Agenda item

Kim Sawyer has been invited to present a report updating members on the latest developments from central government regarding Devolution.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee were provided the Devolution Update by Cllr Leffman, Kim Sawyer, Programme Director for Devolution, having been called away to an urgent meeting.

Cllr Leffman noted that there had been limited progress since the last update to the Committee because the matter remained under consideration by the Secretary of State. Thames Valley leaders had submitted an expression of interest to the Minister for Devolution for a Foundation Strategic Authority (FSA), although they had preferred to pursue a Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA). She explained that ministers had indicated an MSA could only follow after establishing an FSA, via a joint committee and related governance arrangements. Legislation was expected to go through Parliament in May. Cllr Leffman reported that a decision on which areas would proceed had been expected that week but had been delayed until after the May elections, following additional submissions about the proposed geography. She added that while there had been interest in including Buckinghamshire, it had not wished to participate at that stage, though ministers had expected it to align with a Thames Valley authority in due course. It was anticipated that the situation would be clearer by June, when the committee could be updated on the government’s plans for the Thames Valley.

Following the introduction, the Committee commenced its questions.

Members sought more information about whether the intention was for Swindon to included as part of the Thames Valley Strategic Authority. Cllr Leffman said that officials had indicated that government wished Swindon to be included, consistent with the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) geography. Central government officials had sought assurance that the Thames Valley partners would work with Swindon, and that she, together with the leaders of West Berkshire and Wokingham, had provided a statement to the Minister confirming their intention to work in partnership with Swindon if that was the Minister’s direction. However, there were strong differences of opinion across Thames Valley partners on the desirability of including Swindon within the future Thames Valley strategic authority.

Given the benefits of an MSA, members sought to clarify whether it was possible to proceed directly to an MSA without first becoming a FSA. In response, Cllr Leffman said ministers had indicated that it would not be possible to move straight to an MSA, and that the forthcoming legislation required areas to begin as a FSAs. She added that leaders still sought clarification on what this would mean in practice, including the timetable for progressing to an MSA, and that the Minister had agreed to attend a leaders’ meeting after the elections to discuss those questions.

Members sought to understand more about the proposed governance arrangements for the FSA. Cllr Leffman said officers had begun considering the governance arrangements, including the establishment of a joint committee, and she expected a clearer proposal to be brought back to the committee in June once government’s arrangements were confirmed. She said representation was being considered on a population basis, with an initial suggestion of two representatives for Oxfordshire, one for each Berkshire authority, and two for Buckinghamshire if it joined. Further information would depend on the forthcoming legislation, which was due to go to Parliament in May.

In view of Swindon’s absence from the Thames Valley Integrated Care Board (ICB), members questioned the rationale for a devolution geography that would not align with existing public-sector footprints. In response, Cllr Leffman said Thames Valley Liberal Democrat leaders had raised these concerns with the Minister, noting that Swindon was not coterminous with the ICB, Thames Valley Police or the fire service, and that including Swindon would therefore require significant cross-boundary changes. Ministers, nonetheless, had indicated they still expected Swindon to be included. Members expressed concerns over the loss of synergies, strategic clarity and inflexibility of including areas which were not co-terminous with existing public sector geographies such as the Fire, Police and Health services.

More information was sought on how the council’s budgeted funding for the SDS would relate to the emerging devolution arrangements, including whether the SDS work would be undertaken jointly across the wider multi-authority area. Concerns were also raised about managing political and geographic differences within any future FSA. In response, Cllr Leffman said the Thames Valley authorities had worked constructively across party lines and had remained committed to progressing the arrangements, notwithstanding differing views on Swindon. She said government had indicated that around £400m would be available through the SDS process, including funding for infrastructure, and that the councils therefore needed to take the work forward. She added that Buckinghamshire had been expected by government to be part of the SDS discussions and was likely to participate, given the scale of the opportunity, and that further clarity was expected by June following the conclusion of the SDS consultation and a further meeting with the Minister.

The Committee AGREED to make the following recommendations to Cabinet:

-        That the Cabinet should adopt and promote the position that there is immense value in having the future strategic authority share coterminous borders with existing public sector geographies.

-        That the Cabinet works with partners to ensure that the Thames Valley Strategic Authority becomes a Mayoral Strategic Authority as early as is possible.