Agenda item

Cllr Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, and Kim Sawyer, Programme Director: Devolution, have been invited to present a report on 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.

Cllr Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation, Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer, and Kim Sawyer, Programme Director: Devolution, were invited to present a report on Devolution.

The Leader introduced the devolution agenda, outlining progress towards submitting an expression of interest to government for a Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) covering Oxfordshire and Berkshire. The region’s economic significance and the need for a strategic approach to transport, energy, and water were highlighted, with regional collaboration seen as essential. All council leaders from Oxfordshire and Berkshire had expressed support, aiming to promote inclusive growth and improved opportunities for residents. Despite recent government announcements delaying devolution elections, the Leader recommended that preparations continue, including the establishment of a board to define regional priorities ahead of any mayoral election.

The Programme Director clarified the distinction between Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and devolution. LGR involved consolidating county and district council services into unitary authorities to simplify governance and deliver daily services, such as children’s and adults’ services and waste collection. Devolution, by contrast, entailed the creation of new powers and the transfer of existing ones to a new regional body, a Mayoral Strategic Authority. The MSA’s purpose would be to provide a strategic framework for the region, enabling investment and granting local control over funding decisions.

The Programme Director explained that the expression of interest served as an invitation to government to discuss how devolution might work for Oxfordshire, with the process still at an early stage. The MSA would focus on strategic growth, planning, transport, skills, and public sector reform, supporting the business ecosystem and improving infrastructure for residents. Oxfordshire’s strong innovation ecosystem, where universities, entrepreneurs, and risk capital combined to drive growth, was cited as an example. The MSA would not deliver local services directly but would create an investment framework to support them, aiming to enable inclusive and sustainable regional growth.

Discussion turned to the absence of a list of councils in the report and expression of interest, with members seeking clarification on why councils were not explicitly mentioned and how this related to the membership of the devolution board. It was explained that the letter would be signed by the Leader, representing Oxfordshire, and the Leader of Bracknell Forest Council, Councillor Mary Temperton, representing Berkshire, rather than by all individual council leaders. The letter would refer to the Oxfordshire joint leaders and the equivalent Berkshire group, thereby covering all relevant councils.

Members enquired whether the Expression of Interest (EOI) would be amended in light of the government’s recent announcement to postpone the first round of devolution. The Chief Executive responded that, as the EOI had already been substantially approved by various councils, there was a desire to avoid making material changes out of respect for those decisions. However, it was advised that, given the government’s announcement, the EOI should still be submitted, and councils should proceed as if they were already acting as a strategic authority. Emphasis was placed on continuing cross-council collaboration and focusing on acting as a region in the spirit of devolution, rather than becoming preoccupied with the timing of mayoral elections.

Clarification was sought regarding the wordings of the recommendations to Scrutiny and Cabinet, where one referred to the “potential” benefits of an MSA, while the other used the term “substantial” benefits. Members questioned whether the use of “potential” indicated any reticence by the administration and whether the language could be made more positive. It was clarified that the recommendation had not yet come to Cabinet and therefore did not reflect the administration’s final view. The point about consistency of language was acknowledged, and it was stated that this would be considered when the matter came before Cabinet, with an emphasis on ensuring clarity and alignment throughout the documents.

Concerns were expressed that some of the language in the expression of interest, such as references to economic decline and stagnation, appeared unnecessarily pessimistic. While it was important to highlight the risk of missed opportunities, members suggested the letter could be more optimistic and express greater confidence in local businesses and residents. In response, it was explained that there had been a decline in productivity since the pandemic, and the risk of businesses relocating if infrastructure and support were lacking was real. However, the importance of balancing the narrative was acknowledged, and feedback on the tone would be taken on board to ensure the message to government was both realistic and appropriately positive.

The committee considered how the public and councillors would be kept informed throughout the governance board process, especially given the open-ended timetable and the risk that uncertainty could undermine staff and business confidence. It was noted that the devolution board would likely meet in private, raising concerns about the sharing of minutes and ongoing communication. The process was not yet fully defined, but there was agreement on the importance of keeping everyone, particularly businesses and residents, updated on developments. A commitment was made to ensure regular and transparent communication as the process progressed.

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

• That the Leader seeks agreement from other Councils to list append a list of member councils at the bottom of the Expression of Interest letter to the Secretary of State and Cabinet amends its report to detail the names of Councils who will form the Devolution Board

• That the Cabinet amends its report to ensure consistency across the report and Expression of interest letter of the significant benefits accruing from devolution.

• That the Leader seeks clarity from partners over how stakeholders - including elected members, businesses, and the public – will be informed of outcomes and progress relating to devolution.

• That the Cabinet recognises the high degree of uncertainty within the devolution process for staff, businesses and other key stakeholders and commits to clarifying details as soon as they are announced.

The Committee adjourned for a short break at 11:23 and reconvened at 11:32.