The UK government has recently introduced new industrial strategy zones (ISZs). These zones integrate freeports, investment zones, special economic zones, and artificial intelligence (AI) growth zones. Although promoted to stimulate innovation and employment, there is growing concern in Yorkshire. Many fear ISZs may function as corporate carve-outs, potentially undermining worker rights, democratic oversight, and environmental protections.
A quiet revolution in economic policy
The legislative foundations of ISZs were introduced in the Finance Act 2021 and subsequently expanded by secondary legislation. There was little parliamentary scrutiny, and no real public say. These areas offer tax breaks, looser planning rules, and minimal oversight. Ministers talk up economic revival, but the record suggests something else.
These zones look set to repeat the failures of past enterprise projects. In tech-heavy areas, AI management tools may bring efficiencies but also open the door to intrusive surveillance and poorer job quality. Unions are often sidelined, and collective bargaining curtailed. Studies show jobs are more likely to be shifted around than created, producing short-term headlines rather than lasting gains. The incentives on offer frequently subsidies activity that would have happened anyway, draining public funds. Local voices are muted while corporate interests take the lead. Deregulation threatens fragile ecosystems, and the communities most in need rarely see the promised regeneration.
Freeports in national parks: a Yorkshire flashpoint
Perhaps most alarming is the expansion of Freeport boundaries into areas of outstanding natural beauty, including the North York moors. Freeports now span up to 75 km between boundary points, engulfing entire cities and vast tracts of countryside. National Park authorities were not consulted before being included in these zones, echoing past episodes such as the fracking controversy under the moors in 2018.
Environmental coalitions such as Wildlife and Countryside Link warn that Freeport status could erode planning protections, enabling unchecked development in sensitive habitats. The RSPB has concerns that deregulation risks further loss of wildlife, despite the government’s claims to champion biodiversity. This is a direct threat to Yorkshire’s green heritage.
Enterprise zones have a history of shifting jobs from neighbouring areas, weakening regional cohesion. They create low-wage, low-skill employment with limited career progression and deliver poor value for money, with high public costs per job created. Yorkshire deserves better than recycled policy failures presented as innovation.
An alternative: community-anchor prosperity zones
Instead of corporate sanctuaries, I and the Yorkshire Party propose community-anchor prosperity zones (CAPZs) – locally rooted, democratically governed zones designed to serve the people who live there, not distant shareholders. What sets CAPZs apart is their focus on long-term local prosperity through models such as Preston’s community wealth building strategy in Lancashire and the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, Ohio (not to be confused with the UK’s Cleveland Freeport zone). These examples show how anchor institutions and worker ownership can regenerate local economies and foster inclusive, community-driven growth that is less vulnerable to corporate volatility.
CAPZs go further by integrating climate resilience, ethical investment, and technological accountability. Structured around Worker and Community Ownership, they ensure decision-making power lies with residents. Hospitals, universities, cooperatives, and community enterprises act as anchor institutions – stable economic drivers committed to long-term prosperity. CAPZs guarantee fair pay, uphold collective bargaining, and introduce transparent oversight of AI, safeguarding job standards and human dignity in the face of automation.
The benefits of CAPZs
CAPZs would prioritise local procurement and reinvestment, circulating wealth within the community to foster ongoing prosperity. Apprenticeships and climate-conscious industries would prepare the next generation for meaningful work in a sustainable economy. Governance would be robust and transparent, with public audits, democratic oversight, and full scrutiny embedded from the outset.
CAPZs may be considered a new concept, but they stand on the shoulders of proven models while offering a distinct framework for ethical growth. Private investors increasingly seek ventures that deliver both financial returns and social impact. CAPZs offer stable ecosystems, reduced risk, and compelling local narratives – making them a natural fit for values-driven capital.
Conclusion
ISZs and freeports risk repeating past mistakes: prioritising corporate profit over community wellbeing and threatening the landscapes that define Yorkshire’s identity. Including national parks in freeports is a wake-up call.
We believe these ‘quick fix’ carve-outs and carve-ups must be rejected in favour of championing models that build real prosperity. CAPZs offer a bold, evidence-based alternative that puts workers, communities, and ecosystems at the heart of regeneration.
Yorkshire’s future should be shaped by its people, not by deregulated development. Real renewal comes from investing in skills, communities, and the industries that last.
