It’s very poignant to be back in the Friends Meeting House in York because, almost 10 years ago to the day, I came to a meeting to discuss devolution in the north. At the time, this was an issue that really no one was talking about and, under the auspices of the Hannah Mitchell Foundation who set up that meeting, we kicked some possibilities around, but inevitably there was no overall agreement on what devolution should look like.
Within a year of that meeting, we had George Osborne’s speech about the potential of the great Northern cities which led to the Northern Powerhouse initiative. In turn, the first Metro Mayors were elected in Yorkshire with there are more to come. You could say that contrary to the feeling at the meeting here ten years ago, devolution has arrived! Well, its not the sort of devolution I, at least envisaged, but it’s useful to reflect on where we are in terms of the debate almost ten years on. So, although Bob invited me to speak specifically about Green Party policy on regional devolution, I thought I’d share my wider thoughts with you and I’d be interested in your thoughts too.
Firstly, then Green Party policy. This is from the section titled ‘Regional Government in England’. Without going into too much detail (the full policy can be found below), the Green Party would replace Metro mayors with Regional Assemblies, elected by proportional representation and subject to a confirmatory referendum of the electors in each Region. The appropriate form and structure will be determined by regional constitutional conventions drawn from all sectors of society, similar to the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
These regional assemblies would take over the powers of region-wide non-governmental agencies and those functions currently carried out by national Government, and should not take powers from local authorities.
Funding would, in the initial stages, come from diverting the existing block grant allocated by central Government. In due course, the regional assemblies should be able to assume regional tax raising powers to replace the proportion of national taxation being allocated to regional block grant and other funding. They will also draw down more powers from national Government in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
So that’s the policy in a nutshell. Perhaps the reference to Yorkshire could be beefed up in this policy but clearly there are keen proponents of a Yorkshire Parliament or Assembly in the Green Party. Plus, others, as you know from last year’s conference, in the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. And it is fair to say, that certainly as far as One Yorkshire is concerned, there are supporters in the Conservatives, and of course there are supporters for devolution outside of the main political parties.
It’s important to bear in mind the extent of possible collaboration on this issue, because with the best will in the world, I suggest it is very difficult for you as a party, given progress thus far, to achieve this on your own.
So, I think (and I’ve always thought this) that cooperation across parties is essential for making this happen.
So, what do we want to happen? Well, that’s another point; the message has to be clear. I’m afraid and I say this is somebody that’s worked with this campaign for a long time: the end game is not clear. We seem focused on parliaments, constitutions etc. Such things just do not hack it with people out there. For example, it’s a very difficult call at the moment to argue for a parliament, because the instant reaction of people is ‘oh no, not more politicians!’. So, I think we should be concentrating less on the process and more about the end result. In other words, what do we want to see? What is the vision of the future for Yorkshire? I’ll talk more about that in a moment.
There is a window of opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, the idea of Yorkshire devolution, or at least Yorkshire having more powers to do its own thing, is popular. The survey I carried out with the Yorkshire Society last year showed this.
The over 4500 respondents were asked to think about devolution and almost three quarters agreed that Yorkshire should have more decision-making powers in the same way Scotland, Wales and London all have. In terms of preferences, a parliament or assembly best represented, albeit narrowly, the views of respondents when it came to the devolution of powers to Yorkshire. Finally, support in a referendum on establishing a Yorkshire Parliament would be overwhelming with 56% voting ‘Yes’, double that of ‘No’ voters.
So, devolution is popular and it’s happening in Yorkshire. The process is underway and, sometime in 2025, Yorkshire will have four mayors covering four geographical parts of Yorkshire. The devolution genie is out of the bottle. What we have to do is make sure that the devolution delivered in the coming years is accountable, transparent and significant. The problem with combined authorities and mayors at the moment is that they are none of those things. The powers, especially, are so very limited.
So, if it’s popular and it’s happening (sort of), where does this broader coalition or movement for Yorkshire devolution go from here? There are three elements in my view.
Firstly, identity. It is for some kind of broader Yorkshire movement to both promote and protect Yorkshire, Yorkshireness and ‘Yorkshire stuff’. Anything ‘Yorkshire’ in other words is in its domain. For example, by making great play, next year, at the damage caused by the Local Government Act of 1974 – the hiving off of parts of Yorkshire to neighbouring counties and the establishment of the much hated Cleveland and Humberside county councils, the latter which lingers on in the name of the Police Force and local postal addresses.
Secondly, grievance. HS2 is yet another example of something that’s promised to Yorkshire (and the wider North) by successive governments but which never happens. And I don’t need to give you the full list. Whilst on the other hand, of course, London gets it all. It’s a relationship that is condescending, patronising and often downright abusive. The people of Yorkshire deserve better.
Thirdly, something that encapsulates a better future: better schools, better transport, better hospitals, better social care, better environment, etc. This can only happen if we end London rule and take responsibility for ourselves.
How do you put all those things into a campaign? Well, it’s not easy. It’s fair to say that if this was a movement for independence it would have several advantages, not least it’s a very simple message which is easy to understand and the media would love it! However, I can see why many in the room would steer away from that, but it is a view, just as retaining the status quo is a view. So, my starting point, would some kind of broader engagement, a kind of ‘Yorkshire Future’ conference, inviting all shades of opinion, preferably before the General Election, to advocate for, and promote, debate and discussion about Yorkshire’s future. This has to be broad engagement. Anything too prescriptive at this stage will lose good people on the way. There is tremendous goodwill out there. Now is the time to build on it.
Appendix 1
From the Green Party policy on regional devolution.
PA410 As noted in PA390 above, the Green Party would replace directly elected Metropolitan mayors by Regional Assemblies which would be directly elected by proportional representation. In some Regions, these Assemblies would include a larger area than present mayoralties (e.g. the North East, rather than Sunderland). These changes would be subject to a confirmatory referendum of the electors in each Region. Any other such region within England should also be able to decide, via a referendum of the citizens living within it, to create a directly elected regional assembly as an additional tier of government
PA411 These regional assemblies would take over the powers of region-wide non governmental agencies, and adapt their existing bureaucracies to serve the new Assembly. Funding would, in the initial stages, come from diverting the existing block grant regional funding allocated by central Government.
PA412 The particular form and structure of these regional assemblies set up under PA410will vary from region to region according to regional circumstances. They should be elected by a system of proportional representation. The appropriate form and structure will be determined by regional constitutional conventions drawn from all sectors of society, similar to the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
PA413 The powers of the regional assembly should be taken from those functions currently carried out by national and European Government, and should not take powers from local authorities, except where the local authorities within the region agree to pool some of their powers for strategic purposes.
PA414 In due course, the regional assemblies should be able to assume regional taxraising powers to replace the proportion of national taxation being allocated to regional block grant and other funding. They will also draw down more powers from national and European Government in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. (see PA100)
PA415 In line with the Green Party’s policy of allowing Citizen’s Initiatives (PA253), a regional assembly or a regional government office could be abolished by a referendum of all all electorates covered by the body in question. In each case the powers would pass to individual county councils and/or unitary authorities.
PA416 Where regional assemblies in England have taken decision making powers from central government, so that citizens within those areas are no longer subject to central government decisions on particular issues, MPs from those areas should be excluded from voting on those issues in the House of Commons. Such a provision is consistent with the concept of subsidiarity.
Excellent article –