Issue - meetings

Issue - meetings

Devolution plans for Oxfordshire

Meeting: 06/03/2018 - Scrutiny Committee (Item 86)

86 Devolution plans for Oxfordshire pdf icon PDF 117 KB

 

Background Information

The Scrutiny Committee requested an update from the Assistant Chief Executive on the latest position in relation to devolution proposals for Oxfordshire 12 months on from the report of the Committee’s Devolution Review Group, which was chaired by Cllr Tidball.

Why is it on the agenda?

The Committee considered the devolution proposals as they then stood in 2016/17.

This is an opportunity for the Committee to be brought up to date with the current position.

The Committee may also wish to agree recommendations to put to the City Executive Board on 17 April,

Who has been invited to comment?

·         Cllr Tidball, Board Member for Young People, Schools and Public Health

·         Caroline Green, Assistant Chief Executive.

 

Minutes:

Cllr Tidball, speaking as a previous member of the Committee and Chair of the Scrutiny Review Group, said the Group’s report had been used in the Council’s  submission to the DCLG and in response to the County Council’s submission. Following the election there had been no apparent appetite on the part of the Government to pursue devolution proposals. There had, however, been a great deal of exciting progress over the last year and the emergence of the Growth Deal is now seen as the preferred mechanism for joint authority working in Oxfordshire. The role of the Growth Board is evolving and the way it operates will change. Of particular note is consideration of the possibility of a shared scrutiny function. The City Council had played (and continues to play) a very significant role in the development of the Board and the benefits for the City, in terms of housing and infrastructure were considerable.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive said that while there wasn’t, yet, any agreement to a combined scrutiny function, the Growth Board would be reviewing its Terms of Reference by the end of April.  The desirability of a more robust and structured scrutiny framework would form part of that discussion, if not at that meeting at a subsequent one. Initial feelings were that neither should such arrangements result in duplication nor cut across existing functions.