Who wants to go to the LEP annual conference – tickets here

DATE AND TIME
Mon 3 October 2016
13:30 – 18:00

LOCATION
Sandy Park
Sandy Park Way
Exeter

“Heart of the South West LEP’s Annual Conference”

We would like to invite you to register for the HotSW LEP’s Annual Conference, which this year will be held in the afternoon of Monday 3rd October at Sandy Park, near Exeter (EX2 7NN).

The Conference is an opportunity to meet with the wider LEP partnership and to network with other stakeholders. It is a free event that is aimed at the private, public and third sectors, and that will include an update on present economic issues for our area – including Brexit and Devolution – and a look at what is planned for the future. This year the focus will be around Productivity and particularly in relation to the ‘people’ and supply chain elements.

We are expecting that demand will be high and recommend that you reserve your place early. To this end the registration link above is to reserve your place at the Conference. Once registered and nearer the date, you will be sent a link to book your preferred seminar sessions and optional attendance at the AGM.

The following is a guide for the afternoon:

1.30pm to 1.45pm – Arrival at Sandy Park – Registration and refreshments

2pm – Conference starts, followed by seminar sessions

5.00pm – Conference closes

5.00pm – 5.15pm – Refreshment break, registration for those attending just for the AGM

5.15pm – 5.45pm – HotSW LEP’s AGM

5.45pm – Finish

Please note that the refreshments that will be provided will be tea / coffee with biscuits etc.”

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/heart-of-the-south-west-leps-annual-conference-registration-26536396075?aff=eiosprexshrefabk&ref=eiosprexshrefabk

Tourism is expected to have a much higher growth rate than the national economy as a whole. Do our councils and Local Enterprise Partnership reflect this in their local plans or devolution plans? No. Why? You will need to ask them – provided you can drag them all away from their high-end housing development and nuclear industry interests first.

LGA press release 27 September 2016

“New research by the LGA has found that the tourist industry is set to grow by nearly 3% every year over the next decade.

The LGA is urging the Government to keep up the momentum on agreeing devolution proposals to further boost tourism-led growth.

English tourism can soar under devolution, say councils
LGA press release 27 September 2016

English tourism can soar under devolution deals with new figures revealing the tourist industry is set to grow by nearly three per cent every year over the next decade, research by the Local Government Association revealed today.

With tourism emerging as one of the fastest growing industries, the LGA said local areas can use the devolution agenda to turn their cities and counties into thriving tourist hotspots for the growing ‘staycation’ market and overseas visitors.

To mark World Tourism Day, new research commissioned by the LGA shows that domestic tourism is predicted to grow 2.9 per cent every year over the next decade, which is more than the overall economy (2.5 per cent).

It follows latest industry figures which reveal there were 103 million overnight trips in England in 2015, an 11 per cent increase compared to 2014, and an 8 per cent increase in expenditure compared to 2014, with a total spend of £19.6 billion.

Regions which saw the biggest increases in overnight trips include the West Midlands (+22 per cent), Yorkshire (+20 per cent), the South West (+14 per cent) and London (+14 per cent).

Councils are already enjoying huge economic returns on investment in tourism through ambitious projects. They include:

· Plymouth City Council – Plymouth has enjoyed visitor growth of over 28 per cent since 2008 and an increased spend of 23 per cent in turn has helped to increase overall jobs in the sector by 92 per cent to just over 8,000 – 7 per cent of the local economy. The strategy has included being re-branded as ‘Britain’s Ocean City’ in 2013 ahead of the 400th anniversary in 2020 of the Mayflower sailing which is to be celebrated on a globally significant scale

· Staffordshire County Council – adopting a new strategic approach to sport, “Sportshire”, is paying dividends for tourism. Hosting Ironman Staffordshire 70.3 and the UK Corporate Games, both in 2015, attracted 16,000 visitors into the area, creating an economic boost of £5.4 million. Staffordshire secured a three-year contract for the long-distance Ironman triathlon

· Liverpool City Council – to boost the city’s tourism industry, which is worth nearly £4 billion a year, the council is using its borrowing power to provide an upfront capital grant which is repaid by reduced revenue funding, or increased lease charges if it’s a council-owned building. The grant is used for venue refurbishments, resulting in a boost in revenue and visitors, making them more sustainable. To date, The Philharmonic Hall, Royal Court Theatre and Unity Theatre have all benefited.
The LGA is urging the Government to keep up the momentum on agreeing devolution proposals to further boost tourism-led growth. The recently announced Tourism Action Plan is a step in the right direction, but much more could be done to put the levers of growth in the hands of local leaders.

By focusing on improving transport, infrastructure, skills and business support – all central to devolution deals and key to boosting tourism – combined authorities and other similar arrangements can make better, more efficient decisions to maximise tourist revenue.

Crucially, councils and local partners can link these policy levers to enhance the distinctiveness of destinations, including high quality attractions and skilled labour to drive England’s tourist economy and unlock further growth.

With UK residents increasingly holidaying – and spending – at home rather than abroad, this is a trend that devolution deals can exploit. The UK’s tourism deficit – the difference between money spent by UK residents holidaying abroad and money spent in the UK by overseas visitors – has fallen from a peak of over £20 billion in 2008, to under £14 billion in 2014.

Even with this trend, less than 40 per cent of England’s total holiday spend goes on domestic tourism, which offers significant potential growth for devolved powers to target by offering high quality destination experiences that will keep people holidaying at home and persuade international visitors to London to extend their stay to the rest of the country.

Reports of a jump in tourist spending following a softening in the pound post-Brexit further underline the potential of tourism for local economies.

Councils will also be able to keep all locally raised business rates by 2020 which will further incentivise councils to attract and retain businesses in local growth sectors, including tourism.

Cllr Ian Stephens, Chair of the LGA’s Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, said:

“Councils have long recognised, and supported, the value of tourism to local growth, jobs and prosperity, which the devolution agenda should be primed to exploit.

“The tourist economy is one of the UK’s fastest growing economic sectors and councils have the opportunity to align their devolved responsibilities to improve their tourism offer to best showcase their unique identity and heritage, from food and drink and natural landscape to historic buildings and traditional festivals.

“Local areas have already capitalised on recent tourism opportunities and councils can use devolution deals to improve transport, infrastructure, skills and business support, which are crucial levers to maximise the tourist pound and economic growth.

“Decisions about these critical success factors for boosting tourism are best taken at the local level, which devolution deals stand to make possible through combined authorities and similar local governance arrangements.

“The move to full localisation of business rates in 2020 means that it will be even more important for councils to support and attract tourism-related businesses, where this is a local growth priority.

“There is significant growth potential from tourism and our analysis highlights an opportunity for increasing staycations in order to close the UK’s large tourism deficit.

“By creating the wider conditions for the visitor economy to thrive, local communities also benefit from a successful local visitor economy with an increased choice of facilities such as places to eat out, local shops, events and exhibitions, as well as conservation of local heritage and the natural landscape.

“The Government needs to keep up the momentum on agreeing devolution proposals to further boost tourism-led growth and transform local economies.”

Case studies

Plymouth City Council

Plymouth re-branded as ‘Britain’s Ocean City’ in 2013 as part of its first ever Visitor Strategy launched in 2010. With the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower sailing in 2020 the city aims to grow visitors to the city by 20 per cent and spend by 25 per cent up to 2020 in line with a huge ambition to commemorate the anniversary on a globally significant scale.

Since the baseline figures were established in 2008 visitor growth of over 28 per cent and increased spend of 23 per cent in turn has helped to increase overall jobs in the sector by 92 per cent to just over 8,000 – 7 per cent of the local economy. Looking forward to 2020, Plymouth has aligned itself behind the Mayflower plans and has in process unprecedented capital development of over £70 million as well as a major commitment of over £2.25 million revenue from the city council to supporting the project. Projects include a new hotel development, coach hub, re-designed railway station and cruise terminal as well as a £40 million extension by British Land to their Drake Circus development. It is estimated that more than 25 million Americans are descended from the Mayflower pilgrims and Plymouth is working closely with the national partnership to ensure that the UK benefits not just in 2020 but significantly beyond.

Staffordshire County Council

Developing from the City Deal process, Staffordshire County Council has adopted a new strategic approach to sport, “Sportshire”, which is attracting visitors and boosting the local economy through major events and sporting infrastructure.

The main aims were to increase the number of overnight stays and subsequent visitor spend, which are low in comparison to West Midlands counterparts, and attract more high spending visitors. In Year 1 (2015), this was achieved by hosting Ironman Staffordshire 70.3 and the UK Corporate Games. These events attracted 16,000 visitors into the area, creating an economic impact of £5.4 million. Staffordshire secured a three-year contract for the long-distance Ironman triathlon.

Liverpool City Council

Liverpool’s tourism industry is worth nearly £4 billion a year. One of its biggest challenges is funding cultural organisations which play a vital role in tourism landscape. Invest to Save is an initiative in which the council uses its borrowing power to provide an upfront capital grant which is repaid by reduced revenue funding, or increased lease charges if it’s a council-owned building. The grant is used for much-needed improvements to the physical condition of a venue, resulting in a financial and visitor number boost, making them more sustainable.

To date, The Philharmonic Hall, Royal Court Theatre and Unity Theatre have all benefited. This work directly supports the City Region’s plan to grow the visitor economy’s value by £200 million by 2020.

“Inclusive Devolution”

Here are the main points of the RSA publication referred to in the previous post:

A new policy framework to promote inclusive growth

The report proposes a policy framework based on the following elements:

Integrating economic and social policy — we argue for a model which combines economic and social policy to generate inclusive growth. That means integrating people-focused policies on skills, family support and education with economic development strategies linked to investment and industry policy.

Devolution that is social as well as economic — up until now, devolution to cities has mostly related to strategic economic functions. The next phase of devolution needs to have a much stronger social policy focus so that public service reform can support local growth.

More funding to support inclusive growth at local level — the context for devolution so far has been fiscal neutrality and austerity. The establishment of investment funds and the transfer of economic functions has been good for cities, but at the same time their overall revenue budgets have shrunk substantially. The next phase of what we call ‘grown up devolution’ will need to provide more funding for social and capital projects.

Prioritising prevention and early intervention — it is widely accepted that we spend too much on picking up the pieces of social and economic failure. Now is the time to begin the process of shifting the balance of spending towards prevention and early intervention, so that public services can support inclusive growth, rather than respond to the lack of it.

View at Medium.com

Devolution “myths” not myths at all, says Devon County Councillor

From the Facebook page of Lib Dem Councillor for Totnes, Robert Vint:

“On Monday Devon County Councillors were presented with a “Myth Busting” training session on Devolution. On Thursday there was a repeat session for South Hams District Councillors.

The “Myths” they were attempting to “bust” were that the Devolution process was led by the LEP, was undemocratic, would result in local government reorganisation / centralisation etc.

The explanations – or non-explanations – only strengthened my concerns. It was confirmed that there would be no public consultation on the economic development plan but only on the Combined Authority proposal and that the LEP had played a central role.

I asked why the plan did not start by identifying local needs such as rural unemployment and affordable housing then consult communities and small businesses on how to tackle these problems. They said not to worry as this was an outline economic plan – but later they confirmed that there would be no consultation on the economic plan or any opportunity to change it.

We have a Devolution Prospectus written by the few big businesses in the LEP to serve their own needs rather than those of the wider community of Devon and Somerset. This has then been rubberstamped by local authorities who did not have the staff, time or vision to rewrite it to meet our real needs and who failed to consult residents and small and family businesses. As a result we will be subjected, without any opportunity to comment, to a local economic development strategy that will serve the wealthy rather than the majority and that will fail to provide jobs where they’re needed or houses to the people who need them most.

In contrast the RSA – Royal Society of Arts – outlines how we should be delivering genuine, fair and inclusive devolution (see below).

The UK’s economic status-quo has resulted in huge sections of our population being ‘left behind’. So the RSA are proposing a radical programme of devolution, inclusive industrial strategies and investment in human capital to create a more inclusive, equal society.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2016/09/inclusive-growth-proposals

“We need to talk about Devon”

Emeritus Martin Shaw joined Sussex as Professor of International Relations and Politics in 1995, and became Research Professor in 2008. He was head of department at Sussex from 1996-99. After graduating from the London School of Economics in Sociology, he held lecturerships in Sociology at Durham and Hull (from which he gained his PhD) and was Professor of Political and International Sociology at Hull. He currently holds a Professorial Fellowship at Roehampton University, London, and is a Visiting Professor at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacional.

Professor Shaw is currently a town councillor in Seaton, Devon.

“The Conservative hold on power in Britain is stronger than might be implied by its slim 17-seat majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. Labour, the only other party with a hope of forming an electoral majority, would need to gain around 100 seats even before the impact of the newly announced boundary changes is taken into account. Alternatively, it could settle for a coalition, and forge an agreement with the Scottish National Party; but this looks no more possible now than in 2015. As the Labour leadership contest draws to a close, the party’s road to power, whoever wins, is extremely difficult to forsee.

The Tory elective dictatorship rests on an almost complete dominance in southern England (outside large cities and university towns), which was also the principal area of support for Brexit. In the 2015 general election, the Tories’ targeted wipeout of the Liberal Democrats across the South West delivered their unexpected majority. South and west of Bristol there is only one non-Tory MP (Labour’s Ben Bradshaw in Exeter). Even more than in the much-discussed case of Scotland under the SNP, the South West has become a virtual one-party state.

Some outside the region have speculated that a Liberal Democrat recovery might help enable a ‘progressive alliance’ to form as an alternative to Theresa May’s Tories. However, a recovery to pre-2015 levels would not only be insufficient to offset Labour’s deficits in Scotland as elsewhere, it also ignores the extent to which the Tories have concentrated power to make it difficult for any opposition party to change the regional balance.The situation in the region’s largest county, Devon, shows the depth of the problem. But at the same time, it is where local activists are devising new ways of doing politics that are challenging Tory control.

A microcosm of Tory power
The Tory monopoly in Devon is even more complete than in neighbouring Cornwall and Somerset. Conservatives have overwhelming control of local government (both unitary authorities, the County Council and almost all the districts). In the urban areas, the general election results were close, and opposition parties remain in contention. Labour has strong representation in Plymouth, as well as Exeter where they recently consolidated their control of the City Council, and the Lib Dems enjoy considerable support in Torbay. But in the rural areas and small towns, the majority of the county, Tory dominance is almost absolute at every level – barring some town and parish councils where politics is less partisan.

Some rural areas have never had a non-Tory MP. The Tories had six of the seven non-urban Devon seats even in 2010. At least one council, East Devon, has been Tory since it was created in 1973. In semi-rural Devon, even an unlikely Lib Dem revival would make little difference. How then can things ever change?

Minority rule
It is important to understand that Conservative rule is based neither on majority support or extensive party membership. In 2015, the party gained under 45 per cent of all votes. Even in the seven non-urban seats, the 2015 increase in Tory support brought them only up to a 49 per cent average; in the urban seats they squeaked in on the same 37 per cent that gave them their national majority. Yet the non-Conservative majority are virtually unrepresented.

The Tory party is hollowed out and probably has far fewer members than Labour. The party could only take Torbay and North Devon from the Lib Dems with the aid of the notorious ‘battle bus’ activists, whose costs their Torbay agent, Alison Hernandez – like many others – failed to declare. Even after Channel 4 broke the scandal in 2016, Hernandez was narrowly elected as Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner, but refused to stand aside as she was investigated (the case was transferred to another force and is still pending).

As ever where one-party rule is so entrenched, corruption is not far away. Revelations like those in 2013, when East Devon Tory councillor Graham Brown was forced to resign after telling a journalist he could obtain planning permission in return for cash, fuel widespread cynicism about local power which make the ruling party vulnerable.The flexibility of local Tory MPs over Brexit is likely to create a new constituency for opposition; ‘pro-Remain’ Neil Parish MP, Chair of the parliamentary Environment committee, quickly backed Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom in quick succession for the leadership and now describes Brexit as a ‘glorious opportunity’.

Failure of the opposition parties
That non-Tory votes largely fail to make an impact is partly the repsonsibility of previous Labour and Lib Dem politicians. They have repeatedly failed to reform the electoral system, both at the national and local level. Tony Blair’s government never held the referendum on Proportional Representation to which its 1997 manifesto committed it. Current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has never campaigned for PR during his 33 years in Parliament, and together with his rival Owen Smith continues to fudge the issue in recent responses to the Electoral Reform Society.

Nick Clegg abandoned the Lib Dems’ longstanding committment to proportional representation to obtain office in 2010, settling for the promise of a referendum on the weaker ‘alternative vote’ system without even securing government support for change. In the South West, the Lib Dems’ collective political suicide through the Coalition has broken the residual credibility of the first-past-the-post system.

Failing services
Because Tory dominance is so extensive, the party has largely taken voters for granted. Devon is suffering sharply from the general underfunding, balkanisation and creeping part-privatisation of public services. The NHS trust running the flagship Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital has been forced from a healthy surplus into deep deficit. The NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, also in chronic deficit, tried to bar some patients from routine operations until obliged by public pressure to abandon its plans. Local Community Hospitals have lost beds and have been handed over to NHS Property Services, which can put up rents or, worse, sell off the sites.

Devon is a region of heavy immigration, mainly of retirees from other English regions (although with some international migrants, concentrated in its cities). As in the NHS, the gap between funding and need threatens adult social care. Child protection services are deemed inadequate. Since Tory Devon retains grammar schools, there are concerns about the effects of Theresa May’s proposed expansion of these schools on the excluded majority of children.

Phoney devolution
The unaccountability of Devon Tories is also evident in how they have embraced the half-baked, patchwork ‘devolution’ launched by George Osborne, which offers limited ‘additional’ money – while core government funding for local services is pared down or eliminated. Although Devon is a much larger and more populous county than neighbouring Cornwall which has a sole devolution deal, Devon is being forced into a merger with Somerset in a new brand, an affront to local identities, ‘Heart of the South West’.

The principal rationale for the linkage seems to be to create a larger base for the anachronistic and hyper-expensive Hinckley C nuclear project. Any benefits, if they materialise, will be overwhelmingly for the neighbouring county. The proposed devolution, with a hyper-aspirational prospectus which bears comparison to Vote Leave’s notorious offer, is being run through the Local Economic Partnership, dominated by unelected business leaders.

The county election challenge
Devon County Council comes up for reelection in May 2017. In 2013, the Tories won 38 of the 62 seats on a mere 35 per cent of the vote. Under first past the post, the divided Lib Dems, Labour, Greens and Independents between them won only 20 seats for 41 per cent of the vote. (UKIP, which polled 23 per cent, won 4 seats.) It is obvious that none of the three centre and left opposition parties can win a majority in 2017. The Lib Dems may keep some strongholds, but they are still picking themselves up from their 2015 battering, and elsewhere local activists are thin on the ground.

Despite a deep conflict between Bradshaw and pro-Corbyn Momentum activists, Labour will probably keep its Exeter seats, but is unlikely to win in the rural areas and small towns. Rural Labour parties have seen the Corbyn surge in membership but with modest benefits for local activism: a constituency party which has trebled its membership to 500 may still only get about 15 people to its meetings. Members vote for their preferred leader, but have too little scope to change things locally. Even if it advances, Labour is starting from a very low base, and the Greens are smaller.

New politics?
The 2015 elections saw important steps forward for a different kind of politics in semi-rural East Devon. From a standing start, Independent candidate Claire Wright leapfrogged UKIP, Labour and the Lib Dems to take second place in the East Devon parliamentary constituency of Hugo Swire, a ‘Cameron croney’ since knighted in his resignation honours. It was the only Independent second place anywhere in England, after a grassroots campaign typically ignored by the national press.

In parallel, the East Devon Alliance, formed in 2013 out of revulsion at the Brown case and East Devon’s pro-developer bias, put up over 30 district council candidates and succeeded, despite the simultaneous Tory general election victory, in taking ten seats from the Tories (this writer was an unsuccessful candidate). Independents led by EDA replaced the Lib Dems as the official opposition.

An investigative blog, East Devon Watch, has played an important informational role in the new politics, now matched by a South Devon Watch site. An Independent group successfully challenged for control of Buckfastleigh Town Council, in the Teinbridge district, at the same time as the better-known ‘flatpack democracy’ of Frome in Somerset. A loose Independent network is emerging across the South West, including Cornwall.

Although social media played an important part in these campaigns, many relied heavily on old-fashioned doorstep campaigning. A new campaign to influence the County Council elections, Devon United, is perhaps the first – certainly the most ambitious – initiative to be actually launched through social media. Its first meeting in October will be addressed by Paul Hilder, co-founder of OpenDemocracy.net and CrowdPac and former global campaigns director for Avaaz and Change.org.

I have written recently about the limitations of the national progressive crowdsourcing campaign organisation, 38 Degrees, during and after the Brexit vote. It remains to be seen what happens when crowdsourced politics meets local electioneering, and how the division of the anti-Tory vote will be overcome. But this initiative shows that the new politics is alive and kicking in a county where the old politics has so manifestly failed.”

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/martin-shaw/we-need-to-talk-about-devon

May and devolution

“In a lengthy article in the Manchester Evening News, the prime minister said she was “absolutely committed” to devolving powers away from Westminster.

She said: “I don’t want to see our country dependent on one city any more. I want to get all of our great cities firing on all cylinders to rebalance our economy.”

Right – according to this model, ditch the LEP and have two “economic powerhouses” based on Plymouth and Exeter! (It is already happening secretly behind the usual closed doors – more on that soon).

Somerset? It doesn’t have a city, so let their city be Hinkley C!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/theresa-may-confirms-commitment-northern-powerhouse-george-osborne

Devolution and scrutiny

It is no coincidence that George Osborne, whose current Cheshire parliamentary seat will be lost in boundary changes and who wishes to remain an MP, has created a ‘Northern Powerhouse Partnership’ think tank and put himself in charge of it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37380653

If Owl lived in the area it would be VERY afraid!

“The proposed reduction in the number of MPs in the House of Commons will affect how government is held to account and how Whitehall’s devolution schemes are scrutinised.

The publication of the Boundary Commission for England’s plans for new parliamentary boundary has received heavy press coverage. Inevitably a lot of this has focused on the fate of some high profile MPs, and the possibility of increasing the country’s democratic deficit through the reduction of the number of parliamentarians in the House of Commons from 650 to 600.

However, some of this coverage is speculative in nature. We won’t know until 2018 the details of the boundaries on which constituencies will be fought in the 2020 election. And we don’t really know what the effect will be on politics both national and local.

What we do know is that it will create uncertainty in Westminster – and is likely to have an impact on the devolution agenda, too.

It’s early days but here are what I think could be some of the likely outcomes.

• MPs may find themselves distracted from their parliamentary activities. For some this will be because they are having to deal with reselection battles; for others it will be because they are having to prepare to campaign in a new constituency without the benefit of incumbency. This probably won’t affect the government’s legislative programme but it may affect scrutiny in select committees and the quality of scrutiny in Public Bill Committees, as MPs direct their time to the more pressing business of reselection and re-election. For progress on devolution, it could mean that the progress of deals – and a continued focus on pursuit of the devolution policy in the heart of government – is not held to account as effectively by MPs;

• Some MPs – those who fail to be reselected and/or those who choose not to stand again – may start to be more independent-minded. This may serve, in contrast to the point above, to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, and place government under pressure to do more to pas power down to local levels;

• In areas where prominent MPs have been a driving force in pushing forward devolution, the possible disappearance of those people from the current political scene may cause uncertainty and difficulties both for local areas and for government.

For local areas, this will bring additional uncertainty. Between now and 2018 comes a period during which local authorities can attempt to capitalise on what they have achieved so far, and can use existing channels to try to achieve more. Local areas will need to press on with more, and more ambitious, deals while the opportunity exists.

The pace of this exercise reflects the fact that between 2018 and 2020, boundary changes will lead to the reorganisation of political parties at a local level and the ramping up of the 2020 general election, not to mention the need to direct resources (parliamentary and otherwise) to the Brexit negotiations, which will presumably by then be in full swing.

The next two years, therefore, are crucial in embedding some results for local areas that are as positive as possible, and arguing successfully for more powers. This will be important if devolution is to maintain momentum over the 2018-20 period, which is likely to be more politically febrile.

Effective member-led scrutiny at local level can help to play a part in this. Local councillors, through scrutiny, can keep up pressure to continue to argue for strong deals which will make a difference for local people; they can help to demonstrate and promote an appetite within the local area for more powers. They can also help to draw together the evidence to support new proposals to government. Even where combined authorities have been set up and the election of Mayors is on the horizon, good scrutiny can still – in the next two years – help to get that message across both to government and to local people. Beyond 2018 at the latest, all bets are off – the prospect of boundary changes and Brexit will make Westminster a strange and unpredictable place, and government’s (and parliamentarians’) interests are likely to have moved elsewhere.”

Ed Hammond is the head of programmes (Local Accountability) at the Centre for Public Scrutiny

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/what-parliamentary-boundary-changes-mean-scrutiny

Hello, Hinkley C, goodbye green energy (and the NHS)

The champagne corks will be popping at our Local Development Partnership (though we can’t tell you where that will be as they don’t tell us where their offices are). Many pockets to be lined by those members with nuclear interests.

Green energy will now be the Cinderella and the money that could have got our NHS out of debt will now be poured into Chinese and French pockets.

And our LEP can hold us all to ransom as it holds all our purse strings.

Happy days.

Voluntary sector demands to be involved in devolution bids

Dream on people – you are seen as a cost not a benefit or asset to our “growth led” devolution bid.

“A group of more than 30 voluntary sector leaders has set out a statement of principles for devolution across England that includes a call for greater involvement of voluntary organisations in local decision-making.

At a summit held in London on 7 September, the group set out steps that should be taken to put people at the heart of devolution in England.

Among the 16 points – covering voice and advocacy, financing devolution, and public service reform – was a call for an agreement between devolved authorities, elected officials and the voluntary sector around the design, commissioning, funding and delivery of public services.

Under the government’s devolution programme, combined authorities have reached a series of deals with Whitehall that will see them take on more powers over services including transport, planning and skills. These deals are in place in Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Liverpool and the Tees Valley, although a deal for the North East Combined Authority was rejected by four of the seven councils involved last week.

At the Devolution and the Voluntary Sector Summit, leaders said devolved areas must be given the time and resources to create new democratic methods. The summit was convened by Charity Finance Group, Children England, Locality and the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action.

These new methods should not be tied to pre-existing structures and processes. There also needed to be a commitment to local and specialist voluntary organisations to help engage people and communities in devolved decisions. Of particular focus in this endeavour should be disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups.

The group expressed the view that no financial settlement should be agreed with an area until there had been an opportunity to map and assess the local needs and resources (including voluntary and private sector assets). Ahead of the government’s implementation of full business rates localisation, the summit also called on ministers to develop a method of distributing resources post-devolution that ensured that inequalities were not locked in.

The statement called for devolution to be based on the principle of subsidiary, as well as highlighting the need for an agreement between devolved authorities, elected officials and the voluntary sector about the design, commissioning, funding and delivery of public services.

Services should be commissioned on the basis of long term social outcomes rather than short term financial pressures, the group stated. Meanwhile, central government must articulate at the beginning of the process how it is accountable for services that will be devolved.

Caron Bradshaw, chief executive of Charity Finance Group, said the vision for devolution could reset the high-profile devolution drive with full involvement of the voluntary sector as an active partner to support communities.

Locality chief executive Tony Armstrong added: “There is a clear opportunity for devolution to harness the capacity and ideas of local people and organisations to transform their communities. But there is a risk that the devolution agenda is missing this potential.

“The devolution summit has been an important moment for us to come together as a sector, and think about what good devolution looks like and the principles that are essential for making this happen.”

North-East devolution called off by Javid

“Devolution for the north-east of England is “off the table”, communities secretary Sajid Javid has said.

Plans for the area’s first directly elected mayor have been scrapped and the relevant legislation withdrawn.

On Tuesday four of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.

Mr Javid was “very disappointed” they had voted against the “ambitious and far-reaching devolution deal”, he said.

Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside councils said they were not satisfied with reassurances over funding following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils said they remained committed to the plan.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37312978

“Four out of seven north-east councils vote against devolution Sunderland, Durham, South Tyneside and Gateshead reject proposals including election of north-eastern mayor”

” … Paul Watson, chair of the North East Combined Authority (Neca) of the seven councils, described the vote as disappointing. He said: “Each of the seven councils which make up the Neca has always made clear that they support the principle of devolution for the north-east. Following the outcome of the EU referendum and the subsequent changes within government, council leaders have been equally clear that to move forward, the new government must provide assurances regarding the terms of the region’s devolution deal.

“Extensive discussions and negotiations have taken place with government and within the region over recent months but unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it has not been possible to reach an agreement which all of the seven local authorities feel able to support. Although this is disappointing we will continue to work together with government to achieve our ambition of a stronger regional economy with improved opportunities for residents and businesses.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/north-east-councils-vote-against-devolution-sunderland-durham-south-tyneside-gateshead

Compare and contrast with Devon and Somerset where councils are happy to vote like sheep for devolution, knowing almost nothing about, having been given minimal information by their Leaders and their business pals on the Local Enterprise Partnership.

“Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief “

The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

The article raises very serious concerns about the business sense of our Local Enterprise Partnership, which seems blind to the economic realities of the Hinkley C project.

We know, of course, that many members of our LEP have enormous direct and indirect investment in the project and presumably need it to continue to allow their own interests to thrive.

But is it in OUR interest to allow them to trouser likely profits from such an unbalanced deal?

They will say that they are doing this for our benefit, of course – more jobs, more houses, etc. But with Brexit we now look towards having fewer people coming to this country from the EU (though exceptions would doubtless be made for French and Chinese workers) and much higher import costs if we do not have free trade in the EU. Plus the business case for renewables is strengthening all the time, especially as battery storage research and implementation has made enormous progress.

Our LEP members know all this but only last week its CEO was telling us how hard he and his members are battling to keep the project going:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=a36a037523&e=fa5cdb1f1

We have to ask: who are they battling for – and why?

The great scandal of LEPs now lies before us: small (very small) groups of business people who look to their own interests before those of the residents where they live. Often in secret and with minimal or no scrutiny. And who pursue their own interests even when they put them at odds with the majority of people in the areas they purportedly represent.

Our East Devon Business Forum seems to have been a practice run for our Local Enterprise partnership, and we all know how that ended – also coincidentally in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Heart of the South West LEP member doing well in the arms trade

?Good to see LEP board member Nick Ames doing well with his company’s new range of military arms vehicles:

Dunkeswell-based Supacat is unveiling the Logistic Support and Recovery variants at the DVD2016 show, a two-day event at Millbrook Proving Ground, on Wednesday and Thursday, September 7 and 8, which brings together army staff and industry representatives from the land equipment sector.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/supacat-to-unveil-new-military-vehicles-at-dvd2016-show/story-29679072-detail/story.html

Supacat has also moved into the nuclear sector and is, unsurprisingly backing Hinkley C along with other nuclear-invested board members:

https://www.nsan.co.uk/news/supacat-ltd-expand-nuclear

How long before we see a Nuclear Supercat?

image

Source: http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2009/11/newsflash.html

Devolution Mayors – in or out? Who knows!

“Mayors can provide an answer to the questions of accountability raised by devolution, but they are not the only solution. These decisions should be informed by what works for local places, not by the demands of national politics.

The Times has reported that Theresa May is to abandon George Osborne’s plans for imposing regional mayors. The reported reason for the change of policy? The prime minister’s wish to avoid establishing ‘new powerbases’ for the moderate wing of the Labour party.

This is not a sound basis for policy making and plans for local devolution should not driven by national party politics. We should remember that a sensible devolved settlement is not just about what works for Westminster, but what works for areas like Manchester, Liverpool, Tees Valley and all the other regions around the country that are set to benefit from increased powers.

So far, DCLG has denied the claims, saying that mayors “remain the best way to make [deals] work”. Though the government stopped short of forcing it on local authorities, directly elected mayors were a core part of George Osborne’s strategy, and government attitudes seemed to be hardening on the issue over the course of 2016. But the DCLG statement does seem to leave room for the government to row back on the mandatory element of the mayor programme.

LGiU has always argued that the decision to establish a directly elected mayor should be a local one and that different models might be appropriate in different areas of the country.

Directly elected mayors can be very positive for a region: they can provide a figurehead and political voice for a region and speak on a national platform for the local community. They have lots of soft convening power and direct accountability to their electorate. Mayors could use their powerful local mandate to ensure that those operating within the local state are accountable and transparent while maintaining acceptable standards.

Mayors therefore provide one answer to questions around leadership and accountability at a local level – but they are not the only answer. There are plenty of other models for regional governance, from a rolling chairship to a committee structure. And there is certainly appetite for different models. Two-tier rural areas in particular have found it difficult to reconcile their ambitions for devolution with the introduction of a mayor. Other parts of the country have already voted against the idea of mayors in a local referendum. LGiU is continuing to explore these options.

It is not surprise that Labour MPs have realised that running a city is a bigger draw than spending years in opposition. However, Theresa May’s reasoning for a u-turn on mayors shouldn’t be politically driven – it should be about sharing prosperity and growth as well as increasing democracy and local accountability.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/08/could-westminster-politics-end-march-mayors

Ministers for “Local Growth” announced

Business and energy secretary Greg Clark has named local growth ministers for all of England in order to reflect the role of local places in the development of the government’s industrial strategy.

All ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have been tasked with building relationships with a number of local enterprise partnerships in England, as well as with the devolved nations.
The department’s ministers – Nick Hurd, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Jo Johnson, Margot James and Jesse Norman – will be the first point of contact for respective LEPs in England within the department
.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/08/team-local-growth-ministers-announced

Ours is Jesse Norman:

Norman was a director of Barclays before leaving the City of London in 1997 to research and teach at University College, London. Prior to that he ran an educational charity in Eastern Europe in the Communist era. Despite his rebellious past Norman was identified by Bruce Anderson, formerly political editor of The Spectator, in January 2013 as a potential future Tory leader.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Norman

and from the Conservative Party website:

Jesse Norman was elected as MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire in 2010 and 2015. He has been married to Kate since 1992, has three children and lives in Hereford City.

Jesse was selected as a parliamentary candidate in December 2006. Whilst a candidate, he campaigned very actively on key local issues, fighting against the loss of public services and for a stronger voice for Herefordshire in Whitehall and Westminster. His campaigns have been featured in the Hereford Times, Hereford Journal and Ross Gazette.

Among other things, he acts as county-wide co-ordinator of the Herefordshire Save Our Post Offices campaign, and set up Schools First as a resource to help all those fighting school closures. In 2009 he ran a countywide campaign to support local shops, and published the Directory of Small Shops of Herefordshire. He is a trustee of the Kindle community centre in South Wye in Hereford City, where he has helped to set up a new youth theatre; and of the Friends of St Mary’s Church in Ross-on-Wye.

Jesse is a published author of many books and pamphlets, and has written widely in the national press. His book Compassionate Conservatism has been called the “handbook to Cameronism” by the Sunday Times, while the follow-up Compassionate Economics was described as “the most intelligent political tract of 2009, and the best analysis of the credit crunch” in the Daily Telegraph online.”

https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Members-of-Parliament/Norman-Jesse

“Handbook to Cameronism” … to be found in any remaindered book shop. Hhhmmm. Well, on the bright side, it isn’t Hugo Swire.

“Beyond metro mayors and ‘secret deals’: rethinking devolution in England”

The number of people who realise the devolution emperor had no clothes is growing.

“Beyond metro mayors and ‘secret deals’: rethinking devolution in England

As the guard changes in Westminster and new government seeks to differentiate itself from its predecessor, it is timely to review the state of the devolution debate, argues John Tomaney. Policymakers need to learn from the US experience and reconsider the fixation on mayors. Just as importantly, the problem with ‘secret deals’ must be addressed if devolution is going to have any real democratic credentials.

The Cameron/Osborne approach to devolution had a number of distinctive features. Chief among these was its fixation with the directly elected metro-mayor as the answer to urban governance problem. In the government’s diagnosis this model of governance addresses weaknesses in fragmented systems, improves democratic accountability and bring city- regions together round common economic development strategies. The government claimed:

The experience of London and other major international cities suggests that a directly elected mayor can cut through difficulties [of urban governance]. The government has therefore been clear that devolution of significant powers will rest on cities agreeing to rationalise governance and put in place a mayor to inspire confidence

But there is limited evidence to support these claims about the impact of directly elected mayors on local economic growth and the improvement of local services. Many of the assertions made in the English debate rest on more or less persuasive anecdotes drawn principally from the US experience and the limited experience in London.

The Limits of Metro-Mayors

Strong US mayors, with access to locally tax raised taxes, are seen as leading the renaissance of US cities. For instance, the economic resurgence of New York City is often attributed to the pro-business policies of ‘strong mayors’ such as Michael Bloomberg.

Rather less attention, however, is devoted to counterfactuals. We might look at the case of Detroit, where ‘strong mayors’ have presided over a vicious circle of economic decline and municipal bankruptcy. A high degree of local self-finance, far from ensuring resilience, was arguably a causal factor in the precipitous decline of Detroit. The mayoral system is in crisis there.

In 2013, the sixty-fifth mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, was sentenced to twenty-eight years in prison after being convicted of a variety of corruption charges. The city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013 and the State of Michigan appointed an emergency manager to assume control of the council.

Strong mayors can lead to hubris and overreach and be the antithesis of models of policy-making based on deliberation and increased accountability and scrutiny. Mayors have managed both the rapid recent growth of New York City and the catastrophic decline of Detroit. Isolating the influence of mayors among the many other factors at work in these cases is very difficult.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that the mayors have not presided over an era of a democratic renewal. On the contrary, the US mayoral system has been associated with declining levels of electoral participation in the big cities.

At the time that Robert F Wagner Jnr was elected as mayor of New York City in 1953, voter turnout was over 90 per cent. By the time Bill de Blasio was elected 109th mayor in 2013, voter turnout was less than 30 per cent. Similar rates of decline in voter turnout can be seen in cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Chicago. These declines in voter turnouts have occurred, moreover, in cities that are endowed with much more extensive local media than is the case in northern English cities.

A key feature of the US mayoral model concerns how it facilitates close relationships between local political and business elites in ways which typically lack transparency and scrutiny and which underpin models of economic development that favour urban property interests. It is this aspect of the US model that seems to have had a particular influence in UK policy debates. For instance, at the 2015 Conservative party conference in Manchester, George Osborne proposed that where elected mayors had been created, they would have the power to add a (capped) infrastructure levy on business rates.

There is considerable uncertainty about how both the devolution of business rates and the infrastructure levy would work in practice, but the government is clear that a levy can only be raised if a majority of ‘business members’ of the boards of Local Enterprise Partnerships agree.

In effect, resources will only be allowed to be spent on infrastructure projects that are approved by a handful of ‘business leaders’. It might fairly be asked why the interests of a small number of appointed businesspeople should trump the mandate of an elected mayor. It might even be argued that this development represents a partial return of the franchise property qualification which was abolished by the Representation of the People Act in 1918.

The problem with secret deals

The new devolution arrangements are not the product of wide public debate in the areas to be affected by them, but instead are the outcomes of ‘secret deals’ (‘City Deals’, ‘Devolution Deals’, etc.) between political and business elites at the national and local levels, exemplified in the case of Manchester.

In essence, these deals are assembled locally from a menu of policies approved by HM Treasury. It stretches the imagination to see this approach as leading to meaningful democratic renewal. On the contrary, the model of devolution currently on offer is one designed to advance a narrowly defined set of business interests with very little democratic scrutiny. Arguably, it is this approach to politics that was rejected in the Brexit referendum.

Underpinning the new policy is a theory of economic development that fosters interurban competition and economic concentration, tolerates and indeed even celebrates high levels of socio-economic inequality, is comfortable with some groups and places being losers and locks-in enduring austerity, most especially in the places that have borne the brunt of public expenditure cuts to date. Innovation and entrepreneurialism in economic development is tolerated only within a highly restricted range of parameters. It is a form of devolution in which ‘business’ exercises a direct and indirect veto over the preferences of citizens. The emerging settlement is akin to the model of ‘post-democracy’, as elaborated by Colin Crouch, whereby formal mechanisms of accountability exist, but their practical role is increasingly limited and embodies the interest of a small elite.

In a country as centralised as the UK, the case for devolution is strong in principle. But as the Cameron/Osborne era is put to rest, this might be an appropriate moment to the reconsider the narrow model that has been offer to date.

Note: This blog draws from the journal article ‘ Limits of Devolution: Localism, Economics and Post-democracy’, published by Political Quarterly.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=23993

“Nuclear espionage charge for China firm with one-third stake in UK’s Hinkley Point”

Oh dear.

The Chinese company with a major stake in the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station has been charged by the US government over nuclear espionage, according to the US justice department.

In a 17-page indictment, the US government said nuclear engineer Allen Ho, employed by the China General Nuclear Power Company, and the company itself had unlawfully conspired to develop nuclear material in China without US approval and “with the intent to secure an advantage to the People’s Republic of China”.

CGNPC has a 33% stake in the £18bn Hinkley Point project in Somerset, which Theresa May has delayed partly because of concerns over China’s involvement. The delay prompted a warning earlier this week from the Chinese ambassador to the UK, who said that relations between the two countries are at a “crucial historical juncture”. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Hinkley C: conflicts of interest on both sides of the channel

An eerily similar situation to our own, where several members of the Board of our Local Enterprise Partnership will gain for their own companies or establishments from the Hinkley C project. But no abstentions on our side either!

“French firms Bouygues and Vallourec denied that members of their boards who are also on the board of EDF had a conflict of interest when they voted in favour of the French utility’s Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain.

EDF’s board narrowly approved the controversial 18 billion pound project in a 10-7 vote on July 28. EDF unions argue the project should be delayed because of its financial risk and said on Monday that conflicts of interest in EDF’s board might have impacted the vote.

They say three EDF (EDF.PA) board members are also on the boards of other firms that are EDF customers, which could benefit from Hinkley Point, and should therefore have abstained.

Hours after the EDF board’s decision, the Britgish government announced a surprise decision to review the project, delaying its verdict until early autumn.

EDF board member Colette Lewiner is also on the board of construction firm Bouygues, (BOUY.PA) set to be one of the main contractors for Hinkley Point.

“There was no conflict of interest with regard to Mme. Lewiner,” a Bouygues spokesman said on Wednesday.

He said Lewiner is an independent Bouygues board member with whom management cannot interfere. He added that Bouygues decisions about Hinkley Point are not taken at board level.

Lewiner did not return a request for comment.

In October 2013, a joint venture of Bouygues unit Bouygues Travaux Publics (TP) and British firm Laing O’Rourke said it had been confirmed as preferred delivery partner for the main Hinkley Point civil engineering and construction contract, valued at over 2 billion pounds.

EDF board member Philippe Crouzet is also chairman of the board of Vallourec (VLLP.PA), whose Valinox unit makes tubes for nuclear power plants.

A spokeswoman confirmed Vallourec sells steel tubes for steam generators to Areva (AREVA.PA), which will deliver the two Hinkley Point reactors. She would not reveal sales data for individual clients nor comment on Crouzet’s Hinkley Point vote.

She added that Vallourec’s nuclear activities represent only about three percent of the group’s worldwide turnover.

“It is definitely not core business,” she said.

Vallourec says on its website it has been a partner of France’s nuclear industry from the outset and will play a key role in renovating the country’s nuclear power plants.

Finally, EDF board member Christian Masset, secretary general of the French foreign affairs ministry, is also on Areva’s board. Masset did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this year, Areva board chairman Philippe Varin stepped down from his EDF board mandate after unions and the French press raised questions about a possible conflict of interest between the two positions.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-britain-idUKKCN10L22N

Parliament Briefing Paper on devolution deals – more cracks

This was first published in April 2016 and then updated in July 2016 and shows the cracks appearing in the deals including this paragraph:

The main subjects of speculation

George Osborne, as Chancellor, was closely associated personally with the agenda. It is not clear whether the new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, will maintain support for the agenda within Government. Lord (Jim) O’Neill of Gatley has indicated that he would leave the Government if he perceived that the agenda was no longer being treated seriously.

Conversely, Greg Clark, the previous Secretary of State for communities and local government, claimed that he had “argued successfully … for English local government to be part of the negotiations on the terms of our exit”.

A number of sector representatives, as well as Mr Clark, have argued for a “radically expanded role for local government” in the wake of leaving the EU.

European Union structural funds have formed a major element of many devolution deals. It is not yet clear if and when structural funds will cease to be paid to UK localities. A number of sector representatives have argued that, if the funds are withdrawn, Government should make good the deficit for the 2014-20 programming period.”

This is how the paper is described:

This Commons Library briefing paper summarises the main developments regarding the process of devolution of powers to local government within England since 2014. It covers the devolution deals agreed between the Government and local areas up to July 2016, including the powers to be devolved, the procedures required for devolution to take place, and reactions to the policy from the local government and policy-making worlds.”

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07029#fullreport

Devolution – not in Derbyshire’s back yard if they can help it!

THAT’S HOW YOU DO IT! And Derbyshire doesn’t even have a Local Enterprise Partnership to muddy the waters even further:

“Derbyshire County Council has decided to launch legal action against Sheffield City Region (SCR) Combined Authority over proposals to put some county council services in the hands of the city-region’s new mayor.

The county council’s leader, Cllr Anne Western, said the authority is seeking permission from the High Court for a judicial review of these proposals, outlined in a SCR public consultation exercise that Derbyshire has branded “misleading, flawed and insufficient” – and therefore unlawful.

Cllr Western acknowledged that the council might be criticised for the decision, but stressed it is important to “act now and send out a strong message to help put a stop to these proposals, or risk Chesterfield spending the next 30 years living in South Yorkshire’s shadow”.

SCR’s consultation, which closes on 12 August, could transfer responsibility over some of the county council’s services to the Sheffield mayor, including decisions over major roads, funding for maintenance and road safety on all roads in the borough, public transport and travel concessions, skills for employment and major planning and investment projects.

“If these proposals go ahead, it will affect the people of Chesterfield and Derbyshire for generations to come and yet the consultation doesn’t tell the full story or ask the right questions − so how can people give an informed view?” Cllr Western said.

The county council has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all its residents and we could not sit idly by and watch South Yorkshire break up Derbyshire without a proper consultation.

“The fact is that if Chesterfield becomes a full member of SCR it will undoubtedly be at a huge financial cost to Derbyshire County Council − and therefore Derbyshire taxpayers − in making our services fit in with new arrangements for Chesterfield, not to mention around £1m in business rates from Markham Vale which would all be transferred to SCR.”

She stressed that if the plans – which the county council is asking to be legally quashed – go ahead, it would be a “big decision with no easy way back” should Chesterfield join the SCR Combined Authority. This would be despite the county council’s own online poll, which received 4,000 responses, showing that 92% of residents reject proposals to join the city-region’s authority.

As well as being a “leap in the dark” given no other council in the country has joined a combined authority outside their county border, which Derbyshire would be forced to do, plans are raising concerns of representation.

The county council said that because Chesterfield is better off than most of Sheffield and South Yorkshire, the new mayor could push its needs to the back of the queue. The mayor could also end up having “little regard” for residents in neighbouring Derbyshire districts, resulting in a potential change to transport services and therefore general borough connectivity.

It also criticised the fact that Derbyshire and Chesterfield councils would only have one vote each in joint decisions, while Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster – the members of SCR – would have two each.
The future of Chesterfield would also inevitably be tied to SCR’s 30-year devolution plan, despite only the first few years of investment in the borough having been outlined so far.

“We’ve got a moral duty to fight for our residents and protect them against things we believe will put them at a disadvantage,” Cllr Western continued.
“Chesterfield is Derbyshire’s biggest town, most people who live there also work in Derbyshire and they don’t want to become a suburb of Sheffield − which is effectively what will happen if these plans go ahead.”

According to SCR’S Twitter, the combined authority has received over 2,200 responses to the consultation so far.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/sheffield-facing-legal-action-over-flawed-and-unlawful-devolution-consultation