Public consultation

This consultation aimed to ensure all -

• businesses
• organisations
• residents

across the region had the opportunity to share their views. People were able to participate through a range of methods.

Overall response rates

In total over 5,800 shared their views in the consultation process, including -

• 4,488 members of the public through the online and paper surveys with
  • 2,941 from East Riding of Yorkshire
  • 1,491 from Hull
  • 39 from other areas
  • 442 not providing their area of residence
• 122 businesses or organisations through the online and paper surveys
• An estimated 1,123 members of the public through 61 public events across the area
• 85 members of the public and businesses through nine targeted focus groups
• 31 businesses, organisations, and members of the public through stakeholder submissions
• 15 members of the public asking questions through the online and telephone channels

Summary of analysis

TONIC were commissioned to undertake an independent analysis of the response data generated by the consultation exercise. The findings of this are summarised in this report.

Survey responses

Priorities

Public

The top priorities for members of the public across both Hull and East Riding were -

• to improve local transport (41% of the total public respondents)
• in Hull they also prioritised regenerating local communities (35%) and affordable housing (34%)
• while in East Riding they also prioritised business investment and growth (33%)
• with both preventing flood and improving local resilience and regenerating local communities having 31% of respondents putting this in their top three priorities.

Businesses and Organisations

The top three priorities for businesses or organisations were -

• to support business investment and growth (63%)
• provide skills and training opportunities (37%)
• raise HEY’s profile nationally and internationally (35%)

The Devolution Deal

53% of all respondents agreed the devolution deal will help address HEY’s priorities, while 35% disagreed.

Public

For Hull residents, 60% agreed and 29% disagreed. In East Riding, 48% agreed and 39% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were -

• bringing new powers and decision making to the local area
• welcoming the additional investment
• supporting the introduction of a Mayoral Combined Authority
• belief that this will help address local priorities

The most common reasons for disagreeing were -

• not good use of tax payers’ money
• an unnecessary layer of additional bureaucracy
• insufficient investment to achieve the ambitions
• lack of trust in local politicians and councils

Businesses and Organisations

79% of businesses/organisations agreed the devolution deal will help address HEY’s priorities, while 16% disagreed.

The responses from businesses and organisations were positive about the potential benefits that devolution, coupled with the establishment of a Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), could bring to the area.

Respondents are supportive of the prospects for -

• enhanced economic development
• improved infrastructure
• better public services
• more effective local governance

However, concerns were voiced regarding the -

• execution of the deal
• adequacy of funding provided
• efficiency of the proposed governance structures
• equitable distribution of benefits throughout the region

Connectivity

53% of all respondents agreed that HEY would benefit from an MCA taking on new powers for connectivity while 36% disagreed.

Public

For Hull residents this was 59% agree and 30% disagree. In East Riding, 48% agreed and 39% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were -

• approval of becoming the Local Transport Authority
• support for a combined approach to transport across both areas
• approval of proposed improvements to public transport
• welcoming the new investment and benefits it will bring

The most common reasons for disagreeing were -

• a lack of faith and trust in local authorities’ ability to deliver
• existing councils can carry out the proposals without need for MCA
• certain parts of East Riding will not see a fair share of the funding
• doubt that the deal will deliver benefits to the area

Businesses and Organisations

78% of businesses/organisations agreed that Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from a Mayoral Combined Authority taking on new powers for connectivity and 18% disagreed.

A notable consensus emerges around the need for improved connectivity and transport infrastructure.

Respondents advocated for a localised approach to decision-making, emphasising the value of leveraging regional expertise and community engagement to create a more connected, economically vibrant Hull and East Riding.

The prospect of a Mayoral Combined Authority is viewed as a catalyst for strategic planning and investment, aimed at addressing unique regional needs, while promoting sustainable growth and enhancing residents' quality of life.

Productivity

51% of all respondents agreed Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around productivity while 34% disagreed.

Public

For Hull residents, 58% agreed and 28% disagreed. In East Riding, 46% agreed and 37% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were -

• a chance to address the skills gap for young people
• in support of decisions about education and jobs being made locally
• the proposals will enhance the economy and improve both areas
• improvement in young people’s education is crucial for the area

The most common reasons for disagreeing were -

• the responsibilities can be carried out by existing local authorities
• the proposals will not address productivity issues
• East Riding will not see a fair share of productivity investment
• no faith in local councils delivering success

Businesses and Organisations

76% of businesses/organisations agreed Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around productivity, and 15% disagreed.

On the topic of -

• employment
• jobs
• productivity

most welcomed the proposals.

Respondents see devolution as a potential way to empower local authorities and enable them to lead skills and employment strategies that unlock the region's economic potential. They felt that a more locally lead approach would help -

• develop a skilled workforce
• attract investment
• support more sustainable economic prosperity

Inclusivity

50% of all respondents agreed Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around inclusivity while 37% disagreed.

Public

For Hull residents, 58% agreed and 30% disagreed. In East Riding, 44% agreed and 42% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were -

• in favour of building more affordable housing
• in support of greater local control
• highlighting the crucial housing and environmental needs in the area
• support for taking a combined approach

The most common reasons for disagreeing were -

• no faith in the local authorities to carry out these tasks
• not enough investment to make a difference to housing
• devolution is unnecessary, existing council can action all proposals
• a negative impact on East Riding

Businesses and Organisations

62% of businesses/organisations agreed HEY would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around inclusivity and 29% disagreed.

Discussions around inclusivity and housing highlight an ambition for a future that addresses current inequalities, creating a more inclusive and sustainable environment.

The Mayoral Combined Authority is seen as pivotal in achieving this, offering a framework for co-ordinated decision-making and investment informed by local knowledge and priorities. However, some expressed concerns about whether the level of funding was adequate and about the balance between centralised authority and local autonomy.

Sustainability

48% of all respondents agreed Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around sustainability, whereas 35% disagreed.

Public

For Hull residents, 54% agreed and 29% disagreed. In East Riding, 43% agreed and 38% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were -

• support for achieving Net Zero
• encouraging more localised decision making on sustainability
• identifying mutual benefits for both areas when working together
• new investment will help deliver sustainability goals

The most common reasons for disagreeing were -

• insufficient funding to achieve the sustainability goals
• Net Zero cannot be achieved through the actions in this plan
• lack of evidence and information provided to make a decision
• bureaucracy of the proposed arrangements will prevent positive impact

Businesses and Organisations

68% of businesses/organisations agreed Hull and East Yorkshire would benefit from the Mayoral Combined Authority taking on responsibilities around sustainability and 23% disagreed.

• Sustainability
• Net Zero
• environmental considerations

are identified as critical to the region's development agenda. Respondents called for a collaborative, strategic approach that capitalises on local strengths to meet challenges, advocating for focused leadership and governance enhancements through the MCA to support the achievement of sustainability goals.

Governance Arrangements

47% of all respondents agreed proposals would support efficient and effective governance, whereas 39% disagreed.

Public

In Hull 54% agreed and 32% disagreed. In East Riding 42% agreed and 43% disagreed.

The most common reasons for agreeing were:

• Mayoral Combined Authority will be mutually beneficial for both areas
• increased local representation and improved knowledge of need
• Ii will give the area a strong voice
• the area is in need of the additional funds

The most common reasons for disagreeing were:

• concerns about additional cost to tax payers
• history of conflict and major differences between the two areas
• introducing an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy
• the problem of too much of the power being concentrated with one person (the Mayor)

Businesses and Organisations

69% of businesses and organisations agreed proposals would support efficient and effective governance and 18% disagreed.

Regarding the proposed governance arrangements, respondents identified that the region is ready for this change, asking for a governance model that combines visionary leadership with efficient, inclusive decision-making. There is broad support for the devolution deal's governance arrangements, including the role of a Mayor as a strong, visible leader. However, there were also concerns about the -

• potential bureaucratic inefficiencies
• effectiveness of centralised governance
• imperative for inclusive, representative decision-making

Equalities

Public

• 15% of all respondents who were members of the public felt the devolution plans would be beneficial to them with regard to their protected characteristic(s)
• 25% stated they did not feel the plans would benefit them in relation to this
• a further 16% said they were unsure
• 44% said this was not applicable to them as they had no protected characteristics

The most common potential benefits raised were -

• more accessible transport
• support for vulnerable people
• better lives for young people
• empowered residents with more decision making power and skills

The most common potential negative issues were:

• costs and wastefulness
• lack of evidence
• people with protected characteristics will not benefit
• older people will not benefit

Businesses and Organisations

With regard to equalities, respondents advocated for devolution policies and initiatives that are inclusive and address the diverse needs of the region's population.

There was a collective call for an approach that helps create greater equity and equality across all sectors by focusing on -

• economic development
• education
• housing
• governance

Reasons for neutrality

Across the questions, the issues commonly raised by those neither agreeing nor disagreeing with proposals, or stating they didn’t know, were -

• it largely depends on the skills, abilities and integrity of the people who would fill the new positions in the Mayoral Combined Authority and its governance, with a particular focus on the role of Mayor
• the need for comprehensive oversight, checks and balances
• more information on proposals was needed to make an informed decision
• asking further questions about specific aspects of the proposals
• concern around a lack of infrastructure to support the goals
• concerns about whether the investment provided was sufficient to achieve the ambitions
• a history of conflict between the two councils would make progress difficult

Focus groups

Analysis of the notes from the focus groups revealed common themes that emerged among participants from a range of different backgrounds. Predominant among these were the need for improvements in crucial areas such as -

• transportation
• housing
• local business support
• governance transparency

Key priorities raised by participants included -

• enhanced public transport
• affordable housing solutions
• clear communication and implementation of devolution details

Participants highlighted the need to address community-specific challenges if the Mayoral Combined Authority is to foster a more inclusive, responsive, and effective support system that caters to the diverse needs of residents.

To address these challenges, the following points were raised -

• understanding and perception - Participants displayed a general lack of understanding about devolution, expressing confusion and scepticism about its purpose and benefits
• Government and Council roles - Mixed feelings were observed concerning the roles of government and the local councils in the devolution process, with uncertainty about its impacts on local governance and services.
• doubts about effectiveness - There was widespread questioning about the effectiveness of devolution, with concerns about increased bureaucracy and potential corruption.
• potential for local empowerment - Despite these concerns, participants acknowledged the potential for devolution to offer opportunities for more democratic local governance, provided its aims and mechanisms are clearly communicated and implemented.
• concerns over local services - Discussions frequently revolved around how devolution might affect local services, particularly in transportation and housing, with a demand for improvements that directly address community needs.

Events

The notes from the events held showed general support for devolution among attendees, while also pointing out areas for improvement in messaging, the need to address specific local concerns, and a call to enhance the clarity of the devolution's impact on governance and local services.

Specific local issues such as transport connectivity and pay levels emerged as key concerns. Attendees were particularly interested in how devolution could address these long-standing problems, indicating a desire for tangible benefits from the devolution process.

Residents were keen to understand how devolution would directly impact them, debunking myths and addressing concerns about potential changes to local governance structures. There was a clear demand for straightforward answers to how everyday life might be affected.

Participants expressed a desire for specific protections to be put in place, particularly to prevent any bias towards certain areas within the MCA. This reflects a concern for equitable representation and decision-making within the new governance framework.

There was also a request for more localised messaging, more information and greater transparency about the devolution process.