particular in regards to cultural and legal differences between the EU and the US. William welcomed the negotiations for a comprehensive trade deal. However, he emphasized the need for government to closely work with trade and business organisations to fully understand the needs of local business.”

Missing comments;
Chairs trade forum of 80 companies in Yorkshire & Humberside, member of 3 US trade organisations with 1000s of members – never heard of TTIP and not excited about it. What would help their exports is to fix the exchange rate (trade tariffs are small problem by comparison). Biggest barriers are cultural, different legal system especially around intellectual property and litigation (don’t automatically get costs). SMEs don’t export to US because they are frightened and apathetic.
[Apparent direct contradiction. Suggests BAB need to bury lack of interest and the uncertainty in UK businesses]

---

Next up was David Henig, Director for TTIP at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, and the chap that commented to a protester outside the event “it is not the job of Government to protect the public from corporations,” He is reported as commenting;
“Most important element of an agreement will be the removal of existing non-tariff barriers in sectors like chemicals or automotive. But also the removal of existing tariffs will be significant. TTIP will also allow for UK companies to access market segments that are currently protected from outside-US competition. A comprehensive trade agreement will help to keep the EU-US market an attractive destination for business and investment in a more competitive world. It is hoped that the negotiations for TTIP are concluded in 2015 and could be in force by 2017 or 2018. David emphasised that government has been working hard to make the negotiations as transparent as possible and to provide a platform for exchange and input.”

Missing comments;
Multiple examples of how things will be freed up – size of shower trays, insurance, dairy products, chemicals, automobiles, customer checks and paper work, lowering trade tariffs so this trade deal will set a high standard economy and set a bench mark when “facing up to China”. The point of ISDS is that it enshrines that we won’t discriminate against foreign investors, who are keen to see that happen.
[Concerned that re; ISDS a civil servant supports corporations over UK citizens]

---

Finally came PJ Menner from the US Embassy who commented;
“That for US government, the trade agreement is considered to be an important vehicle for more jobs and growth in two economies that have suffered during the financial crisis in 2008. There is a strong political will and commitment in Washington to accomplish a comprehensive agreement ....Especially for the UK, having a comprehensive trade agreement will mean to bring the economic relationship in line with its political and cultural relationship.”

Missing comments; US is committed, Obama sees it as his legacy project.
[Indicates US sees greater benefit for them over UK]

---

That was the end of the panel presentations and the floor was open to a question and answer session. BAB reported this as;
“During the Q&A, participants used the opportunity to discuss the balance between the benefits of trade and the need to protect citizens. Participants were assured that government will guard the ability to regulate and that there is a common interest on both sides of the Atlantic to keep standards high. Another question addressed potential consequences of a UK outside of the European Union. Participants agreed that it would be challenging for a UK outside of Europe to negotiate an agreement that would offer similar benefits than TTIP. Participants were also informed that a separate chapter for SMEs is currently being discussed as part of the agreement.”

It's impossible to go into the full detail of the Q&A here but my personal reading of the session suggests that the concerns over the NHS, ISDS and the particular concerns of SME's (Small, Medium Enterprises) about predatory corporations were not assuaged by this roadshow. Indeed it seemed they were not listening to the SME concerns and telling them they were wrong. In addition, although NHS got a mention other public services are apparently fair game. Overall the participants seemed not to be reassured by the event and still see TTIP as more of a threat than a boon.