Re-arranging the Deckchairs of Local Government: Devolution
Worried about Devolution rearranging the deckchairs of local government? South Hams’ Freeport has already dumped them over the side.
An Opinion Piece
Devolution has finally hit the headlines, but it’s been a long time coming.
When South Hams Councillor Julian Brazil complained about Devolution that “we need to consolidate rather than start rearranging the deckchairs of local government” he was making a statement that, whilst true, has already lost all relevance. Because the deck chairs of local government are already gone; dumped over the side by South Ham’s decision to be involved with Plymouth Freeport. Concerns about Devolution are now really concerns about which side of an empty deck to sit.
The same stuff
Devolution and the Freeports agenda are two sides of the same coin – the drive to create strategic authorities. And its not just some fringe theory: it’s there in the black and white of the House of Commons Business & Trade Committee report into UK Freeports, 2024. Published on 26th April 2024, this report revealed the ideological and strategic match between freeports, regional mayors and Devolution explicitly in relation to the freeports project, the same project that South Hams formed at vast public cost.
The purpose of the report was to assess the economic performance and governance of freeports across the UK, so the fact that this report concerned Devolution at all is quite extraordinary. Along with concerns regarding over-optimistic employment estimates and an urgent need to improve governance and transparency, this report stated:
“All freeports and investment zones should be linked to a single regional leader, such as a Metro Mayor, who should be held accountable for regeneration projects and link national and local government.”
The plan to link freeports to a single regional leader are worrying in themselves: the concentration of power that could be influenced by the interests of businesses for private gain at public expense has been of major concern around Teesside Freeport.
The freeport assessment expanded:
“All parts of England should have a tier of government between local and national government, such as Metro Mayors. Devolution should continue to be rolled out with regions given new powers to drive growth and to champion their areas.”
‘Are we not men?’
To have the drive to Devolution so boldly stated within this UK Freeports report highlights the fact that the 12 UK freeports (of which Plymouth & South Devon Freeport is just one) are essentially strategic authorities themselves. The huge areas carved out by their boundaries are the direct imposition of a new form of strategic authority, a mini-Devo if you will. In the case of freeports, their governance Boards are made up of many members who are not directly accountable to the electorate: private companies and landowners get to sit on the board, shaping decisions for the spending of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money right across the UK.
No consultation
Cllr Brazil’s concerns over Devolution are correct, but reflect the huge damage already done through his council’s involvement with Plymouth Freeport. He might complain about consultations that are just ignored: but he will be fully aware that there was no public consultation about South Hams involvement with that other strategic authority created without mandate over an enormous area – Plymouth & South Devon Freeport. In addition, Cllr Brazil’s description that it felt ‘slightly sinister’ that government was talking about abolishing elections for councils in 2025 is tone deaf to communities swallowed by Freeport boundaries in which they had no say. ‘Sinister’ is a description many residents use regarding the imposition of the Freeport.
Spending the Budget
Cllr Brazil complains of South Hams’ budget having been slashed. But South Hams has effectively slashed its own budget by committing £3.5 million of borrowing to finance Plymouth Freeport, on top of extensive council and officer time (paid for by the taxpayer) which could have been far better spent on matters such as housing, infrastructure, SEND, education, cultural projects….the list goes on. South Hams District Council made an ideological choice to support Plymouth Freeport, not a choice based on public mandate, just like Devolution is now being fostered on South Hams itself – again without any public mandate.
South Hams really didn’t need to be involved in Plymouth Freeport and could have stepped away. By knowingly chasing what many councillors privately concede is the economic fallacy of the Freeport, the council opened the door to ‘Devolution’ and wedged it firmly open. And for what? This same House of Commons report that matched the Devolution agenda with freeports is damning in its assessment of freeports’ value:
24. “The economic impacts and benefit-to-cost ratio of freeports and investment zones will be difficult to estimate. However, the approach taken by Government will still provide some information on the programme impact on various outcomes. It will allow sharing of best practice between freeports, and provide lessons learned for future policy implementation.”
good decisions?
So there we have it. South Hams and other councils backed a project that even the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee concludes has got such little obvious value it will be ‘difficult to estimate’ and in fact may only be useful for ‘lessons learned’.
Perhaps Councillors should have worried about where they might sit before they chucked their deckchairs over the side and joined the Freeport.
It’s too late to cry about it now.