Agenda item

Report number LDS176 of the Leader of the Council.                   (Enclosure)

Decision:

1       That Council endorses the signing of the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution Agreement (Appendix 1 of report number LDS176) by the Leader and delegates authority to the Leader and Chief Executive to engage in negotiations with Government regarding the potential devolution of further powers, responsibilities and resources.

2       That the contents of the Greater Lincolnshire Governance Review, as attached to this report (Appendix 2 of report number LDS176) are noted.

3       That, on the basis of the Governance Review, the Council concludes that the establishment of a Mayoral Combined Authority for the Greater Lincolnshire area is the option which most fully permits the effective discharge of the functions that Government is prepared to devolve to this area.

4       That, accordingly, the Council supports the preparation and publication of a Scheme for the establishment of a Mayoral Combined Authority for the Greater Lincolnshire area under section 109 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

5       That the Council supports the publication of the draft Scheme for a Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral Combined Authority as attached to this report (Appendix 3 of report number LDS176) for consultation purposes, subject to such final revisions as may be approved by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, and prior to the commencement of the formal consultation exercise. Such formal consultation is to commence once all Greater Lincolnshire Councils have considered the matters in this report and, in any event, no later than the 4^th July 2016.

6       That the outcome of the consultation exercise is submitted to the Secretary of the State by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader.

7       That Council meets by 20 October 2016 to consider giving consent to an Order establishing a Mayoral Combined Authority for Greater Lincolnshire.

8       Insofar as any of the matters referred to in this report concern the discharge of non-executive functions, authority is delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, to take all necessary steps and actions to progress the recommendations detailed in this report.

9       That further reports are presented to Council and the Executive as appropriate as the devolution process develops.

In proposing the recommendations in report number LDS176 on the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution proposal, the Leader explained that the only commitment the Council would be making would be to go forward to consultation; the final decision on whether or not to accept a devolution deal would be made in September 2016. He added that if the Council did not agree to proceed now then it would be excluded from participating in future negotiations. Finally, he thanked the officers who had been involved for all their work, including participation in many complex discussions. The proposition was seconded.

During the debate one member indicated that they would support the proposition to consult on the proposed combined authority on the proviso that the Council would retain the option to opt out in September, when the benefits of the devolution package were known. This sentiment was echoed later in the debate.

Many of the members who spoke stated that they were not in favour of a combined authority led by a directly elected mayor.

Other points that were raised during debate included:

·         Support for increased joint working, however there were other delivery options beside the combined authority that did not involve a directly elected mayor, for example economic prosperity boards.

·         A combined authority would create a further tier of local government, which would further confuse the understanding of members of the public with regard to responsibility for different functions.

·         The costs were unknown with regard to the creation of the combined authority, including remuneration for the mayor. It was noted that when the mayor was in post,  a precept could be issued relating to mayoral functions.

·         Some members did not feel that combined authority would be accountable, with particular reference to those decisions that would be made by the mayor independently of the representatives who sat on the combined authority.

·         Comments about the lack of accountability were challenged as the mayor would be accountable to the electorate and held to account by the members appointed to the combined authority who would have been elected in their local area.

·         The area would be so large and diverse that it would be difficult for a mayor to understand the widely varied needs across Greater Lincolnshire.

·         Little information was available to members on the contents of the devolution deal and there had not been an opportunity for the Council’s wider membership to influence any content.

·         Some concerns over the risk of veto within the combined authority’s voting arrangements and whether one part of Greater Lincolnshire could block projects in other areas.

·         Concerns that a majority of funding would be channelled to North Lincolnshire with few benefits being felt in South Kesteven.

·         The initial promise of £15m was not a significant sum when split across ten authorities.

·         There were no guarantees with regard to ongoing funding outside the deal period.

·         Funding received through devolution could not be used to support the delivery of services that were the responsibility of one of the member authorities.

·         Other devolution funding would be available through negotiation for additional devolved functions. Other areas that had been successfully devolved elsewhere included skills, housing, water management and some Ministry of Justice functions.

·         Funding for transport was likely to be further devolved to the current transport authorities to implement their existing travel plans.

·         To date, each council had made a small financial commitment for any support that needed to be brought in.

·         Consultation would be undertaken through a range of media including county news, Councils’ websites, social media and traditional media.

·         Should consultation proceed, a direct question should be asked about support for a directly elected mayor. Local consultation reports should be provided to each Council to help inform their decisions.

·         It would not serve constituents well if the Council decided not to proceed to consultation at this stage, thus withdrawing completely from negotiations without giving them the opportunity to put forward their views.

·         The proposed consultation questions had yet to be finalised and were subsequently not available for members to consider.

·         Concern was expressed that without additional information, members of the public could not make an informed response to the consultation.

·         Informal feedback from constituents did not support the prospect of a directly elected mayor.

·         Agreeing to go forward to consultation would give the Council the chance to continue to be part of the debate and negotiation.

A suggestion was made that members could agree to going out to consultation without agreeing any of the recommendations that were presented in report number LDS176. It was further suggested that a comment might be added that the Council’s decision to proceed to consultation did not resolve it to approve the devolution scheme itself when presented in September 2016.

It was proposed and seconded in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.10(x) that the question be now put. The Leader was given the opportunity to sum up. The motion that the question be now put was voted on and carried. Subsequently, the substantive motion was put to the vote and carried.