Agenda item

To consider the attached report and recommendations.

In response to a question from Councillor Lord Howard as to whether if it was given consent at this stage the further decision of the Council in October would be required, the Monitoring Officer reported that under s14 of the Cities and Local Government Act 2016, amended the s104 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to acquire that prior to an order being made the consent of the constituent authorities was required.

Councillor Long proposed the recommendations in the report on Devolution, setting out the following elements of the Offer which he considered should be supported:

·        Local control of how the normally centrally controlled money was spent.

·        A new relationship between the East and Central Government

·        £130m new homes allocation for the area, £30m of which was for Ipswich and Norwich, the £100m could be used a pump prime figures for new affordable and starter homes

·        £25m pa for 30 years for new infrastructure projects.

·        Up to £100m for the Ely North Junction to allow half hourly trains from London to Norfolk

·        £20m for adult skills and £2m apprentice fund which would be controlled locally instead of centrally.

·        Coastal risk management

·        The Offer was the largest Deal for the first round of Devolution to date.

He drew attention to some of the concerns raised such as an elected Mayor, but reminded Members the position would be formed as weakly as possible in order to get the Deal approved.  He reminded Members that the recommendations could not be altered, only approved or rejected as they were identical to those being considered by all. 

Councillor Beales seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

Council debated the issue with points in favour in addition to those raised by Councillor Long were raised as

·        the upgrade of the Ely North Junction would assist in bringing growth, and freight as well as more regular trains

·        the ability to have a seat at the table for decisions for the whole area

·        if it was voted against the money wouldn’t be available for the Borough

·        Act now as there was a good chance that the Government would look to make more unitary authorities out of those not signing up to such deals

·        Decisions would be taken at a local level including Double Devolution

·        The weak Mayor model would allow for a veto by members of the Cabinet and the budget, with no casting vote.

·        The Council would remain the owner of its land, the Combined Authority could not take any land without the agreement of all parties.

·        The powers taken from Government will be actioned by people the Council know

·        The Deal would bring capital funding, jobs and infrastructure to the area

·        In turning it down at this stage the Council would be denying the public the opportunity to make their views known

·        It was not right to tell the public they couldn’t have the decisions taken locally when they hadn’t had the consultation process, this decision was to progress through to that stage

·        By not agreeing now there was a danger that West Norfolk would fade from decisions regarding funding for the area.

·        Grasp the opportunity and make it work

·        Take the time to speak to constituents to gauge views before taking a final vote in October

Views expressed against the proposal were

·        Why was the housing money specifically targeted at Norwich and Ipswich when others had issues as well

·        Because of the make up of the Combined Authority, minority parties would have no say in the decision making process

·        There was no public mandate without a referendum

·        The money was taxpayers money anyway but was only £30 per head, and didn’t meet expectations

·        Incompatible with the history of the area.

·        No tier of Government would give the same comments on the proposals

·        The Council would have to fight with other authorities to get any money

·        A Government couldn’t commit successive Governments to funding for 30 years, and the Government could review the arrangement every 5 years.

·        The question for the consultation had not been seen or approved by Members

·        A vote in October may be more difficult to take once the public have been consulted

·        The Mayor would have huge powers of veto

·        Concern about being isolated in the West with others not approving it

·        Any Mayor should only be civic

·        Don’t all authorities have to agree in order to proceed

·        Don’t want to be told that a yes today would be binding for the future

·        There may be an opportunity to join at a later date

·        The Government has no money, and by devolving its powers would ensure they would be blameless

·        There was nothing but the Ely Junction specifically for West Norfolk

·        Put it on hold for 3 months until a new Government was in place

·        Henry Bellingham MP did not support it

·        Another layer of bureaucracy

In summing up Councillor Long re-iterated what he felt were the positive elements of the Deal, and its benefits for the Borough.  He encouraged Members to vote in favour of the proposals, which would at this stage give the public to be consulted on the proposals.

On being put to the vote the recommendations were approved.

RESOLVED:   1)         That the Authority endorses the signing of the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Agreement by the Leader.

2)         That, on the basis of the Governance Review, and having regard to any impact on equalities explored in the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) attached, the Authority concludes that the establishment of a Mayoral Combined Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk is the option which most fully permits the effective discharge of the functions that Government is prepared to devolve to this area.

3)         That the Authority endorses and supports the publication of the draft Scheme for a Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority as attached to this report 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, on the Scheme, to commence once all Norfolk and Suffolk Councils have considered the matters in this report and, in any event, no later than the 4 July 2016. In the event that a Constituent Authority named in the attached Scheme does not agree to endorse the Deal Agreement and/or the Scheme, the Authority authorises, through its Chief Executive the relevant changes to be made to the Deal Agreement, the Scheme and the Governance Review to reflect that Authority’s non-participation.

4)         That the outcome of the consultation exercise is submitted to the Secretary of the State by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, by early September.

5)         That Council meets no later than 28 October 2016 to consider giving consent to an Order establishing a Mayoral Combined Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk. 

6)         Insofar as any of the matters referred to in this report concern the discharge of functions related to the endorsing and signing of the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Agreement and the publication of the Scheme, 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. 

7)         In the event that any technical changes are required to reflect legislative requirements and the contents of the Deal Agreement, authority is delegated to the Chief Executive, in agreement with the other Executives across Norfolk and Suffolk to make the necessary changes to the Scheme

8)         That further reports are presented to the Authority as appropriate as the Devolution process develops.