Peer review: Christian Wolmar
Transport writer and broadcaster
|
Devolution is a vague concept and Paul Clifton does well to try to identify its precise meaning. As the article suggests, devolution is now seen as a ‘Good Thing’ by many politicians across the spectrum, with more and more expressing support for the concept. |
However, there is less certainty about what it means and its implications. The vagueness of the concept is leading to confusion, and may well spell trouble for railway companies who will have to deal with the muddle, and who may not have clarity about who is setting the parameters for their operations
The problem for the Devolvers is that each region is different, with issues over boundaries between lower and higher local authorities (such as counties and district councils). Moreover, some regions struggle to establish an identity, and even where there appears to be a strong local identity, devolution is not always popular.
The Labour government tried to create a regional structure by focusing on the North, where John Prescott organised a series of referendums in 2004 thinking these regions offered the best hope of success. In the event, they voted overwhelmingly ‘no’, and the process was abandoned before the more tricky regions such as the South East and the East Midlands were asked for their views.
Therefore the Devolvers have to tread carefully - and this is clear from Paul’s analysis. While he sounds positive about progress in the North, where the franchise requirements in the draft Invitation To Tender do suggest that a recognition of the region’s needs has been taken into account, it is far more difficult to imagine something similar happening in many other parts of the UK.
Merseyside’s success can be explained by the fact that it is a self-contained region, and the local authorities have joined together to ensure its success. London is comparatively simple, given it has Transport for London, which covers the whole area. But even here there are complexities - when Conservative mayor Boris Johnson tried to bring more services into the TfL fold two years ago, the plan was stopped abruptly by protests from his fellow politicians in Kent, who were worried that services to the coast would be cut back in favour of suburban trains.
It is not just the Kent Tory brigade. Over the years, I have received numerous protests from people living on the outer fringes of the Metropolitan Line, such as Chesham or Amersham. They argue that they get a poor deal from TfL, and that there is a democratic deficit because they cannot vote for the mayor as they live outside the capital. That has struck me as a tendentious argument, but it is a view that apparently has some resonance in Buckinghamshire.
Therefore, I am deeply sceptical about any attempt to devolve powers over the railways to local politicians in the South East. This region has no real identity apart from being part of the travel to work area of London. Politicians in the various Home Counties have little in common, and it is difficult to imagine them agreeing over the future of local train services. The same applies to both regions in the Midlands, and even in the South West there is a lot of difference between Cornwall and Devon.
That is why there are clear limits to devolution, which explains the very vague notion of exactly how it would work in various regions. While it is easy for politicians to argue in favour of it, actually devising ways to make it work is rather more difficult.
