Agenda item

The Chief Executive noted that a workshop had been held during the previous week in order to clarify any queries or answer questions on Devolution, there had been no political bias or persuasion involved.  The Chief Executive then briefly recapped the history and timeline to date, and noted that the latest position was set out in the report, which invited consent for the Secretary of State to make an order.  The ensuing financial and legal implications were set out in the report.

All constituent authorities had been requested support an annual contribution of £50,000 towards the cost of the Combined Authority.  Council was therefore requested to approve this ongoing contribution, which would require an increase to the Base Budget of £50,000 which would therefore be included in the 2017/18 Medium Term Financial Plan. However these costs would be made from reductions in budgets to the Central Lincolnshire Combined Authority costs for the JPU (Joint Planning Unit) as the combined Authority will discharge some functions of that unit such as infrastructure delivery once the Local Plan was in place.

This contribution would meet the costs associated with a Mayoral election and the establishment of statutory and other support to enable the work of the Combined Authority to be discharged.

It was noted that there was an error in paragraph 4.1 in that ‘North Lincolnshire’ should be replaced with ‘West Lindsey’.

Devolution 2 had been under discussion since April, which would cover matters such as Health, Housing and Public Protection.  The Manchester devolved authority had reached level 8-9.

A letter was circulated, which had been received that afternoon, from Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which outlined a number of areas, and confirmed that Government was “keen to use the opportunity of any second deal to build on the positive progress made in discussions to date around Greater Lincolnshire’s ambitions to accelerate housing delivery.”

The One Public Estate project sought to ensure better delivery of services, a good example of which was the installation of the Job Centre within the Council building.  The John Coupland Hospital had under-utilised space which was being considered for a health hub.  These issues were relevant to the Corporate Plan Priorities.

The Leader of the Council noted that all Members had had access to the governance documentation and scheme of delegation for some time, and that the deal represented a significant amount of funding for Lincolnshire.  Areas to benefit from this and future deals included Skills and Education for 16+, accelerated growth for business (particularly agriculture and energy), Transport (particularly public), Housing, a Strategic Infrastructure Plan, a review of public sector land, protection against coastal and fluvial flooding, increased powers for Internal Drainage Boards, the previously mentioned John Coupland Hospital Hub, and the retention of business rates.

Lengthy debate ensued with Members raising a number of questions.

It was noted that the Manchester authority received twice the amount of funding that was proposed for Lincolnshire, whereas Lincolnshire was five times the size of Manchester.  There were distinct differences within different areas of Lincolnshire – North and North East Lincolnshire had good connections yet the rest of the area was more rural.  There were two separate Police and Ambulance services, which were shared with the north bank of the Humber.  The figures for consultation with the Citizens Panels were also queried.

Some Members felt that the deal meant a loss of, rather than a gain, of power and control, the cost of the Mayoral role was questioned, and it was asked whether the funding was new money or simply reallocated.

Other Members felt that the opportunity was unique and it would be a momentous occasion for West Lindsey.  Some parts of the district were adjacent to the other authorities and it would be good to work together.  The Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was almost adopted and this was an example of working with other partner authorities.  It was felt that a fairer deal for rural areas could be better achieved locally than from central Government.  However it was stated that the authorities could work together without having to accept the deal as offered.

A number of Members remained sceptical, however agreed that whilst the offer was not ideal, a certain amount of trust had to be exercised.  There were pros and cons to the deal, and the biggest concern of most people was the requirement for a Mayor, but there would be no deal without one.  In response to some of the questions it was affirmed that the Government wanted a single point of accountability, hence the requirement for the mayoral post.

The Chief Executive confirmed that all those members of the citizens’ panel who had email addresses had been contacted.  The comparison with the deal for Manchester was referred to, whilst acknowledging that Lincolnshire was the larger area, the population figures were lower.  It was affirmed that £15m was new money to Lincolnshire, and that the report referred to the annual contribution of £50,000 towards the cost of the Combined Authority and mayoral election.

Further concerns were expressed as to perceived ‘double taxation’, and the details being insufficient.  It was suggested that there should be further bargaining to get a better deal.  It was noted that to reject the deal would mean a loss for the whole of Lincolnshire, and a new deal having to be agreed for the remaining authorities.

Other Members made comparisons with the unification of London under the establishment of a Mayor, and that there were more common issues at local rather than central levels, exemplified by the Brexit result.  There was no ‘one size fits all’.  It would be good to see the whole of Lincolnshire back together.

The recommendations in the report were moved and seconded en bloc, and in accordance with the Constitution Part V, page 11, paragraph 14.4, two Members of the Council called for a recorded vote to be taken.

For: Councillors Bardsley, Bibb, Bierley, Brockway, Cotton, Curtis, Duguid, England, Lawrence, Marfleet, G McNeill, Mewis, Patterson, Rollings, Shore, Strange and Summers.

Against: Councillors Boles, Bond, Darcel, Devine, Howitt-Cowan, Milne, Oaks, Parish, Rainsforth, Rodgers, Smith and Young

Abstained: Councillors Kinch and Palmer.

A total of 17 votes for, 12 against and two abstentions. 

RESOLVED that:

(i)    the contents of the consultation report at Appendix 1 ("the Consultation Report") be noted;

(ii)   the giving of consents in principle be supported on behalf of West Lindsey District Council, as a constituent council of the proposed combined authority for the Greater Lincolnshire area, to the making by the Secretary of State of an order:-

a)     for the establishment of a combined authority for the Greater Lincolnshire area pursuant to section 110 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (LDEDCA).

b)     for the making of constitutional provisions in relation to the combined authority in accordance with the draft Order at Appendix 2 pursuant to section 104 of LDEDCA.

c)     for the delegation to the combined authority of the transport functions of the Secretary of State and the other functions of public authorities set out in the draft Order at Appendix 2 pursuant to sections 104 and 105A of LDEDCA.

d)     for the functions of the Combined Authority specified in the draft Order to be exercisable only by the mayor subject to the conditions and limitations specified in the draft Order pursuant to S107D of LDEDCA.

e)     for Chapter 1 Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011 to have effect in relation to the combined authority as it has in effect to a local authority.

f)      for the combined authority to be treated as a levying body for the purposes of section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in respect of expenses of the combined authority that are reasonably attributable to the exercise of any of its functions other than mayoral functions.

g)     for the combined authority to be given power to borrow under section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003 for a purpose relevant to any of its functions.

(iii)          the Chief Executive be delegated, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, authority to approve the giving of consent to the matters referred to in paragraph 3 when the terms of the Order are known; and

(iv)         Council notes and has due regard to the contents of the Equalities Impact Analysis at Appendix 2.

Note: Councillors Bond, Darcel, Rodgers and Young left the meeting at 9.01pm