Issue - meetings

Issue - meetings

Devolution plans for Oxfordshire

Meeting: 19/01/2017 - City Executive Board (became Cabinet on 13 May 2019) (Item 119)

119 Scrutiny Report: Devolution Plans for Oxfordshire pdf icon PDF 114 KB

Report of the Scrutiny Devolution Review Group

 

Report to follow.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Tidball, Chair of the Scrutiny Devolution Review Group presented the report. She explained the task of the review group and outlined the methodology and findings of the group.  She explained that devolution was important to local government as the UK is the most centralised county in the world and devolution deals bring some of that power to the local level. Achieving a deal could release significant government money to the county but the timeframe to agree a deal is small.

 

The government has specified the need for an elected mayor to provide strong accountable governance. The review group’s preferred model is to keep the current Oxfordshire councils but to also have a mayoral combined authority, which would be responsible for the additional powers and money released from government.

 

She thanked the Scrutiny Officer and the Assistant Chief Executive for their hard work.

 

 

Cllr Tidball listed the benefits of securing a devolution deal, these included simplifying transportation infrastructure, building a new relationship with government and creating an employer led skills model.

She explained that the secured Cambridge-Peterborough devolution deal included significant money for social housing.

 

Recommendation 9 of the report suggests how the governance of a combined authority could work, including details of decision-making/voting and the ability of the combined authority to overrule a mayor. It is also recommends devolving from the combined authority to the county and district councils the power to discharge functions where appropriate.

 

The report discusses possible local government re-organisation in Oxfordshire and outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the different models in Appendix 2. It is recommended this list be used to build consensus between Oxfordshire authorities.

 

A mayor would provide strong accountable decision making and could speed up decision-making by removing loggerheads.

 

She explained that the City is an economic hub in the county and the demographic makeup of the city needs to be shown in the decision making structure of either re-organisation model

 

Cllr Price thanked Cllr Tidball, Cllr Gant, and the Scrutiny Officer for the report.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive updated the board on the progress made in drafting a devolution deal. She explained that the Review Group’s report had been very helpful to assist the decision making of the working group (made up of representatives from all Oxfordshire local authorities and LEP).

 

Following on from CEB agreeing the Statement of intent, to support a devolution deal with a combined authority in December, the working group has been revising its proposal. It has three objectives:

1.Housing, planning , infrastructure and transport - and has updated details on how devolved money would work for these

2.Skills; and

3. Governance arrangements – to review the government’s requirements needed to secure a devolution deal, and learn from authorities that have secured deals in the last year.

The County Council launched its one council model today. It is out for public consultation until 14 March. The working group need to make sure work is progressed before the County considers their one council proposal.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119


Meeting: 12/01/2017 - Scrutiny Committee (Item 75)

75 Report of the Devolution Review Group pdf icon PDF 295 KB

Background Information

The Scrutiny Committee commissioned the Devolution Review Group to review devolution proposals in Autumn 2016. 

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report of the Devolution Review Group and approve it for submission to the City Executive Board on 19 January 2017

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Councillor Bob Price, Leader and Board Member for Corporate Strategy and Economic Development;

·         Caroline Green, Assistant Chief Executive.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Devolution Review Group.

 

Councillor Tidball, Chair of the Review Group introduced the report.

 

She thanked the Scrutiny Officer and councillors on the review group for their work on this key report. She thanked all those who gave evidence, including councillors and officers from this council and Oxfordshire County Council and the consultants.

 

She highlighted the key points of the review group’s findings and the conclusions and recommendations in the report.

 

Councillor Price, Leader of the Council, thanked the review group for their work, for being able to gather evidence from wide range of witnesses, and for a quality report discussing the key issues. He said that the option of a mayoral combined authority provided the opportunity to gain a devolution deal to bring in resources and make advantageous changes in existing governance structures to benefit the county. The major debate would be about the need for and role and powers of an elected mayor to lead the combined authority.

 

He said that it was his understanding that:

·         the national infrastructure commission would look to a combined authority to take forward any growth strategy;

·         national industrial strategy would focus on deliverables and a combined authority would be helpful in this respect;

·         it was anticipated that the DCLG would produce guidance on devolution bids by the end of the month which would allow the six authorities’ preferred option to be taken forward, and more detail on this was being sought.

 

He considered that the recommendations would be broadly accepted by the CEB and he hoped the formal devolution bid would be published next month.

 

The Committee discussed the report and the wider implications of devolution, a combined authority, and an elected mayor.

 

They noted:

·         The other local authorities were also discussing similar proposals for a devolution bid although a consensus was not assured.

·         The six authorities and their roles and functions would be unchanged.

·         The key role of a combined authority would be in strategic transport; the Growth Board already had a role in finance, planning and transport where the County Council acted as the delivery agent for its decisions.

·         It was envisaged that the combined authority would comprise an accountable elected mayor as its leader, the 6 Leaders; possibly Deputy Leaders; would require a scrutiny function of its own as well as that provided by each member authority; and would require to be open to public scrutiny.

·         The County Council would retain a key role and although some specific functions would be transferred to the combined authority, some combined authority functions were already the responsibility of the Growth Board or the county LEP (e.g. skills).

·         Devolution was likely to be an iterative process involving negotiation with central government and if the benefits offered by central government – including financial benefits – were not sufficient to warrant continuing with the devolution deal then the process could be stopped.

 

They made the following points:

·         The combined authority required strong accountability; and hopefully would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75


Meeting: 06/10/2016 - Scrutiny Committee (Item 45)

45 Devolution plans for Oxfordshire pdf icon PDF 79 KB

 

Background Information

The Scrutiny Committee has appointed a Review Group to examine devolution proposals for Oxfordshire.  The Committee considered a proposed review scope in July 2016 and asked the Review Group to consider both consultant reports before proposing a tighter scope.  The Review Group met on 19 September 2016 and questioned the Leaders and Chief Executives of the City and County Councils.

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Scrutiny Committee to approve the revised scope of the Devolution Review Group. Also included is a list of evaluation criteria used in conducting the unitary studies.

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Councillor Marie Tidball, Chair of the Devolution Review Group.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Tidball, Chair of the Devolution Review Panel presented the proposed project scope.

 

She explained that the Panel had meet last month to tighten the scope of the review She outlined the following points the Panel was to focus on:

  • Review of the devolution proposals and to decide the best option for Oxfordshire.
  • How best to deliver key service areas, infrastructure and adult and children care.

 

The Scrutiny Officer explained that an additional meeting was scheduled for 16 November.

 

The following was discussed:

 

Committee members can attend the meetings, but they are private meetings so members cannot discuss the findings.

 

Cllr Simmons asked whether the issues should be prioritised, as there are a lot of them. The Scrutiny Officer said that this would occur at the next meeting and lines of enquiry would be agreed.  Cllr Tidball acknowledged that while the scope was broad, using service areas as case studies would help inform the discussion.

 

Cllr Price clarified three things:  1 There would be no devolution deals without all councils’ agreement.  2. There needs to be a mayor. 3. Existing devolution deals are being pursued especially the Cambridge and Peterborough model.

 

Through the Growth Board the chief executives of the Oxfordshire local authorities are looking at governance issues.

 

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to approve the revised project scope for the Devolution Review Panel.


Meeting: 04/07/2016 - Scrutiny Committee (Item 21)

21 Devolution plans for Oxfordshire pdf icon PDF 84 KB

 

Background Information

At its last meeting the Committee prioritised a review of devolution plans for Oxfordshire and tasked the Chair and Vice-Chair with scoping this piece of review work.

Why is it on the agenda?

For the Committee to:

1.    Receive a verbal update on devolution proposals from the Assistant Chief Executive and ask questions;

2.    Agree the scope of a devolution review;

3.    Appoint members to a Devolution Review Group;

4.    Appoint a Chair of the Devolution Review Group.

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Caroline Green, Assistant Chief Executive

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Assistant Chief Executive outlined the background to devolution. In February PWC was appointed to do an independent analysis of unitary government options for Oxfordshire.  There is a member’s presentation on the report on Monday 11 July.  She said the vision of the report would focus on which areas could be done better under unitary authorities.  The proposal does not assume bigger is better but whether it’s possible to get a better balance to reflect the needs of the city vs needs of market towns with the flexibility to make all of the authorities work together on some things.

 

Brexit and the resignation of the Prime Minister has caused some uncertainty to the timeframe of the project as there is concern about ministerial and governmental capacity to engage in the process.

 

The PWC report will discuss:

 

1. different options and whether they will deliver better outcomes for people

2. how integrated services with  produce better outcomes

3. membership, accountability, staffing

4. Preventing increased risk to the vulnerable

5. Testing the scope and capacity to make change

 

The Chair asked why the report had been delayed when it was supposed to have been completed by 30 June.  The delay was due to data analysis and report collation taking longer than anticipated.

 

Cllr Hayes asked if there was a level of confidence for devolution to continue. The Assistant Chief Executive replied that devolution was still on the government’s agenda however the capacity to do it is uncertain.

 

Cllr Pegg asked since Oxfordshire County Council’s plan had not been published, why they are already lobbying/ advertising it and can we do anything about it?

The Assistant Chief Executive explained that the City’s public engagement hasn’t begun yet and we wanted to provide evidence based approach rather than a PR one.

 

Cllr Pegg asked whether the other authorities are happy with the suggested merges. The Assistant Chief Executive said that PWC was going to look at all 4 options within the county. District councils have an open mind whether 4 or 3 authorities are formed.

 

Cllr Coulter questioned why there was no mention of a directly elected mayor, as DCLG has suggested only large changes would be considered if they included a mayor.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive agreed that previous deals had required the inclusion of a mayor and that the proposal would have to be clear on the issue – which was yet to be addressed.

 

Cllr Coulter said that the DCLG felt the ideal size of a unitary authority to be 325,000 residents which is much bigger than what we are proposing in Oxford.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive agreed that the traditional view of the civil service was a unitary of between 300-600,000 people. The County has over 600,000 but we need to consider population growth. We are considering a unitary authority over many authorities which is a different model to previous suggestions.

 

Scrutiny review  - 

 

Cllr Simmons felt the Review Group’s brief needed to be narrowed to focus on the real  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21