
Executive summary
This report for the Local Government Association (LGA) from Shared Intelligence is part of the LGA’s sector support programme, funded by HM Government.
This report looks into the experience of combined authorities to date with a particular focus on understanding the lessons from developing a devolution deal to delivering it for councils in places which do not currently have a combined authority. Given the differences between the combined authorities and how they work, our findings may also be of interest to councillors and officers in the combined authority areas.
This research is based on a review of key documentation, including the combined authorities’ websites and devolution deals, interviews with: senior combined authority officers; leaders and chief executives from constituent councils and from councils which do not have a combined authority; and with some other national and local stakeholders.
An important feature of the mayoral combined authorities is their diversity. This diversity reflects a range of factors including geography, the history of collaboration and political culture. In terms of drawing lessons from the experience of the combined authorities to date this diversity means that it is important to take into account the particular circumstances of the authority concerned.
We set out our lessons from the experience of the nine mayoral combined authorities under seven headings: geography and local government structures; the journey to the establishment of a combined authority; the relationship between combined authorities and their constituent councils; the style and size of organisation; the different roles of the mayors; the devolution deals; and the overall impact to date of the combined authorities. We also reflect on the changing political and policy landscape in which the combined authorities are operating.
Geography
Many people we spoke to point to a link between geography and the effectiveness of a combined authority. This is about administrative coherence, scale and the importance of reflecting the economic and transport geography. The experience in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough illustrates the challenge of applying the mayoral combined authority model in a two-tier setting.
The journey to a combined authority
The journey to the establishment of a mayoral combined authority varies significantly from place to place. In all places the agreement to the mayoral role was an explicit trade in return for devolved powers and resources from government. But the ways in which the places reached that decision point are very different.
In some places, notably Greater Manchester and Tees Valley, the creation of a combined authority is the culmination of decades of collaboration across the same geography. One consequence of these different journeys is the extent to which they were driven by long-term bottom-up aspirations and visions or by a more pragmatic focus on what has to be “given” in return for a devolution deal.
Relationship with constituent councils
Some of the senior combined authority officers we spoke to talked about the problematic relationships with their constituent councils. They describe themselves as not being part of local government. People from other combined authorities described themselves as the latest member of the local government family and talk about the mayor as “first among equals”. Features that are perceived to contribute to a positive relationship include:
- the importance of a close and continuing dialogue between the mayor and council leaders
- the allocation of portfolios to chief executives as well as leaders
- the existence of a constant dialogue and the evolution of relationships including, pre-COVID-19, leaders and chief executives being present in the combined authority’s offices
- joint prioritisation processes and a collaborative approach to the development of key documents.
Size and style of organisation
The size and shape of the combined authorities as organisations varies significantly. As is clear from the pen portraits in the annex this reflects factors such as the style of the organisation and its relationship with the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and transport body.
The mayors
Just as the combined authorities vary significantly, so do the first cohort of “metro mayors”, in terms of the profile and mode of operation. On the basis of our research, we have identified four different styles, which each mayor is deploying in different permutations. The styles are disrupter, convenor, leader and advocate. In practice this can mean:
- Disrupting by bringing new perspectives to longstanding challenges.
- Convening partners in new modes of collaboration.
- Providing political leadership on challenging issues.
- Acting as an advocate for the place regionally and nationally.
The deals and the powers
The negotiation of the early devolution deals is widely seen as having been an important and creative process with significant benefits for the areas concerned. Over time, however, the process of negotiating devolution agreements is seen as having become more difficult and less innovative, with less satisfactory outcomes. This is perceived to reflect shrinking government ambition and capacity and the adoption of a more formulaic approach with government unwilling to consider elements that were not included in earlier deals.
The impact
There is no doubt that combined authorities have brought added value to localities through the deals negotiated with central government. The extent to which this added value is delivered and how it is perceived depends on how the six factors identified above in the area concerned.
The changing landscape
The landscape in which the combined authorities are operating and in which other places may be considering the case for establishing one has shifted significantly as a result of several factors. They include:
- the COVID-19 pandemic
- the Government’s pivot away from devolved resources towards small competitive pots of funding; the demise of the national industrial strategy
- the uncertainty around the future of LEPs
- the new skills white paper which envisages a minimal role for LEPs, councils and combined authorities
- the renewed focus on the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda and the expectation of a White Paper in the autumn.
On the other hand, the need to support collaboration across appropriate geographies remains important as does an ability for localities to negotiate bespoke arrangements with government such as the devolution deal agreed by Cornwall Council. In light of this changing context, we have used the results of the research to inform a series of questions which we recommend that places which do not currently have combined authorities should explore. The answers to these questions are explored in the final section of the report and set out the lessons and conditions identified in the research. These factors will help places who are currently deciding mechanisms required to deliver place-based outcomes. They are:
- What are we trying to achieve?
- What mechanisms would help us do so?
- If the answer is a combined authority, what do we need to think about?
- If the answer is not a combined authority, what are the alternative models and structures?
Introduction
The publication of the report coincides with the start of new terms of office for the majority of “metro mayors”, including three newly elected mayors. This is therefore an appropriate time to take stock of the experience of the combined authorities and the extent to which they have achieved the ambitions of the councils which promoted their establishment.
At the time of writing councils are still managing the response to COVID-19. The combined authorities and their constituent councils are thinking about their plans for the next four years. The direction of government policy remains unclear but there is an anticipation of more opportunities for devolution with the added promise of a Levelling Up White Paper. It is important to note, that legislation is already in place to enable the establishment of further combined authorities and the negotiation of new devolution deals.
Our primary objective has been to draw lessons from the experience of the combined authorities to date for places which at present do not have a combined authority or a devolution agreement with government. The differences identified across combined authorities may also be of interest to those in combined authority areas.
The report is based on research carried out in two phases.
In an initial round of research, we reviewed key documentation and conducted a series of interviews with a senior officer from each combined authority and from Cornwall and Oxfordshire. We also spoke to:
- a small sample of senior politicians and officers from councils within a combined authority area
- a small sample of senior politicians and officers from councils which are not currently in a combined authority area
- a small number of other stakeholders from central government, higher education, the health service, local enterprise partnerships and London.
In the second phase we carried out more in-depth desk research in four combined authority areas: Liverpool City Region; Tees Valley; West Midlands; and West Yorkshire. This research included a mixture of:
- further desk research, including the relevant devolution deals
- group discussion with senior officers from the combined authorities
- interviews with leaders and chief executives from constituent councils.
We have also worked with a sounding board, comprising council leaders and chief executives, to test our findings and conclusions.
We have presented the results of this research in three ways:
- an introduction to the combined authorities, a short pen portrait of the four “deep dive” combined authorities and a shorter description of the other five
- a presentation of our findings on the experience of the combined authorities to date
- a section setting out four sets of issues we recommend, on the basis of our research, that places which do not currently have a combined authority should explore.
What have we learnt?
It is clear from our research that there are significant lessons to be learnt from the experience of the combined authorities over the last 10 years. There are lessons for the combined authorities themselves, for other places considering establishing them and for councils exploring other options in relation to collaboration across wider geographies and their relationship with government and national agencies.
In this section of the report, we draw on our research to explore those lessons. We do so under seven headings: geography and local government structures; the journey to the establishment of a combined authority; the relationship between combined authorities and their constituent councils; the style and size of organisation; the different roles of the mayors; the devolution deals; and the overall impact to date of the combined authorities. We also reflect on the changing political and policy landscape in which the combined authorities are operating.
Geography and local government structures
Many of the people we spoke to as part of our research emphasised the link between geography and the effectiveness of combined authorities. In a small number of places, such as Greater Manchester and Tees Valley, the administrative geography works well for other purposes – for example as a functional economic area and/or for transport planning. In some places, such as the West Midlands and Sheffield City Region, a distinction has had to be made between constituent and non-constituent members in order to reconcile administrative and economic geographies. In other places, such as Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, North of the Tyne and the West of England the geography reflects outcome of local discussions about the value of a combined authority.
The geography of some combined authorities is smaller than that of other sub-regional bodies but the majority of the devolution deals cover city regions and cities. Cornwall breaks this mould in both its geography being predominately rural and coastal as well as securing a deal without a combined authority structure or mayor.
Two of the LEPs in the West Midlands Combined Authority include councils which are not constituent members of the authority. The same is the case with the North East LEP and the West of England LEP. In the case of the North of Tyne Combined Authority the transport body also covers a larger geography. Delivered at this scale, interviewees highlighted that transport projects can be delivered more efficiently and improve alignment, coordination and delivery.
Regardless of how well the geography works, it will not reflect all the interests of every council, many of which have strong economic relationships with places outside their combined authority. In the case of the West Midlands, there are strong links between the Black Country and Staffordshire and between Coventry and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. Bristol sees significant added value in the geographical scale of the Western Gateway.
Only one combined authority currently has an area with “two-tier” local government as part of its core membership: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. This results in a situation in which a resident of South Cambridgeshire is served by five levels of governance: a parish council, a district council, a county council, a combined authority and a partnership board created to provide governance arrangements for the Greater Cambridge City Deal. This is in addition to wider governance across health and policing. The experience in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough illustrates the challenges of applying the combined authority model of devolution in a two-tier setting. In the summer of 2020, the Government linked the creation of further combined authorities to local government reorganisation. An alternative approach would be for the Government to adopt a more flexible approach to models of devolution, as it did in Cornwall.
The journey to a combined authority
The journey to the establishment of a mayoral combined authority varies significantly from place to place. In all places the agreement to the mayoral role was an explicit trade in return for devolved powers and resources from government. But the ways in which the places reached that decision point are very different.
In some places, notably Greater Manchester and Tees Valley, the creation of a combined authority is the culmination of decades of collaboration across the same geography. In Greater Manchester, which was the first place to establish a combined authority, the steps along the way included the creation of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (following the abolition of the Greater Manchester Council in 1985) and the establishment of a statutory joint committee. The journey to a combined authority was underpinned by the extensive work on the economy of Greater Manchester by its Commission for the New Economy and the Manchester Independent Economic Review.
There was a history of collaboration across the West Midlands conurbation, but it was combined with more local centres of activity around the Black Country, Coventry and Warwickshire and Birmingham and Solihull, each of which have distinctive economies.
In other places differences of appetite between councils for the mayoral model had a significant influence on the ultimate shape of the combined authority. This was the case in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, North of the Tyne and the West of England. The routes to creating combined authorities in Yorkshire have been influenced by the debate about the case for a Yorkshire-wide body.
One consequence of these different journeys is the extent to which they were driven by long-term bottom-up aspirations and visions or by a more pragmatic focus on what has to be “given” in return for a devolution deal. In this context the lessons our interviewees have identified include:
- The value of a vision-led approach in terms of local ownership and the robustness of the arrangements. Interviewees talk about the value of the councils concerned having a shared understanding of what they are seeking to achieve and why a combined authority and devolution deal are important in enabling them to do so.
- The time and care required to develop new political institutions and the importance of members agreeing to the mayoral model “with their eyes open”. One leader we interviewed referred to the political risk involved in creating a new political role and the need to spend time building relationships in order to exploit the strengths of the role.
Relationship with constituent councils
Each of the combined authorities was created by their constituent councils but the nature of their relationship with the councils today varies significantly. In theory the arrangements are very similar: leaders forming the cabinet alongside the mayor, each with a portfolio; and a combination of formal and informal governance and officer structures. In practice the nature of the relationships varies significantly.
The nature of the relationship between combined authorities is important and can have implications for their impact. In some cases, relations are problematic. One combined authority officer, for example, said their authority is not part of local government. In other cases, relationships are closer, reflecting both a different approach and the fact that time and effort are devoted to the relationship. An officer from another combined authority highlighted that is important to always remember that “the combined authority is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the councils.” A third combined authority official described the combined authority as the latest member of the local government family and talked about the mayor as “first among equals” with the other leaders. Several referred to close relationships with the constituent councils which are evolving over time.
Challenges include changes in key players, the pressure of the day job and perceptions that council officers lack a sub-regional perspective. Features that are perceived to contribute to a positive relationship include:
- the importance of a close and continuing dialogue between the mayor and council leaders
- the effort the combined authority puts into working closely with the constituent councils and which is reciprocated by the time the councils put into the combined authority
- the allocation of portfolios to chief executives as well as leaders and the level of support provided to leaders in their role as combined authority portfolio holders
- the existence of a constant dialogue and the evolution of relationships including, pre-COVID-19, leaders and chief executives being present in the combined authority’s offices
- joint prioritisation processes and a collaborative approach to the development of key documents.
Style and size of organisation
The size and shape of the combined authorities as organisations varies significantly. As is clear from the pen portraits in the annex this reflects factors such as the style of the organisation and its relationship with the LEP(s) and transport body. Several of the places which moved quickly to establish mayoral combined authorities noted the challenge involved in putting an organisation in place following the election of the mayor.
Interviewees raised three other important points about combined authorities as organisations:
- The resources required to support the mayor and the implications for the chief executive role which in some areas is not as high profile or outward facing as a council chief executive.
- The opportunity to attract a different mix of skills from that available in most councils including people from business, universities and government.
- The ability of the combined authority to supplement council resources on particular projects and initiatives.
A theme raised by several interviewees is the danger of under-estimating the time and resource required to establish a combined authority. Planning earlier on in the negotiations, before the implementation please, was considered important to determine the size and shape of the new organisation. The nature of resource was also raised as a lesson to learn in relation to capacity and capability. Combined authorities are perceived to require access to commercial skills as well as to dedicated HR, legal and governance support.
In many combined authorities the LEP role has been integrated into the combined authority in terms of both governance and officer arrangements. This is seen as having provided a way of enabling the business voice to influence combined authorities’ decision-making across its full range of responsibilities. One interviewee felt that changes to the role of LEPs nationally may give their combined authority more scope to design a mechanism for securing a powerful business voice that better meets their requirements.
The situation in the West Midlands, where there are three LEPs, is very different. Each LEP is a non-voting member of the authority. At least one other combined authority has maintained a clear distinction between the LEP and the authority. This is felt to be an effective way of capturing business intelligence and focus which both drives work on the economy and business support while informing other aspects of the combined authorities’ work.
The mayors
Just as the combined authorities vary significantly, so do the first cohort of “metro mayors”, in terms of the profile and mode of operation. On the basis of our research, we have identified four different styles, which each mayor is deploying in different permutations. The styles are disrupter, convenor, leader and advocate. In practice this can mean: disrupting by bringing new perspectives to longstanding challenges; convening partners in new modes of collaboration; providing political leadership on challenging issues; and acting as an advocate for the place regionally and nationally.
All but one of the mayors had previously held elected roles: four as councillors and three as MPs (one was a Secretary of State, and one is still an MP). The eighth was a leading businessperson and LEP chair.
In many ways the roles and powers of the mayors are constrained by the constitutions developed by the constituent councils when the combined authorities were established. The mayors have no choice over most or all of their “cabinet” members and depend on the votes of the council leaders to take decisions. They do, however, have significant soft power that often derives from their personal electoral mandate, their public profile and their ability to develop a direct relationship with government and with significant local stakeholders. This is particularly important where political alignment does not match either with constituent councils or at a national level.
Most of our interviewees see the deployment of this soft power as a major asset for the place attracting attention, investment and support for initiatives and programmes to address the needs of the areas they represent. The collective influence of the M9 group is also seen as an important soft power and reference point.
One interviewee also noted that that the mayoral role had been “the icing on the combined authority cake” which was required in order to secure a devolution deal. One combined authority’s constitution was described as having been designed to constrain the mayor’s individual power, and one interviewee noted that the relatively low profile of the mayor in that area had helped to retain commitment to the combined authority. Others argued that the high public profile of the mayor, locally and with government, was critical to the success of the authority.
In particular, the role of the mayor in enabling access to ministers and government is seen as being really important despite the political differences in many areas. There is a recognition that ministers know who the mayor of the city region is but won’t always remember the names of all the leaders. Many mayors are careful to ensure that the intelligence is shared with the councils and that they are involved in crafting what is said to Whitehall and how opportunities for activity are shared. As a result, councils and council leaders reflected that they do not feel marginalised or excluded.
In Tees Valley the mayor’s focus on business and the economy was seen as an important driver of the authority. In Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region the continual dialogue between the mayors and council leaders was cited as a key success factor. In other places where relations between the mayor and leaders is more distant interviewees have attributed this in part to the absence of anyone with political antennae in the mayor’s office.
The deals and the powers
The negotiation of the early devolution deals is widely seen as having been an important and creative process with significant benefits for the areas concerned. Over time, however, the process of negotiating devolution agreements is seen as having become more difficult and less innovative, with less satisfactory outcomes. This is perceived to reflect shrinking government ambition and capacity and the adoption of a more formulaic approach with government unwilling to consider elements that were not included in earlier deals. This mirrors the experience of councils in previous forms of engagement with government such as local public service agreements, local area agreements and city deals: the first rounds of which involved useful, creative conversations but subsequent ones were more bureaucratic. The later deals have been described as a “menu of options” drawing on what has gone before. As a tool for delivering place-based outcomes, this approach does not match the ambition of combined authorities.
Four other themes relating to negotiations with government are important.
- First, some government departments are seen to have been far less engaged than others: most notably the Department for Education (apart from on adult skills) and the Department of Work and Pensions.
- Second, even the most ambitious deals were more about decentralisation than true devolution with no meaningful fiscal devolution.
- Third, the alignment of powers can be as important as the funding negotiated. For example, responsibility for some but not all of the transport system can reduce the effectiveness of its delivery.
- Finally, one of the most attractive aspects of the initial government offer was the devolution of substantial pots of money which could be allocated on the basis of local prioritisation: this is completely at odds with the Government’s recent pivot towards the use of nationally managed competitive funding processes.
The overall impact to date of the combined authorities
There is no doubt that combined authorities have brought added value to localities through the deals negotiated with central government. The extent to which this added value is delivered and how it is perceived depends on the six factors identified above. Examples of impact cited in our research (and summarised in the pen portraits) include:
- accessing a wide variety of funding streams, such as gain share agreements and the Transforming Cities Fund, reflecting the value the government placed in the contribution of combined authorities
- the deployment of the advocacy role of the mayors in securing other investments such as the relocation of government departments, potential links to HS2, new higher education institutions and initiatives such as a 5G test bed
- programmes to support house construction and brownfield development and collaboration on skills and employment demonstrating the value of the scale of the combined authorities
- using combined authority capacity and scale to make progress on cross-cutting topics such as inclusive growth, health inequalities and public service reform.
The changing landscape
The landscape in which the combined authorities are operating and in which other places may be considering the case for establishing one has shifted significantly as a result of several factors. They include: the COVID-19 pandemic; the government’s move away from devolved resources to smaller and more competitive funding streams; the shift from the national industrial strategy; the future of LEPs; and the new Skills White Paper which highlight a minimal role for LEPs, councils and combined authorities. These are outlined in more detail below.
The Government no longer refers to the long-awaited English Devolution and Local Recovery White Paper which had been expected to set out the Government’s ambition for devolution. Instead, the expectation has shifted to the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper. This should set out ministers’ understanding of and commitment to devolution in England.
The Budget 2021 put unitary, county and district councils in the driving seat in accessing regeneration funding, marginalising combined authorities and LEPs. In the short-term, localities are required to develop a shortlist of projects for two new funding opportunities of the Levelling Up Fund and the UK Community Renewal Fund (the precursor to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund). This represents a significant shift away from the idea of devolving pots of funding to combined authorities for them to prioritise locally.
A further shift relates to the review of LEPs and the demise of the National Industrial Strategy. The future role of LEPs remains uncertain as is the status of the local industrial strategies that many combined authorities put a considerable amount of effort into. The thinking and evidence on which the strategies were based remains important, however, as does effective engagement with businesses and other employers.
Finally, the Skills White Paper did not recognise the role of councils or LEPs in helping to ensure skills provision meets the needs of local employers and residents. The combined authorities were identified as “consultees” despite most of them having a particular remit around the local skills base. This raises questions about the future of government policy in relation to devolution in skills and employment which is likely to be the subject of continued debate in Parliament and discussions with government.
This changing landscape suggests a dilution of government commitment to the combined authority model. If and when the picture becomes clearer councils considering whether or not to establish a combined authority will need to take the latest intelligence into account in exploring the four questions set out below.
Wider lessons
Reflecting on our research, we have identified four key lessons from the experience of the combined authorities over the last ten years.
First, the experience has demonstrated the value of collaboration over conurbation scale geographies between councils and other stakeholders including business and higher and further education. It is also clear, however, that successful collaboration at this scale requires sustained effort. There are no quick fixes.
Second, while many observers have challenged whether the combined authorities have benefitted from “true devolution”, they have had access to pots of resource which they have been able to allocate locally. This is widely seen as having been impactful. As noted above, current government direction is to return to smaller specific pots of money allocated by ministers in response to competitive bids.
Third, the process of negotiating devolution deals is widely perceived to have become more formulaic over time. The early deals were the product of genuine negotiation. The more recent ones have the flavour of a menu from which localities can chose with little opportunity for genuine innovation.
Finally, the vast majority of our interviewees pointed to the value of the “metro mayors”. They point in particular to their soft power, their role as conveners and their ability to raise the profile of the place and what the combined authority is seeking to achieve locally and nationally. Some interviewees question the quality of engagement between mayors and ministers when they are members of different political parties. Others see the relationship as being an important one regardless of party politics. For example, it is always easier for a minister to relate to one mayor rather than six or more council leaders.