HBC tells truth to power

Hastings Borough Council has submitted its response to the government’s devolution consultation, welcoming the policy in general but – in a welcome exercise of telling truth to power — highlighting areas where it considers the policy is inadequate or omissive. Meanwhile analysis by the Local Government Intelligence Unit gives some indication of the likely cost of reorganisation. Nick Terdre reports, research and graphics by Russell Hall.

The government asked for views on its devolutions proposals for the 21 two-tier regions, in Hastings’ case the proposal to form a Mayoral Combined County Authority for Sussex, incorporating East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council.

In its response Hastings Borough Council said it “largely agrees that the establishment of a MCCA will deliver potential benefits for the area. However, we need assurances that Hastings, currently the 13th most deprived area in the country, will be seen as an area of high priority”.

The reply reflects the view, widely held among councillors, that the borough has historically not received a fair deal from East Sussex County Council.

It also repeats the often expressed concern that by proposing the abolition of lower-tier councils including Hastings, devolution does away with the layer of local representatives closest to residents without offering any replacement. The policy explicitly intends to drastically cull the number of councillors as a cost-saving measure.

White paper’s claim questioned

The council questions the devolution white paper’s claim “to empower local government by shifting decision-making closer to communities,” noting that  “…further scrutiny shows these proposals do the opposite, consolidating power in fewer hands, prioritising devolution to directly elected mayors, who will answer more to central government than local communities, aligning with national policy agendas rather than empowering independent local decision-making.”

“As a council, we welcome the impulse to see more decisions devolved away from central government, in particular the proposed thirty-year funding pot to cover essential investment in our transport infrastructure as well as in jobs and skills,” said Cllr Julia Hilton, leader of Hastings Borough Council.

“However, despite this declared aim, the devolution White Paper has no clear structure in place for either how local people can influence investment plans or how these new potentially very powerful mayors will be held to account for their decisions.

Call for Sussex Assembly

“To address this democratic deficit, we have proposed that alongside the mayor, there should be a directly elected and proportionally representative Sussex Assembly. We also think there needs to be reform to the voting method, with a return to the Single Transferable Voting system rather than the current first past the post, which can see mayors elected on a very low turnout and only 30% of the vote.”

The council also criticised the high cost of standing in a mayoral election — at £10,000 it is 20 times the cost of standing to be an MP, calling for financial barriers to be reduced and “excessively high” spending limits (£140,000 for Sussex) to be reduced.

While the council agreed that an MCCA would be good for the environment, it requested assurances that “tackling climate change and the establishment of a Local Power Plan and Warm Homes Plan would result in additional funding to the area to enact these plans,” highlighting another area in which government commitments are lacking.

It wanted to see the mayoral authority subject to statutory duties to produce local climate and nature strategies, alongside the proposed duties to produce a Local Growth Plan and a Spatial Development Strategy.

Concern was also expressed with the proposed governance arrangements for the MCCA, under which the mayor, who is due to be elected next year, together with two nominated representatives of the three constituent areas, will form the supreme decision-making body for Sussex, while the lower-tier councils will only have “non constituent” representatives without voting powers.

Voting rights

They can be given voting rights at the discretion of the Combined County Authority, and HBC said it “would require certainty that this would be applied”.

The government will decide whether to legislate to bring the Sussex-wide body into being after considering the devolution consultation responses and whether a series of statutory tests have been met. In particular, ministers will need to decide:

• Whether they consider that the establishment of a Combined County Authority in the area is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the area;
• Whether establishing a Combined County Authority in the area is appropriate, having regard to the need to:
  • secure effective and convenient local government; and,
  • reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

Ministers will also consider all factors in the round when taking the decision on whether to proceed with the necessary implementing legislation, including an equalities impact assessment and an environmental principles policy statement.

Local government reorganisation

Meanwhile HBC continues its deliberations on how local government should be reorganised, and the geographical definition of unitary authorities in East Sussex, on which the parties represented on the council have differing ideas. An initial response was delivered in March.

According to the white paper, unitary authorities should have a minimum population of 500,000, though Jim McMahon, minister of state for Local Government and English Devolution in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has suggested that populations as low as 350,000 could be acceptable if such areas present advantages in other respects.

According to analysis by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), the 21 two-tier areas report in their initial responses that they are looking at unitary councils with populations ranging from below 200,000 to more than 1.5m. The six East Sussex councils are evaluating unitaries with populations from just below 300,000 to just over 500,000.

Of the initial responses which provided information on the cost of preparing a business case for reorganisation, estimates ranged from about £500,000 to more than £10m. No estimate was provided for East Sussex, but for West Sussex the cost was put at around £1m.

The financial help offered by the government for this work is £7.6m, which if shared equally would give each area £361,905. If distributed according to population East Sussex and Brighton & Hove (the two councils have been asked to consider reorganisation jointly) would get £267,019 and West Sussex £288,039.

The cost of transitioning to the new unitary council varies widely across the regions, from less than £10m to more than £60m, with an average of £31.1m. For East Sussex it appears to be £30-35m and West Sussex around £30m.

Final responses, and agreed proposals on the unitary councils to be formed, are due on 26 September.

Also in: Local Government

Devolution: how does the financial side work? »