A bit like the Loch Ness Monster devolution has raised its head in public again following a period of under the surface negotiations and discussions. The clock is ticking as a decision needs to be taken by government as to whether it is serious about devolution or whether they are going to continue with devo-lite through the City Deals to allow the City Region concept they invented to continue to function.
The latest regional position is that a majority of those involved in the discussions have decided to support a partial Yorkshire deal. I understand that this has the support of 17 of the 23 regional leaders with a varying degree of warmth, ranging from this deal is possibly better than no deal to a long standing principled support for the largest possible Yorkshire footprint.
I am not involved in any way with the detailed discussions but I am still in touch with various people who are, on all sides of the argument, and I appreciate the arm wrestle that has been going on locally and with national government and know the political, economic and geographic difficulties that there are in trying to get a deal. I also recognise that as someone who is semi-detached from the process it is easy to quibble but I do believe that, locally and nationally, we are in danger of losing site of the fundamental economic reasons devolution is needed and the issue of geography should follow on from this.
When the Government set up City Regions it did so on the basis that they were functioning economic areas. This means that most people who lived in the region worked in the region and that there was a supply chain infrastructure and economic links that meant local control of budgets would benefit the widest group of residents and businesses. There was also social aspect to these areas, people know something about each others districts and there was a level of interaction that enabled informed decisions to be made. The wider the geographic area becomes the less these links become and the more diluted and unfocused do these decisions become as do the benefits.
A large geography, based simply on county boundaries has an emotional and cultural significance and this is not to be ignored; nor is the international recognition of Yorkshire (or in this case a majority of it) unimportant which is why local authorities have supported Welcome To Yorkshire so strongly over the years. However the economic reality is that large parts of West Yorkshire have greater links with Manchester and East Lancashire than they do with large parts of North Yorkshire. This is not related to regional geography but to the historical developments of our economies, it is less romantic or culturally significant but in terms of jobs and economic growth it is a key issue that is not being considered as part of our devolution discussion. If devolution is about economic growth which is what everyone says it is it must be based on economic regions. Bradford and West Yorkshire are proud parts of Yorkshire but have traditionally looked East and South to create links with other manufacturing and industrialised areas, not North to the more rural areas for business growth.
There are large parts of West Yorkshire authorities that are rural and do have commonalities with North Yorkshire but any analysis comparing employment, potential jobs growth and economic output between the two areas shows that the comparative importance of this section of the economy in North Yorkshire far outweighs that in West Yorkshire. A consequence of this in a wider devolved setting is that the money allocated will be subject to severe political and sectional pressure from both sides of the economy with a danger that either one side will lose out or that a compromise deal will result in ineffective investment.
The same concerns arise when you look at infrastructure investment. Even if you assume that a larger geographic area will result in additional devolved funds the priorities for the allocation of those funds will vary widely. Through the Transport for The North and Northern Powerhouse arrangements distinct West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire priorities have been tabled and each is free to pursue these, a larger devolved area would have to deal internally with these competing priorities before tabling them. The clear rail priorities for West Yorkshire (and to be fair some of our neighbouring districts) would be HS3 and the electrification of the Trans Pennine rail service, for understandable reasons this would not be a priority for some other parts of the region. Dealing with this would not be insurmountable, assuming good will on all side, but would a layer of complication that is not helpful or needed.
The last pan Yorkshire regeneration body, Yorkshire Forward, had to split the county up into its sub regions to allow it to function effectively. The talk is now about having an elected mayor but keep the current existing sub-regional combined authorities which in itself recognises that the regional proposal is not effective or efficient. The in-built tension between the CAs and the Mayor is a potential recipe for frustration and delay and the elephant in the room will be who has final say over the allocation of resources.
The proposal as it currently stands and as I understand it is not for Yorkshire devolution, there are six areas which have not signed up to the idea, possibly as they have the same concerns as expressed above. We are told that this is the coalition of the willing and I recognise the need for willing participants in any deal but it may be better described as the line of least resistance. At least some of those involved are not willing and if and when push comes to shove may not sign up to the final deal, I don’t know what will happen but there has been precedent in other regions of last-minute hold outs by areas for all manner of reasons. Various parts of the Yorkshire region see their economic interests lying outside of the proposed geography, others have been concerned about their interests being overwhelmed by parts of the region which have no synergy with their social and economic needs, and for others there are political concerns, not least how such an area can have a structure that is both accountable and of a size that allows it to function.
The West Yorkshire / LCR model was of a size where the functions and structure were such that there was a level of accountability and control which may have been indirect but had a clear link to the constituent authorities and this could continue even with a Mayor should one be forced on us. The size of the current proposal can only be compared to London which had to invent another layer of accountability to ensure that the Mayor had at least some level of scrutiny and accountability via the GLA. Currently there appear to be no such plans for a similar system in these proposals or much of a discussion about whether this would be possible or desirable.
All the above is based on my long-held views on the devolution debate but comes with the warning that I have not been directly involved over the last 18 months but I have continued to keep my ear to the ground.
As ever we await a response from government but as with Brexit we should expect that their response will be based on their own political interests rather than any desire to secure the best deal for our region and like Brexit they may conclude that no deal is better than a bad deal for them. I know that regional Tory politicians at all levels have used their influence to block deals that have met the governments publicly stated policies on devolution because of their own sectional interests and I have no doubt that somewhere in central office someone will be number crunching likely political scenarios. Whilst they do that people in Bradford, Wakefield, York, Harrogate and Skipton will continue to lose out compared to those areas where the Tories do not have to worry about electoral geography.
I do not know if this proposal will work but I doubt it will be as effective or beneficial as a deal based on the governments own stated policy of functional economic areas would be. The chances are that we will only know if it is an improvement many years down the line when we can compare it to what LCR and WYCA have achieved over the last few years. Whilst not perfect the current system has delivered and if used as a the basis for a devolution deal it could deliver more whereas government intransigence will break what is delivering to install an untested idea for their own political ends.
For me devolution has always been about giving power and resources from Government to the most effective and efficient local structure to deliver for the good of local people. I think that there is a good case for a Yorkshire wide assembly to deal with many of the issues that are best dealt with at a Yorkshire level, in the same way that we have set up the Northern Powerhouse and Transport for the North to work together over larger geographical areas, but these have grown from below, not been imposed for political advantage from above.
I know how difficult this process has been and will continue to be in the months to come and that compromise and movement is needed but apart from the need to release government grants for future development I have seen no recent economic or practical argument that convinces me to change my view that this proposal has anymore chance of success than it did when it was put forward some years ago. The devil will be in the detail, of which there is a limited amount to go on but unless some of the fundamental issues can be addressed soon it maybe that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that Government continues to work with the existing City Region structure and Combined Authorities to allow us to continue to deliver to our communities.
One of the concerns is that the local deals with Government run out next year and this could mean that the current limited ability to allocate investment locally may cease if a deal is not done by then. Whilst this is a genuine concern it should not be the basis for making a long term decision which will affect our economy for years to come. Whilst the current proposal would not need primary legislation it is highly unlikely that any deal could be completed by the time that the money stops under the current arrangments. If the Govermnm,ent is saying that they will only continue to fund regeneration if this deal is agreed you can make up your own mind about their priorities.
I hope that the above may contribute to the debate that will continue at many levels both formally and informally. For the current proposals to work we need to know more about the what and the how. If Government is going to simply ignore that whole basis of its economic approach for the last 7 years to achieve a political fix for its supporters then we should all look very carefully at this particular gift horses teeth.
dgreen367 