Like all negotiations, there has been plenty of back and forth to secure the very best deal we could. With local backing, we stuck to our principles of maximising benefit but in a way that works for us. We are in this to deliver more investment in Suffolk and see greater decision-making powers in Suffolk.
If I could now fast forward to Thursday 17 November and the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn Statement where I feel some misunderstanding needs ironing out.
The Government had informed us that the Chancellor would announce - among the many measures designed to steady the UK economy - that a devolution deal had been reached with Suffolk. This was a world stage on which Suffolk was a key player. A county of ambitious change.
I am frustrated that the inaccurate words used overshadowed our huge achievement. As I watched the statement, the Chancellor proudly announced that Suffolk is to get a directly-elected “Mayor”.
For a moment I was dumbstruck. This was not what we had agreed. Nor would I personally ever agree to an additional needless and costly layer of bureaucracy. If that was the deal being offered to Suffolk, I would be the first to reject it.
Suffolk’s devolution deal requires no such additional layer of bureaucracy, nor the public-funding associated with it. There would be no separate Mayoral authority, offices, staffing or taxing powers.
That is because we are seeking to have powers and funding devolved to Suffolk County Council – under the control of a directly-elected leader and cabinet – scrutinised by councillors and ultimately accountable to the people of Suffolk. It is exactly the model we have now but with one change – whoever has the privilege of being the leader would be directly elected by the people of Suffolk.
In fairness to Jeremy Hunt, this is a devolution deal with similarities to the Government’s existing Mayor-making agenda, but in reality it is hugely different. It’s devolution 2.0!