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.

Time for a Reboot !

I am reflecting on the dreadful week that we have had. This piece is therefore emotional, for which I do not apologise. I am purposefully not naming names or pointing fingers and am therefore not supplying links to the news stories involved.

---

Yet another mass murder in the States, surrounded by a plethora of hatefilled politicians pretending to care and to grieve whilst doing nothing to address the issue of US gun laws. Then we have the awful and apparently frenzied murder of a Yorkshire MP by someone allegedly calling out “Britain First”.

These are both events driven by hate and fuelled by the adversarial politics of divisiveness, emnity and, again, hate. This has brought me to an inevitable conclusion. Politics, to quote my techy friends, needs a reboot. I saw a post yesterday from a Canadian friend which put some of my thoughts into that useful format of the Facebook meme.

---

“Have we tried turning the USA off and back on again?”

---

Unfortunately this toxic politicing not only applies to the hate filled rhetoric of the US Presidential race but to almost every aspect of US politics in the current climate of fear, prejudice and despair that they preach on a daily basis. Don't even get me started on the so called Christian clergy over there.

It also applies to the way our own politics is starting to drift more and more quickly towards the politics of division, destitution and here's that word again, hate. More and more UK politicians are drawn into words or actions that incite or inflame the actions of others. They create 'Others' for us to denigarate, blame and despise. Be that immigrants, benefit 'scroungers' or the workshy disabled. In this they are supported by much of the media and so called journalists who repeat politician's lies as if they were the truth and peddle and profit from the same hate that brought us to this violence.

---

We may like to reassure ourselves that this is only some oddball far right approach to politics and that most politicians are above it. I wish this was the case but, it starts in little ways that we allow as acceptable in our adversarial system. It escalates as we move up the greasy ladder of politics in minor ways and ways we talk about as 'policy' direction and 'regulation' and the inevitable route takes us to conflict and killing.

It starts in the adversarial, dismissive and disrespectful actions of Councillors in formal meetings, the casual berating, jeering at and abusing of their fellow councillors just for a different political view. It continues in the rhetoric of hate used by small minded politicians, from the right and the left, promoting division in our communities and alleging they wish to save us from some bogey man or other. It's ultimate expression in the UK is the deliberate policy decisions of Governments to do down sections of the British public for their difference, their origins, their frailties or just because they cannot function well in this manic globalised economy where no level of performance is ever quite good enough.

All the while politicians of every hue will claim to care and to be working for the best resolution to the problems besetting this world. I am sure that in some cases this is true but, many fall into the trap of promoting despair, division and hate through their words and sometimes their actions.

---

Evidence from the US is that the terrible events of Orlando will not change their politics, I can only hope that we have not yet become so debased and that we can see that the murder of an MP in such a manner is a reflection of our politics and it is our politicians that must address this toxic promotion of hate and must address it now.

It is time for politicians to stand up and be counted, reject hostility and hate in politics, promote respect and hope, before it is too late!

Devolution – Now What? - Afterword

Once again this year, for the spring season of Sheffield's Festival of Debate, I hosted a panel discussion on devolution. In 2015 the panel debated what we were looking for from devolution for the city in the run up to the General Election. This year we were to look at what the recently agreed devolution looked like and where devolution might go next.

---

Another great panel, of diverse views, came together at the Central United Reformed Church to get to grips with it all. Jenny Cronin is Chair of Unlock Democracy Manchester, there to give a community activist opinion, seen from a City Region further down the line than Sheffield. Andy Gates is Head of Policy for Sheffield's City Region Executive Team, responsible for making devolution work and part of the team that negotiated the current deal. Dr Arianna Giovannini is a researcher at Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute based in the University of Sheffield, with a particular interest in devolution and territorial identity. Louise Haigh MP was elected in 2015 as Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley and has had a very busy first year with her appointment to the Shadow Cabinet. Robin McAlpine is a Director of Common Weal the Scottish 'think and do tank' campaigning for social and economic equality in Scotland and was the only returning panellist from 2015. Finally we had Dr. Andy Mycock, Reader in Politics from the University of Huddersfield with strong opinions on the Devo Manc deal. He also researches on devolution, & the development of active citizenship.

Whilst I don't have space for a blow by blow account of the evening I will try to give shape to the overall discussion and the Q&A that was the major part of the evening. Picking out particular points of interest will be difficult, as a devolution geek it was entirely fascinating for me, but I'll do what I can. That means a wordy post I'm afraid but that can't be helped.

---

Each panellist gave an initial opening comment, on how they thought the current crop of deals panned out and what the future might look like. Without exception it was highlighted that the current 'devolution' or 'city deals' were light on real power transfer and were aimed almost exclusively at economic development rather than political power. There was also a significant consensus that the deals were an 'elite to elite' process and that the public were excluded, apart from some very weak after the fact, consultation. That lack of public involvement has lead Andy Mycock to a new campaign, in Manchester, called the 'People's Plan' to address the deficit.

There was concern expressed that the Sheffield deal was an unnatural combination of councils, in respect of identity, crossing county borders and that this would make consensus decision making more difficult. Andy Gates reinforced the point that this reflected the economic region, which was in line with the economic development content of the deal. This also led to some panellists being concerned that the deal was simply a way to pass the blame for future funding cuts to the devolved authorities rather than central government.

Looking to the future, all panellists agreed the public needed to be more integral to what happens with devolution next. Whether that was as architects of the next stages or simply through better informing them and better consultation over the plans, was a point of contention. It was, as Robin McAlpine is fond of saying, the difference between doing devolution for ourselves or having devolution done to us. He also reminded us that the path to Scottish devolution was neither easy nor fast. This brought up other concerns from panellists about the pressure for quick decisions on the current deals and the resultant ad hoc nature of different deals for different regions.

---

The Q&A centred, essentially, around four issues. The lack of knowledge and therefore engagement of the public, the imposition of the model and particularly the Mayor for the region, The very little amount of real power and even less money actually provided by the deals and the competitive nature of the negotiations and, despite the rhetoric, the danger of the regions becoming competitors for growth and economic development.

For some of the audience the make up and purpose of the city region was confusing, including which councils were members and why? Andy Gates stressed the economic footprint of the region, with Sheffield as the main driver of growth and development in the region but with the other councils being strongly bound to that economy. Arianna pointed out the difficulties of that combination in terms of developing a regional identity beyond economics when the region crosses County boundaries and Andy Gates and I further complicated matters by trying to explain the different types of Council membership. Which electorates can and can't vote for the Mayor etc.

On engagement Robin commented on the strength of the Scottish referendum campaign, being the depth and breadth of discussions, from pubs and street corners, to community halls and major debates, public involvement was at the heart of the campaign and the reason so many were involved at the actual vote. The 'elite to elite' negotiations of the English devolution deals on the other hand has purposefully excluded the public and for the City Region, Andy Gates saw this as a problem and one they hope to overcome for future devolution progress.

---

The concerns around the imposition of the same general model of a mayoral authority was universally seen as a problem by the panellists. Particularly because, despite this general model, each region was being given different versions of the model. Louise Haigh admitted that the opposition had lost control of the devolution debate in Parliament, unable to offer an alternative. In response to one particular question, it was also universally acknowledged by the panel that the devolution agenda and the 'Northern Powerhouse' was almost entirely about the Chancellor positioning himself for higher office.

The position and powers of the Mayor were also of concern to the audience and the panel. In the agreement, the Mayor has a veto over all decisions made by the combined authority, even though this is supposedly to be addressed by the authority's constitution. Even if, and it's a big if, that is the case, there was much comment from the panel on the confusion about who votes for the Mayor and what powers they will wield over those areas that don't vote for them. It was also commented on by both Andy Mycock and myself, in response to a question, that the process of the election of the Mayor is still a mystery, even though the vote is within a year and the candidates for Manchester are beginning to declare themselves. One member of the audience also asked about any recall powers, following the problems over our local PCC, such recall is not currently part of the agreement.

---

With questions on the region's powers and the new monies being made available, the panel all agreed the cash was never going to make up for the cash lost to austerity cuts in any individual council of the region, never mind the region as a whole. Andy gates indicated the money coming forth for all the aspects of the deal would now be in a common pot, rather than just the £30M a year 'extra' money but how this impacts on the expectations of parts of the deal, around what the region must achieve on behalf of central government targets, is still unclear. More than one panellist also gave voice to the concern about this being a means for passing the blame for austerity on to councils in budgets, particularly in Manchester, where future cuts were expected. (ie. Fire, Police & Health)

Lastly, on the questions about growth and competition between regions, there was no clear answer. It was accepted that retention of business rates growth would lead to reduction of the redistribution effects for more deprived areas and potentially competition for development funds within the city region. Inevitably in the current world economic uncertainty there may also be competition between devolved regions as their ability to meet government targets become harder. As to what happens if growth stalls completely, no-one really wanted to broach that issue.

---

At the end of the Q&A each panellist had time for a brief review of their initial views. The consensus remained on the need to engage the public better in future progress. As did the consensus over the desirability of devolution as a concept. From the community and academic point of view there seemed to be general agreement that the public should be in the driving seat of future devolution plans and from Louise there was the concession that opposition parties needed to start talking alternative models and also the potential of convening a form of constitutonal consultation or assembly to thrash out the best way forward.

---

I'd like to express my thanks to all the panellists for their time and their really valuable contributions. I doubt I've really done them individual justice. Thanks to the audience for engaging in the debate with thought and enthusiasm and finally my thanks to the Festival of Debate for indulging my passion for devolution and allowing me to host this event under their banner.

---

On one final note, there is something we all need to be aware of. This devolution is not a constitutional change. It is no more than a piece of legislation that alters the local and regional governance of parts of England. The next government could change the rules, the shape and the powers of these deals with another piece of legislation. Perhaps we shouldn't get too used to this devolution, it may not last.

Vibrant Sheffield – Live Lab.

Last Thursday, 12th May, I attended the event titled above. The tag line for the event was “Help turn Sheffield into the leading city in Europe for innovation and creativity”. The aim, through a series of round table exercises and group discussions, was to attempt to develop ideas and strategies, wild or practical, to move the city along that journey.

---

It cannot be denied that this first event was well staged by Grant Thornton, one of the UK's leading accountancy firms, and that they had managed to get over 200 movers and shakers from around the city into one room for the purpose of promoting the city as a hub for innovation and creativity. I'm still not sure why my invitation was approved, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about happy clappy positivism and the initial impact during the mixer over coffee and a DJ's loud dance beats was not encouraging. It was difficult to talk and be heard, though I guess it made sure we were all wide awake.

I'm not about to go into detail about the activities of the day, that will be well documented on Grant Thornton's own website and will develop with the events that follow around the UK. What I aim to do is give my impression of whether the event addressed the aim it proposed.

---

With a get to know you type exercise out of the way, each table first addressed the essential strengths of the city. From this, it became very clear that there are so many areas in which Sheffield is a leading city and yet we don't make the most of that knowledge, experience or enthusiasm in a way that raises our hearts, our profile or our own awareness. From the traditions of the 'little Mesters' that is alive and well in our new co-operatives, making their mark on the city, Our universities working with manufacturers to push the innovative ideas they create, to our already vibrant cultural city (Tramlines, Festival of Debate, Year of Making), Sheffield has a great deal going for us.

The second stage was a 'dream' stage to consider what we would like to see Sheffield look like if we awakened from a deep slumber in the year 2026. This was actually a bit inspiring in that, particularly from the younger element, many people commented on addressing the wealth gap in the city and hoping that we would have healed the East-West gap in health, opportunity and wealth. Then again, many were also wanting a city of full employment and high economic ambition or so digitally high tech we could all exist in our own bubbles without ever leaving home.

Finally we had a stage of looking for the ideas we had that would really make a difference to the event's aim and then pitching those to the rest of the room. Interestingly a good number of these related to fostering the conditions for innovation and creativity, rather than concentrating on business and economic drivers. From pedestrianising the city centre and a community owned city, developing and investing in sustainable industries for energy and housing, to the more traditional economic ideas like an international conference centre and a funding circle retaining investment in the city region.

---

However

There were, for me, some glaring omissions in the event itself and the way ideas were filtered out of the mix.

Other bloggers, have already commented on the alarmingly white, middle class, male, make up of the room. Very few BME participants, few from a challenged background (“200+ powerful people”) and certainly far less than 50% female participation. Not entirely the organiser's responsibility, people self select for these types of events but it needs addressing to prevent this becoming a dream for a minority audience.

There was also something incongruous about an event of this nature being hosted by a company that, on it's own website, offers “Our support for managing your tax risk spans many issues. These include helping you avoid creating a taxable presence in a country; ...” particularly when this country's tax regime is responsible for the austerity measures currently hamstringing our public services, investment in our infrastructure, and driving personal debt to unprecedented levels.

Finally I would like to comment on the extremely large elephant that was in the room. This whole event is based on the assumption that we can continue to maintain a growing economy. Also, to some extent it was based on the idea of competing in a global economy as the way to achieve this. Many of the contributions from the room edged around this issue, talking about sustainability and the power of small businesses in Sheffield, but that main thread was not really challenged. Within that is also the forecasts from some quarters that by 2050, 85% of traditional jobs will be automated or unnecessary.

---

We need to look over that cliff and look for the innovative and creative solutions that will ensure the best of the ideas the event delivered will happen.

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.