Yorkshire radio station The Pulse reports:
Yorkshire should be given a regional assembly like Scotland and Wales, according to a group of Calderdale councillors.
The idea is being discussed at the Liberal Democrat conference next month and would see decisions on things like Education, Health and Agriculture made away from Westminster.
Yorkshire, which has roughly the same population as Scotland, would be offered the chance to take control of such powers instead of having them controlled from London.
The proposal will be debated at the Liberal Democrat spring conference, which will take place in York on the 7th-9th of March.
LibDem PPC for Calder Valley, Alisdair Calder McGregor said “These proposals offer English regions real power to shape their own destiny without Westminster interference.
“This is good for the regions, as people will have more direct say in how their local area is run, and good for the UK as a whole, as it means Westminster can concentrate on national issues like Defence and Foreign Affairs”.
You can listen to Alisdair’s comments on The Pulse’s site here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Getting things done - Victoria Park #dundeewestend
My tweets
A blogger re-reads all 20 of Malcolm Saville's Lone Pine stories
Johnson on Planet Z?
No change in this week's council by-elections
Nominative determinism - A marketer's dream
Nonconformistradical
Jenny Barnes
Steve Trevethan
Stephen Broadhead
Russell
41 Comments
This may have local traction but I hope it gets voted down at conference.
Localism should be about passing power down to the most local body capable of dealing with the responsibility, not about creating another tier of Government to spread power (and blame) more widely.
Labour tried this and took a North East assembly to referendum where it was soundly defeated. I can’t see what’s changed since.
This is getting out of hand. Localism has negatives. Too much localism is bad for the economy. Let’s just have an English parliament or move the national one.
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea to me as long as there is no referendum invoved, a vote of local MPs/Councillors would be fine.
@tpfkar: Labour’s half-hearted attempt at a North East assembly featured one difference to the proposals on offer at LibDem conference – it didn’t have any actual POWER. It was quite rightly voted down because it was a talking shop with neither powers of supply nor expenditure.
In contrast, the motion before Spring Conference offers real power, real devolution, and a real opportunity for people to take power into their own hands. It offers devo max to the regions of the UK, and the chance for regions – such as Yorkshire – to control their own destiny, as well as further devolution for Scotland and Wales.
@Eddie Salmon: The problem with a full England assembly is that England is too big for devolution as a state to work. It’s too remote from people at the lowest level, and too close to Westminster at the top to have any real role.
Hi Alisdair, I respect disagreements and certainly our PPCs, I would just like to put some reasonable arguments against devolution for Yorkshire, but another time. I see your logic with the emphasis on population.
I respect disagreement much more than I respect PPCs 😉
Just what the world needs – another layer of bureaucracy.
This is something Alisdair and I disagree almost entirely on, but it is a place to start talking about England. It will be interesting to hear the case made for regionalism at conference, though I doubt it will pry me away from my position on this.
Eddie not sure why you claim economic disbenefits of regional assemblies. Eddie Sammon 13th Feb ’14 – 3:33pm
Are you suggesting that the German economy would be stronger without regonal assemblies?
Are you suggesting the USA economy is a failure because it has a federal system?
Have the Canadians suffered in their economy because the provinces have their own assemblies?
What is your evidence?
This old chestnut, I do get the distinct impression that various groups that support ‘devolution’ from Westminster are hankering after some imagined golden age from the long distant past – that is if it ever existed…
@JohnTilley
>Are you suggesting that the German economy would be stronger without regional assemblies?
The question is does the proposed ‘Yorkshire’ regional assembly totally replace ALL county council and equivalent level authorities in its area (as was the case in Germany when the regional assemblies were established after WWII) or does it sit on top of the pre-existing local government organisations? My understanding, based on the number of regional quango’s we already have hiding in the woodwork is that it is an additional layer.
@Alistair McGregor – thanks for replying so quickly. Easy to respect people who engage with discussion, and very welcome to see in a prospective MP. I guess it boils down to what powers you would propose they were given; I’d suggest the margin was too great in the NE to blame the defeat on the powers the new assembly would have. In any area: council, parish, Scotland, UK, there will always be distinct areas with different needs where you have to make a decision on what is best overall. Would a Yorkshire assembly, covering areas as diverse as Leeds / Bradford and the Yorkshire Dales and Moors not have the same issue? So I’d need to be persuaded that there is a problem where an extra layer at the regional level is the solution – I imagine I’ll take some convincing. Best wishes
Hi John Tilley. We probably won’t be able to agree on the emphasis of regionalism versus nationalism, but from a business perspective if the local laws are vastly different to laws elsewhere then it can make you feel trapped inside the region. This is especially annoying when clients move around. I’ve experienced this in financial services, which is why I supported the EU before I was even interested in politics.
Again, we probably won’t agree, I would just recommend people speak to local businesses to broaden their politics.
I’m personally in favour of an England of 4 provinces: London (expanded radially to include surrounding counties or part-counties); the South and West; the Centre and East; and the North. It seems to me that any regional or provincial devolution would need identical powers and structures across each devolved region, probably with the existing London structure as a model.
Yes, this would need some removal of powers from local authorities for simplificaiton, but the result would be bodies that could stand up to central government and big business; the trend towards unitary authorities has removed the old potential role of county councils as a check on local irregularities (I’m not saying it was completely fulfilled). At present ‘localism’ is used as a synonym for giving individuals and corporations a veto on activities that central government wants to discourage or is not bothered about, not about a meaningful passing of power form the centre to democratically elected representatives.
A key reason for me is that this would prevent, rather than hasten the break up of the UK. At present Scotland and Wales are ‘special’ and ‘separate’ thanks to Labour, and the desires of separatists are given apparent substance and basis, rather than their being part of a community of equal regional/national partners within a greater federation.
Roland 13th Feb ’14 – 4:44pm
@JohnTilley
>Are you suggesting that the German economy would be stronger without regional assemblies?
The question is does the proposed ‘Yorkshire’ regional assembly totally replace ALL county council and equivalent level authorities in its area (as was the case in Germany when the regional assemblies were established after WWII) or does it sit on top of the pre-existing local government organisations? My understanding, based on the number of regional quango’s we already have hiding in the woodwork is that it is an additional layer.
Roland, I am suggesting that there is no link between regional assemblies and economic under-performance. I am also suggesting that the opposite is probably true.
You obviously have certain views and do not want too many levels of government. Nothing wrong worth your view, It does not necessarily counter my own view. In England democracy is in a mess. Leave aside the feudal Head of State and the ridiculous House of Lords which are both obscenities. We have a in the House of Commons a mainly university educated , white, male elected on a system which gives most of them a job for life. We also have the snouts in the trough approach of many of our MPs who pay far more attention to lobbyist that they do to voters. Then we have a chaotic system of county, unitary, district and parish councils, directly elected dictatorial mayors and other novelties. I would agree with you than there is a need for a dramatic change and proper accountability, and that will not be achieved by adding another layer. Replacing several confusing layers with a regional assembly would be desirable. Could we agree on that point?
“Labour tried this and took a North East assembly to referendum where it was soundly defeated. I can’t see what’s changed since.”
You forget that, for one the North East referendum had less than 1,000,000 turn out to vote, and that the assembly was voted down because it wasn’t ‘really’ giving more power to the local people, merely trading rule from Westminster for rule from Newcastle, which wasn’t particularly a desirable improvement.
Local people having more power over their communities is NEVER a bad thing. Despite how some may scaremonger that it would hurt the economy, local people know what’s best for their local area miles better than someone a world away in Westminster does.
@tpfkar – If I were to name three powers that I would want to see devolved to Yorkshire, they would be Transport decisions, where all too often Yorkshire is bypassed or tagged onto the end of other projects, Environmental Management, where powers currently centrally rationed by the Environment Agency could be better used locally, and Culture/Media/Tourism as a whole, which is intrinsically local as a topic and should be dealt with by an elected regional authority rather than the current rather ad hoc arrangements
If you read the proposals before Spring Conference in York, which can be found on page 54 of the Spring Conference Agenda (http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2014-Spring/CA&D%202014%20spring%20book.pdf), you’ll see that the proposal is to use model proposed by the Campbell Commission (http://scotlibdems.org.uk/homerule) as a basis for a federal, decentralized UK with less power and fewer politicians at Westminster, and more direct regional elected bodies.
The detail of the whole proposal is something I don’t intend to reproduce here, but it is worth a read – if you have a few hours!
Eddie Sammon 13th Feb ’14 – 4:49pm
Hi Eddie, in a previous life I was paid to travel round England andt to talk to businesses and to business organisations. One very clear memory I have is that business people and organisations supposedly representing that are very ignorant of government and local council structures and responsibilities. They are also very susceptible to myths about bureaucracy and over-regulation. I have been bored to sobs on many occasions by some really very stupid and very ignorant small business organisations and their self-regarding reps who really do not know what they are talking about. I cannot tell how boring it is to,hear the same myths about “health and safety” or the EU requiring straight bananas from people who I would not trust to cross the road by the,selves let alone represent my business.
Regional Asse,belies might help to break down such ignorance. It is easy to blame Westminster, or Whtehall or Brussells, when you know virtually nothing about them and depend on The Mail or The Telegraph to spoonfeed you the latest prejudice. Since devolution business in Wales and Scotland has benefited from the end of that disconnect. One of the reasons why some business people in Scotland now support independence when they used to support the Tories is because the have learned the value of pulling some power away from London.
This proposal is about taking power away from Westminster and giving it to a directly elected regional assembly. That would mean that decisions about transport, the health service, regional development and so on would be decided here in Yorkshire and the Humber, not in London.
We could then drastically reduce the size and powers of the Westminster parliament and leave it to deal with those matters that can’t be dealt with regionally – like defence, foreign policy overall economic management.
Below the regions we could have just one tier of principal local authorities, leaving parish and town councils in place.
It’s a win win as far as our region is concerned.
If the Scots and Welsh can manage their own home affairs, why shouldn’t we in Yorkshire + Humber do the same?
John Tilley, OK, but the plan needs to be properly thought through.
I really see a disconnect between business interests and political interests. As someone who wants to restart my business I don’t want different rules all over the place. I used to conduct a lot of business over the telephone and it will be a nightmare to have to deal with all these different regional laws and assemblies. The UK is about the economy too, not just defence and foreign affairs.
It could put further barriers to entry up for investing in Yorkshire. People might just choose London instead. This is why we have the EU single market. Regional assemblies might be a good idea, but we need to look at both sides of the coin.
@Eddie Sammon: That is a matter which receives some detailed thought in the Campbell Commission report I linked upthread. It’s important to note as well that banking and finance regulations would, under the proposals, remain with Westminster – for precisely the reasons you are citing!
Remember here that banking and financial services is a major employer in Calderdale (albeit mostly in the Halifax Constituency part, but many of the employees live along the Calder Valley Constituency). They last thing we want is to isolate Halifax from national and international banking!
I am delighted the Liberal Democrats are debating devolution to Yorkshire in a couple of weeks time. The whole issue of how to try and rebalance the obvious disparities in the UK economy is over due for debate not least in the context of the referendum in Scotland. We have had a blog running on the issues around this for a little under a year. http://yorkshiredevolutionmovementt.wordpress.com
@tpfkar You would be hard pressed to find another English region (apart from perhaps Cornwall) with the same sense of identity and community as exists in Yorkshire.
The Liberal Democrats have long organised themselves on a regional basis. For those who fear ‘an extra layer of bureaucracy’ do you want to scrap regional parties and have the decisions about candidates and money in Yorkshire for example all made in Lib Dem HQ?
Ha ha, yes Alisdair, we don’t want to isolate Halifax from national and international banking, so I am glad the exemption is included in the report. Us financial services guys have to put up with threats from isolation regularly, usually from UKIP :).
Like I said, it might be a good idea.
Best wishes
Ha ha, yes Alisdair, we don’t want to separate Halifax from national and international banking, so I am glad the exemption exists! Us financial services guys have to put up with threats of isolation all the time, usually from UKIP! 🙂
Like I said it might be a good idea and I’d read the report if I had a vote on it!
@Stuart Mitchell
“another layer of bureaucracy.”
The layer of bureaucracy already exists. There are regional quangos and many national services are organised at this level. What we need to add is democratic oversight at the regional level.
Mick Taylor’s summary is a brilliant making of the case. Easy to understand and includes all the right points. I cannot think of one Liberal Democrat argument against what he says –
Mick Taylor 13th Feb ’14 – 5:44pm
This proposal is about taking power away from Westminster …
We could then drastically reduce the size and powers of the Westminster parliament …
Below the regions we could have just one tier of principal local authorities, leaving parish and town councils in place.
It’s a win win as far as our region is concerned.
If the Scots and Welsh can manage their own home affairs, why shouldn’t we in Yorkshire + Humber do the same?
I think that at the heart of this debate is the idea that it is lack of autonomy that is holding back regional economies.
We need to examine whether this is indeed the case. The problems that have hit regional economies are to do mainly with the massive contraction or disappearance of industries like textiles, shipbuilding, steelmaking and mining and the lack of the development of viable, profitable alternatives on the scale that would replace them. There is also a hollowing out of the structure of our regional economies through sell offs to foreign companies. I think that these problems are more to do with national policy with regard to investment in training and education, and takeover policy, affecting international competitiveness, that have played out at a regional level due to historical economic geography.
We have to think whether devolving policy through a new layer of regional government in areas like training, infrastructure, education etc. would really be able to solve these very deep rooted problems that have roots going back decades. How, for instance, are you going to solve problems with educational attainment and skill levels in regional economies that are imbued in some regions’ cultures where heavy industry was traditionally present. Looking, for example, at the situation in Wales, where instead of solving its problems through devolution, they appear to be worsening, the prospects are not really that bright.
The big question is, why is the private sector outside London and the South East not much larger than it is now? Why do we not have the wide spread of innovative, successful, exporting companies that happens in German regions, for example? Until we can really find some fundamental answers to questions like this, proposing a whole new layer of regional government seems to me premature.
My reservaiton about devolution for Yorkshire is that it might work for Yorkshire, but would the remainder of the North be a coherent unit for governmental purposes? Does Cumbria (for example) then get governed from Newcastle, Manchester, Westminster or Scotland? Or Does Yorkshire just get its own assembly because it is ‘special’ whereas others don’t becuase the can’t lobby for it? Devolution for the Lib Dems should be about federalism and a coherent, balanced, equal constituional arrangement and a national settlement that is reasonably fair for all.
No one part of the country should have more tiers of government than any other; I would also argue that no devolved region should have a massive discrepancy in powers from any other region, but that might take a very long time to put right, given the history here, of Norther Irish devolution since the 1920s, and the devolved settlements of the 1990s in Wales and Scotland, not to mention the pressure for ‘Devo-ma’x in Scotland now, if they vote to stay inside the Union.
In many ways we are reinventing the wheel.
Many years ago (1964 I think) the then Liberal Party produced a blueprint for devolution called “Power to the Provinces” [available from the British Library] which dealt with most of the issues raised in this thread.
I suggest that the proposers of the conference resolution get a copy of this excellent and far reaching document and circulate it widely.
Incidentally, it had no truck with referenda. Its view – which I share – is that you state clearly and unequivocally in the manifesto that voting for the Liberal Democrats means voting for devolution and a Lib Dem government would implement it. It would be an important plank of any discussion with another party in the event of a further coalition.
@JohnTilley 13th Feb ’14 – 5:19pm
>Replacing several confusing layers with a regional assembly would be desirable. Could we agree on that point?
Yes! and apologies for my delay in responding.
Actually my comment was more a poorly expressed clarification of what German regional assemblies were – namely a mid tier between district government and central government. My understanding and hence assumption was that both the USA and Canada effectively operated three tiers of government.
Yes, I think we are also agreed that our entire system of government needs to be changed – in some respects, the Allies did Germany a favour, as it facilitated the introduction of a new structure of government… However, one step at a time. I think we really need to sort out the mess of county councils and regional quangos that we now have across the country. However, I see this as a sensible and logical ‘re-organisation’ of regional government in which there may be a new distribution of powers and responsibilities rather than a power grab by the separatists (in this case the ‘Yorkshire’ separatists), who’s world view has more to do with the past and their aspirations for power than to the present day.
However, in saying the above, I note that the conference agenda item seems to be more balanced (thanks to Alisdair McGregor for providing the link) and focused on a UK wide re-organisation – but, with it’s out dated reference to Cornwall, I wonder whether those behind this agenda item really do have their feet and heads in the modern world.
Roland: I should point out that the radio interview is of course a local angle on the overall proposals. I’m hardly going to talk about devolution for Surrey when I’m standing to be an MP in Yorkshire, am I?
Matt (Bristol): The exact proposal is that any coterminous assemblage of local authorities with a population of over a million (plus Cornwall, which gets an exception from the population limit) can become seek devolution. So it really is up to the local people to form campaigns for this and do it themselves. Where Cumbria is run from is quite honestly up to the Cumbrians – not me!
As for the number of tiers of local government, again I think that’s a decision for those regions to take. I don’t propose to pursue a course of localism that demands every devolved authority remains identical – that’s rather missing the point in my view!
RC: Actually, there already is a lot of essential things run on a regional or sub-regional basis. However, the manner in which they are run is prone to bureaucratic obscurity. A perfect example being the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, in my view.
These layers of regional authority exist, but they are not directly accountable to the electorate and that is wrong.
Alasdair, so you’re proposing that the piecemeal devolution we have seen to date be turned into a constitutionally sanctioned process in which self-defining regions can ‘opt-in’ to a measure of autonomy (presumably to be negotiated in detail at each stage of the process) as and when they decide that they exist and want to be free (ish) of Westminster?
This feels a bit like a larger, further-reaching version of the ‘city deal’ offer whereby central government effectively gets to trade powers for favours with each new ‘coterminous assemblage’ that feels it/they has/have a case for devolution. I’m sceptical that a genuine federal constitution could be built from a series of local pacts like this; it harks back to the methodologies of medieval government, to be honest, analogous to the way the monarch and their court granted privileges in taxation and legal jurisdiction to loyal or rich burghers, each town getting their own individual charter of rights.
Or, to throw in an Irish analogy, this is Carson’s view of devolution, not Gladstone’s – every region for itself. It could work in terms of allowing people to feel that they ‘own’ their region and its processes, but at the risk of constitutional irregularities and inconsistencies that dwarf the mess of muddles we already have.
@Matt. This is called ‘asymmetric federalism’ and is a widely recognised constitutional arrangement and is where different sub states have different constituent powers. You can find it in Canada (where Quebec has certain fiscal powers the other provinces don’t have), Spain, Italy Belgium, India and many others. It would be a perfectly valid solution for England. We have learnt to accept it for the rest of the UK after all.
@Alisdair “the radio interview is of course a local angle on the overall proposals”
I suggest you would be wise to take this LDV article and comments arising as a reminder that whilst the forum you are speaking is local, your comments are likely to be seen by a wider audience. As an initial reading this did come across as an attempted “power grab” by ‘Yorkshiremen’ and all the stereo types that conjures up.
@ Roland ‘rather than a power grab by the separatists (in this case the ‘Yorkshire’ separatists), who’s world view has more to do with the past and their aspirations for power than to the present day.’ What’s this mean?
@Yorkshire Guidon re: What’s this mean?
The title of this piece and the opening sentence of the report:
“Yorkshire should be given a regional assembly like Scotland and Wales, according to a group of Calderdale councillors.”
Yes I know the headline was an eyeball catcher and the quote a sound bite most probably totally out of context, but it sums my point up. Also some of the comments, that seem to imply that ‘Yorkshire’, an English county, should have the same level of devolution as Scotland…
@Yorkshire Guidon
The other thing which raises the idea of this being a “power grab” is the context.; there is currently no background national public debate about regional assemblies into which specific comments such as those expressed by Calder Valley would fit.
RC The question you should really be asking yourself is how the neoliberal economics you have espoused has helped (or dare I say hindered?!) regional economies. Of course private markets tend to accretion and power to those who already have it (along with money too). You really need to do some fundamental rethinking of your position.
@Yorkshire Guidon, I would recognise that living in the UK (and indeed pretty much anywhere in Europe) one has to accept what has gone before and it is pretty likely that any federalism will be asymmetric to some extent, but what seems to be proposed here (and I’m happy to be corrected) is very asymmetric, particularly in that the regions or subregions coming forward to apply for powers can define their own boundaries and that there is probably going to be time-lag between each application for devolution; I feel the net result will be to effectively give central government the key bargaining power, and regions whose representatives policies or faces do not fit with those in power at the centre at the time when a request is made for devolution run the risk of being given a raw deal.
By contrast, both Canada and Spain (I think) moved towards a federal system from a position of pre-defined boundaries and pre-existing provincial / regional entities, with there being points when the relationship between the centre and the devolved bodies was negotiated simultaneously, not one-by-one. Yes, they have an asymmetric arrangement whereby some have subsequently negotiated more powers, but certainly in the case of Canada 1) no-one in the last 150 years has questioned Quebec’s right or desire to exist in some form or other as a distinct entity; and 2) the province as a concept is a standing feature of Canadian politics.
Particularly in terms of boundaries, what Alasdair is proposing make sense on some levels (ie it gives people – or at least their councillors – the opportunity to define for themselves what region they are part of) but it seems that if the proposal is as stated above (particularly with the phrase ‘Where Cumbria is run from is quite honestly up to the Cumbrians’) it could easily lead to a situation whereby some local authorities are unable to make an agreement with their neighbours about joining a devolved body and therefore they remain an anomaly under central government. I would argue that although too much top-down control is a bad thing, someone somewhere has to decide, for eg, whether a unitary authority like Milton Keynes is in the East, the Midlands or the South, when it could relatively easily be placed in either, and none of the above may want it.
@ Roland ‘Also some of the comments, that seem to imply that ‘Yorkshire’, an English county, should have the same level of devolution as Scotland…’ Sounds entirely reasonable to me!
@Matt That’s for the people of Milton Keynes to decide. Just as the people of Goole voted on which authority they wanted to be in following local government reorganisation in the mid-90s. And if some authorities wish to remain governed by the centre so be it. As long as the people are consulted I don’t see a problem with that.