Written evidence submitted by Mayor Dan Jarvis [POD 017]

Noting the formal deadline of 4th May, this submission to the MHCLG Committee Inquiry into on Devolution is made on behalf of Dan Jarvis MBE MP, Mayor of the City Region (SCR). The Mayor welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry and has provided responses that are the most pertinent to the SCR as well as providing additional comments that the Committee may find insightful. We are re-submitting our earlier submission below, the substance of which remains unchanged. However, in the intervening period significant progress has been made on devolution in the region, whilst the country and world face an unprecedented challenge from the Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we would draw to the Committee’s attention that:

 Further to the narrative at Section 4 below, agreement was reached in January to progress devolution in the region. This agreement was predicated on the Secretary of State agreeing to progress discussions on the role and functions of a Committee of Leaders from across Yorkshire, based on the existing Yorkshire Leaders Board, subject to the Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal being advanced to a positive conclusion. Work is now underway to reach this positive conclusion, which has included the completion of a public consultation, the results of which have now been submitted to Government. Given the legislative parliamentary process it is hoped that this will be completed and the powers and resources in place by the summer recess.

 Covid-19 is the biggest challenge we face. The Mayor welcomes the commitment from the Prime Minister to work closely with metro mayors to lead the country out of the coronavirus pandemic. We must build on these constructive discussions to ensure Mayors have a strong mandate to transform our economy and society. Every death from this virus is a tragedy, but the latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows the disproportionate impact on the country’s most deprived communities, with the age-standardised mortality rate for all deaths 88% higher in these these places1. We know health and economic fortunes are intertwined, and Covid-19 risks exacerbating the existing divisions, further reinforcing the need to level up (discussed at section 3).

South Yorkshire stands ready to not just close these divides but to play a leading role in transforming our region and nation: whether that’s delivering major transport infrastructure, creating a cleaner and greener environment, and unlocking prosperity and opportunity for all.

1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deaths involvingcovid19bylocalareasanddeprivation/deathsoccurringbetween1marchand17april We must seize the opportunity to build a better Britain – not just recovery, but renewal. The Mayor will be working with the Government, partners across South Yorkshire and fellow Mayors to deliver for our communities. It is needed now more than ever.

May 2020

Key Messages

 Increased devolution has the potential to boost England’s cities and regions, bringing decision making closer to people, reducing spatial inequalities and improving productivity.

 With the recent election of the Mayor of the North of Tyne, Metro Mayors now represent 37% of the English population (over 20 million people) however they are still restricted by a heavily centralised approach to public spending and investment.

 Devolution has brought many successes for the Sheffield City Region. Since being elected and working with the Local Enterprise Partnership we have invested £82m in communities across the City Region. For the first time in our history, South Yorkshire has a transport strategy that aligns with a pan-northern transport strategy. And for the first time in a generation, we have seen a resurgence of advanced manufacturing and engineering.

 But there is so much more that can be achieved. We must unlock the potential of the Sheffield City Region and the North, creating opportunities for people, communities and business.

 The Mayor welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent speech in Manchester that set out an ambition to further empower elected Mayors but believes that now is the time for action. Not just words.

 The Mayor is deeply committed to implementing the proposal that South Yorkshire leaders and he agreed earlier this year to unlock devolution. This will only become a reality by continuing to work with colleagues across the North and with Government.

 Further funding and powers that go above and beyond existing deals are essential, to put the Power back into the Powerhouse, rebalancing the economy. These must be developed collaboratively with places, rather than imposed on them.

 A Devolution Framework would be a positive step towards articulating Government’s policy position on devolution. This should promote the benefits of devolution, but also recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work and that all places, that wish to do so, should be able to benefit from it.  Devolution is not an event. It’s a journey. And one that the Mayor is deeply committed in continuing to deliver real and tangible opportunities for people and communities across the region.

1. Introduction

1.1. The SCR is not a traditional monocentric city region. It is comprised of the core city of Sheffield and the surrounding towns of , Rotherham and Doncaster; the largest metropolitan authority in the country. Together these four constituent councils of the MCA, have a population of 1.4 million people, with 47,000 businesses providing 634,000 jobs. When combined with the non-constituent members of Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, and North East Derbyshire, this increases to 1.9 million people, 68,000 businesses, and 862,000 jobs (see figure 1 below) 2. 1.2. As one of nine MCAs in England, the authority (in terms of population) is broadly equivalent in size to the Liverpool City Region MCA. It is the 10th largest Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area by population, with the 16th largest economy. 1.3. The nine local authorities that make up the SCR have a history of collaboration at a scale that reflects the natural economic geography of the region. This collaboration was formalised through the establishment of the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in October 2010 and the (CA) in April 2014. In May 2018 the residents of South Yorkshire elected the Authority’s first metro Mayor of the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). 1.4. Three Growth Deals unlocked over £360 million in income from the Local Growth Fund (LGF) for the Partnership, which also became the commissioning body for £170 million of European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF). Figure 1: The constituent and non-constituent councils comprising the SCR MCA

2 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council; Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Sheffield City Council; Bassetlaw District Council; Bolsover District Council; Chesterfield Borough Council; North East Derbyshire District Council and Derbyshire Dales Districts Council. 1.5. The SCR Devolution Deal was signed in 2015 to unlock powers and funding to deliver the region’s Strategic Economic Plan. This proposed the transfer of powers and funding from the Secretary of State over skills, including apprenticeships, transport, in particular a devolved and consolidated transport budget, business and employment support, and some land and housing powers including a Mayoral Development Corporation and a non-statutory spatial framework.

2. The Mayor, the MCA and LEP are delivering significant benefits

2.1. Since 2012, using our local levers and the tools given by Government, the SCR has been generating significant benefits including: creating 15,150 jobs and 2,200 apprenticeships, assisting 6,000 learners, and leveraging £319m of investment and supporting 24,000 companies. This is only the beginning. The SCR is now two thirds of the way through the delivery of its multi-year Growth Deal, which is forecast to create more than 68,000 jobs, support 14,000 learners and lever £1.5bn of investment. 2.2. Key achievements made by the MCA, LEP and its local authorities include:

£363.7 million Local Growth Fund (LGF) allocation on projects across the SCR. £363.7 million

£500 £500 million of private sector investment including with Boeing and milli McLaren Automotive has been brought into the SCR by our Trade and Investment Team. on

44,000 jobs created in the City Region’s economy since 2014, with MCA and LEP activity creating 15,150 jobs.

44,000 jobs

24,6 24,600 businesses in SCR have received financial support through the SCR Growth Hub which have created 2,100 jobs. 00 businesses

8,384 people in SCR have received training through our skills development projects, including SCR Skills Bank and Skills Made Easy. 8,384 people

2.3. In addition to unlocking these opportunities for local businesses the MCA and LEP have done this in a way that has delivered value for money. In 2018/19 alone, the SCR Business Investment Fund programme created and safeguarded over 2,000 jobs from a £23m fund. This equates to a cost per job of £11,292, over £20,000 less (cost per job) than National Audit Office (2014)3 estimates for the former national programme. This proves economic growth and better value for money can be achieved when programmes are commissioned, managed and delivered at a local level. 2.4. Whilst the funding programmes that the SCR MCA and LEP have in place, have and are delivering significant benefits, they are now nearing full commitment. In the absence of any certainty on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, the successor to the Local Growth and European Structural Investment Funds, there is a need to secure

3 NAO (2014) Progress Report on the Regional Growth Fund additional resources to continue to unlock growth and opportunities in the region. 2.5. However, no lasting reduction in a spatial economic imbalance across the country will be achieved without substantial devolution of greater powers and resources across the country. This needs to go beyond the decentralisation of national programmes being run through LEPs and MCAs, to give the flexibility and resources for areas to put in place the breadth of solutions that they know their economies and businesses need. It will also require disproportionate investment into those parts of the country where levels of deprivation are greatest.

Metro Mayors are having a meaningful impact in their local areas 2.6. In the SCR, the role of the Mayor provides directly elected governance and accountability that cannot be achieved through the existence of the LEP alone. As Chair of the Combined Authority, and also as a sitting member of the LEP, the Mayor provides strong leadership and a single point of democratic accountability to integrate and streamline decision-making on local programmes and investments. 2.7. Since the Mayor’s election in May 2018 he has successfully delivered manifesto commitments, including:  Prosperity for All: £82 million has been approved for investments, from the MCA and LEP, in new projects including, culture and tourist attractions, transport and infrastructure, including new cycle routes, and regeneration schemes for SCR town centres.

 Transport and Co-operative Public Services: A Transport Vision and Strategy that is fit for the 21st century, the appointment of Dame Sarah Storey as our Active Travel Commissioner, and an ambitious £220 million Transforming Cities Fund bid will deliver real benefits to residents’ commute as well as their health and wellbeing.

 A 21st Century Workforce: Launched Working Win, the Health-led Employment Trial continues to support over 4,000 residents to find or maintain employment, and the Talent Bank programme will help a future generation of employees benefit from the time and experience of over 100 SCR businesses.

 Collaboration: The creation of the first city region Music Board outside of London and the establishment of a Youth Combined Authority will ensure that all residents, even if they do not have the right to vote, will have a meaningful say in the services we deliver. 2.8. The positive impact of Metro Mayors across England has been seen in the magnitude of activity taking place across the nine devolved areas, as well as our ability to collaborate on our approach to campaigns and lobbying. However, this has been limited due to the disparate power and funding available across the nine MCA areas.

3. We could achieve more with greater devolution

A centralised country with significant regional divides 3.1. “OECD evidence suggests areas with more integrated leadership, across a functional economic geography (such as a city-region), can support higher rates of economic growth and higher rates of productivity when compared with those areas that have more fragmented governance.” 4 Metro Mayors, MCAs and devolved administrations provide the governance and accountability for facilitating regeneration and securing this economic growth. 3.2. However, the UK continues to have one of the most centralised systems of public finance and policy-making among OECD nations with UK local government controlling only 1.6% of GDP in comparison to 6% in France, 11% in Germany and 16% in Sweden5. As a result, the disparity between the UK’s most productive places (i.e. London and the Greater South East) and elsewhere is acute and growing (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Labour Productivity across 85 British Cities, 1971 and 2015

4 Heseltine (2019), Empowering English Cities. 5 London Finance Commission (2017), Devolution: A Capital Idea, The Report of the London Finance Commission. Source: Centre for Cities (2017), The Economic Performance of Britain’s Cities: Patterns, Processes and Policy Implications. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/The-Evolving-Economic-Performance-of-Britain%E2%80%99s-Cities- Patterns-Processes-and-Policy-Implications.pdf

3.3. Meanwhile, inequalities are rising. There are now 200,000 more Northern children living in poverty than there were five years ago6. People's pay has also risen far less than the national average, by only £12 a week in the north, compared to £19 nationally since 20147. In the same period, the number of jobs paid less than the living wage rose by 150,000 – increasing by 10.9 per cent.8

Realising the potential of the North would add an additional £97 billion to the economy 3.4. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlighted that increased inequality hinders economic growth (see figure 3). The UK’s economic growth between 1990 and 2010 (40%) was 10% lower than it would have been (50%) if these inequalities had not have been so stark. Only New Zealand and Mexico had inequality negatively affecting their economy more than the UK.

6 IPPR North (2019) https://www.ippr.org/blog/the-northern-powerhouse-5-years-in#_ftn12 7 IPPR North (2019) Analysis of ONS (2014-2018) Annual Survey of Hours & Earnings 8 IPPR North (2019) Analysis of ONS (2014-2018) Annual Survey of Hours & Earnings Figure 3: Impact of Inequality in Economic Growth in GDP Per Capita, 1990 – 2010

Source: OECD (2014). Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jxrjncwxv6j- en.pdf?expires=1564421304&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=926E943C7DCA0EE047070 A68B7DD2D15.

3.5. The entrenched gap in productivity, in part a result of disparate investment in the UK’s regions, is at the expense of the local economy but crucially the national economy as well. The Northern Powerhouse is 12% below the national average for productivity, and the SCR’s productivity is closer to Sicily and parts of Poland rather than other major Western European post-industrial areas. The productivity gap between London and the South East and the regions is estimated to cost the UK economy around £40 billion. 3.6. The Northern Independent Economic Review found that if the concentration of public investment in London and the South East is addressed, an additional £97 billion could be added to the North’s economy by 2050, over and above business as usual, and an additional 850,000 jobs. 3.7. The SCR economy alone could be worth an additional £9bn if GVA per head was the same as the UK average. The size of SCR’s economy is £35 billion but if productivity was the same as the national average it would be £44 billion and if it was the same as London’s the economy would be £62 billion9. Now is the time for action, not just words 3.8. The Mayor welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, more powers for Metro Mayors offering real devolution for our communities, providing better bus services and committing greater funds for the Stronger Towns Fund. As well as the appointment of cross-departmental Minister for the Northern Powerhouse attending the Cabinet. However, we need actions, not just words. 3.9. In practice, this means:  Unlocking devolution in the Sheffield City Region whilst achieving our wider devolution ambitions, articulated through a letter from the four South Yorkshire Leaders and the Mayor to the Secretary of State.

 A sustained programme of investment to level regional inequalities and unlock the North’s huge potential

 Greater powers for those areas that wish to benefit from devolution

9 ONS Sub Regional Productivity Estimates (2017) 4. Unlocking devolution in the Sheffield City Region whilst achieving our wider devolution ambitions

4.1. The four leaders of South Yorkshire’s local authorities and the Mayor reached a consensus on the way forward for devolution in our region in March. After years of impasse, a letter was sent to the Secretary of State (SofS) James Brokenshire, asking for powers and resources to be unlocked10. 4.2. The SofS responded positively to the letter, welcoming the MCA’s pragmatic solution and commitment to move forward with the 2015 Deal11. This confirmed, that, in principle, if all four councils and the Mayor consent to the necessary order, Government would be prepared to implement the 2015 Deal with an understanding that after 2022 those councils that do not see their future in the City Region should be free to join an alternative wider Yorkshire devolution group. This would leave SCR with a commensurately reduced devolution deal and with appropriate arrangements in place to maintain an effective integrated transport system. 4.3. The Mayor remains unstintingly committed to implementing the proposal and is also working closely with fellow leaders in the North, to ensure that we deliver for the North. This is why the One Yorkshire Leaders and the Mayor recently wrote to the new Prime Minister making the case to urgently unlock the benefits of devolution to all parts of the region, while creating a pathway to a full One Yorkshire devolution deal in 202212. 4.4. In light of the Prime Minister’s recent speech in Manchester, the Government must double down on its commitment to the further devolution of powers and resources. The Mayor looks forward to working with fellow Council leaders, elected Mayors and the government to make these proposals a reality.

5. We need a fair funding settlement for all if we are going to rebalance the economy

A step change in investment to unlock opportunity and address need 5.1. LEPs were never devolved commensurate levels of resources to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that they replaced13. Research by the National Audit

10 https://d2xjf5riab8wu0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Letter-to-Secretary-of-State- Devolution-25.3.19.pdf 11 https://d2xjf5riab8wu0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Letter-from-the-Secretary-of-State- for-MHCLG.pdf 12 https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/all-news-and-blogs/one-yorkshire-leaders-set-out-new-devolution- proposals/ 13 Bentley et al. (2010), From RDAs to LEPs: A New Localism? Case examples of West Midlands and Yorkshire Office highlights that in the five-year period from 2010/11 to 2014/15 the government will have spent £6.2 billion on local growth programmes, including that spent via Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and their legacy, and on new funds and structures14. By comparison the RDAs spent £11.2billion over the preceding five- year period 2005/06 to 2009/10. The majority of funding has been made available via competitive bidding rounds, on annual basis and without an appropriate mix of capital and revenue investment. 5.2. There must also be sustainable and a fair funding settlement for all of local government to ensure we are maximising funding and delivery. Local authorities in the North have been hit the hardest by austerity with seven of the ten cities with the largest cuts being located in the North East, North West or Yorkshire. Barnsley has been the local authority hardest hit in the country, with a reduction of 40% in its day- to-day spending on services15. The scale of these cuts experienced has been so significant that it has outweighed the additional funding that the 2015 Devolution Deal could have unlocked in the region16.

The North is decades behind London and the South East 5.3. Regional imbalances in public investment also needs to be addressed. Decades of disproportionate investment in London and the South East has allowed their economy to race away from the regions and the rest of the UK. Between 1998 and 2017, GVA in London grew by 3.1% a year on average in comparison to just 1.9% in the UK as a whole (see figure 4). Meanwhile, research illustrates that household income today in most of the Midlands, Northern regions and Wales is the equivalent to the household income in London and the South East in the 1990s (IFS, 2019). Figure 4: Average annual growth in economic output (real gross value added) by region, 1998 – 2017

14 National Audit Office (2013) Funding and structures for local economic growth 15 Centre for Cities (2019), Cities Outlook Report 16 Etherington and Jones (2016) Devolution and Disadvantage in the Sheffield City Region: An assessment of employment, skills, and welfare policies Source: Joyce, R. and Xu, X (2019). Available at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/The-IFS-Deaton-Review-launch.pdf 5.4. This is creating a performance gap that is contributing to widening inequalities and a regional imbalance between London and the rest of the UK. This imbalance has been deeply entrenched for decades, and an “overly London-centric UK governance system has inhibited London-centred productivity spill overs from spreading further outwards”17. McCann (2019) has remarked that regional imbalances are so extreme that London is “de-coupling” from the rest of the UK. 5.5. These inequalities are built into the criteria of the Green Book Treasury model. The decision-making process this supports favours investments in more affluent areas, meeting existing demand rather than stimulating latent potential. 5.6. For example, the most recent figures illustrate that transport investment per head was £344 in the North yet £944 per head in London18.But these trends go beyond transport into multiple types of investment. 55% of health-related research supported by government and charities goes to London, Oxford and Cambridge. 5.7. It’s vital that this approach to decision making is reviewed if we are to reduce 150% gap that exists between the richest and poorest regions in this country. Such a figure is almost twice as large as in France and three-quarters larger than in Germany. We must fix this issue and the prize for doing so is huge (see paragraph 3.6).

17 Regional Studies Association (2019), Submission to the BEIS Inquiry into supporting regional investment and growth. Available at: Moving towards a single-pot, with a single point of governance and accountability

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/business-energy-and- industrial-strategy-committee/regional-investment-and-growth/written/102244.html 18 House of Commons’ Library 5.8. The UKSPF provides an opportunity to move towards a single-pot allocation, supported by the requisite assurance framework, agreed and single reporting, monitoring and evaluation framework with Government designed to realise the outcomes in our Strategic Economic Plan, Local Industrial Strategy and my Mayoral Manifesto. 5.9. There should be a national steer of the UKSPF aligned with local areas being allowed to determine local priorities. The SCR would want the flexibility to invest the UKSPF in supporting the locally agreed priorities in the Strategic Economic Plan, emerging Local Industrial Strategy and Mayoral Manifesto. 5.10. The UKSPF, like the EU Structural Funds, should be targeted at places of need and opportunity by directing more funding to less prosperous areas. This aligns with the Government’s objective to reduce inequalities across the country. In line with the Government’s Industrial Strategy, the UKSPF should also be focused on increasing productivity, and addressing the disparity between lower productivity areas in the North and Midlands to higher productivity areas in the South of England. If the UKSPF is not targeted at less prosperous areas with the potential to transform their economies, then regional divides could become even starker. 5.11. The UKSPF will support proportionate regional growth and redress regional divides if it matches the amount the UK would have received if it had not voted to leave the EU and is fully devolved to the areas that know the solutions their economies and businesses need. The UKSPF needs to, at the very least, match the previous level of funding that EU Structural Funds (the UK received €10.6bn for 2014-20) and LGF provided (£12 billion for 2015/16-2020/21). The SCR received £170m from EU Structural Funds and £363m from LGF. 5.12. The budget for UKSPF must ensure that regions do not receive a reduction in what they would have received if the UK had not voted to leave the EU. The UK would have been set to receive €13bn in the next funding programme due to a number of sub-regions, including South Yorkshire, slipping below the EU funding threshold of 75% of EU average GDP per head19. If it is incorporating LGF, then it should be over £3bn per year and this should be reflected in the budget for the UKSPF. 5.13. Through SPF and other similar funds, investment should be allocated on a non- competitive basis to MCAs, as Mayors provide a single point of accountability and governance. This process must be consistently applied as, for example, Transforming Cities Fund required the SCR to competitively bid for an allocation in comparison to other Metro Mayors areas who were automatically eligible. This approach should be equitable across all MCA areas.

19 APPG Post Brexit Funding for Nations, Regions and Local Areas Report of an Initial Inquiry into the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (2018) 5.14. The UKSPF provides the opportunity to continue the positive aspects of European Structural funding whilst also making efficiency improvements. Positive aspects include targeting funding at those economies that are lagging behind by improving skills and creating jobs where money would not have been directed otherwise. Research has found that Structural Funds have had a positive effect on industry location (Midelfart-Knarvik and Overman, 2002) and helped deliver regional growth (Ederveen, 2002). Negative aspects of European Structural funding, which ought to be addressed by the UKSPF programme, include prescriptive regulations, a lack of local control and onerous reporting and monitoring requirements. 5.15. We have four guiding principles for the UK SPF Fund:  The annual budget for the UKSPF should be no less, in real terms, than both the EU and LGF funding streams it replaces, and it must guarantee that regions will not be worse off in terms of the funding available for regional development beyond 2020 because of Brexit.

 There should be no competitive bidding element. Instead an open and transparent process must be put in place that strikes the balance between targeting areas of need, of the need to rebalance our economy and support those economies with the greatest potential to grow.

 The fund must be fully devolved to those areas who have in place robust, democratically accountable governance models, including Devolved Administrations, Combined Authorities and Mayoralties. It must be up to local areas how best to invest it, be that on skills, helping the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, infrastructure, employment support and education.

 The funding must be allocated over multiple years, include capital and revenue and be provided as a single pot to areas to invest to share prosperity.

6. Powering the Powerhouse

The current landscape of powers across MCAs is varied 6.1. Devolution has given LEPs and MCAs some powers and funding to deliver economic growth in their areas. However, the extent of these powers and funding varies by geographic area (see figure 5), reducing the ability of the public to understand these new roles, and many of the powers and resources involved could be seen to reflect a trend of decentralisation of national programmes rather than true devolution. 6.2. Inevitably given the length of time that they have been in place compared to MCAs, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority (GLA) are seen, by some, as the model for devolution. Their history of devolution created a city-wide authority with powers over development and strategic planning, fire and policing, and commissioning and revenue-raising powers for transport through Transport for London (TfL) including a ring-fenced revenue budget for buses.

Figure 5: Devolution Deal Proposals Source: House of Commons briefing, Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill: progress (2015). Available at: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7418/CBP- 7418.pdf

Greater powers should be made available to places across the country 6.3. There is a need for a broad and comparable set of common powers for all MCAs and devolved administrations, but this must be accompanied by local areas having the autonomy to determine which specific powers works for them. The approach to devolution cannot be one-size-fits-all. 6.4. Devolved areas must be provided with the powers, resources and autonomy to design the solution that works for their people, economy and place. As set out in the recent Heseltine report: “The Combined Authorities shouldn’t be looking to be like London, but London Plus” (Heseltine, 2019). 6.5. Meanwhile, whilst MCAs are delivering considerable benefits they may not be the right model for all parts of the country. As illustrated by the Deal agreed in Cornwall, there are other models that can and should be used; all places that wish to do so, should have the ability to benefit from devolution. 6.6. As set out in the Mayor’s manifesto, in addition to unlocking the 2015 Deal and One Yorkshire, the Mayor is also committed to securing greater powers and resources. Such additional powers should not just be about ‘levelling up’, but rather seek to formalise where individual mayors have ‘assumed power’, by using their electoral mandate. 6.7. Since the Mayor’s election he has used his democratic mandate to convene, coalesce, collaborate and create change and development through the exercise of the formal powers of others as much as by the formal powers conferred upon the Mayor. For example, using convening powers to seek change and improvement across a range of issues including homelessness, excess winter deaths, educational attainment and skills, the environment and cultural regeneration. 6.8. Additional powers would enable the mayoralty to more effectively generate change in these areas. First amongst these would be powers linked to all age education and skills. Others associated with strategic elements of improving the environment, of operating across administrative borders when addressing homelessness, winter deaths and the opportunities for a cultural renaissance would be of potential benefit (and where London could be a strong model).

Greater powers are needed to address the range of issues impacting on individual places 6.9. Securing powers across such a range of issues will required the engagement and active participation of a broader range of departments across Whitehall. To date the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Transport (DfT) have been at the forefront of the SCR’s devolution. These departments have been vitally important, and reflected in, securing funds to deliver programmes locally. 6.10. Moving forward, the Mayor would welcome stronger partnerships with the Department for Education as we look towards the devolution of the Adult Education Budget (AEB); the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to support delivery of manifesto commitments around culture, tourism and place; the Department for Food and Rural Affairs as he develops the region’s first Local Industrial Strategy with a natural capital element; and the Department of Work and Pensions to design labour market solutions we can embed locally. Scrutiny in Practice 6.11. In addition to providing additional powers it is also important to consider how the existing legislation could be strengthened. The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS)20 found that combined authorities spend a lot of time and effort, over and above that of local authorities, to ensure that their meetings are quorate. Given the requirements set out in the legislation for at least two-thirds of the total number of members to be present for the meeting to be quorate, it is considered that a review should be undertaken to determine of this proportion.

20 Hammond (2018), Quoracy issues in combined authorities, available at: https://www.cfps.org.uk/quoracy- issues-in-combined-authority-scrutiny/ 7. The devolution framework must unlock greater powers and resources for all places that wish to benefit

7.1. As articulated by the UK2070 Commission, achieving effective devolution requires a comprehensive framework of mayoral and combined authorities and for rural counties that includes a systemic transfer of powers and resources from Government. 7.2. A devolution framework should firstly address the government’s piecemeal approach to devolution and deliver on the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to ensure that “our cities and counties and towns become more self-governing”, bringing more power closer to people, and the need for devolution in all places that choose to adopt them. 7.3. It should deliver on the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to 100% devolution but critically recognise that a one size fits all approach to devolution will not work, with a tiered approach to the powers and resources on offer to places across the country. Within such an approach the MCA model would receive the greatest level of powers and resources (given their adoption of a single point of accountability), with other models also in place. But even at this top tier there must be flexibility for each place to secure the powers and investment they need. 7.4. At this top tier of the model, accountability to parliament in relation to a place’s devolution deal should be transferred from the Permanent Secretary of MHCLG to the metro mayor. 7.5. It should be devolution not decentralisation and move beyond delivering and allocating funding and programmes to devolved administrations by going further to devolve the funding and autonomy to design and deliver as they know best. Moving from a focus on outputs to outcomes is a critical part of this. 7.6. Ministerial accountabilities and responsibilities should also be devolved and committed in the devolution framework. This would also give Metro Mayors their own ‘budget lines’ in spending reviews and budgets, treating them equally to a Ministry or Department21. This would provide a single-pot, place based allocation of funding. 7.7. “The Prime Minister should establish a committee of Combined Authority mayors under his or her chairmanship to meet at least twice a year and, under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in time for each public expenditure round”.22

21 As noted in Heseltine (2019), Empowering English Cities; UK2070 Commission (2019), Fairer and Stronger: Rebalancing the UK Economy; London Finance Commission (2017), Devolution: A Capital Idea, The Report of the London Finance Commission. 7.8. It should signal a post-Brexit settlement with local government and a return to a more regional or federal approach in England that can unlock the potential to seize any ‘dividend’ that may be on offer (RSA). 7.9. The devolution framework should set out a pragmatic solution that enables first and foremost devolution to be unlocked in our region, based on the proposal submitted to the Secretary of State by the four South Yorkshire Leaders and the Mayor earlier this year.

22 Heseltine (2019), Empowering English Cities