Agenda item

57/23   

Members considered a report that set out details of the Devon Devolution Deal and the proposed formation of a Combined Authority by Devon County Council and Torbay Council and sought the Council’s response to the associated consultation exercise.

 

During debate, particular reference was made to:

 

(a)       an alternative recommendation was PROPOSED and SECONDED that read as follows:

 

“This Council raises the following concerns in respect of the proposed Devon and Torbay Devolution Deal and with it the additional tier of local government in Devon and Torbay, known as the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority:

 

1.       While we support the principle of devolution and welcome additional funding for this region, the proposal risks making local government more complex by adding a layer of bureaucracy;

 

2.       While the additional £16 million of capital funding is a positive step, that it is only for two years means that it will not provide the long-term solutions that the region needs;

 

3.       The fact that spending plans must be signed-off by central government disqualifies the plan from being true devolution of powers;

 

4.       The proposed combined authority’s remoteness and lack of democratic accountability, including the lack of voting rights for District Councils, further disqualifies it from being described as “devolution“;

 

5.       The Council welcomes the proposed devolution of the Adult Education Budget because local control is more likely to deliver for local need. We hope that local control of this budget will enable Devon’s known problems in social mobility and productivity to be addressed;

 

6.       The government’s document entitled “Devon and Torbay Devolution Deal" indicates that this is the first step in the reorganisation of local government in Devon and Torbay. Whilst we would welcome the genuine devolution of more powers to Devon, we are concerned that the intention as stated threatens the existence of district councils, the loss of effective local governance and may establish rule by a body that is remote and out of touch;

 

7.       The concerns set out in the Council’s report dated 21 March 2024 in respect of economic development, housing, governance, voting rights, transport and community; and

 

8.       The cost and additional layer of local government will in itself hamper any improvement in the local services it is intended to improve and may result in their decline.

 

The Council calls for the process to be postponed pending the outcome of the forthcoming General Election and 2025 County Council elections.

 

The above resolution be submitted as the Council’s response in the consultation being undertaken.

 

If and when the devolution deal proceeds:

 

The council notes the fact that a portion of this money will be allocated for a Small Sites Green Investment programme. This council proposes that an element of the Small Sites Green Investment programme be allocated to support community-led housing developments to improve energy efficiency, reduce embedded carbon and improve biodiversity.”

 

In support of this alternative recommendation, the proposer made reference to:

 

-        his view that the proposals did not constitute true ‘Devolution’ and could instead be interpreted as a precursor to the abolition of true local democracy;

-        the lack of reference in the proposals to the financial positions of both Devon County and Torbay Councils;

-         his concerns relating to transparency and the loss of democracy; and

-        the financial implications arising from this additional level of bureaucracy no doubt falling on the Council Taxpayer;

 

(b)       Plymouth City Council (PCC).  Given the close working relationship between PCC and the Council with regard to the Joint Local Plan, some Members emphasised the importance of a good working relationship being maintained with PCC;

(c)        the timing of these proposals.  A Member cited the close proximity of the Parliamentary Elections and maintained the view that this proposal should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of these Elections;

 

(d)       voting rights.  A number of Members echoed the disappointment expressed in the published agenda report in respect of Central Government having rejected the House of Lords amendment that would have permitted all district council partners to be constituent members of the Combined County Authority with full voting rights thereby reflecting their democratic mandate on behalf of Devon;

 

(e)        a suggested amendment was PROPOSED as follows:

 

‘This Council calls for the process to be abandoned and for no further public money to be wasted on a deal that is not Devolution, with the £16 million allocated to instead be dispersed to the various local authority departments that are already in place.’

 

Prior to inviting a seconder for the amendment, the Chairman invited the Deputy Monitoring Officer to comment.  In so doing, the Officer cited Procedure Rule 15.6 (Amendments to Motions) and expressed the view that the suggested amendment would negate the motion.  Having received this advice, the Chairman did not invite a seconder;

 

(f)        some potential benefits arising from the proposals.  A Member felt that, whilst the tone of the debate had been rather negative, there were also some potential benefits that would be generated from the proposals.  For example, devolution of the Adult Education functions (and budget) should be welcomed.

 

It was then:

 

RESOLVED

 

1.         That the Council raises the following concerns in respect of the proposed Devon and Torbay Devolution Deal and with it the additional tier of local government in Devon and Torbay, known as the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority:

 

a)      that whilst the principle of devolution was supported and additional funding for this region welcomed the proposal risked making local government more complex by adding a layer of bureaucracy;

 

b)      that whilst the additional £16 million of capital funding was a positive step, it was only for two years and would not provide the long-term solutions that the region needed;

 

c)       that as spending plans must be signed-off by central government the plan was disqualified from being true devolution of powers;

 

d)      that the proposed combined authority’s remoteness and lack of democratic accountability, including the lack of voting rights for District Councils, further disqualified it from being described as “devolution“;

 

e)      that the Council welcomed the proposed devolution of the Adult Education Budget as local control was more likely to deliver for local need. Council hoped that local control of this budget would enable Devon’s known problems in social mobility and productivity to be addressed;

 

f)       that the government’s document entitled “Devon and Torbay Devolution Deal" indicated that this was the first step in the reorganisation of local government in Devon and Torbay. Whilst Council would welcome the genuine devolution of more powers to Devon, it is concerned that the intention as stated threatened the existence of district councils, the loss of effective local governance and might establish rule by a body that was remote and out of touch;

 

g)      that the Council raised concerns set out in the presented agenda report, in respect of economic development, housing, governance, voting rights, transport and community; and

 

h)      that the cost and additional layer of local government would in itself hamper any improvement in the local services it was intended to improve and might result in their decline.

 

2.         That the Council called for the process to be postponed pending the outcome of the forthcoming General Election and 2025 County Council elections;

 

3.         That the above resolution be submitted as the Council’s response in the consultation being undertaken: and

 

4.         That, if and when the devolution deal proceeds:

 

“The council notes the fact that a portion of this money will be allocated for a Small Sites Green Investment programme. This council proposes that an element of the Small Sites Green Investment programme be allocated to support community-led housing developments to improve energy efficiency, reduce embedded carbon and improve biodiversity.”