Give cities more power over their destiny

The new City Deals are a step in the right direction

Throughout July and August all eyes will be on London. Whether it is the unveiling of the Shard or the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, London is demanding the attention of the nation. It is therefore no surprise that last week’s announcement of new powers for England’s eight cities was met with little fanfare. Yet, these "City Deals" represent the most significant devolution of power from Whitehall in decades and are deserving of more attention. This is not just the summer of the capital; it is very much the summer of the cities.

England’s eight core cities and their surrounding areas are forecast to add £71bn to the economy over the next decade. But evidence suggests that they have the potential to achieve much more. That is why the City Deals, that include transport infrastructure funds, new investment for SMEs, and apprentice hubs to support NEETs, will play a crucial role in the nation’s future growth.

The first clear indication of a new relationship between central government and England’s cities was the creation of a Minister for Cities last year. Greg Clark was appointed to this role, with further support from Nick Clegg and ministers and officials in BIS, CLG and HMT. The Deals are the result of an almost year-long negotiation between Clark and his team in the Cabinet Office, Whitehall and the core cities.

Arguably of most significance are the new transport infrastructure funds. They have a combined value of over £5bn and should have significant impact on the ground. Transport has been the policy area that the Mayor of London has had most influence over; the congestion charge, tube upgrades, a bicycle hire scheme and even a cable car over the Thames, have been the result. Getting around the capital is now easier and the same could soon be true for England’s core city-regions.

Better connections will support economic growth. Leeds City Region, for example, hopes that its £1bn West Yorkshire "‘plus" Transport Fund will create a 2 per cent increase in the region’s economic output and 20,000 extra jobs. Strategic investment in new stations, roads and public transport networks could have a dramatic impact on the daily commute.

People’s daily lives and commutes do not reflect arbitrary council boundaries, so another positive to have emerged from the Deals has been councils which are increasingly willing to work together to make investments. Greater Manchester’s councils combined strategy for a new Metrolink is a demonstration of the benefits of this approach. Such collaborative governance arrangements will prevent the jam-spreading of funds that can harm local areas.

The next step for the core cities will be to ensure they deliver on the ground. There is more work for central government to do as well. Greg Clark has said that this is just round one of City Deals. 142 upper-tier councils don’t have a Deal. A devolution bill could package up some of the powers in the City Deals allowing all areas to invest for local growth.

Greg Clark, the minister in charge of City Deals. Photograph: Getty Images

Joe is a senior researcher at the New Local Government Network

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.