David Ellesmere: 'Underwhelmed' by Suffolk's devolution deal

They spoke to the idea that large parts of Britain have been left behind while others soar ahead, coupled with a feeling of powerlessness to do anything about it.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives in government have been rather better at coming up with election winning slogans than they have at delivering positive change.

Britain is one of the most centralised states in the world with more and more decisions taken in Whitehall. We also have one of the most unequal economies in Europe. Both of these have got worse rather than improved over the last 12 years of Conservative government.

So, it is encouraging that the Government has taken a small step to reverse this trend by signing a “Devolution Deal” with Suffolk County Council which promises to give Suffolk more powers and control over funding.

It is only a very small first step though and it’s hard not to feel underwhelmed when looking at the detail of the deal.

The main budget promised to be devolved is for adult education which, with the best will in the world, is not in the major league of government spending.

An eye-catching figure of £480m for infrastructure funding is less impressive when you realise it is actually £16m a year spread over 30 years. This doesn’t even begin to cover the funding that has been cut from Suffolk’s councils since 2010.

Lee Rowley, under secretary of state for local government, signed the devolution deal for Suffolk last week (Image: Charlotte Bond)

The first payment won’t be until 2024 so, with inflation currently running at 11%, it will have lost around £2m a year in value before Suffolk receives a single penny. By 2054 it will just be pocket money.

Devolution in Suffolk was last looked at in 2016 when, unlike now, Ipswich Borough Council was heavily involved in negotiating with the Government. Then, we managed to secure a commitment of £15m to build new affordable housing in Ipswich. The current deal has just £5.8m for the whole of Suffolk.

At the start of the process all councils in Suffolk put together a shortlist of around 17 powers and finances we wanted devolved to help power the Suffolk economy, boost skills, improve transport, and build more affordable homes. As far as I can see, only one of those proposals made it into the final deal.

This is still a very limited “Whitehall knows best” form of devolution with the government deciding what will be devolved, rather than what local areas have asked for. This is obvious when you look at the Norfolk devolution deal which is virtually identical to the Suffolk one.

It’s better than nothing though, and no one is going to turn down additional funding when money is so tight, but it isn’t going to set the world alight and deliver the step change that Suffolk or Britain needs.

The contrast with Labour’s devolution plans, also published last week, could not be starker.

The report by the Labour’s “Commission on the UK’s Future” is a properly thought through and comprehensive plan to devolve wide-ranging powers over employment, skills, growth, transport and education to local areas.

It would mean the biggest ever transfer of power from Westminster to the British people, spreading power, wealth and opportunity to all parts of the UK and removing the block to growth that the dead hand of Whitehall provides.

It aims to restore faith in politics by giving local areas the ability to make changes to improve people’s lives.

As part of this there are wide-ranging proposals to clean up Britain’s politics.

Russian oligarchs linked to Vladimir Putin have donated millions to British political parties. They weren’t doing this because of a love of democracy but to gain influence. Under Labour’s plans, all foreign funding of political parties will be banned.

Being an MP should be a full-time job, not something you fit in alongside being a lobbyist or a stint in the I’m a Celebrity jungle. Labour would ban MPs from taking second jobs.

Our whole system of Government relies on the assumption that the prime minister is decent, honourable, and truthful. When we have a Prime Minister who isn’t, the whole thing falls apart. Labour would end the self-regulation of MPs by themselves and stop the prime minister being judge and jury of their own behaviour.

The House of Lords is increasingly indefensible as an institution. All too often used to reward cronies of the prime minister, it is now, at 892 members, the second largest legislature in the world after the Chinese National People’s Congress – and slightly less democratic.

The USA has a population nearly five times that of the UK but manages with a second chamber of just 100 members. Labour would scrap the House of Lords and replace it will an elected second chamber.

In their scale and ambition, Labour’s proposals are lightyears ahead of the timid steps the Government is currently taking with its devolution deals.

They would truly let local people “take back control” and allow left-behind areas of the country to genuinely be “levelled up”.