'Devolution' – Decision Day.

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

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

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that this issue should have to become one of the Council's 'red line' issues before HMG conceded that the veto could be superceded by the City Region's Constitution.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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Police & Crime Commissioners – Democratically Accountable Police Forces? - Well, Not Really.

Today I attended the Police & Crime Panel meeting in Rotherham. This is the grouping of Councillors and lay people responsible for holding the PCC (Police & Crime Commissioner) to account for the performance, funding and general approach to policing in South Yorkshire. An elected position that was voted for by less than 20% of the electorate.

---

The role of the PCC has never generated much public interest and I suspect most people won't recognise the incumbent, Dr Alan Billings, who holds the post until May following the ultimate resignation of the prior occupant of the post during the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation crisis last year. The PCC however was sold to us, by the Home Secretary of the time as democratic accountability for the police forces. As it turns out of course, that isn't quite the whole story.

I attended to ask a question about the armed police on the streets over the Christmas period in City and town centres across the force area. Happily this is a webcast meeting and the full question is available here , with the PCC's reply and comments from other PCP members.

---

The impression left with me after the replies were as follows;
1 The PCC clearly has no control in operational matters like this and appears to provide little influence, having declined to offer an opinion when 'told' of the decision to deploy armed officers in this way.
2 This deployment was a 'reaction' to the Paris attacks, even though at the last City Council Cabinet meeting I was told there was no intelligence suggesting Sheffield was a target at the time.
3 There appears to be some level of reassurance provided by the deployment, which is in contrast to the significant level of unquiet expressed across social media that was my experience.

My conclusion? As a politician representing, in this instance, the Labour Party as well as the South Yorkshire public I wouldn't want the PCC to have direct control or indeed excessive influence on operational police matters. However, on a matter that so directly affects the public perception of policing in the region I would expect the PCC to have and to express his opinion to the Chief Constable. In particular I would have expected the PCC to make himself aware of any specific threat to the force area and comment on that on behalf of the public.

As a reassurance exercise I think the lack of any comment to either the PCC or the other politicians is a reflection of the lack of knowledge most people have about the PCC and his role. The level of comment I saw on social media suggests they need to look at the deployment in a more formal way to try and tease out a wider range of opinion on the matter, rather than those who volunteer a comment to them or indeed to social media.

---

Overall this seems to confirm the concerns expressed at the inception of the PCC position, that this was a means of passing the responsibility for failures within police forces away from the Home Secretary and the blame for service cuts away from the Chancellor's austerity measures, whilst giving neither the PCC nor the scrutiny committee (Police & Crime Panel) the powers to effectively deliver their roles.

City Region Elected Mayors anyone?

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

City Region Devolution - A Deal on the Brink.

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE
SHEFFIELD CITY REGION DEVOLUTION SURVEY

---

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

Devolution Scrutiny – Challenging? No! - by Nigel Slack

As I trailed in my last article here, there was a short notice meeting of the city's Overview & Management Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 10th December. The sole item on the agenda being the proposed devolution deal that is currently in it's public consultation phase.

---

The agenda reports, giving the committee the background to the deal they were scrutinising, were entirely positive about the intention and content of the proposal. Before the meeting I commented on this to all the members of the committee and was assured, in an e-mail from the Chair that they would “be able to play a role in providing a constructive challenge.“ I was to be sadly disappointed.

The agenda did not include the fact that the meeting would be taking 'evidence' from a range of speakers, all of which were supportive of the deal. Not a single dissenting voice was heard by the committee. They heard from John Mothersole (Sheffield City Council Chief Executive), Julie Dore (Leader of the City Council), Steve Houghton (Chair of the City Region Combined Authority & Leader of Barnsley Council), Martin McKirby (Representing the Local Enterprise Partnership) and a representative from the Centre for Cities, whose name I missed as the chair kept forgetting to use the microphone.

---

At the first hurdle therefore, I feel the exercise failed. The evidence put before the committee was unbalanced in a most outrageous way. In a public question before the main part of the meeting I did put forward a short comment on the evidence of the Assembly North conlusions on the deal. They wanted the deal substantially renegotiated and including fiscal autonomies. They would reject the deal as it stands and they were against the imposition of the Mayor for the City region.

The Assembly was delivered by the Electoral Reform Society together with academics from the University of Sheffield, the University of Southampton, the University of London and the University of Westminster. They were Supported by a team of experts from previous Canadian, Irish and Scottish assemblies supported by a team of experts from previous Canadian, Irish and Scottish assemblies. The participants for Assembly North were selected on a semi-random basis by an independent polling company and drawn from throughout the Sheffield City Region.

Despite this rigorous academic and fair approach, John Mothersole characterised the Assembly as “an invitation only event”. This is a level of dissembling that I consider beneath him and demeaning to the efforts of the Assembly staff, the academics and the participants. Steve Houghton commented later, that the only negative things he heard about the proposed deal were in respect of the Mayor. Having been at the Assembly, when he was being questioned by the participants, I would have to disagree with that statement as well. So the 'spin' doctors were in full effect.

---

Next we must ask whether the committee members challenged the proposed deal effectively? It is true that each member of the committee asked at least one question but their was an element of repetition, with two main concerns being to the fore. Sue Alston (LibDem), Steve Ayris (LibDem) and Jack Scott (Lab) questioned the role of the non-constituent councils and the awkward geography involving County Councils. The response was that these councils were certainly supportive of the new amendment that would allow them to become constituent members of the CA without their County's assent and that some may choose to exercise this option.

Steve Ayris, Jack Scott and Chris Rosling-Josephs (Lab) asked about different aspects of the Mayoral model and the Mayor's Veto. The response to these questions has essentially been in the public arena since Cllr Dore's press release last week stating her opposition to the mayoral veto and her willingness to stop supporting the deal if no resolution was forthcoming. Somewhat wasted questions really.

---

Beyond those two obvious aspects of the deal the remaining questions were on disparate issues. From Aoden Marken (Green) asking about the 'best argument against accepting the deal?', none apparently. Geoff Smith, Jack Scott and Aoden Marken, were concerned over the lack of detail in the proposal (Jack Scott implied 37 areas of clarification needed) and how the continued negotiations would be communicated to the public. The response was along the lines of 'trust us to sort it out', though not in so many words. John Mothersole did admit that all the detail would not be resolved in time for the Council's decision deadline in February.

Geoff Smith and Jack Scott questioned some of the economic basics, are we being set up to fail? And concern that business rates as a measure of economic success is potentially troublesome. (successful areas can end up with lower rates returns as the types of business change) There was some agreement with this but, oddly, not an area that is highlighted for inclusion in the committee's response to the deal.

---

Generally therefore some interesting questions but challenging? hardly. Questions on the Mayoral model are playing to the supporter's strong suit and are already in the public mind. Questions on the Regional geography were there but were not followed through, in other words no-one asked, what are the financial impacts of Districts that choose to opt in to the CA, will they add money to the pot or be a drain on resources? On business rates there was some comment but no-one questioned the impact of the region only receiving 100% of the business rates for new rateable businesses 'beyond those already forecast'. What is the current forecast? what is needed to exceed that?

In addition there was no comment on a number of areas that I find particularly troubling. The City Region will be responsible for implementing the 'workfare' scheme on behalf of the DWP, who will still have strong influence on the design of the scheme and who are well placed to reduce their “funding envelope” leaving the CA to top up the funding deficit. The protocol for borrowing against the £900M is not detailed, could this be a new PFI disaster? Most worrying though is paragraph 61. which, despite assurances that the individual council's powers will be safeguarded, states “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.” suggesting to me formal amalgamation of some services under the CA and away from local council's.

---

Overall, therefore, the scrutiny did not fulfil the Chair's hope of it being challenging and with over an hour of the meeting devoted solely to statements by the five supportive witnesses, the committee were unable to deal with the matter in any detail or depth. I can only urge people to engage with the public consultation (click here), and you will hopefully provide the challenge that the OMSC did not.

Sheffield Devolution – The Merry Go Round.

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

Biased Consultation Proposed at Sheffield City Region Meeting?

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 26th October 2015

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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