Agenda item

Council notes its past interest in reform of local government structure in our area, reflected in the motion overwhelmingly supported by members in November 2014* and the renewed public interest in it today.

 

Council notes that:

1.    Although many important partnership relationships are in place between this and other councils, that the current fragmentation of responsibilities and decision-making presents an unhelpful hurdle to strategic focus on the big range of issues which bind the city of Cambridge and the south of the county, affecting lives and livelihoods of all our residents.

2.    This fragmentation frequently leaves our residents confused about the location of responsibilities and accountability.

3.    Past doubts about the critical mass required to justify unitary status are being dispelled by recent and projected population growth in our area.

Council re-affirms its belief that:

1.    Power should reside as close to people as is consistent with effective decisions that impact them.

2.    For purposeful, democratic government, we should aspire to a single tier council, framed around the logical community of interest within an economic subregion: a shared area of identity within which most people both live and work.

3.    In our situation this would mean a unitary council for the southern part of Cambridgeshire.

In addition it affirms:

1.    Its continue commitment to the many, complex partnership arrangements of which it is a part as the best available current means of pursuing joined-up decision-making so long as local government structure remains as it is.

2.    Its awareness that even with a unitary council, working co-operatively and supportively with our neighbours would remain mutually essential.

3.    That the increasing expectations of change and economic growth that face us in this area make it no longer optimal that we have less dedicated local self-government than city areas such as Peterborough, York, Bedford, Reading or Bath.

4.    Its belief that a unitary council would better connect our residents to their representatives and service providers, and improve joined-up decision-making, and strengthen our voice in dialogue with central government.

Accordingly, Council renews its call on the Leader and Chief Executive to participate in discussions with other Cambridgeshire authorities and government to build a consensus for a new single tier authority for the south of the county with appropriate solutions for the remainder.

 

*Motion passed on November 6 2014 by 37 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions from the minutes

 

Resolved (by 37 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions) that:

Council notes:

i.               The urgent need to increase the relevance of public decision making to people’s daily lives and to rejuvenate our local democracy.

ii.             The opportunity to tackle this in an appropriate way in England following the Scottish referendum and the commitments made there for increased devolution from Westminster.

iii.            The recent report of the RSA City Growth Commission presenting just the latest evidence that city regions, if empowered to do so, can serve to boost national economic growth.

iv.           The groundswell of support in the local business community for a single council providing coordinated, accountable leadership for the Greater Cambridge area.

v.             The welcome debate opened up at the County Council for alternative approaches to local government in our area, to which the City Council will be asked to participate.

Council believes that:

i.               The survival of the proud tradition of municipal innovation and enterprise, which historically transformed social conditions and enabled strides in prosperity is under threat from the control tendencies of all recent governments.

ii.             There is much to do in our area, yet too often our locally elected representatives are circumscribed from taking actions that local people expect of them.

iii.            Both the unwieldly structure of local government covering the city of Cambridge and the centralisation of the vast majority of revenues arising from the area are major sources of frustration with the democratic process.

iv.           Power should reside as close to people as is consistent with making effective decisions that impact them.

v.             Irrespective of demarcations between councils, voluntary collaborations between them are being shown to offer economies of scale and critical mass where needed for cost effective service delivery.

vi.           For purposeful democratic, local government we should aspire to a single tier council framed around the logical community of interest within an economic sub region: a shared area of identity within which most people both live and work;

Council calls on the Leader and Chief Executive to:

i.               Participate in discussions with other Cambridgeshire authorities and Peterborough to seek a consensus for a single tier solution of several unitary authorities including one for greater Cambridge, and a local referendum if supported in principle, including full involvement of residents, local community organisations, the business community and Universities.

ii.             Seek in the interim negotiations with central Government on the Greater Cambridge City Deal acceleration of the already proposed legislation to enable a Greater Cambridge combined authority.

iii.            Develop and articulate the case for:

a.    The retention without strings of a majority of the public revenues arising in this area from business rates and other property based taxation, allowing for the remainder to be redeployed nationally for equalisation.

b.    Local accountability to local people for setting business rates and council tax levels.

c.    Clear devolution of powers from Whitehall, working in partnership with Cambridgeshire councils, Peterborough and similar city regions, to remove obstacles to sustainable growth for Greater Cambridge including

                                              i.     Lifting the Housing Revenue Account cap and transferring related housing powers

                                             ii.     Addressing additional strategic transport infrastructure that is essential but not covered by the City Deal or already agreed

                                           iii.     Increasing capital and revenue funding for schools and skills development

                                           iv.     Removing barriers to enable councils to tackle inequality, and

                                            v.     Strengthening local planning powers for Greater Cambridge.

iv.           A proportional voting system within a newly empowered local government.

v.             A national constitutional convention to provide the stimulus for a new mindset in Westminster and Whitehall and a general framework for progress in all these respects.

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Martinelli seconded the following motion: 

 

Council notes its past interest in reform of local government structure in our area, reflected in the motion overwhelmingly supported by members in November 2014* and the renewed public interest in it today.

 

Council notes that:

1.    Although many important partnership relationships are in place between this and other councils, that the current fragmentation of responsibilities and decision-making presents an unhelpful hurdle to strategic focus on the big range of issues which bind the city of Cambridge and the south of the county, affecting lives and livelihoods of all our residents.

2.    This fragmentation frequently leaves our residents confused about the location of responsibilities and accountability.

3.    Past doubts about the critical mass required to justify unitary status are being dispelled by recent and projected population growth in our area.

Council re-affirms its belief that:

1.    Power should reside as close to people as is consistent with effective decisions that impact them.

2.    For purposeful, democratic government, we should aspire to a single tier council, framed around the logical community of interest within an economic subregion: a shared area of identity within which most people both live and work.

3.    In our situation this would mean a unitary council for the southern part of Cambridgeshire.

In addition it affirms:

1.    Its continue commitment to the many, complex partnership arrangements of which it is a part as the best available current means of pursuing joined-up decision-making so long as local government structure remains as it is.

2.    Its awareness that even with a unitary council, working co-operatively and supportively with our neighbours would remain mutually essential.

3.    That the increasing expectations of change and economic growth that face us in this area make it no longer optimal that we have less dedicated local self-government than city areas such as Peterborough, York, Bedford, Reading or Bath.

4.    Its belief that a unitary council would better connect our residents to their representatives and service providers, and improve joined-up decision-making, and strengthen our voice in dialogue with central government.

Accordingly, Council renews its call on the Leader and Chief Executive to participate in discussions with other Cambridgeshire authorities and government to build a consensus for a new single tier authority for the south of the county with appropriate solutions for the remainder. 

 

Councillor Davey proposed and Councillor Griffin seconded the following amendment to the New Unitary Council motion. (Deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined.)

 

Council notes its past interest in reform of local government structure in our area, reflected in the motion overwhelmingly supported by members in November 2014* and the renewed public interest in it today.

 

Council notes that:

1.    There is renewed public interest in how Cambridge is governed.

2.    Although many important partnership relationships are in place between this and other councils, that the current fragmentation of responsibilities and decision-making presents an unhelpful hurdle to strategic focus on the big range of issues which bind the city of Cambridge and the south of the county, affecting lives and livelihoods of all our residents.

3.    This fragmentation frequently leaves many of our residents confused about the location of responsibilities and accountability.

4.    Past doubts about the critical mass required to justify unitary status are being questioned again, as they were in the 1890s, after both World Wars, in the 1950s and again in the 1960s. dispelled by recent and projected population growth in our area.

 

Council re-affirms its belief that:

1.    Power should reside as close to people as is consistent with effective decisions that impact them possible.

2.    For purposeful, democratic government, we should therefore consider whether aspire to a single tier council, amongst other options, framed around the urban geography of the city, is the most appropriate model of Government for our city. the logical community of interest within an economic subregion: a shared area of identity within which most people both live and work.

3.    We support the calls currently being made for deeper devolution of powers from central government and are committed to working with the Mayor to progress those discussions, for the benefit of both Cambridge and the wider region, to ensure we can best support our communities through the cost of living, climate and biodiversity emergencies. Specifically we believe devolution in relation to single funding settlements and fiscal powers, devolved skills and adult education budgets and clearer, transport responsibilities would give power back to local communities In our situation this would mean a unitary council for the southern part of Cambridgeshire.

 

In addition Council it affirms:

1.    Its continued commitment to the many, complex partnership arrangements of which it is a part as the best available current means of pursuing joined-up decision-making so long as local government structure remains as it is.

2.    Its awareness that even with a unitary council whatever model of Governance might emerge, working co-operatively and supportively with our neighbours would remain mutually partners and communities is essential to deliver better outcomes for our residents.

3.    That the increasing expectations of change and economic growth that face us in this area make it no longer optimal that we have less dedicated local self-government than city areas such as Peterborough, Luton, York, Bedford, Reading or Bath. In particular reference should be made to the structures in Manchester given that this city sits within a Combined Authority.

4.    Its belief that an alternative model of local government unitary council would could better connect our residents to their representatives and local service providers, and improve facilitate joined-up decision-making, and strengthen our voice in dialogue with central government and improve the life chances, health and wellbeing, and opportunities for our residents.

 

Accordingly, Council renews its call on asks the Leader and Chief Executive to participate in initiate discussions with other Authorities in the region and then central Government to identify options for a less fragmented and more cohesive model of Government for Cambridge, that best serves the needs of its residents. These discussions should involve and engage with the people of the city in a meaningful way, thereby recognising the need for our governance structures to reflect the wishes of the people we serve Cambridgeshire authorities and government to build a consensus for a new single tier authority for the south of the county with appropriate solutions for the remainder. 

 

*Motion passed on November 6 2014 by 37 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions from the minutes

Resolved (by 37 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions) that:

 

Council notes:

i.                The urgent need to increase the relevance of public decision making to people’s daily lives and to rejuvenate our local democracy.

ii.               The opportunity to tackle this in an appropriate way in England following the Scottish referendum and the commitments made there for increased devolution from Westminster.

iii.             The recent report of the RSA City Growth Commission presenting just the latest evidence that city regions, if empowered to do so, can serve to boost national economic growth.

iv.             The groundswell of support in the local business community for a single council providing coordinated, accountable leadership for the Greater Cambridge area.

v.              The welcome debate opened up at the County Council for alternative approaches to local government in our area, to which the City Council will be asked to participate.

 

Council believes that:

i.                The survival of the proud tradition of municipal innovation and enterprise, which historically transformed social conditions and enabled strides in prosperity is under threat from the control tendencies of all recent governments.

ii.               There is much to do in our area, yet too often our locally elected representatives are circumscribed from taking actions that local people expect of them.

iii.             Both the unwieldly structure of local government covering the city of Cambridge and the centralisation of the vast majority of revenues arising from the area are major sources of frustration with the democratic process.

iv.             Power should reside as close to people as is consistent with making effective decisions that impact them.

v.              Irrespective of demarcations between councils, voluntary collaborations between them are being shown to offer economies of scale and critical mass where needed for cost effective service delivery.

vi.             For purposeful democratic, local government we should aspire to a single tier council framed around the logical community of interest within an economic sub region: a shared area of identity within which most people both live and work;

 

Council calls on the Leader and Chief Executive to:

i.                Participate in discussions with other Cambridgeshire authorities and Peterborough to seek a consensus for a single tier solution of several unitary authorities including one for greater Cambridge, and a local referendum if supported in principle, including full involvement of residents, local community organisations, the business community and Universities.

ii.               Seek in the interim negotiations with central Government on the Greater Cambridge City Deal acceleration of the already proposed legislation to enable a Greater Cambridge combined authority.

iii.             Develop and articulate the case for:

a.    The retention without strings of a majority of the public revenues arising in this area from business rates and other property based taxation, allowing for the remainder to be redeployed nationally for equalisation.

b.    Local accountability to local people for setting business rates and council tax levels.

c.    Clear devolution of powers from Whitehall, working in partnership with Cambridgeshire councils, Peterborough and similar city regions, to remove obstacles to sustainable growth for Greater Cambridge including

                                                   i.     Lifting the Housing Revenue Account cap and transferring related housing powers

                                                  ii.     Addressing additional strategic transport infrastructure that is essential but not covered by the City Deal or already agreed

                                                iii.     Increasing capital and revenue funding for schools and skills development

                                                iv.     Removing barriers to enable councils to tackle inequality, and

                                                 v.     Strengthening local planning powers for Greater Cambridge.

iv.             A proportional voting system within a newly empowered local government.

v.              A national constitutional convention to provide the stimulus for a new mindset in Westminster and Whitehall and a general framework for progress in all these respects.

 

The amendment was carried by 24 votes to 10.

 

Resolved (by 34 votes to 0) that:

 

Council notes that:

1.    There is renewed public interest in how Cambridge is governed.

2.    Although many important partnership relationships are in place between this and other councils, that the current fragmentation of responsibilities and decision-making presents an unhelpful hurdle to strategic focus on the big range of issues which bind the city of Cambridge, affecting lives and livelihoods of all our residents.

3.    This fragmentation frequently leaves many of our residents confused about the location of responsibilities and accountability.

4.    Past doubts about the critical mass required to justify unitary status are being questioned again, as they were in the 1890s, after both World Wars, in the 1950s and again in the 1960s.

 

Council affirms that:

1.    Power should reside as close to people as is possible.

2.    For purposeful, democratic government, we should therefore consider whether a single tier council, amongst other options, framed around the urban geography of the city, is the most appropriate model of Government for our city.

3.    We support the calls currently being made for deeper devolution of powers from central government and are committed to working with the Mayor to progress those discussions, for the benefit of both Cambridge and the wider region, to ensure we can best support our communities through the cost of living, climate and biodiversity emergencies. Specifically we believe devolution in relation to single funding settlements and fiscal powers, devolved skills and adult education budgets and clearer, transport responsibilities would give power back to local communities.

 

In addition Council affirms:

1.    Its continued commitment to the many, complex partnership arrangements of which it is a part as the best available current means of pursuing joined-up decision-making so long as local government structure remains as it is.

2.    Its awareness that whatever model of Governance might emerge, working co-operatively and supportively with our partners and communities is essential to deliver better outcomes for our residents.

3.    That the increasing expectations of change and economic growth that face us in this area make it no longer optimal that we have less dedicated local self-government than city areas such as Peterborough, Luton, York, Bedford, Reading or Bath. In particular reference should be made to the structures in Manchester given that this city sits within a Combined Authority.

4.    Its belief that an alternative model of local government could better connect our residents to their representatives and local service providers, and facilitate joined-up decision-making, and strengthen our voice in dialogue with central government and improve the life chances, health and wellbeing, and opportunities for our residents.

 

Accordingly, Council asks the Leader and Chief Executive to initiate discussions with other Authorities in the region and then central Government to identify options for a less fragmented and more cohesive model of Government for Cambridge, that best serves the needs of its residents. These discussions should involve and engage with the people of the city in a meaningful way, thereby recognising the need for our governance structures to reflect the wishes of the people we serve.