Rail Services Devolution to Mayors

[Bletchleyite]

Does this spell the end of Transport for the North, England's Economic Heartland etc. (not that I think most people realised they exist), or is there a chance that they'd stay with greater local input?

There still needs to be some sort of co-operative body across the Northern city regions and combined authorities, as aside from Merseyrail the rail service generally operates between two or more of them and isn't confined to one.

 

[Manutd1999]

Ideally the government/GBR would run Intercity and Interregional services, then mayoral regions are fully responsible for metro services in their regions.

So full control of the subsidy/operating model/revenue etc., subject the timetable constraints which are resolved nationally by GBR. Mayors would be free to privatise/nationalise/subsidis1 as they see fit, answerable to local voters.

In practice, it might be better for some regions to join forces. West/South Yorkshire, and Manchester in particular would struggle to isolate their local services in a rationale manor. Nothing to stop them working together and sharing costs/revenues though.

In short, this idea has huge potential but will require a lot of cooperation.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Indeed. Here we are talking about directly elected mayors, not people appointed by their fellow councillors performing ceremonies in their local town while wearing a gold chain. Helpfully we already have a list here of the existing directly elected mayors:




By the end of this parliament, Northamptonshire will probably have a directly elected mayor. That might just be for Northamptonshire but joining up with the Bedfordshire unitaries and/or Milton Keynes might be another option. It will be up to the local authorities to make proposals within the framework of the White Paper.


England's Economic Heartland in a few years time could be 3 or 4 directly elected mayors working together. I don't know much about Transport for the North but guessing that it involves some of the directly elected mayors listed above.

Thanks.

I did realise that the cities have directly elected mayors, but there's a lot of England that isn't in cities. I can't see where the White Paper defines that 'mayors' means only the directly elected ones, although it does define what their powers will be.

If important decisions about transport (and other matters) is devolved from Government (where presently everyone can vote for an M.P.) to locally elected mayors I would suggest that, in a democracy, that can only rightly occur when everyone has the right to vote for one.

 

[Magdalia]

Thanks.

I did realise that the cities have directly elected mayors, but there's a lot of England that isn't in cities. I can't see where the White Paper defines that 'mayors' means only the directly elected ones, although it does define what their powers will be.

If important decisions about transport (and other matters) is devolved from Government (where presently everyone can vote for an M.P.) to locally elected mayors I would suggest that, in a democracy, that can only rightly occur when everyone has the right to vote for one.

The White Paper seems to be hoping that the carrot of increased devolution from Whitehall will make it unnecessary to wave the stick of compulsion.

Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 say:

We want to see all of England benefit from devolution. By completing the map, the government will oversee the rebalancing of power from central government so that local leaders can take back control and increase prosperity for local people[footnote 28]. It is the government’s strong preference that in filling the map, places do so with a Mayor over a strategic geography.

1.3.2 More directly elected Mayors to create visible leadership and greater accountability​

Mayors have become vital local leaders, delivering on the promise of change in their area to drive growth, more joined-up delivery, and earning trust.

Section 2.2.2 then goes on to say:

Mayoral devolution

Given Mayors are the government’s strong preference, the deepest powers will only be available at the Mayoral level and higher. Mayors should have a unique role in an institution which allows them to focus fully on their devolved responsibilities, while council leaders must continue to focus on leading their place and delivering vital services. Conflating these two responsibilities into the same individual and institution, as is the case if an individual local authority had a mayoral model of devolution, would risk the optimal delivery of both. We will therefore discontinue the individual Local Authority devolution model in its mayoral form.

To provide consistency across the country, we will remove the ability of Strategic Authorities to call Mayors by another name, in common with local government councillors and UK MPs, regardless of the ward or constituency they represent.

Non-Mayoral devolution (Foundation level)

The government will also consider proposals for local authorities to work in partnership through the establishment of a Combined Authority or Combined County Authority, as a platform to consider mayoral devolution in the future. By exception, the government will consider non-mayoral devolution arrangements for single local authorities, where the criteria above are met, but only as a stepping-stone towards forming a Mayoral Combined Authority or Mayoral Combined County Authority.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not sure it does, as there are hefty premiums for any travel that involves use of multiple modes of travel. A big revenue gap would need to be filled before there is any move on that point with rail fares getting progressively more expensive relative to other modes.

Perhaps this will kill off the Oyster National Rail premium?

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps this will kill off the Oyster National Rail premium?

It would seem unlikely as I am not sure anyone is going to provide the funding to avoid the perceived need for that premium. Has the mayor ever indicated that they would remove it?

One view is that the mixed-mode premium exists to prevent South London commuters overloading the underground at the Southern terminals.

 

[Meerkat]

There is a political risk for the mayors. Currently the Treasury/government gets the blame for making cuts to rail, whereas under the mayor system they will cut the mayor's funding and it will be them choosing whether to cut railway or housing budgets etc. Didn't the German states have big problems when their expansionary plans suddenly got hit by drastic central funding cuts in a recession?

 

[Manutd1999]

There is a political risk for the mayors.​

It is, but that's the price of power.... Having Mayors who can complain about everything but dodge the tough choices is kind of pointless, so giving them both power and accountability is a good thing IMO.

 

[Peterthegreat]

There is a political risk for the mayors. Currently the Treasury/government gets the blame for making cuts to rail, whereas under the mayor system they will cut the mayor's funding and it will be them choosing whether to cut railway or housing budgets etc. Didn't the German states have big problems when their expansionary plans suddenly got hit by drastic central funding cuts in a recession?

Absolutely correct. It will be even worse if the Mayor and Government are of different political persuasions.

 

[A S Leib]

Absolutely correct. It will be even worse if the Mayor and Government are of different political persuasions.

In some cases there's currently representatives of three parties, e.g. Watford (LD borough council, Conservative county council, Labour MP and national government). Of course MPs won't be managing their local area, ministers aside, but that doesn't mean that their constituents won't be writing to them about it.

 

[Wolfie]

Absolutely correct. It will be even worse if the Mayor and Government are of different political persuasions.

See the grief between Tory administrations and Sadiq Khan/TfL for example.

 

[Magdalia]

Well I guess there are mayors and mayors but I wonder how this will work in Northamptonshire

By the end of this parliament, Northamptonshire will probably have a directly elected mayor. That might just be for Northamptonshire but joining up with the Bedfordshire unitaries and/or Milton Keynes might be another option.

'New mayor' for Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes

A mayor could cover six combined authorities across Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes.

www.bbc.co.uk

A new mayor to cover six combined authorities for Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes could be created in a landmark shake-up of local government, the BBC understands.

The plans could see the six unitary authorities - Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton, Milton Keynes, West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire - working with one elected mayor.

You heard it here first!

 

[YorksLad12]

There is a political risk for the mayors. Currently the Treasury/government gets the blame for making cuts to rail, whereas under the mayor system they will cut the mayor's funding and it will be them choosing whether to cut railway or housing budgets etc. Didn't the German states have big problems when their expansionary plans suddenly got hit by drastic central funding cuts in a recession?

Elsewhere, I've just pointed out that all we're really doing is going back to the 1970s and 1980s, where there was one national rail operator but the PTEs could specify (and pay for, and promote) rail services. And if that is all we get, it works for me!

Whether we get the riot of livery colours again... (see The Beauty of Transport post on PTE train liveries)

 

[Merle Haggard]

'New mayor' for Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes

A mayor could cover six combined authorities across Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes.

www.bbc.co.uk

You heard it here first!

Yeah thanks, I must have missed the consultation process.

Struggling to see what Luton and West Northamptonshire have in common as regards rail transport.

 

[Magdalia]

Yeah thanks, I must have missed the consultation process.

You haven't missed it, it hasn't happened yet!

Struggling to see what Luton and West Northamptonshire have in common as regards rail transport.

Mayors are not just about rail. But Leighton Buzzard, Milton Keynes and Northampton could come under the same mayor. This proposal would also cover all of EMR Connect from Luton to Corby.