Agenda item

To give consideration to the attached report and form a view.

Cabinet to make a decision on the matter at its meeting immediately after Council.

Councillor Long introduced the report on Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution which was being considered by all the Norfolk and Suffolk Authorities who had opted in June to continue to the consultation stage of the Devolution proposal.  He drew attention to the information which had been received, the consultations undertaken and to the insistence of Government that the Combined Authority would have to have an elected Mayor. He acknowledged that for some it was too high a price to pay and that it was not an easy decision to have to take, but no-one could know what the future would bring or if there would be any further offer for Norfolk at a later date if this Deal was rejected.  He reminded Council that his Group would have a free vote on this issue.

In order that the debate could take place he proposed the following recommendations, and at the same time asked for a recorded vote on the decision.  This was supported by the required number of Members.

1          That, on the basis of the earlier Governance Review (Appendix B to the 30^th June Council papers), Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) and the results of the consultation, the Authority continues to conclude 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.

2          That the Council authorises the Chief Executive to consent to the Council being included in an Order that will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to create the Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority, such Order to:

a)           establish a Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority and specify the high level constitutional arrangements;

b)           confer functions on the Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority; and

c)           specify those functions exercisable by the Mayor.

3       In the event that any minor drafting changes are required to reflect legislative requirements and the contents of the Deal Agreement, authority is delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader and agreement with the other Chief Executives/Managing Directors of the Constituent Councils across Norfolk and Suffolk to make the necessary changes to the Order.

4       That further reports are presented to the Authority, as appropriate, as the Devolution process progresses.

Councillor Bird spoke against the recommendations stating that the incentives were not good enough value and the timeframes  were unrealistic. He stated that neither he nor his constituents supported the issue of an Elected Mayor, which he considered would end up being a Suffolk representative with a layer of bureaucracy which would be additional cost to the tax payer.  He drew attention to the potential benefit of the Ely North Junction but did not consider that a Suffolk Mayor would see it as priority.

Councillor J Collop concurred with the comments made and confirmed that his Group also had a free vote on the issue.  He commented that it was an important decision for the area, but had not been happy about the proposals to date, particularly the Elected Mayor, and the associated costs.

Councillor Sampson drew attention to the potential housing pot available with the deal which meant he was not able to vote against the deal.  He also spoke in support of the works to the Ely North Junction and reminded Members that Suffolk also needed improvements to it.  He acknowledged he did not support the elected Mayor but considered that the good points outweighed the bad.

Councillor Devereux spoke in support of the proposal drawing attention to the commitment to improve housing and infrastructure etc which the Government had failed to do, but with the finance available locally he considered it could be delivered.  He drew attention to the support from businesses, and commented that change was inevitable but the Council could position itself well for the future.

Councillor Mrs Wilkinson spoke against the proposal, she considered that the housing would be built around Norwich rather than King’s Lynn, she drew attention to the use of existing senior staff and asked if there was capacity for this, and the potential revision clause after 5 years.

Councillor McGuinness expressed concern about rushing into a devolved authority, and the level of response to the consultation.  He considered that when the money from the Government dried up it would be the new Authority which would bear the blame instead of the Government.

Councillor Lord Howard urged Members to retain the integrity of the Borough as he considered the Borough would lose its powers and the Combined Authority would gain powers such as being able to raise Business Rates and decide on CIL usage.  He questioned whether any priorities would be centred on King’s Lynn and stated that he felt the additional money was not there.

Councillor Wareham in speaking against the proposal commented that he felt the Authority had been there before with the unitary proposals which had been fought against. 

Councillor A Tyler drew attention to the fact that experienced politicians were against the proposals which he felt suggested smoke and mirrors.

Councillor Morrison spoke against the additional bureaucracy and costs, he considered it was handing over powers to the Mayor and was not in the interests of the Borough as the Mayor would have Suffolk’s interests at heart. He considered that it was his duty to listen to his voters,  to take a longer term view and ensure the small print was read and overall  he considered that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.

Councillor Joyce expressed concern about the ability to veto executive powers, and the Mayor’s ability to borrow.  If it was approved, he considered that all areas of Norfolk should have a vote in Mayoral elections.  In relation to the housing requirement he considered that if housing associations could borrow long term they would be able to build without Government money.

Councillor Mrs Wright expressed concern about an elected Mayor presiding over such a large area, and the fact the area was not like a city.  She considered that King’s Lynn would not be in the forefront of the Mayor’s mind.

Councillor Lawrence commented that there were strong voices for and against the proposal, and the housing associations were not concerned about the consequences of the additional money.  He had taken the soundings of his constituents who had told him they were not in favour, and he was voting against the proposal.

Councillor Smith spoke against the proposal which he considered was not democratic and there was no electoral mandate for it.  He felt Norfolk did not need to be attached to Suffolk and was confident there would be a better deal for Norfolk  if willing to fight for it.   He stated his view  that young people would leave the area if it was agreed because it wouldn’t give growth for this area.

Councillor Daubney referred to the strong arguments on both sides but stated that he would vote in favour of it.  He commented that if there was a unitary Council for Norfolk it would be disastrous for West Norfolk and drew attention to the fact that the old Development Agencies that distributed funding for the area gave West Norfolk the least funding, whereas the LEP s had awarded funding for the area.  He spoke of his wish for the area to have better infrastructure, skills and salaries, which could be achieved by encouraging companies to move to the area.  He re asserted that the area wanted the money, but not from Whitehall who may or may not award it in this part of the country, but from a body where the Council had a place in influencing where it was spent and acknowledged that the Deal could be bigger, but the Council needed to be part of it to be able to access it. 

Councillor Squires in speaking for the proposal encouraged Members to take the opportunity in order to encourage jobs to the area which had high depravation and

low youth ambition, and so provide careers for young people, her parishes had indicated that they wanted better infrastructure  and homes and an improved rail service.

Councillor Beales drew attention to some of the concerns about an elected Mayor, and reminded Members that the person would be elected locally who would have to help this Borough as it would the others, the elected Leaders of the Councils would also have votes in the Combined Authority and the Parliamentary Order was designed for the funding to be fair across the County.  He acknowledged that the funding was not new money, but was that which would otherwise be spent by Government Departments anywhere across the country, not just within the two counties.  Members were reminded that  the new Authority would have access to all publically owned land with the involvement of the Borough’s Leader.  Councillor Beales reminded Members that the Secretary of State had indicated that if the Deal fell then the money would go to other areas which were committed to Devolution, and drew attention to the comments made by other Norfolk Councils that if the Deal fell they would make a Unitary Council bid.

Councillor Hipperson asked that if the money was there why weren’t the Government giving it to the Councils anyway.

Councillor Gidney asked why some of the money slipped from HS2 could not be moved for the Ely Junction.  Whilst still weighing up his decision he considered it was another layer of bureaucracy

Councillor Storey stated that he had consulted his constituents on the proposals and as he was acting on the comments he had received he would not be supporting the proposal.

In summing up, Councillor Long acknowledged that there was not an easy answer for all, he commented on a number of the points raised including the fact that he was not in support of an elected Mayor, but was conscious that there was no guarantee that there would be another deal to be had in the future.

On being put to the vote, a recorded vote was held as follows:

RESOLVED:   That the Devolution proposal is lost and the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution deal should be rejected.