Agenda item

To receive notices of motion under standing order 11.

(1)          Motion to be proposed by Councillor Debby Hallett, seconded by Councillor Judy Roberts:

Council notes that government is still open to practical suggestions for devolved government. Council notes that the benefits of devolution are far more likely to be achieved if council leaders in Oxfordshire are serious about reaching a consensus.

Council also notes that both of the recently-commissioned reports identified strengths and weaknesses in each proposal, and made recommendations for

addressing them.

Council believes these recommendations are capable of forming the basis for further discussion.

Council therefore:

·         Calls on all council leaders in the county to resume talks about a workable model of local government re-organisation, with the express intention of reaching a workable consensus, and with the primary objective of achieving the best outcomes for the people of Oxford in terms of service delivery and efficiencies 

·         Calls on the Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council to play a full and constructive part in such talks

 (2)      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Bob Johnston, seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby:

Given that HM Government has announced that the New Homes Bonus is to be top sliced to pay for Adult Social Services in areas such as Oxfordshire, this Council calls for the officers to prepare a report on the implications for the Vale's finances. The report should go to Scrutiny in the first instance and thence to Cabinet and Full Council.

(1)          Motion moved by Councillor Debby Hallett and seconded by Councillor Judy Roberts:

With the consent of Council, in accordance with standing order 24(4), Councillor Debby Hallett altered her motion to replace Oxford with Oxfordshire in the fifth line of bullet point two of the motion below.

“Council notes that government is still open to practical suggestions for devolved government. Council notes that the benefits of devolution are far more likely to be achieved if council leaders in Oxfordshire are serious about reaching a consensus.

Council also notes that both of the recently-commissioned reports identified strengths and weaknesses in each proposal, and made recommendations for

addressing them.

Council believes these recommendations are capable of forming the basis for further discussion.

Council therefore:

·         Calls on all council leaders in the county to resume talks about a workable model of local government re-organisation, with the express intention of reaching a workable consensus, and with the primary objective of achieving the best outcomes for the people of Oxfordshire in terms of service delivery and efficiencies 

·         Calls on the Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council to play a full and constructive part in such talks”.

There was general support for the motion. Councillors expressed the view that the current lack of agreement reduced the scope for savings and threatened service provision. Consensus was the only way to move forward. The residents of Oxfordshire expected an outcome from the money spent on the two option reports - one produced on behalf of Oxford City Council and the district councils and one on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council. The government had stated that the devolution deal, which would provide greater powers and funding, is dependent on new collaborative governance arrangements. Without an agreement there would be no devolution deal.

During the debate a councillor spoke in support of ‘option six’ referred to in Grant Thornton’s ‘Review of future options for local government in Oxfordshire’ produced on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council. This option envisages a strategic unitary council for Oxfordshire with overall responsibility for determining a framework of delegation of powers and budgets with constitutionally established area boards, based on the administrative boundaries of the current City and district councils, exercising these delegated powers and budgets. These area boards could have precept raising powers and have representation on the county-wide unitary executive board. This option would achieve savings through a reduction in administrative costs, improve the delivery of services and importantly ensure decisions are taken close to the communities.

However, other councillors expressed the view that ‘option six’ would recreate the two-tier system of local government which members of the public wanted to replace. The view was expressed that such an option would require legislative provision and that the ability for area boards to raise different council tax levels could prove contentious and confusing for residents. 

RESOLVED: To note that government is still open to practical suggestions for devolved government and that the benefits of devolution are far more likely to be achieved if council leaders in Oxfordshire are serious about reaching a consensus.

Council also notes that both of the recently-commissioned reports identified strengths and weaknesses in each proposal, and made recommendations for

addressing them.

Council believes these recommendations are capable of forming the basis for further discussion.

Council therefore:

·         Calls on all council leaders in the county to resume talks about a workable model of local government re-organisation, with the express intention of reaching a workable consensus, and with the primary objective of achieving the best outcomes for the people of Oxfordshire in terms of service delivery and efficiencies 

·         Calls on the Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council to play a full and constructive part in such talks

 (2)      Motion moved by Councillor Bob Johnston and seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby:

“Given that HM Government has announced that the New Homes Bonus is to be top sliced to pay for Adult Social Services in areas such as Oxfordshire, this Council calls for the officers to prepare a report on the implications for the Vale's finances. The report should go to Scrutiny in the first instance and thence to Cabinet and Full Council”.

Those councillors who spoke in support of the motion expressed the view that New Homes Bonus was critical to the finances of the council. A move by the government to divert some of this money to support adult services could have financial implications for the council. However, other councillors expressed the view that, whilst the government had consulted upon an amended New Homes Bonus scheme earlier in the year, the outcome of the consultation had not been published. It was therefore premature to commission the work requested in the motion. The government financial settlement would contain more detail at which time an informed analysis could be undertaken.

The chairman called for a recorded vote on the motion which was lost with the votes recorded as follows: