All or Nothing – Changing the Electoral Shape of Sheffield.

On Thursday 14th April, the above was the title for my first outing in this year's Festival of Debate. Following changes to the ward boundaries in Sheffield, we will have an ‘all out’ election in May where all councillors will be up for re-election. This is the ideal time to consider the impact of ‘all out’ and whether this is a change that should become permanent. These are my own thoughts on the evening.

---

The panel and audience for the debate heard a presentation from James Henderson, in charge of all things electoral as a Director in the City Council. He outlined for us the reasons behind the Boundary Commission becoming involved in our ward and electoral issues and the changes they made to our electoral geography. Essentially some of our ward demographics were out of balance. Too many people in some wards and too few in others, therefore the people are not equally represented by the elected Councillors.

The changes now give us a balanced ward structure but some of us, me included, will have to get used to a new ward name and a new set of Councillors. James also briefly outlined the difference between election by thirds, what we do now, with an election 3 years out of 4 and All Out elections, what we will do this year, 1 election every 4 years.

---

The rest of the panel were; Myself as Chair & Question Master. Cllr Terry Fox (Labour, Manor Castle) Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport. Vicky Seddon, Co-ordinator of Sheffield for Democracy & Edward Molloy, Nexus Officer for the Electoral Reform Society.

At the start, I have to admit to being disappointed by the audience turnout of about 20 but they were all engaged and interested in the subject so the debate did not suffer in that regard. The panellists were allowed an initial period to state their current position on the boundary changes and the option of all out elections. We then moved straight in to the audience questions.

I don't plan to try and repeat the debate word for word but to simply leave you with my impression of the evening as a whole.

---

Terry Fox was not, currently in favour of all out elections and the main reasons appeared to be that elections by thirds allowed the voters to pass comment on the performance of their councillors on an annual basis, holding them to account better. It also leads to more stable majority administrations as opposed to unstable hung or coalition councils.

Vicky Seddon was very much in favour of all out elections, the main reasons being effectiveness, with councillors able to work on the basis of a four year stable mandate to enact policy rather than constantly electioneering. Efficiency, with council being able to utilise the whole of the years in-between elections for business, rather than losing a month or more to election campaigning rather than council business. Cost savings, all out elections would save £150,000 a year, with extra savings coming from the efficiency already mentioned.

Edward Molloy, concentrated on the current crisis in democracy over voter engagement and reasoned that fewer local elections generate better turnouts and that people feel their vote counts more if an election has the potential of changing the administration, which rarely happens in elections by thirds.

So the three viewpoints seemed to come down to, the stability of the status quo, the improved effectiveness & efficiency of the Council and the fairness of the electoral process and making votes count.

---

The questions from the audience led us around these opinions and into areas about devolution, the complexity of the electoral system and why people are less engaged than ever? (voter turnout in local elections is generally less than 40% and getting worse) whether with central government making so many decisions for local government, they really had any power left?

An interesting point that came out early from both Vicky and Edward was concerning the potential for further devolution enabling councils to choose not only electoral periods but also whether to adopt PR as is now the norm in Scotland for local councils. Terry was not wholly against the idea, provided it also brought in mandatory voting to ensure fair distribution of votes. There was still concern expressed about weak or coalition governance though that hasn't proved the case in Scotland with a majority national government elected on a PR basis.

It also became apparent that even some members of this engaged audience were unclear on why the city used the elections by thirds system, what the alternatives were and were in some ways confused by the complexity of elections and options currently being used. Local elections are different to general elections, PCC elections and probably different to upcoming Regional Mayor elections.

After quite a long time discussing the various matters that arose I finally called for a straw poll of the audience, asking, do you think all out elections would be better for local democracy? 10 people or 50% voted yes. Asked whether they felt it would make local democracy worse, there were no votes supporting that opinion.

---

My own conclusion? This conversation needs to be had in greater depth within and without the council. The current system is broken with low turnouts and councillors being elected by around 1 in 5 of their voters.

Council operates on a permanent electioneering basis, impeding medium to long term planning and exacerbating the adversarial nature of council business meetings.

The strong leader & cabinet model means ordinary councillors can be seen as powerless and impotent (even amongst themselves) whilst stable 4 year election cycles would help those involved in committee work to better contribute to those roles.

Savings are, at the moment, never to be sniffed at and such savings could be used to improve other areas of democratic deficit around public engagement, such as webcasting and local public meetings.

---

Overall therefore, I believe an All Out election cycle would improve democracy locally and the better administration of council business. Further benefits may still be identified as a result of current and future devolution but the conversation must be had now to inform future discussions on the type of devolution we want.

---

My thanks to my partner organisations in this event, Opus Independents for their support in organising the Festival of Debate and to Sheffield City Council for organising and staffing what will probably be the most upmarket venue we will be using in this spring season. Thanks also to the panellists and audience for making the event so worthwhile.

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

'Devolution' – Decision Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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.