To note progress to date, to consider the establishment of a Member Devolution Working Group and to recommend to Council that the potential benefits of the devolution agenda are supported in principle.

1.      That the progress undertaken to date by Leadership Gloucestershire in respect of the devolution agenda be NOTED.  

2.      That a Member Devolution Working Group be established, in accordance with the Terms of Reference set out at Appendix 2 to the report, with the political composition being determined by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council and Group Leaders being invited to make nominations to the Group as appropriate.

3.      That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it notes the progress undertaken by Leadership Gloucestershire in respect of the devolution agenda and that it supports, in principle, further devolution development work together with Leadership Gloucestershire partners.

31.1           The report of the Chief Executive, circulated at Pages No. 18-34, set out the latest position in respect of the Gloucestershire Devolution Project. Members were asked to note the progress undertaken to date; to agree the establishment of a Devolution Working Group; and to recommend to Council that it note the progress undertaken and that it supports, in principle, further devolution development work together with Leadership Gloucestershire partners.

31.2           In introducing the report, the Chief Executive advised that Members would be well aware of the content and thrust behind the project which was in line with the national debate about the need for the Government to pass significant powers down to Local Government in England to match the powers devolved to the Parliament in Scotland and National Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. The purpose of the submission of an Expression of Interest was that the Government and local public sector partnerships could explore what policy/budget areas might advantageously be devolved to enable more local control. The current position in Gloucestershire was that an Expression of Interest had been made to the Government and further work was now being undertaken on the workstreams identified within it; these included economic growth; strategic planning and infrastructure; health and wellbeing; community safety; and governance. At the meeting of Leadership Gloucestershire which had been held that morning, there had been a unanimous decision to make a further representation to Government which would ‘sharpen up’ the Expression of Interest document and offer a clearer view of what Gloucestershire wanted in terms of devolution. The deadline for the submission of the further representation was Friday 4 September. The feeling of Leadership Gloucestershire had been that, even if the County was unsuccessful in its current bid, it would wish to continue to look at devolution as it was an Agenda that the Government would be pushing for some time to come. The Chief Executive was clear that the Council was not in a position to sign up to any formal agreement at this stage but that, if and when this was appropriate, it would be a decision for Members. In offering further clarification, the Chairman indicated that 11 organisations had been present at the earlier Leadership Gloucestershire meeting and all had clearly recognised that they had not yet signed up to anything but at this stage were happy to make a representation to Government to indicate what the County would like to talk about. He had been impressed at how keen all of the parties were to work together for the benefit of the people of Gloucestershire.

31.3           Particular attention was drawn to Paragraph 1.5 of the report which set out that there were significant potential benefits associated with devolution which included: support and devolved Government funding to encourage economic growth and infrastructure provision; better use of public funds in areas such as health and wellbeing which would allow cross sector investment to reduce demand on services; and more coordinated decision-making in respect of major issues such as strategic planning, strategic housing and infrastructure delivery.

31.4           Referring to the draft document before them, a Member expressed the hope that it would be thoroughly proof read before submission as she had found a number of typographical and grammatical errors just by glancing at it. In response, she was assured that there was a workstream which would be responsible for proof reading the document to ensure it all made sense, currently it was a little disjointed because so many different people had been working on it but this would be addressed. In addition, the Chief Executive indicated that he would circulate the document to all Members after it was sent to the Government on Friday. In terms of the content of the document, Members were advised that the feedback so far had been encouraging; given the amount of time that the County had had to get it ready, and the amount of people involved, it was felt that this was a very impressive piece of work.

31.5           The Chief Executive explained that Gloucestershire was in a fortuitous position as all of the partners involved shared a boundary which meant there was no cross County working involved. This certainly should make Gloucestershire’s bid easier. The Chief Executive understood that there had been disagreements in other areas that were combining cross County partners. It was important that all partners ‘owned’ the work undertaken as that was the only way it would truly be effective. A Member noted that there had already been two seminars on the subject, to which all Members had been invited, and he questioned what the general view of Members following the second seminar was. In response, the Chairman indicated that, overall, the view had been that it was better for the Council to be involved at this stage. There was, however, still a lot of concern and nervousness about the future. His sense from the Leadership Gloucestershire meeting that morning had been that the other Districts felt exactly the same and that there needed to be a lot of work done before anyone would feel comfortable signing up to anything.  In respect of the point about a coterminous boundary, a Member indicated that a small part of the NHS Trust was based in Herefordshire so whoever was writing the ‘health’ section of the document would need to word it carefully.

31.6           One Member expressed concern that the ideas discussed to date could result in a decline in services. In response, the Chief Executive indicated that he understood those concerns but offered assurance that the idea of devolution was that Councils would have larger ‘pots’ of funding to direct at the services that really needed it. It was more about making better use of what they had and creating additional funding by doing things differently/better. Another Member indicated that the Expression of Interest document mentioned Community Infrastructure Levy funding quite a lot and she was concerned that, since it was not possible to have one Community Infrastructure Levy amount across the County as it was market driven, sharing of this would not work. In response, the Chief Executive explained that there would be elements needed to fund local work but there would also be a need to fund projects for the benefit of the wider community in Gloucestershire. At the moment there was no arrangement for working together to make those decisions happen but, if there was such an arrangement, it would largely be to the benefit of the Borough as this was where much of any new growth was happening. In offering an example, he explained that funding for projects around the M5 motorway could come from the Government but there would be a need for some local money to improve local roads; in those cases a Community Infrastructure Levy funding pool could assist.

31.7           The Chief Executive indicated that the Government was open to suggestions about what the County might want devolved to it. It was also clear that the Government wanted to work with areas which were larger than Local Authorities as it was looking for local partnerships to deliver its Agenda, i.e. the skills agenda; which the Government would like to be delivered in conjunction with local business needs rather than as a nationwide training project.

31.8           Having considered the information provided, it was