Agenda item

(To receive a report by David Coleman (Chief Legal Officer), which invites the Committee to consider a report on the Devolution - Governance Review and Scheme, which is due to be considered by the Leader of the Council on 26 May 2016. The views of the Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Leader as part of his consideration of this item)

Consideration was given to a report which invited the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to comment on the Devolution – Governance Review and Scheme which was due to be considered by the Leader of the Council on 27 May 2016.

The report set out the latest position in relation to the implementation of the devolution agreement for Greater Lincolnshire as well as the results of a Governance Review under section 108 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and on the basis of that review sought approval for the publication of a Scheme for consultation under section 109 of the Act.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following;

·         One member commented that they had several reservations about this scheme, and were not convinced this was the best model or best deal for the County;

·         There were concerns an elected mayor may work for some areas, but that it might not be suitable for Lincolnshire.  It was believed that other areas had walked away from negotiations, and there was a feeling that a mayor was being forced on the area.  There were also concerns that the amount of money which would come with the elected mayor would not go very far when there were 10 authorities, and it was suggested that it would not be divided equally between the county, and some areas such as the south of the county may not benefit at all.  It was suggested that it was likely that this money would be spent on the South Bank of the Humber as that was where there was a large amount of growth.

·         It was felt that not enough work had been done to ensure that this model was workable in rural areas.  it was queried how this would work for the most rural areas of the county.

·         If the County was going to have devolved powers, then the method to get these powers was through a mayoral combined authority.

·         Members were assured that this was about powers coming down from central government, not powers transferring from local government to the mayor.

·         A report would go back to Council in September 2016, and if Council votes against having a Mayoral Combined Authority, the powers would not be devolved, and would stay with central government.

·         Members were advised that this was the first part of many deals which could be done.  In terms of funding, government tended to work on a per capita basis, and most other areas had populations of around 2 million, whereas the population for the Greater Lincolnshire area was just over 1 million.

·         It was noted that Cambridgeshire had returned to negotiations for an East Anglia deal, and Gateshead were also considering re-entering discussions.

·         Where and how the money would be spent would be decided by the Mayor and the Combined Authority and would be set out in a budget.  Rural districts would be able to have their say in how the money would be spent.

·         It was commented that it would be interesting to go out to consultation on this issue.

·         It was suggested that there should be more than one scrutiny committee, and it was requested that paragraphs 6.2 and 12.1 were raised as areas of political weakness.

·         There were concerns that the new authority would only be made up of members of two political parties – labour and conservative.  There were concerns that there was no recognition of political balance for the scrutiny committee, and it was felt that this should reflect the political make-up of the whole county.  It was commented that this approach worked for the Police and Crime Panel where positions were allocated based on the political make-up of the county.

·         It was commented that paragraph 12.4 did not recognise the possibility of coalitions.

·         There was a need for it to recognise political proportionality and political challenge from outside.

·         It was confirmed that there an amendment to Section 107 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which would include the need for political proportionality on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee along the lines of the Police and Crime Panel.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the administrative costs of the mayor's office, and how these would be shared out.  It was reported that the salary of the mayor would be set by an independent review panel, and there would be a call to keep costs to an absolute minimum.  The first term would be three years, and then every four years, to keep it in line with the PCC elections. 

·         It was noted that the Mayor of Manchester included the role of the PCC.

·         In relation to paragraph 12.7 it was felt very important that the overview and scrutiny committee was able to require the presence of certain people at the meeting, in a similar way to how the Health Scrutiny Committee for Lincolnshire could require officers to attend its meeting.

·         Concerns were raised about how a mayor for the Greater Lincolnshire area would be able to connect with residents living in some of the more rural areas as it was felt that this could be difficult to achieve.

·         The ruling group did not always have to take the majority of chairman positions on scrutiny committees.

·         It was felt that the travel to work areas were not representative as a lot of people living in Kings Lynn commuted to London.

·         It was suggested that the two halves of Lincolnshire 'looked' in opposite directions, and the proposed new A16 would mean that Boston would become part of the south of England.

·         There were concerns that there could be further significant financial implications for all authorities.  It was acknowledged that to get to the point where a mayoral combined authority was set up would be a lot of work and there would be costs associated with the work of setting up the authority as well as holding the election for the mayor, and these costs were being worked on.

·         Members were advised that with an elected mayor, powers would be devolved down from central government, but they could not be taken up to the combined authority, unless all authorities agreed.  The powers which would be devolved were aligned to the themes within the deal document which was submitted.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee support the recommendations to the Leader as set out in the report.

2.    That the following additional comments be agreed and passed to the Leader of the Council in relation to this item:

·         Whether the model was viable in rural areas

·         Members were interested in the outcome of the public consultation

·         There were concerns that only having one scrutiny committee would not be viable

·         There was a need for recognition of political balance on scrutiny committees

·         The current scheme did not recognise the possibility of coalitions

·         The scrutiny committee should be able to require attendance rather than just invite

·         There were concerns around the administrative costs of the Mayor and the Combined Authority

·         Concerns over the distance between the mayor and electors

·         Concerns that powers could be taken up from the county council to the combined authority

·         What would happen if the outcome of the public consultation was not in favour of the elected mayor.

It was noted that Councillor P M Dilks abstained from voting on this matter and that Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE voted against this matter.