Agenda item
Motion A: Devolution and Local Democracy, Proposed by Councillor Rosie Pearson, Seconded by Councillor Andrew Prosser
This motion seeks to establish the key principles which should underlie a democratic devolution process for the future Thames Valley region’s strategic authority. We want to see democracy enhanced, and proper accountability to residents and to the unitary authorities which will take over from district and county councils. This Council should support and advocate for the following principles:
1) Democratic oversight of combined authorities: the decisions, actions and budgets of the strategic authority need scrutiny by a body/assembly with proportional political representation from elected councillors in unitary authorities. This would ensure power is exercised transparently and in the best interests of residents, and prevent excessive power being concentrated in a single individual. Consideration should be given to mayoral candidates standing as joint mayor and deputy candidates.
2) A fairer voting system: Until 2023, mayoral elections in England were conducted under the Supplementary Vote system. This Council should advocate for a fairer voting system than First Past the Post in future mayoral elections.
3) Costs and fairness: Mayoral elections should be inclusive, without excessive financial barriers for candidates. The current costs of standing in mayoral elections (£5,000 deposit, and £5,000 candidate booklet contribution) is too high. There should be reasonable limits on election spending so that those candidates with the deepest pockets do not have an unfair disadvantage.
4) Local representation: unitary authorities should not be so large that they lose local knowledge and influence or the important connection with rural and urban communities. Town and parish councils should have enhanced powers and financial compensation. Strong lines of connection should be made between them and the unitaries, so that there is a clear chain of representation at all levels.
5) Democratic oversight of this council’s decisions: a mechanism should be found to ensure that decisions made during the devolution and local government reorganization process put the long-term future of residents ahead of any short-term political considerations. This could be, for example, a cross-party working group on devolution.
Minutes:
Councillor Rosie Pearson introduced the motion. Councillor Michelle Mead proposed an amendment to the motion which was to change ‘disadvantage’ to ‘advantage’. This was agreed by the proposer and seconder as an alteration to the motion. The substantive motion as amended was read out by Councillor Pearson;
“This motion seeks to establish the key principles which should underlie a democratic devolution process for the future Thames Valley region’s strategic authority. We want to see democracy enhanced, and proper accountability to residents and to the unitary authorities which will take over from district and county councils. This Council should support and advocate for the following principles:
1) Democratic oversight of combined authorities: the decisions, actions and budgets of the strategic authority need scrutiny by a body/assembly with proportional political representation from elected councillors in unitary authorities. This would ensure power is exercised transparently and in the best interests of residents, and prevent excessive power being concentrated in a single individual. Consideration should be given to mayoral candidates standing as joint mayor and deputy candidates.
2) A fairer voting system: Until 2023, mayoral elections in England were conducted under the Supplementary Vote system. This Council should advocate for a fairer voting system than First Past the Post in future mayoral elections.
3) Costs and fairness: Mayoral elections should be inclusive, without excessive financial barriers for candidates. The current costs of standing in mayoral elections (£5,000 deposit, and £5,000 candidate booklet contribution) is too high. There should be reasonable limits on election spending so that those candidates with the deepest pockets do not have an unfair advantage.
4) Local representation: unitary authorities should not be so large that they lose local knowledge and influence or the important connection with rural and urban communities. Town and parish councils should have enhanced powers and financial compensation. Strong lines of connection should be made between them and the unitaries, so that there is a clear chain of representation at all levels.
5) Democratic oversight of this council’s decisions: a mechanism should be found to ensure that decisions made during the devolution and local government reorganization process put the long-term future of residents ahead of any short-term political considerations. This could be, for example, a cross-party working group on devolution.”
In debate, members raised the following points;
- While some members welcomed parts of the motion such as a fairer voting system, and involving local councils in the process, they felt that the motion conflated local government reorganisation with devolution, and that some of the proposals pre-empted the process that councils would be going through to put forward proposals for reorganisation.
- An all member briefing on devolution would be held on March 6, and agreeing a motion in advance of this felt premature to many.
- It was welcome that a motion was coming forward as it indicated that members had concerns about reorganisation.
- More could be done on a fairer voting system than was suggested in the motion, and some members wanted this extended to all elections.
- Some Members stated that they would be abstaining due to the timing, not the sentiment of the motion.
Councillor Andrew Prosser seconded the motion, stating that it set out key principles that were important for the Government to take into account as part of the work on devolution and local government reorganisation regardless of the point in time.
Councillors Carl Rylett and Adam Clements had left the meeting before the vote, and did not vote on the item.
Council resolved to:
- Approve the devolution and local democracy motion, with the minor alteration to the wording.
Voting record – For 18, against 9, abstain 12, did not vote 4