This was confirmed in a statement to Parliament earlier – although I was kind of hoping for something far more radical such as funding for a light rail metro or confirmation that local government structures would be overhauled as well.
If you live in/around Cambridge, you can email your MP via https://www.writetothem.com/ and ask your MP to put forward any concerns or questions that you may have. The Minister then has to write back to your MP (or rather sign off the letter drafted by civil servants, confirming it is an accurate reflection of the Minister’s views and of Government policy), with responses to your Qs and points.
The MJ’s trailing of said overhaul sounds like it was close to the mark although we won’t know until the Devolution White Paper and accompanying draft bill are published.
“What’s a White Paper?”
The White Paper is statement of Government Policy, where as a ‘Green Paper’ is normally a discussion document. One example of a White Paper that I worked on post-publication was Strong and Prosperous Communities back in 2006 in the days when local councils were micromanaged by the state, and had to report statistics on a whole host of things. This policy paper rationalised the whole set up, but it never got the chance to bed in because Eric Pickles got rid of it all – along with any funding and let the entire sector pretty much go to the wall – hence Parliament’s HCLG Committee declaring the sector financially unsustainable in 2021.
‘The majority of county council spending is on commissioning services rather than directly providing them’
The Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council Stephen Moir made that statement to the council’s Strategy, Resources, and Performance Committee earlier (31 Oct 2024). Which is worth noting because it reflects an historic change in how public services were provided compared with pre-Thatcher times. This matters in the context of growth and restructuring of local councils – and of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ budget statement. The principle is based on a misunderstanding (in my opinion) of using market forces to drive efficiencies. Firms compete to ‘bid’ to provide services otherwise provided for by the state directly. Such as cleaning services or catering services. Or entire care homes. Underfunded councils inevitably pick the cheapest bid. That provider ends up employing underpaid staff on shoestring wages (especially migrant workers less able to argue for their legal rights) while the directors of the outsourcing firms make a fortune.
Policy problems emerging from the Budget statement
The problem they all face now is that the Chancellor has increased the minimum wage – good, and also Employers’ National Insurance Contributions. The backlash from both small firms and those delivering contracts is that unless local councils *increase* the amount they pay for those services, the outsourcing firms won’t be able to meet their legal obligations on paying staff, providing the services required by the contract, and breaking even financially. The risk is that the firms hand back the contracts and/or go bust. Given the state of local councils, not surprisingly previous Labour Leaders proposed bringing in a ‘National Care Service’ so that councils were not over-burdened in the face of an ageing population.
“But then Cambridge is going to be full of these bright young people, so we’ll be fine, right?”
Wrong. We’re at multiple crunch points that the geography text books of the 1990s warned us teenage 90s kids about.
- Ageing population
- Climate catastrophe
- Extreme inequalities
At some stage something has got to give. We are in the process of finding out what.
“Cambridge is still going to grow, right?”
That is the stated Government Policy to Parliament – and will be confirmed in more detail in the White Paper. If that White Paper says Cambridge is going to grow, that’s that because Parliament is Sovereign.
What then is up for debate is what that growth looks like and how it is managed. What won’t be up for debate is the principle. (Unless you get Poll-Tax-Protest-Style opposition protests/massive election losses to an anti-growth party, or an environmental catastrophe, or a major financial implosion that makes the government spending to make it happen impossible. )
What the Minister’s statement said
“The Deputy Prime Minister and I are determined to realise the full potential of Greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the UK economy. I am therefore appointing Peter Freeman to Chair the Cambridge Growth Company, which will work with local partners to develop and start to deliver an ambitious plan for delivering high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs.”
Matthew Pennycook MP – Minister for Housing & Planning. 31 Oct 2024
Which means we need to have words with local property professionals to tell them their clients need to commission things that are ‘High Quality’, not simply just ‘Acceptable’ as what happened at Cambridge North Station. (Their words, not mine!)
The focus of the Cambridge Growth Company will be:
- Enable and accelerate developments which align with the government’s ambitions for Cambridge, and unlocking development on stalled sites.
- Develop the evidence base to support development of an infrastructure-first growth plan and a long-term delivery vehicle: working with experts to assess infrastructure requirements, including water and transport, and laying the foundations to establish a long-term delivery vehicle.
- Identify solutions to complex constraints and support a cross-government approach to unblock existing development, providing the right incentives for successful development in the long-term.
So, first question for all of you reading this: What’s missing?
Or rather think: “How could this possibly go wrong? Who would need to do what to leave us with:
- new developments of sci-tech labs without electricity or running water,
- crumbling tower blocks destroying the visual skyline
- too little land allocated for sports and team games (formal and informal) to the extent that they get over-used and degrade
- too few trees and too few large open spaces resulting in the urban heat island effect getting even worse
- too little public transport provision – much of it only A-to-B commuter services in peak hours
- poor quality housing made out of poor materials with too many corners cut and inspections bypassed by an under-resourced and enfeebled local council
- all the financial value in the land extracted so that no community groups can establish new activities because the costs of hiring are far too expensive (or are simply not made available to most residents)
- none of the buildings once built actually meet the specifications (eg zero carbon) that the designers and architects said they would meet
- a structure and system of government even more complicated than the present one which results in nothing getting done without the intervention of ministers
- turning the City of Cambridge into an exclusive global conferencing venue for the wealthy and connected – as written by former Prof Sanders in 2014 here
Then think:
Who would need to do what to prevent all of that bad stuff happening – and more?
Note the Minister also stated:
“I want to sustain the constructive relationship I have established with local leaders and key partners over recent months.”
Which groups/cohorts/communities that make up the city of Cambridge are conspicuous by their absence?
Who are the people who can provide the critical, constructive challenge to the assumptions that the proponents of growth are feeding you and your officials with?
One of the things I found fascinating during my time working for the Minister’s predecessor housing ministers was watching the pro-sustainability industry interests arguing with the pro-cost-reduction industry interests over what the Government’s policy should be on the old Code for Sustainable Homes. A similar approach could work for Cambridge – where civil servants bring different interest groups and communities together from different backgrounds across our city, and let them cross-examine senior representatives of those institutions pushing for growth. See what points the latter concede on and which points come up as significant policy risks.
The big risk is politically-connected individuals and interests are seen to fix things behind closed doors, leaving powerless local councillors having to defend something they were bounced into.
The same goes for Cambridge University senior decision makers – if their policies and strategies are as good as they think they are, they will withstand public scrutiny – and also the informed scrutiny from their own students and members. Noting that the University of Cambridge has its own issues regarding an unexpected structural deficit. Maybe a more transparent, clear, efficient, streamlined, and accountable system of governance would make for better decision-making all round?
And finally…the democracy deficit
This is something every single person involved in this should be challenged on. Not least because once the big developments have been built we will have a city that will need a very different system of governance to the one established by Sir Edward Heath’s Government on 01 April 1974. And ‘Oh that’s not my area of expertise’ is not a good enough answer if you’re involved in creating / building out an existing settlement that’s going to make the existing structures and systems of government and democracy even less fit for purpose than they already are.
Which is why the Devolution White Paper is ever so significant.
Interestingly, the Centre for Cities has published its short pragmatic English Devolution White Paper here, which is worth a browse.
Above – Centre for Cities proposed boundaries for a Greater Cambridge Unitary Council
I’ve disagreed with them in the past on their proposals for Cambridgeshire & Peterborough – I prefer Redcliffe-Maud’s original that brought in market towns like Newmarket, Haverhill, and Saffron Walden into the local governance structure of the economic subregion that they are already in.
Above – Cambridge Evening News 11 June 1969 from Lost Cambridge
In the grand scheme of things, the Boundary Commission would resolve that one through a major consultation. The three principles from the Centre for Cities are broadly sound:
- Devolution should reconnect local government to local economies
- Devolution should look to make local government simpler.
- Devolution should prioritise existing commitments to deepen devolution
That last point I’m assuming is about the prospects of re-centralising things that have been devolved. Personally I’d like to see far greater co-ordination if not integration of education and primary healthcare into local government. Gove’s reforms destroyed the local democratic accountability and simply empowered too many questionable academy chains, faith groups and created a deluge of extra work for MPs as county councillors (in two-tier areas) ceased to be responsible for secondary schools.
The problem that is aligning the various local and regional tiers of public services and their governance structures will not be resolved in a single parliament. The regional government office network (1994-2011) should have resolved it but for many reasons was unable to. Will the new Labour government be more successful this time?
We shall see…
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on BSky <- A critical mass of public policy people seem to have moved here (and we could do with more local Cambridge/Cambs people on there!)
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 