Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Arlett, Barker, Bearder, Gregory, Kantor, and Van Mierlo.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair. 

None.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

None.

To consider any items set out on the Council agenda for the meeting to be held on 13 February 2025 which may be deferred to this meeting for consideration.

One item, the motion on notice at agenda item 23, was deferred from the Council meeting held on 13 February 2025. The Chair advised that this item would be taken prior to agenda item 6 – Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Invitation Update. 

Councillor Powell moved, and Councillor Gordon-Creed, seconded the following motion as set out on the agenda for the Council meeting of 13 February 2025:

Support for a More Democratic Devolution Process for South Oxfordshire

This Council believes that:

1. The current devolution process as it affects South Oxfordshire must prioritise democratic governance and accountability to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of South Oxfordshire residents.

2. The current high cost of standing for metro mayoral elections in England, including a £5,000 deposit and a £5,000 contribution for inclusion in a candidate booklet, deters capable and independent individuals from running for office. While it is essential to discourage frivolous candidacies, alternative mechanisms, such as requiring candidates to gather a specified number of signatures from electors, could achieve this more effectively.  Reducing the financial barriers to standing for election would foster greater participation and diversity among candidates, strengthening democracy.

3. Spending limits for mayoral elections are disproportionately high, with an allowance of up to £150,000 for areas with significant populations. This potentially creates a significant barrier to genuine democratic participation and fair competition.

4. Until 2023, mayoral elections in England were conducted under the Supplementary Vote system, which provided a fairer voting mechanism compared to the First Past the Post system now in use. Reintroducing a fairer voting system would ensure a more representative and democratic outcome.

5. An assembly or committee made up of democratically elected representatives from the constituent authorities, with appropriate political balance, would enhance the devolution process by providing necessary oversight and scrutiny of the mayor's decisions, ensuring power is exercised transparently and in the best interest of South Oxfordshire’s residents.

This Council resolves to:

1. Submit a formal request in writing to the Electoral Commission to call for the cost of standing for the mayoral election to be lowered by reducing deposit requirements, and introducing an alternative mechanism, such as requiring signatures from electors, to discourage frivolous candidacies and to ensure fair and equitable competition among candidates;

2. Support the reintroduction of a fairer voting system rather than First Past the Post for mayoral elections in England;

3. Support the establishment of a democratically representative committee or assembly as part of the devolution process, to provide oversight and scrutiny of the mayor’s decisions, and write to the Local Government Association (LGA) to investigate whether this move could be backed and supported nationally;

4. Write a letter to the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, the relevant minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), and our local MPs, stating the council's position with regard to recommendations one, two and three (above) and seeking their support for these reforms.

5. Support the above positions during the devolution process in our interactions with Oxfordshire County Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other relevant stakeholders.

On being put to the vote the motion was declared lost.

To consider an update report on devolution and local government reorganisation – report to follow.

Mark Stone, Chief Executive, introduced the report which provided an overview of the Government’s plans for devolution in England, with a move to strategic authorities accompanied by a move to unitary authorities in place of county and district councils in areas such as Oxfordshire. The report provided an update on developments and discussions within Oxfordshire to date.

He advised that since the paper was published, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials have indicated that they expect Oxfordshire to cease to be ‘two tier’ no later than May 2028 and have offered to meet with officers from across Oxfordshire to discuss how they see the timetable for this unfolding.   As part of this meeting, officers will seek a more definitive timeline that can be made publicly available.  

As the paper noted, officers have requested that MHCLG officials also support a separate meeting with council officers and officers from West Berkshire which was yet to be arranged.   Should the secretary of state continue to proceed with unitarisation, as they had indicated they would, then members elected to any ‘shadow council’, which typically tends to be elected roughly a year before ‘go live’, will be the most influential body on the budgets, culture and operational design of any new council.    Council was invited to note the report because officers believed that there is insufficient information available to enable more formalised decision making at this time.

A number of councillors expressed views regarding the plans and the process.

·       The proposals had little regard to areas such as the South Oxfordshire which was characterised by rural areas and market towns. 

·       View expressed that climate adaptation was not referenced in the devolution framework summary table (Chief Executive undertook to seek clarification).

·       Views expressed in support of devolution – moving decision making, power and funding closer to people to create resilient communities. However, there were no proposals set out to shift power to local communities. The proposals would destroy real local decision making.

·       Concern expressed regarding the lack of public engagement whilst noting that this would occur once sufficient information was available and that the local MPs and Police and Crime Commissioner had expressed their views.

·       Concern expressed regarding the proposed ambitious timeframe. This would reduce the opportunity to consider and debate the proposals allowing only time to influence the implementation – however, it was also highlighted that a more rapid timeline would reduce uncertainty and would likely be better in terms of ongoing service delivery.

·       Need to argue for a sufficient number of councillors for a successor authority so that local residents can be provided with the services and support they are entitled. 

·       Any unitary authority should be as small as possible against the criteria to represent the needs of residents. Broad recognition that South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils were not big enough and that joining with West Berkshire presented a possible option. Concerns were expressed that an Oxfordshire wide unitary would be too large to successfully engage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.