Agenda item

1)      Mr Gough spoke about the recent publication of the English Devolution White Paper which set out government’s plans for devolution in the form of Mayoral Strategic Authorities. He explained that whilst much of the devolution offer would build on existing proposals in areas such as economic development, skills, and infrastructure; strategic planning and public service reform were also central to it. Devolution would offer an opportunity for Kent to regain strategic powers and capacity that had been lost as a result of national policy choices and the clear geographic boundaries of Kent and Medway, which were shared with major public services, would put the county in a strong position to bring public services closer together and deliver better services and value.

2)      Mr Gough said the Kent and Medway approach to devolution had been developed, along with the 12 districts, through partnerships across a number of key areas, such as the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership, the Employment Task Force, Pathways for All in post-16 education and skills, and the Integrated Care Strategy. All of which provided a firm foundation for the future.

3)      The Leader explained that the government would set out early in 2025 which areas would belong to the Devolution Priority Programme and he believed that whilst ensuring the right decision was made, it was in the Council’s interests to move sooner rather than later. He highlighted that all 14 local authorities in Kent would be affected and emphasised that this was potentially the most transformational issue facing the Council in many years.

4)      Mr Gough referred to the government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework which was published on 12 December and followed a consultation on the role of planning committees.

5)      Regarding the Local Government Financial Settlement, Mr Gough noted that whilst improvements in the position for the Council could be seen, pressures remained. He welcomed an increase to the Social Care Grant and the Children's Social Care Prevention Grant, however, he commented that the Recovery Grant was not targeted on areas of greatest spending pressures and this raised questions as to the longer term government approach to funding allocation and the consequences of this for the Council.

6)      Mr Gough expressed concern at government decisions that would impact the Council’s providers such as in relation to the national living wage, the national minimum wage, and employers' national insurance contributions; and about which he and the Cabinet Member would liaise with providers and government ministers.

7)      Mr Gough referred to the Household Support Fund and in particular the Just Missing Out payment, which went alongside the Council’s initiative to boost the take-up of pension credit.

8)      The Kent and Medway Resilience Forum’s implementation of Operation Brock from 15 – 22 December would cover the projected peak tourist traveller period for Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover. Mr Gough said Operation Brock, under current circumstances, remained the only available option and the Council continued to work with National Highways, the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum and the Department for Transport for a permanent solution.

9)      Regarding the Entry/Exit System (EES) Mr Gough expressed his preference for the European Commission’s proposed phased approach over a six month period and highlighted that work would continue with partners to prepare contingency plans.

10)    Finally, on 14 November Mr Gough welcomed, along with Mrs Chandler and Mr Brady, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State at the Home Office, and Janet Davey, Minister for Children and Families at the Department of Education, to see first-hand two of the Council’s reception centres. He said this was an opportunity to emphasise the need for the National Transfer Scheme to work effectively and efficiently and explained that so far this year there had been 2,666 arrivals of young people, and 2,310 transfers through the National Transfer Scheme. This reflected the approach the Council had taken to take the pressure off the county, but more remained to be done and the case for which was made to Ministers.

11)    The Leader of the Labour Group, Mr Brady, spoke about devolution and said he understood there had been meetings between the Kent leaders but as yet Kent residents had not been consulted. Mr Brady stressed the importance of working with Kent residents and asked for clarification regarding the deadline for initial proposals whilst questioning what the Administration would decide in relation to the Devolution Priority Programme and whether the elections in May would be cancelled.

12)    Mr Brady turned to the Local Government Finance Settlement which he said was better than expected with the Labour government estimating an additional £20.1million for adults and an additional £6.2 million for children, which was more than was allocated last year. He said although adult social care needed more funding, it was a step in the right direction. Mr Brady asked the Leader how he proposed to provide more money for local services and whether this would come from unfunded tax cuts and unfunded spending pledges, or by introducing a wealth tax. Mr Brady commented that national insurance increases for the Council’s staff would be funded by government and questioned whether it was right that commissioned services should be moved in-house.

13)    Mr Brady hoped sufficient communication was in place regarding pension credit applications, and encouraged Kent residents, who were eligible, to apply before it closed on 21 December. He welcomed the joined-up approach from government regarding unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC).

14)    Mr Lehmann, the Leader of the Green and Independents Group, welcomed Mr Mallon to the Council and Mr Lewis to the Green and Independents Group. He commented on the recent government announcement regarding local government reorganisation and how quickly developments had progressed in recent weeks. He referred to Labour's election manifesto which he said did not include reference to unitarisation and a government letter sent to council leaders in July about devolution which stated that government would not force areas to take on a mayor. Mr Lehmann commented that the government's budget Red Book published in October stated that the English Devolution White Paper would set out more detail on the government's devolution plans including simpler structures but Mr Lehmann questioned whether this was appropriate for a county as large and diverse as Kent.

15)    Mr Lehmann spoke about the cost of replacing a county council with three unitary authorities and suggested, instead, that the government acknowledge that the Council was an outlier, fund it properly, and work with it to come up with a solution which would allow the districts to remain in place under a county-wide strategic authority or assembly.

16)    Mr Lehmann said the decision to delay elections if devolution was progressed quickly would come from the Leader and he feared this may indicate how much power would be concentrated in the hands of directly elected mayors. Mr Lehmann said this decision would diminish the democratic power of Kent's residents and he questioned where the transparency and accountability was in making it. Mr Lehmann asked whether the Leader would feel able to share with the Council whether or not he is planning to request the suspension of next May's elections.

17)    Mr Hook, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, also welcomed Mr Mallon to the Council and wished Members a restful and Merry Christmas.

18)    Turning to the White Paper, he said his group considered there were serious defects with the proposals and content of the paper and said it was not necessary to create a new authority or a mayor to regain strategic powers.  He commented that the word ‘democracy’ or ‘democratic’ did not appear once in the White Paper, the word ‘people’ only appeared a few items and there was no reference to citizens leading the process. He stressed that the process should involve all who wanted a say in designing local government, including parishes, small businesses, charities, trade unions, universities, and private citizens.

19)    Mr Hook referred to Scottish devolution which brought together all of civil society in Scotland to discuss and design what devolution should look like. He suggested that a conference on the future of democracy in Kent was needed to bring together all of Kent's civil society to listen to each other and share ideas. He commented that the White Paper offered no new powers for councils, only to strategic authorities, and that ought not to be acceptable. Mr Hook reminded Members of his view that it was much better to elect a team rather than one individual.

20)    Mr Hook said a mayor would not belong to the people but would follow the government’s agenda, would be in power for four years and impossible to remove if things started to go wrong. He commented on the lack of diversity currently amongst mayors across the county and the budget a candidate would need to run a competitive campaign. He said it was an idea which was elitist and oligarchic.

21)    The Leader responded to some of the points made by the Group Leaders. He said it was clear what the direction of travel from government was and the question was how the Council would achieve the best outcome for Kent residents. Mr Gough referred to some mayoral authorities within the country and said on the whole the experience of mayors had been a positive one. He said it was important that the local government element of a mayoral strategic authority was a partner with the mayor within it, and its role was strategic.

22)    Mr Gough said there were decisions to be made quickly in January on the Devolution Priority Programme and he stressed the importance of the Council engaging with this sooner rather than later.  He highlighted that it was a case of pulling down strategic powers from national government and there were a number of elements of a Mayoral Strategic Authority that would make a huge difference including being eligible for single block transfers of funds and the opportunity to bring together public services within the geography of Kent and Medway.

23)    Mr Gough welcomed that, as in previous years, the finance settlement had been better than expected but noted that it would not solve all of the Council’s problems.

24)    Finally, the Leader welcomed Mr Mallon to the Council, wished staff and Members a very happy Christmas, and thanked staff for the work they did in delivering to Kent residents.

25)    RESOLVED that the Leader’s report be noted.