Suffolk 'stands no chance' without devolution deal

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the changes would mark the biggest transfer of power from Westminster in a generation, with mayors retaining a greater share of business rates from April 2027 and income tax from April 2028. However, those confirmed dates apply to England's existing metro mayors, and no timetable has yet been set for Combined County Authorities such as Norfolk and Suffolk, whose own mayoral elections were pushed back to May 2028 following the government's decision to cancel its plan to fast-track devolution in the region.

A 'catalytic' opportunity

Paul Simon, head of public affairs and strategic communications at Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, said the region's economic strengths made the case for devolution particularly compelling.

"Suffolk is a key part of one of the few regions that is a net contributor to the Treasury. Yet for decades upon decades, we have received back far less than anything approaching a fair share of central government spending," he said.

"Because of our international strengths in renewables, ports and logistics, the land-based sector and advanced manufacturing, our success means national success – particularly in the North and the Midlands."

Simon said the devolution of funding and powers from Whitehall departments would be "catalytic" in sustaining that contribution, giving the two counties' 71,000 businesses a "clearer and louder national voice". He was critical of what he described as an "at times, dinosaurian lack of responsiveness" from central government to Suffolk and Norfolk's particular challenges and opportunities.

"That is why Suffolk Chamber one hundred per cent backs the principle of devolution and specifically the creation of a Strategic Mayoral Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk," he said. "This is only the first stage, and we are hopeful that with the right mayor in place, Suffolk and Norfolk will be subsequently given more funding and more powers."

He argued that even a mayor with initially limited funding would have "enormous soft power" to unite businesses, communities and local councils behind a stronger regional voice, alongside a more joined-up approach to planning and infrastructure investment.

Urging the deal over the line

Suffolk and Norfolk chambers wrote to Prime Minister Andy Burnham as soon as he took office, according to Simon, urging him to press ahead with the mayoral authority on the current timetable.

"In other words, we want a mayor in place by no later than May 2028, and respectfully urge the leaderships at both Suffolk and Norfolk county councils to approve the deals as soon as possible," he said.

Simon acknowledged that Suffolk and Norfolk remain some way from the greater funding powers set out by the Burnham administration, but said the region had no chance of reaching that point without first agreeing the current deal.

"Although we are some way off having a devolved authority that will have the greater funding powers as outlined last week by the Burnham administration, it is clear that we stand no chance whatsoever of getting to that point unless we give the green light immediately to the current deal on the table," he said.

He pointed to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, in existence for nine years, which was recently awarded Established status – deepening its advantage over Norfolk and Suffolk.

"Suffolk and Norfolk are already some way behind not only the big metropolitan areas, but also more rural ones," Simon said. "If we fail to put our foot on the lowest rung of the devolution escalator now, we risk being left far, far behind those already ahead of us, let alone those regions about to set off on their devolution journeys for the first time."

Asked what businesses stood to lose from further delay, Simon pointed to funding, "political clout and influence", inward investment and business confidence. "Chambers of Commerce in areas with mayors know who to work with. They know who is really accountable," he said. "When government wants to talk to Suffolk at the moment – who do they call? Who speaks on behalf of us all? The lines of accountability are confusing and blurred, and make for poor decision-making and missed opportunities. We are easier to ignore by Whitehall than we should be."

'We need the details'

Tim Passmore, the Conservative candidate for Norfolk and Suffolk mayor, welcomed the principle of the announcement but pressed the need for further detail.

"Receiving a share of income tax and business rates seems to be an attractive proposal worthy of serious analysis and consideration. We need the details," he said. He asked whether the funding could be used to reduce local taxation, support joint infrastructure investment, or provide security for borrowing through the Public Works Loan Board or other sources.

Passmore said the proposed mayoralty could significantly boost economic growth in the region, provided there was "sufficient autonomy to deliver change according to the area's needs", pointing to Suffolk and Norfolk's strengths in food, drink and agriculture, ICT, logistics, energy, tourism and advanced manufacturing.

"The focus must be on 'place' and not about mayors running businesses," he said. "It is about how to make the area much more attractive for inward investment and growth – better infrastructure including road and rail links, public transport especially for young people, mobile and ICT connectivity, a highly trained labour pool providing what businesses need, enabling a property-owning democracy and long-term strategic planning."

He renewed his criticism of the government's decision on the Ely and Haughley rail junctions upgrade, which he described as "appalling and very disappointing" given what he understood to be their strong return on investment, and said the new funding arrangement could support upgrades to the A14, A12 and A11, the Orwell Crossing, and connectivity to Norwich and Stansted airports.

Passmore also linked the announcement to wider concerns, including water resource restrictions in East Anglia, which he called "a comprehensive failure of successive governments to plan ahead", and the stagnating housing market, which he suggested could be helped by scrapping stamp duty.

"Suffolk needs to seize this opportunity, so we are not once again left behind," he said. "We need to remember Suffolk already has a low share of national resources compared with most areas – funding for infrastructure, health, education, housing and emergency services is some of the lowest per capita nationally, and yet we are net contributors to the national exchequer."

'Funding pots too restrictive'

Green Party candidate Caroline Topping, whose leadership of East Suffolk Council is under intense scrutiny following its botched Better Recycling rollout, welcomed the principle of mayors gaining greater control over tax revenue, arguing that existing funding arrangements were too restrictive to deliver good value.

"For devolution to be meaningful, local areas need the financial powers to invest in their own priorities," she said. "Too often, councils have to bid competitively to Westminster for short-term funding pots that come with tight restrictions on how the money can be spent and unrealistic delivery timescales. If those conditions cannot be met, the funding has to be returned."

She pointed to funding for warm homes and retrofitting in Suffolk as an example. "The eligibility criteria were so restrictive that many households who could have benefited were excluded," she said. "As a result, some funding had to be returned to government while residents continued to face higher energy bills, unnecessary heat loss and increased carbon emissions."

Topping said an earlier devolution deal for Suffolk, shelved in 2016, meant the county had already missed opportunities to secure investment and greater control over its own future. "Rather than waiting for decisions to be made in Westminster, local leaders could have been shaping investment around Suffolk's priorities," she said, adding that such funding could have supported skills and training, rail freight capacity, more reliable bus services, and new business growth in the county.

"Devolution is about more than funding," she said. "It's about giving local communities the ability to make decisions that reflect local needs and ambitions."

'Our part of the world has been overlooked for too long'

Ipswich MP Jack Abbott said his support for devolution stemmed from long-standing frustration at how the region has been treated by Westminster.

"I have long argued for greater powers and autonomy for Ipswich and Suffolk. Our part of the world has been overlooked for too long, and we must start thinking differently and embracing opportunities when they present themselves," he said.

"It is why I support devolution and the creation of a mayor for East Anglia, and it is why I believe a Greater Ipswich Council, working alongside our partners in East and West Suffolk, is so essential for our future."

He said the announcement could allow more of the taxes raised locally to be reinvested locally. "The government's drive to transfer power out of Westminster could mean we can keep more of the taxes raised in Ipswich and Suffolk in Ipswich and Suffolk, leading to a far greater ability to prioritise local investment," he said.

Abbott took aim at Suffolk County Council's Reform administration, which he suggested was resistant to change. "I know some people and organisations – like Reform-led Suffolk County Council – are desperate to maintain the status quo, but that isn't working for anyone," he said. "I am ambitious for our town and county and will keep fighting for the powers and resources we need to fulfil our potential."

The bottom line

Whatever their politics, Suffolk's business and political voices agree on one thing: the county cannot afford to be an afterthought while devolution takes shape everywhere else first.

The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Reform UK mayoral candidates were approached for comment.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

This article cost us ~£131 to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.