Agenda item

Please note that the Motions on Notice will be published in a Supplementary Papers Pack to this agenda.

 

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the Motions on Notice.  This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

 

The Chairman confirmed that there were three Motions on Notice submitted for consideration at this Council meeting. However, Members were informed that prior to the meeting, the first Motion had been withdrawn and would not be debated.

 

As detailed in Minute No 75/24 – Declarations of Interest, Councillor R. Lambert left the Council Chamber prior to the consideration of this Motion on Notice.

 

English Devolution White Paper

 

The following Motion on Notice was submitted by Councillor D. Nicholl for Council’s consideration:

 

“Given the recent English Devolution White Paper:

 

Bromsgrove District Council calls on officers to prepare a business case for the cabinet on the merits of a North Worcestershire unitary authority versus that of a Worcestershire wide unitary authority or any other model to set out the best way forward to represent the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages.”

 

The Motion was proposed by Councillor D. Nicholl and seconded by Councillor S. Evans.

 

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Nicholl referred to the recent White Paper that had been released regarding the Government’s devolution proposals. In doing so, it was outlined that the Government proposed to make Leaders at local level more accountable and for power to return to those who had ‘more skin in the game.’ It was noted that each decision on how power would be devolved would be made on a case-by-case basis. It was suggested that the decision to devolve power must have an outcome that was best for the residents of Bromsgrove, and it was important that all potential structures be explored. A North Worcestershire unitary authority might not be the best model to deliver services to the residents. Although there had been communications released regarding a Worcestershire County wide unitary authority, this had not been debated or voted on and therefore it was not known if this was the most suitable structure for the future. Councillor Nicholl expressed the view that it was vital that this Motion be passed in order to start the process and provide urgent answers to central Government.

 

Following the proposal of the Motion, an amendment was proposed by Councillor P. McDonald and seconded by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke. The amendment was as follows:

 

“Given the recent English Devolution White Paper:

 

Bromsgrove District Council call on Officers to prepare a business case, for discussion at a future extraordinary meeting of the Council, on the merits of a North Worcestershire unitary authority versus that of a Worcestershire wide unitary authority or any other model to set out the best way forward to represent the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages.”

 

In proposing the amendment to the substantive Motion, Councillor McDonald explained that devolution would be a good outcome for residents, as it would empower local communities and target their needs and aspirations. However, it was right to wait until further information had been provided by the Government before making any decisions. This way all the facts would be available, and an informed decision could be made.

 

Councillor Rone-Clarke, in seconding the amendment to the Motion, stated that following discussions at the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee meetings where the White Paper had been highlighted as a risk,he felt that the process should not be rushed.

 

Some Members queried the content of the amendment as to why there would need to be an Extraordinary Council meeting in order to consider this in the future. It was explained that any submission made to the Government would need to be a Council decision and therefore if the timing of the submission did not fit within the current Committee schedule, then an Extraordinary Council meeting would be required in March 2025. Members further queried why this meeting would need to be held in March. Officers confirmed that the Government had indicated that an interim proposal would be required at this time, with two further submission dates in May 2025 and Autumn 2025. However, the exact dates were still to be confirmed by Government.

 

The amendment was accepted by Councillor D. Nicholl and therefore became part of the substantive Motion.

 

Councillor C. Hotham proposed a further amendment to the Motion

 

“Given the recent English Devolution White Paper:

 

Bromsgrove District Council call on Officers to provide a progress report at the Council meeting due to be held on 19^th February 2025 and to prepare a business case, for discussion at a future extraordinary meeting of the Council, and an all Member briefing, on the merits of a North Worcestershire unitary authority versus that of a Worcestershire wide unitary authority or any other model to set out the best way forward to represent the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages.”

 

Following the presentation of the second amendment the Monitoring Officer reported that there might not be any further detailed information known by the date of the following meeting of the Council on 19^th February 2025, and therefore it might be more appropriate to arrange a Group Leaders’ meeting or all-Member briefing prior to consideration at an Extraordinary Council meeting. The Chief Executive further stated that this would be possible prior to the next Council meeting in February once the Council was in receipt of further details of a potential framework from the Government. Some Members queried whether a briefing was necessary and if there would be Officer capacity to provide this information within such tight timeframes. It was confirmed that this would be achievable.

 

Therefore, the second amendment proposed by Councillor C. Hotham was accepted by Councillor D. Nicholl as the proposer of the original Motion. The substantive Motion therefore was debated as follows:

 

“Given the recent English Devolution White Paper:

 

Bromsgrove District Council call on Officers to prepare a business case, for discussion at a future extraordinary meeting of the Council, and an all Member briefing, on the merits of a North Worcestershire unitary authority versus that of a Worcestershire wide unitary authority or any other model to set out the best way forward to represent the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages.”

 

Councillor P. Whittaker queried whether there would be a need to hold an Extraordinary Council meeting and suggested that it would be more effective to bring a progress report when they were ‘furnished with any further information from the Government so Members could be appraised of any progress in respect of future governance of the District.’ It was suggested that this would allow Officers only to hold a meeting if required. However, it was confirmed that whatever the progress report contained, there would still need to be an Extraordinary Council meeting held in order to discuss any proposals with all Members of the Council.

 

The Chief Executive confirmed that although a business case had been used in the wording used within the Motion, there was not a requirement from the Government to provide a full business case at this time. The interim submission in March would be proposals that could be debated at an Extraordinary Council meeting.

 

On being put to the vote it was

 

RESOLVED that

 

“Given the recent English Devolution White Paper:

 

Bromsgrove District Council call on Officers to prepare a business case, for discussion at a future extraordinary meeting of the Council, and an all Member briefing, on the merits of a North Worcestershire unitary authority versus that of a Worcestershire wide unitary authority or any other model to set out the best way forward to represent the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages.”

 

Councillor R. Lambert returned to the Council Chamber prior to the consideration of this Motion on Notice.

 

Cancellation of Worcestershire County Council Elections

 

Councillor J. Robinson presented the following Motion on Notice for Council’s consideration.

 

“Bromsgrove District Council believes that the County Council elections should go ahead as planned in May and any suggestion of them being cancelled is premature.”

 

The Motion was proposed by Councillor J. Robinson and seconded by Councillor S. Evans.

 

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Robinson explained that correspondence had been received two weeks prior to this meeting from the Leader of Worcestershire County Council (WCC) stating that he had requested that the County Council elections due to be held in May 2025 should be cancelled. It was reported that there had been no discussion with any Member at WCC when this communication was received. Councillor Robinson felt that this decision was not taken democratically and that a unified position had not been agreed by the Councils across Worcestershire. It was stated that the County Council had no mandate to cancel elections and indeed it was for the residents to decide who the County Councillors would be following the elections and therefore who would have the mandate going forward.

 

Members debated this Motion in detail. During the discussion, some Members raised that this was not strictly a Motion by definition and should not have been debated at this meeting. This was because Council did not have the power to make decisions on behalf of the County Council. The directive had come from the current Government who had proposed devolution as part of its election manifesto.

 

There was some dissatisfaction in respect of the manner of the debate expressed by some Members. It was noted that Motions were submitted in the correct manner and either accepted or rejected by the Monitoring Officer as appropriate. Negotiations did take place prior to the publication of both Motions and Questions and this relied on understanding and generosity from all Members. There was a request made by some Members that Motions and Questions be looked at more closely prior to publication in order to prevent confusion and frustration as to what was to be debated at Council meetings and what powers the Council had to effect decisions within the Motions. It was understood that this was a difficult Motion for Members to debate given the situation in national politics. However, it was important to discuss such matters and that other Councillors within the County had made their feelings known regarding this matter. Although this had been the case, it was reported that these communications had been from specific politicians within the County and not from a Council as a whole which was what the Motion proposed. If Members wished to make their opinions known they could take the opportunity to write to the Secretary of State as individuals.

 

It was explained that details from the Government had been received and it was noted that any County Council on the accelerated list for devolution might have their elections deferred. Members were informed that the cost of a County Council election was approximately £500,000 and therefore to hold an unnecessary election would be at the cost of the taxpayer and there were likely to be future elections as part of the devolution process to elect shadow unitary authority Members.

 

It was reported that residents had expressed their disappointment at the possible cancellation of the County elections. However, it was raised that devolution would take place whether there were elections or not and that both WCC and Bromsgrove District Council would cease to exist in their current structure in the future.

 

Councillor J. Robinson requested a named vote in respect of this Motion.

 

Members Voting FOR the Motion: Councillors Ammar, Clarke, Evans, Hotham, Hunter, Nicholl and J. Robinson (7).

 

Members voting AGAINST the Motion: Councillors Baxter, Jones, Kumar, Lambert, May, Nock, Stanley, Taylor, Webb and Whittaker (10).

 

Members voting to ABSTAIN in the vote: Councillors A. Bailes, R. Bailes, Forsythe, Gray, Hopkins, Marshall, McDonald and Rone-Clarke (8).

 

Not present for the vote (excluding those who gave apologies in advance): Councillors Colella (had left the meeting room but was present for most of the debate) and Peters (had left the meeting by this point).

 

Therefore, the vote on this Motion was defeated.