The devolution agenda has been much touted by the current Government, with George Osborne’s flagship Northern Powerhouse at the forefront of the policy agenda.
But as the concept becomes a reality, those who will deliver the changes are questioning what the impact will be and how their areas can benefit.
With this in mind, the housing association Moat, in partnership with international law firm Trowers & Hamlins gathered experts from a range of organisations for a roundtable to discuss the implications of devolution in light of one of today’s hottest political issues: housing.
Opening the session, Moat CEO Elizabeth Austerberry, identified the key issue as embracing the challenge and making it work in a positive way for the sector.
She said: “We need to find a way of using devolution to help us find a solution to the housing crisis. We want it to be part of the solution not part of the problem.”
Ms Austerberry continued: “The elephant in the room is money. What I don’t want to happen is for the devolution agenda to be a way to not spend money on things that need funding. Devolution is only going to work if money is there to back up the promises that are given.”
Paul Hunter from the Smith Institute also highlighted this concern, saying he was sceptical that devolution would narrow the economic gap between the north and south and describing the Northern Powerhouse as a “policy without much money behind it.”
Mr Hunter also added that further down the line he expected more calls for fiscal decentralisation, which were more likely to entrench regional wealth divides rather than alleviate them.
Matt Oakley, Head of Economics at the Westminster Policy Institute, also identified a north-south divide, which he said was a long-term problem.
Parts of the north of England have warmly embraced the offer of new combined powers, with a number of city deals already signed in Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool. So far, councils in the south east have been less eager to unite; remaining open to the idea but demonstrating more restraint.
Mr Oakley also noted that while successive Governments had wanted to address the divide and create more geographically balanced growth in the UK, nothing up to this point had really worked.
Giving an alternative on the possibilities for economic benefits he cited the ‘agglomeration effect,’ suggesting that removing silos could drive productivity growth.
Mr Oakley went on to advise those around the table on how to engage with the devolution agenda.
He said that although things may not always happen quickly, organisations should be prepared to produce proposals on a short timescale once changes were underway.
He added: “You will be expected to provide a good level of detail and show how you will be accountable to local residents and national government.”
Tonia Secker from Trowers and Hamlins echoed Mr Oakley’s point on speed of delivery, saying: “If you are engaged as an organisation, you have to be prepared to move quickly because they are having conversations with Government, which require them to move quickly. So, if you are going to engage with them you are going to have to align with that agenda.”
She continued: “All of the devolution deals are different and if as a professional organisation you are engaging with different combined authorities you cannot assume that they take the same approach or the same view on anything. They are all subtly different.”
Ms Secker suggested that it would improve the chances of success if organisations “talk the language of the treasury, which is about contribution to GDP.”
She also warned that “the extent of devolution will depend on if you get a mayor or you don’t.”
Although this was contradicted by another contributor later in the session who said a mayor was not necessary as long as you had accountability, there were others who felt that the point was valid.
Lucy Grove of the National Housing Federation, said that devolution deals had been rejected because of the absence of a mayor.
On a more positive note, Ms Grove described the policy agenda as a “great opportunity,” as the current Government was more about narrative than prescriptive detail, making them “willing to give things a go.”
She advised that housing associations should not hold back, as they had been doing, and get involved with deals in the early stages as “the value of getting in early and building relationships can’t be underestimated.”
Concluding with an appeal to housing associations, Mr Oakley said: “No matter what the reasons are that the Government is doing this, it is a huge opportunity and there’s a clear commitment from the centre to keep going with devolution.
“So grasp that opportunity and really try and doing something with it. That is going to take preparation from now, so when it comes you have actually got the ideas and that way you can start shaping the agenda rather than responding to what you don’t like about it. So, prepare now and beat central government at its own game.”