Agenda item

The Leader of the Council introduced the English Devolution White Paper Interim Plan. He said that the government had published its white paper on devolution in December which laid out its plan for reforms in two tier areas. The government had asked Hertfordshire to come up with an interim proposal to be submitted to them which must be submitted by 21 March 2025.

The Leader of the Council said that last month, all 11 councils in Hertfordshire have met to discuss the options and have been meeting frequently. He said the options proposed in the report had been a positive, collaborative effort and it had been brought to the Executive for discussion and agree for it to be submitted.

Councillor Daar felt that there were not enough resources delegated to town and parish councils to fulfil their new roles under these proposals. She hoped that this would be resolved moving forward.

Councillor Crystall said that town and parish councils had been a consideration, but it was not yet clear how their role would change. It may be that parishes are put in where they do not currently exist.

The Interim Chief Executive said that a working group was being set up specifically for town and parish councils and Ware had expressed an interest to join the group. She said that central government had not yet been clear how they fit into the overall picture.

Councillor Brittain said that from a public point of view, the biggest question was what would happen to Council Tax. He referred to page 26 and said implications needed to be understood in relation to council tax for the different options.

Councillor Crystall said there was a lot of data that did not exist yet. He said that a considerable amount of work had been done by all councils but were only starting to see the real implications of what the different models mean.

Councillor Glover-Ward said there was still some discussion about the ideal number of residents in a unitary. If the ideal number was 350k – 500k then the four unitary option was not a viable solution.

Councillor Crystall said it was balance between financial sustainability and democratic representation.

Councillor Dumont said that there were a lot of questions that did not have answers at the moment. He said that this was a once in a generation opportunity and was pleased to hear that progress was being made. He said that there were things that concerned him such as the transition costs of £52-54 million and questioned who foots the bill.

Councillor Hoskin said that this exercise was about economies of scale and said that option one looked too large. He referred to the waste service and said that when the district hands over, it was important that the service did not stop start but was a continuation.

Councillor Deering said that this was coming from the government, not the county council. His personal view was that it was important to consider what was best for residents. He said it was difficult to see any savings realised through breaking up the county and felt that most residents knew which council to go to for certain issues, i.e. the county council for highways, adult services, and the district for planning services. He said that he struggled to see where the benefits for residents were coming from and if residents knew this reorganisation was happening then they might wish for the money to be spent elsewhere.

Councillor Hopewell said she had concerns about larger services such as adult and children’s services being spread over multiple councils. She said that in Nottingham, a workplace parking levy was ringfenced and put into local bus services. She felt that residents appreciated having a local feeling and East Herts residents would not be particularly connected to other residents in Hertfordshire.

Councillor Stowe said he remembered the last reorganisation in 1973 and felt it was a disaster and lots of money was wasted. He said the argument was that devolution gave more power to the people, but he felt it would do the opposite.

Councillor Hopewell referred to the practicalities of IT infrastructure and the transfer of residents across different systems and the risk to front line services.

Councillor Glover-Ward said she had mentioned the devolution plans to residents at the Gilston Residents Association and they were horrified that they might lose their local council. She said that residents may not be happy about planning decisions, but recognised officers do the best they can and felt having services locally was better.

Councillor Daar said she was disappointed that there was no mention of environmental sustainability and the current ongoing work with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. She said that on the doorstep, people did not understand the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner and felt that if there was an elected mayor, there would be little connection to residents.

Councillor Crystall said that there was a feeling of a loss of democratic accountability and connection to local councils in the proposals. He said that the Hertfordshire Growth Board had a set of missions that were clearly environmentally focused and councils across Herts agreed this was an important stream to focus on.

Councillor Dumont said that the debate was good and important, and it was good to voice any concerns.

Councillor Crystall said that conversations with residents was important, and the council had a page dedicated to local government reform which would have updated FAQs as and when more information came from the government.

Councillor Deering said that he struggled to see how these proposals would bring more devolution. He said that councillors would still be democratically elected, but they would be more remote.

The motion to support the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Crystall and seconded by Councillor Daar.

The motion to support the recommendations having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that (A)the Government’s proposals for English Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation be noted, and

(B)   the Executive delegates to the Leader of the Council, in consultation with the Deputy Leader, that the interim proposals for Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire as set out in the report be submitted to the Government by the deadline of 21 March 2025.