East Anglia Devolution Research

Transcription

1 September 2016 East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk and Suffolk Ipsos MORI

2 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk East Anglia Devolution Poll Report Version 1 Internal Use Only This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Version 1 Internal Research, Use Only ISO 20252:2012, This work was and carried with the out Ipsos in accordance MORI Terms with and the Conditions requirements which of can the international be found quality standard for Market Research, 2016 ISO 20252:2012, and with the Ipsos

3 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Contents Introduction... 1 Background... 1 Purpose of report... 1 Publication of data... 1 Methodology... 2 Representative survey... 2 Sampling approach and quotas... 2 Weighting... 4 Sample profile... 4 Statistical reliability and margins of error... 6 Geographical analysis... 7 Technical Summary... 9 Key lines of questioning... 9 Interpreting the findings Awareness of devolution Attitudes to devolution Local vs. national Directly-elected Mayor Setting up a Combined Authority Decision-making Accountability Spending priorities Further comments Appendix 1: Sample survey questionnaire Appendix 2: Random Digit Dialling Appendix : Coding Process... 57

4 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Executive Summary

5 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Executive Summary This report summarises the findings of a representative telephone survey conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of fourteen District Councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, as well Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils. The table below provides a summary overview of the key findings from the survey. Table 1.1: Summary of responses to key questions Responses include Don t know responses unless specified Residents Business Number of responses Devolution Awareness % (a great deal/fair amount) 2% 19% Support % (strongly/tend to) 5% 54% Decisions are better made locally (excludes Don t know responses) % agree Strategy for housing and development plans 82% 79% Deciding how 10m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes 75% 79% Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk 77% 74% Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel in Norfolk and Suffolk Reviewing further education to help provide young people with the skills that local employers need 85% 85% 72% 74% 70% 71% Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training 78% 78% Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training 76% 77% Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects 67% 69% Joining up health and social care services 67% 67% Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and long-term unemployed back into work Reviewing and listing all land and property held by the public sector that is available for development Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline 5% 49% 81% 78% 64% 71%

6 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Mayor/Combined Authority % support The election of a Mayor 52% 47% Participating Councils becoming part of a Combined Authority 58% 59% Mayor/Combined Authority decision-making % agree Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor has a vote 77% 78% The Mayor cannot make decisions alone 89% 89% Some decisions would require a majority of members to agree, including the Mayor 72% 70% Accountability % essential An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend meetings to answer questions A scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority s finances Residents living in the Combined Authority being able to directly elect the Mayor 5% 5% 1% 29% 48% 52% 45% 46% A Government assessment every five years 8% 40% Priorities for the proposed Combined Authority % important Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband 62% 60% Investment in job creation for local people 72% 60% Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular 64% 57% Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people 6% 52% Investment in supporting local businesses 51% 52% Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed 64% 54% Investment in flood defences and coastal protection 60% 54% Ensuring young people are either earning or learning 75% 72%

7 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Headline findings Overall, residents and businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk are very positive about devolution both in principle, and with regard to the proposed devolution deal. Findings from the business survey tend to be very similar to those seen in the residents survey. The vast majority of residents and businesses have at least heard of devolution, and around two thirds say they know at least a little about it however, just % say they know a great deal. In principle, over half support devolution, outnumbering those who oppose it by over :1 for residents, and over 4:1 for businesses. Reflecting this, across a range of services, residents believe decisions are better made at a local level in particular with regard to road maintenance, developing a housing strategy and reviewing the list of available land and property. When asked about the specifics of the Norfolk and Suffolk deal, residents and businesses are also positive, although opinion is more divided here. Around half support the election of a Mayor compared to three in in ten who oppose this, while three in five support the participating Councils becoming part of a Combined Authority. Strong majorities agree with the proposed model of decision-making, and the accountability measures included in the deal are all perceived to be important by both residents and businesses, in particular the creation of an audit committee which half of residents and businesses believe to be essential. In terms of the spending priorities, both residents and businesses highlight the need for the Combined Authority to ensure young people are working or in education, as well as focusing on economic drivers such as investment in job creation. Businesses also give high priority to investment in infrastructure and housing. For residents, the lowest priority is seen to be supporting local businesses, so work may need to be done to communicate the link between investment in this area and creating jobs for local people. Another challenge for the Councils is that those who say they know at least a fair amount about devolution tend to be more negative about different aspects of the devolution deal. Those who know just a little about devolution are much more likely to support devolution than oppose it while this is undoubtedly a positive, work will need to be done to ensure that this positivity is consolidated as residents become more familiar with the proposed changes. One particularly encouraging result from the Council s perspective is the reaction to the devolution proposals amongst younger age groups. Those aged are more likely than average to support the election of a Mayor and the creation of a Combined Authority although again, it is this group who say they know less about devolution generally. It should also be noted that despite their positivity about the proposed deal, those aged are more likely than average to prefer national decision-making on the key issues of reviewing further education and deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training. Conversely, opinion is the most negative amongst older age groups. Those aged 65+ are more likely than average to oppose devolution in principle, as well as the election of a Mayor and the creation of a Combined Authority. This is perhaps of concern given it is this group that say they are most knowledgeable about the topic. Interestingly though, older people are more likely than average to prefer local decision-making to national across a range of services, so there is clearly some support for the basic principle of devolution. However, it is clear that more needs to be done to communicate the potential benefits of the proposed deal to older people in Norfolk and Suffolk, and to provide reassurances that the necessary checks and balances will be put in place.

8 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk There is also an interesting gender dimension at play in the findings from the residents survey. Men are more likely to say they know at least a fair amount about devolution, and to be more polarised in their views on the subject. Women tend to be more neutral about devolution in general, but when asked for their preference on how decisions should be made, they are more likely than average to prefer local decision-making to national across all of the thirteen services included in the survey. At county level, findings tend to be consistent between Norfolk and Suffolk although those in Suffolk tend to be slightly more positive about the election of a Mayor.

9 Ipsos MORI December 2015 Version 1 Public Internal Use Only Confidential Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION) 1 Introduction & Methodology

10 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 1 Introduction Background In his budget speech in March 2016, the then Chancellor George Osborne proposed a devolution deal for East Anglia. Since then, discussions with the Government have led to the proposal of two separate deals, one for Norfolk and Suffolk and one for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. These two proposed deals are worth more than 1.5bn and have been drawn up between Central Government and Councils across Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the Greater Cambridge/Greater Peterborough LEP. As part of the proposed deals, two new East Anglia Combined Authorities would be created, chaired by directly-elected Mayors. If the deals are agreed, elections for the directly-elected Mayor would take place in May If approved, the deals would see more decisions on areas like infrastructure, growth, employment and skills being made locally, rather than by Central Government - signalling the start of a fundamentally different relationship between government and local public services. As part of the deal process, a governance review and preparation for a scheme of governance must be undertaken. This has to be approved by public consultation. The fourteen District Councils, plus Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils wanted to formally consult local residents and businesses on the proposed governance scheme for East Anglia devolution. In order to understand the views of the entire population, Ipsos MORI recommended a representative telephone survey to be undertaken with Norfolk and Suffolk residents, as well as local businesses. Alongside this, both Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils ran an online consultation between 4 th July and 2 rd August. This consultation could be responded to via an open online survey on the Council websites, by , or by paper survey. This consultation was run and analysed independently by the two Councils. Purpose of report This report summarises the key findings of the representative telephone survey of residents and businesses conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils. The main objective of the research was to understand residents and businesses views on the proposals for devolved powers and how decision-making should be organised. Publication of data The research has been conducted in accordance with the ISO business quality standard that Ipsos MORI holds. As Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils have engaged Ipsos MORI to undertake an objective programme of research, it is important to protect the organisations interests by ensuring that the findings are accurately reflected in any press release or publication. As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the findings of this report is therefore subject to the advance approval of Ipsos MORI. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.

11 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 2 Methodology Representative survey Residents survey Ipsos MORI were commissioned to conduct a representative telephone survey; this survey is independent to the Council run online consultation which was open to all members of the public, and was undertaken to enable the Councils to extrapolate the results to the adult populations of Norfolk and Suffolk as a whole; important given the universe of the issues and services under scrutiny. Whilst an open consultation will permit any local resident (or stakeholder organisation) to give their views, it will not necessarily comprise of a representative sample of local residents; only those who choose to respond to the consultation. As such, it may over or under-represent a particular point of view if the people holding these views are disproportionately likely to respond; similarly, particular sub-groups may be under or over-represented. Running a representative survey permits measurements of residents overall opinion and ensures the results are reflective of the counties as a whole. The methodology consisted of a 10-minute telephone survey of 6,080 residents of Norfolk and Suffolk aged 18+, conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Fieldwork took place from 1 th July to the 22 nd August. Business survey In addition to the telephone survey of residents, Norfolk and Suffolk County Council commissioned a telephone survey of 250 small and medium-sized businesses, using the same questionnaire as the residents survey. This was also conducted using CATI and fieldwork took place from 8 th August to the 21 st August. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1. Sampling approach and quotas Residents survey The sample was disproportionately stratified to achieve 80 interviews in each local authority, with an additional 80 interviews per county as a boost. This quota was achieved for all areas with the exception of Forest Heath where the incidence rate was lower due to the high proportion of military personnel from overseas. The sample was carefully controlled with fixed quotas set within each county on gender, age, and work status, based on updated Census profile information. Random Digit Dialling (RDD) was undertaken to achieve a random selection of households within these contact areas. Further information about Random Digit Dialling can be found in Appendix 2.

12 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Table 1.2: Disproportionate sample quotas County Local authority area Number of interviews Total Norfolk County Council Norfolk County Council (Boost) 80 Norwich City Council 80 South Norfolk Council 80 Great Yarmouth Borough Council 80 Broadland District Council 80 North Norfolk District Council 80 Breckland Council Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk 80 Suffolk County Council Suffolk County Council (Boost) 80 Ipswich Borough Council 80 Suffolk Coastal District Council 80 Waveney District Council 80 Mid Suffolk District Council 80 Babergh District Council 80 St Edmundsbury Borough Council 80 Forest Heath District Council Business survey The business survey involved interviewing 250 businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk (125 Norfolk, 125 Suffolk). These businesses were all single sites or head offices and those interviewed were in a role of strategic decision-making capacity. Sample was purchased from Dun & Bradstreet, a global organisation who provides company information from their database of more than 25 million companies. In order for the sample to broadly reflect the business populations of Norfolk and Suffolk, loose quotas were set on business size. The business sample also aimed to broadly reflect the makeup of industry sectors in Norfolk and Suffolk. Industry sectors were defined using the 2-digit United Kingdom Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities codes (SIC). SIC is used to classify business establishments and other standard units by the type of economic activity in which they are engaged. The majority of interviews were made up of the top ten most common SIC codes in Norfolk and Suffolk, whilst the remainder were taken across other industry sectors.

13 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 4 Weighting Residents survey Data are weighted back to the known population profile of the county to ensure that the results are as representative as possible. Data are weighted by age within gender, and working status, as well as being balanced by local authority to reflect the distribution of the population across the county. As with sample quotas, the weighting profile is based on latest census mid-year estimates. Sample profile Residents survey In total 6,080 residents were interviewed. The chart below contains details of the demographic profile of the sample. The sample was designed so sub-group analysis can be undertaken at Local Authority level. Weighting has been used to ensure the sample is representative. Demographics (1) Gender Age Male 47% 48% % 7% Female *% Transgender *% Employment status Working 5% Workless 5% Retired 5% 52% 52% 57% 6% 1% % 16% 10% 10% 21% 20% 19% 15% 20% 18% Unweighted Weighted Education 2% 2% % 10% Base: All valid responses (6080) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 27

14 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 5 Demographics (2) Ethnicity Tenure White 96% Owned outright 46% BME 2% Mortgage 0% Disability Rent - council 5% Rent - HA/Trust 5% Yes, a lot Yes, a little 9% 8% Yes 16% Rent - private Other 2% 10% No 84% Don't know 2% Base: All valid responses (6080) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 28 Business survey In total 252 businesses were interviewed. The following table contains details of the profile of the sample. Table 1.: Sample survey business profile Sample profile Number of interviews County Norfolk 124 Suffolk 128 Deal Area 252 Business size (excluding Don t knows) Micro (1 to 10 employees) 181 Small (11 to 50 employees) 55 Medium ( employees) 7 Large (250+ employees) 7

15 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 6 Industry 01 - Agriculture, Hunting and Related Service Activities Construction Sale, Maint/Repair of Motor Vehicles/Cycles; Retail Sale of Automotive Fuel 51 - Wholesale & Commission Trade, Except of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles 52 - Retail Trade, Exc. Motor Vehicles/Cycles; Repair of Personal/House'd Goods Hotels and Restaurants Real Estate Activities Education Health and Social Work Recreational, Cultural and Sporting Activities 20 Other 90 Statistical reliability and margins of error The residents and businesses who took part in the survey are only a sample of the total population of residents and businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk, so we cannot be certain that the figures obtained are exactly those that would have been reached had everyone responded (the true values). We can, however, predict the variation between the sample results and the true values from knowledge of the size of the samples on which the results to each question is based, and the number of times a particular answer is given. The confidence with which we can make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95% - that is, the chances are 95 in 100 that the true value will fall within a specified range. The following illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and percentage results at the 95% confidence interval : The following table illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and percentage results at the 95% confidence interval. Strictly speaking, however, the tolerances shown here apply only to random samples, so the comparison with quota sampling is indicative. In practice, good quality quota sampling has been found to be very accurate.

16 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 7 Table 1.4: Sampling tolerances overall level Size of sample on which survey result is based Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels 10% or 90% + 0% or 70% + 50% responses ,040 responses ,080 responses For example, with a sample size of 6,080 where 0% give a particular answer, the chances are, 19 in 20 that the true value (i.e. the one which would have been obtained if all residents aged 18+ living in the Deal area had been interviewed) will fall within the range of +/-1.2 percentage points from the survey result (i.e. between 28.8% and 1.2%). When results are compared between separate groups within a sample (e.g. Norfolk versus Suffolk) different results may be obtained. The difference may be real, or it may occur by chance (because not everyone in the population has been interviewed). To test if the difference is a real one - i.e. if it is statistically significant - we again have to know the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain answer and the degree of confidence chosen. If we once again assume a 95% confidence interval, the differences between the results of two separate groups must be greater than the values given in the following table: Table 1.5: Sampling tolerances sub-group level Size of sample on which survey result is based Differences required for significance at or near these percentage levels 10% or 90% + 0% or 70% + 50% vs vs Again, it is important to note that, strictly speaking, the above confidence interval calculations relate only to samples that have been selected using strict probability sampling methods. However, in practice it is reasonable to assume that these calculations provide a good indication of the confidence intervals relating to this survey. Geographical analysis Residents Survey Throughout the report, the results are analysed at three tiers: Tier 1: The Deal Area (Combined county level with Norfolk and Suffolk counties combined) Tier 2: Individual county level

17 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 8 Tier : Local authority level Business survey The business survey results are analysed at Deal Area level in order to ensure a robust base size. Where relevant, any statistical significance differences between Norfolk county and Suffolk county have been highlighted.

18 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 9 Technical Summary Key lines of questioning The representative telephone survey was designed to ask questions about the proposed devolution deal. A mix of both closed and open questions were included, which sought specific responses about the proposed Combined Authority Governance Review and Scheme documents. Key lines of questioning aimed to: Measure awareness of devolution as a principle; Understand to what extent, if at all, residents support or oppose the principle of devolution; Understand to what extent, if at all, residents support or oppose the principle of decision-making powers being transferred from the Government in Westminster to groups of local Councils, such as is being proposed with the new Combined Authority; Understand to what extent, if at all, residents support or oppose the election of a Mayor in order to access the decision-making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal; Understand to what extent, if at all, residents support or oppose their local Council becoming part of this Combined Authority; Test opinions about how decision-making between a directly-elected Mayor and the Combined Authority should be made; Test opinions about how the new Combined Authority should be held to account and give residents and stakeholders the opportunity to propose ways in which it should be held to account; Understand the priority spending areas for residents; Give residents and stakeholders the opportunity to provide any further thoughts on the proposals included in the devolution agreement. The survey also gathered a range of information from residents including: Name (this was optional); Postcode (optional); Which local authority the participant was based in; Gender; Age; Whether the participant has a long term health problem;

19 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 10 Employment status; Type of accommodation; and Ethnic group. The survey also gathered a range of information from businesses including: Age of company; Method of payment for premises; Size of business. These details were used as cross tabulations for analysis purposes. Interpreting the findings The sample survey has been designed to provide a representative picture of the views of Norfolk and Suffolk businesses and residents aged 18 and over. Thus, results are presented as percentages. Unless otherwise indicated, results from the sample survey are based on all participants. Please treat answers with a base size of less than 100 with caution. Where figures do not add up to 100%, this is the result of computer rounding or multiple responses. An asterisk (*) indicates a score less than 0.5%, but greater than zero. The responses to the open-ended questions were coded and added to the data tables. For further information about coding please see Appendix. Results are subject to statistical tolerances. Not all differences between the overall county level results and those for individual sub-groups will be significant.

20 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 11 Survey Findings

21 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Awareness of devolution Firstly, the survey sought to understand whether residents and businesses had heard of devolution before the interviews took place and if so, how much they felt they knew about the principles underpinning it. Residents survey In the residents survey, around a quarter (2%) say they know a great deal or a fair amount about devolution within England although just % say they know a great deal. Two in five (42%) say they know just a little about devolution, while one in five (20%) have heard of it but know nothing about it. One in seven (14%) say they have never heard of devolution. Levels of awareness are similar to those found in Ipsos MORI s national polling 1 - in an online survey conducted in September 2015, 21% of residents in the East of England said they knew a great deal or a fair amount about devolution. Between these surveys, the main difference appears to have been a shift from those who have heard of, but know nothing about it (from 29% to 20%) to those who know just a little about devolution (from 1% to 42%). However, it should be noted that because of the differences in methodology, these comparisons should only be treated as indicative. Q1. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? % A great deal % A fair amount % Just a little % Heard of, but know nothing % Never heard of % DK Deal area (6080) Norfolk County (040) Suffolk County (040) Norfolk County Suffolk County Norwich City (449) Ipswich (462) South Norfolk (455) Suffolk Coastal (512) Great Yarmouth (95) Waveney (454) Broadland (42) Mid Suffolk (461) North Norfolk (440) Babergh (44) Breckland (42) St Edmundsbury (462) Kings Lynn & West Norfolk (47) Forest Heath (246) Base: All valid responses (see above) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 6 1

22 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 1 At county level, knowledge about devolution is relatively consistent between Norfolk and Suffolk, with 2% and 22% respectively saying they know at least a fair amount about it. However, those in Suffolk are more likely than those in Norfolk to say they have never heard of devolution (16% vs. 1%). Looking at the results by district, those in Babergh are more likely than average to say they know a great deal or fair amount (29%), while those in Forest Heath are less likely (1% vs. 2% overall). There are a number of significant differences by demographic sub-groups. Men are more likely than women to say they know at least a fair amount about devolution (29% vs. 17%) a pattern that is often the case across social research studies. Knowledge of devolution also appears to increase with age 15% of those aged say they know a great deal or a fair amount, compared to 25% of those aged 45-64, and 27% of those aged 65+. Workless residents that is, those who are unemployed and available for work, or those who are permanently sick or disabled are also less likely than average to say they know a great deal or a fair amount about devolution (15% vs. 2% overall). Perhaps reflecting the age profiles associated with each tenure type, owner occupiers are more likely to say they know at least a fair amount about devolution (25% vs. 2% overall), while social tenants (11%) and private renters (15%) are less likely. Perhaps intuitively, those who either support or oppose the principle of devolution are both more likely than average to say they know a great deal or a fair amount about it (25% and 6% respectively vs. 2% overall). Furthermore, those who oppose the election of a Mayor and those who oppose participating Councils becoming part of a Combined Authority are also more likely to say they know at least a fair amount (4% and 5% respectively vs. 2% overall). Business survey Overall, awareness of devolution within England is high amongst businesses, with only 12% stating that they have not heard of devolution. One in five (19%) feel they know a great deal or a fair amount about devolution, whilst two in five (44%) say they know just a little. There are no significant differences between businesses in the two counties.

23 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 14 Q1. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? % A great deal % A fair amount % Just a little % Heard of, but know nothing about % Never heard of % Don't know % A great deal/ fair amount 44 Base: All valid responses (Business) (252) : Fieldwork dates: 8 th to 21 st August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI

24 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Attitudes to devolution Survey participants were provided with the information below outlining the basic ideas behind devolution: Devolution is when certain decision-making powers, as well as funding, are transferred down from Central Government to a local area. In this instance the area is Norfolk and Suffolk. It means that decisions are taken close to where they have an effect. Residents and businesses were then asked about the extent to which they support or oppose the principle of devolution. Residents survey In the residents survey, over half (5%) say they support the principle of devolution, with 18% saying they strongly support it. Around one in six (16%) oppose the principle of devolution, with 8% saying they strongly oppose it. Around a quarter say they neither support nor oppose devolution (2%), with 7% saying they don t know. Q2. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? % Strongly support % Tend to support % Neither/nor % Tend to oppose % Strongly oppose % Don't know Deal area (6080) Norfolk County (040) Suffolk County (040) Norfolk County Suffolk County Norwich City (449) Ipswich (462) South Norfolk (455) Suffolk Coastal (512) Great Yarmouth (95) Waveney (454) Broadland (42) Mid Suffolk (461) North Norfolk (440) Babergh (44) Breckland (42) St Edmundsbury (462) Kings Lynn & West Norfolk (47) Forest Heath (246) Base: All valid responses (see above) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 7 Attitudes towards devolution are consistent at the county level. Levels of support and opposition are also broadly similar by district, although residents in North Norfolk an area whose Council decided not to join the Combined Authority are more likely than average to say they oppose the principle of devolution (21% vs. 16% overall). Those in Waveney are more likely to say they strongly support devolution (22% vs. 18% overall).

25 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 16 Looking at the results by demographic groups, men are more polarised in their attitudes than women they are more likely to either support (55% vs. 52% of women) or oppose (18% vs. 14% of women) the principle of devolution. Women are more likely to say they are neutral (25% vs. 22% of men) or that they don t know (9% vs. 5% of men). Again, this is a fairly typical pattern for social research surveys asking questions of this nature. Opposition appears to increase with age 9% of those aged either tend to oppose or strongly oppose devolution, compared to 18% of those aged 45-64, and 21% of those aged 65+. Working residents are more likely than average to support the principle of devolution (55% vs. 5% overall); this most likely reflects the age profile of this group, as conversely retired residents are more likely to oppose it (22% vs. 16% overall). However, when looking at tenure, owner occupiers (a group who tend to be older) are somewhat polarised in their views; they are more likely than those of other tenures to support devolution (54% vs. 48% of social tenants) but are also more likely to oppose it (17% of owner occupiers vs. 1% of social tenants and 10% of private renters). Those with a long-term health problem or disability also have higher levels of opposition to devolution (20% vs. 16% overall). Intuitively, those with at least a fair amount of knowledge about devolution are also more opinionated on the topic 58% say they support devolution (vs. 5% overall), while 26% oppose it (vs. 16% overall). Of those who know just a little about devolution the largest group in the survey over half (55%) support devolution, while one in six (16%) oppose it. Those who are supportive of the election of the Mayor and of Councils joining a Combined Authority are both more likely to support devolution, while those who oppose these proposals are more likely to oppose devolution more generally.

26 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 17 Business survey The majority of businesses in the deal area (54%) support the principle of devolution, with one in five strongly supporting (19%). Businesses in Norfolk are significantly more likely to strongly support the principle (25% vs. 19% overall), whilst those in Suffolk are more likely to tend to support it (41% vs. 5% overall). At an overall level, only 12% are opposed to the principle of devolution. Those who support the election of a Mayor and those who support the idea of a Combined Authority are both significantly more likely to also support the principle of devolution (71% and 69% respectively). Q2. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? % Strongly support % Tend to support % Neither/nor % Tend to oppose % Strongly oppose % Don't know Support 54% Oppose 12% Base: All valid responses (Business) (252) : Fieldwork dates: 8 th to 21 st August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 4

27 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 18. Local vs. national Residents and businesses were asked whether they felt decisions about a variety of services would be better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority. To ensure participants gave an informed answer to these questions, they were first provided with the following information about the proposals to establish a Combined Authority in Norfolk and Suffolk: In Norfolk and Suffolk the proposed devolution agreement includes the creation of a Combined Authority. This would consist of representatives from all of the Councils in Suffolk and some of the Councils in Norfolk - at this stage, Norfolk County Council, Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and the Borough Council of King s Lynn and West Norfolk and the Local Enterprise Partnership, which represents the views of local businesses. The Combined Authority Area would cover Suffolk and the Broadland, South Norfolk, and King s Lynn and West Norfolk Council areas. The new Combined Authority would not replace any existing Councils, or any existing Town or Parish Councils. The proposed agreement would also create the role of a Mayor, who would be directly elected by residents in the Combined Authority Area. Residents survey For all thirteen services included in the question, a majority of those giving an opinion (i.e. excluding Don t know responses) think decisions are better made locally than nationally. Residents are most likely to think decisions should be made locally with regard to spending on road maintenance (85% think decisions are better made locally), developing a new housing and development strategy (82%) and creating a list of land and property available for development (81%). Those services thought to least-suited to local decision-making are designing programmes to help those with a disability and long-term unemployed back to work (5% think decisions are better made locally), co-ordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline (64%), deciding how infrastructure funding is spent (67%), and the joining up of health and social care (67%).

28 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 19 Q. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Nationally Locally 1 Back to work scheme 47% 2 Flood defence co-ordination 6% Infrastructure spending % 4 Joining up health & social care % 5 Reviewing further education 0% 6 Smart ticketing 28% 7 House spending 25% 8 10 Adults education/skills training 24% 9 Transport planning 2% Apprenticeship training funding 22% 11 Reviewing land/property list 19% 12 Housing strategy 18% 1 Road maintenance spending 15% Deal Area Back to work scheme 5% 2 Flood defence co-ordination 64% Infrastructure spending 67% 4 Joining up health & social care 67% 5 Reviewing further education 70% 6 Smart ticketing 72% 7 House spending 75% 8 10 Adults education/skills training 76% 9 Transport planning 77% Apprenticeship training funding 78% 11 Reviewing land/property list 81% 12 Housing strategy 82% 1 Road maintenance spending 85% Base: All valid responses (excluding DK s) (ranging from 5570 to 5955) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 8 Findings tend to be fairly consistent at county level, with two exceptions: Norfolk residents are more likely than Suffolk residents to think decisions are better made locally when it comes to deciding how money should be spent to support building new homes (76% in Norfolk vs. 74% in Suffolk), and deciding how funding should be spent on infrastructure projects (68% in Norfolk vs. 65% in Suffolk). There is a clear gender dimension at this question: for all thirteen services, women are significantly more likely than men to think decisions are better made locally this is despite the fact that men are more likely to say they are supportive of devolution in general, and that women are more likely to say they are neutral or that they don t know. It should be noted that this question offered no neutral or mid-point option, so it interesting to observe which side of the debate women tend to come down on when presented with the dichotomy between local and national decision-making. Aside from women, other demographic groups that tend to have a higher than average preference for local decisionmaking include those aged 65+, white residents, social tenants and those with a disability or health condition. Other notable sub-group differences include the findings that: Private renters are more likely than those of other tenures to think that decisions should be taken nationally with regard to how funding is spent to support the building of new homes (29% prefer national decision-making vs. 24% of owner occupiers and 2% of social tenants);

29 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 20 Generally older people are more supportive of local decision-making however, there are three areas where those aged are more likely than average to think decisions should be taken locally creating a transport plan (79% vs. 77% overall), spending on road maintenance (88% vs. 85% overall) and co-ordinating flood defences (68% vs. 64% overall); However, young people aged are more likely than average to think decisions should be taken nationally with regard to reviewing further education (41% vs. 0% overall) and deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training (0% vs. 22% overall); and Those with a health condition or disability are more likely than average to think decisions should be taken locally with regard to joining up health and social care services (72% vs. 67% overall) and designing a new programme to help those with a disability and the long-term unemployed back to work (6% vs. 5% overall).

30 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 21 Business survey Overall, businesses feel that decisions would be better made locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority, rather than nationally. Indeed, this is the case for all services asked about, with the exception of the back to work scheme where opinion was split (51% national, 49% local). Businesses are most likely to feel that decisions around road maintenance spending (85%), housing strategy (79%) and reviewing and creating a list for land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk (78%) should be made locally. Q. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Nationally Locally 1 Back to work scheme 51% 2 Joining up health & social care % Infrastructure spending 1% 4 Reviewing further education 29% 5 Flood defence co-ordination 29% 6 Transport planning 26% 7 Smart ticketing 26% 8 9 Adults education/skills training Apprenticeship training funding 2% 22% 10 Land/property list 22% 11 Housing strategy 21% 12 House spending 21% 1 Road maintenance spending 15% Back to work scheme 49% 2 Joining up health & social care 67% Infrastructure spending 69% 4 Reviewing further education 71% 5 Flood defence co-ordination 71% 6 Transport planning 74% 7 Smart ticketing 74% 8 9 Adults education/skills training Apprenticeship training funding 77% 78% 10 Land/property list 78% 11 Housing strategy 79% 12 House spending 79% 1 Road maintenance spending 85% Base: All valid responses (excluding DKs) (Business) (ranging from 220 to 246) : Fieldwork dates: 8 th to 21 st August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 5

31 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk Directly-elected Mayor Participants were asked about the extent to which they support or oppose the election of a Mayor in order to access the decision-making powers and funding that have been outlined in the proposed devolution deal. Again, to ensure an informed answer could be given, participants were provided with the following information: The Government has said that a Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk would need to be elected for any new local decisionmaking powers and/or funding as part of this devolution agreement to be transferred from the Government to the Mayor and/or Combined Authority. The Mayor would work with existing elected members from each of the participating District, Borough and County Councils and a business representative appointed by the Local Enterprise Partnership. Residents survey Just over half of residents (52%) support the election of a Mayor in order to access the decision-making powers and funding however, more say they tend to support (1%) than strongly support this proposal (21%). Three in ten (29%) say they oppose the election of a Mayor, with 17% saying they strongly oppose. The remaining two in ten say they neither agree nor disagree (15%), or that they don t know (4%). Q4. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? % Strongly support % Tend to support % Neither/nor % Tend to oppose % Strongly oppose % Don't know Deal area (6080) Norfolk County (040) Suffolk County (040) Norfolk County Suffolk County Norwich City (449) Ipswich (462) South Norfolk (455) Suffolk Coastal (512) Great Yarmouth (95) Waveney (454) Broadland (42) Mid Suffolk (461) North Norfolk (440) Babergh (44) Breckland (42) St Edmundsbury (462) Kings Lynn & West Norfolk (47) Forest Heath (246) Base: All valid responses (see above) : Fieldwork dates: 1 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 10 Suffolk residents are significantly more positive about the election of a Mayor than Norfolk residents (54% support the proposal in Suffolk vs. 51% in Norfolk). Despite this, opposition is not significantly higher in Norfolk than Suffolk rather, it

32 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 2 is the proportion who Neither agree nor disagree that is higher (16% in Norfolk vs. 14% in Suffolk). Findings are broadly consistent at district level, although those in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk are less likely than average to support the election of a Mayor (48% vs. 52% overall). At sub-group level, younger residents are more likely to be supportive of the proposal to directly elect the Mayor (61% of those aged vs. 50% of those aged 45-64, and 47% of those aged 65+). Both those in work (55%) and workless residents (61%) are also more likely than average to support the idea (vs. 52% overall). Reflecting the age profiles of each tenure, support is also higher amongst social tenants (6%) and private renters (62%) compared to around half (49%) of owner occupiers. BME residents are more likely to support the election of a Mayor (65% vs. 52% overall) although again, this reflects the younger age profile of this group. Looking at residents perceived knowledge of devolution, support falls and opposition increases the more that residents say they know about devolution in general for example, over half (54%) of those who say they know a great deal about devolution say they oppose the election of a Mayor, compared with one in five (20%) of those who have heard of devolution, but know nothing about it. Those who oppose devolution in principle and those who oppose participating Councils becoming part of a Combined Authority are both more likely to oppose the election of a Mayor (76% and 8% respectively vs. 29% overall).

33 Ipsos MORI East Anglia Devolution Research Norfolk & Suffolk 24 Business survey Just under half of businesses (47%) in Norfolk and Suffolk support the idea of the election of a Mayor, with 14% strongly supporting the idea. Those who support the principle of devolution are significantly more likely to support the idea of the election of a Mayor (62% vs. 47% overall). Over a quarter (27%) are opposed to the idea, with 17% strongly opposed. Whilst only 2% were undecided, this figure is significantly higher for businesses in Norfolk where 5% stated don t know. Q4. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? % Strongly support % Tend to support % Neither/nor % Tend to oppose % Strongly oppose % Don't know Support 47% Oppose 27% Base: All valid responses (Business) (252) : Fieldwork dates: 8 th to 21 st August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Source: Ipsos MORI 6