Agenda item

This item was taken after item B1.

1. The item was introduced by Christopher Hespe, Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Cross- Cabinet Activity, who presented KCC’s Business Case for LGR in Kent and Medway. Mr Hespe outlined Option 1a as the chosen plan, which proposed a single Kent unitary authority with three area assemblies, and provided an overview of the timeline and key factors that led to this decision being proposed.

2. Following questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Mr Hespe elaborated on the administration’s proposal by referencing the central government’s 2024 White Paper, which referenced devolution flexibly, committed to regular reviews of the devolution framework, and introduced a legal duty to respond to LGR proposals.

b)    It was highlighted that the Labour Government’s intention to create a new pattern of strategic authorities opened the opportunity for local authorities without Mayors to be designated under that model. It was explained that, based on government guidance and the size of existing strategic authorities, a single Kent unitary could effectively double as a strategic Mayoral authority.

c)    Mr Hespe explained his view that the proposal did not present a hurdle to devolved powers and that in the absence of a clear Government pathway, Kent County Council would be the appropriate strategic authority leading up to LGR.

d)    Option 1a was proposed at the first meeting of the Devolution and LGR Cabinet Committee, following an initial options appraisal by officers that included a single unitary authority model as a benchmark. It was subsequently presented to Kent Leaders and confirmed at the next meeting of the Cabinet Committee as the preferred proposal. The approach aimed to deliver benefits highlighted in the internal and KPMG options appraisals whilst avoiding the disaggregation challenges of a multi- unitary option, particularly for the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Adult Social Care (ASC) sectors.

e)    Ben Watts, Deputy Chief Executive, clarified that comments made by both County Council and the Devolution and LGR Cabinet Committee were documented on the proposal’s Record of Decision (RoD). However, the decision did not require formal approval by County Council in order to be taken.

3. Following the questions, the Chairman welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the item. These included:

a)    A Member questioned the bureaucratic and democratic implications of Kent acting as a strategic Mayoral authority, given that existing authorities of this type had Councils layered beneath them to provide local governance, which was absent in Kent’s LGR proposal.

b)    It was raised by Members that Councillors’ views should have been sought on the progression of LGR and that Full Council should have been given the opportunity to vote on the proposed option. This view was informed by the approach taken by other local Councils and the likelihood that central government would reject the current proposal on the grounds of size, service delivery and future devolution pathways.

c)    A Member argued that, considering current financial constraints would not be immediately solved from devolution, the administration should be commended for their distinctive proposal that prioritises the people of Kent. The Leader of the Council also highlighted that the administration had a mandate from Kent’s electorate to think creatively, deliver savings, and make decisions in the best interests of the county.

d)    It was discussed that Members be provided with an explanation on future governance procedures, specifically regarding why Full Council had not been required to vote on the decision and why it had been placed on the Scrutiny Committee agenda. It was also emphasised that it be acknowledged that the decision had been taken and business case sent to central government on the proposed LGR option.

e)    The Chairman remarked at the end of the debate that, over the two- year LGR decision- making process, the Council would need to ensure that the potential reward of the devolution package was secured.

f)     Mr Hespe emphasised that the decision- making process had reached the stage where the choice of LGR options sat with central government and therefore any potential risks were no longer within the control of the Council. The Leader added that the option proposed was the best for Kent residents and did not preclude Kent from further devolution pathways.

g)    A Member referred to the previous LGR- related reporting at other Committees for a more detailed financial understanding of the proposal.

4. The Chairman proposed that the Scrutiny Committee note the report and the comments made during the debate. This was agreed by the Committee.

5. RESOLVED that the Committee note the report and the comments made during the debate.