Agenda item

Purpose of report:

To provide the Committee with an opportunity to engage with and contribute to the council’s approach to developing and securing a devolution deal for the county. This report and accompanying Annex 1 set out the context behind this work, some of the potential key areas of focus for a deal, and the council’s approach to developing the proposal collaboratively.

Cameron McIntosh left the meeting at 10:07am

Witnesses:

Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council

Rebecca Paul, Deputy Cabinet Member for Levelling Up

Michael Coughlin, Executive Director Partnerships, Prosperity and Growth

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. Vice-Chairman inquired if the devolution deal would provide Surrey County Council (SCC) any meaningful powers and whether any such deal would be fully funded to allow delivery. The Leader of the Council informed that a Level 2 deal would not guarantee any new or additional funding. Two aspects that might bring some funding within a Level 2 deal were around skills and adult learning – funding was currently provided through Local Enterprise Partnerships Scheme (LEPs). A Level 2 deal would provide the County Council the powers and responsibility to address the SCC’s key focus areas of growing a sustainable economy, tackling health inequality, enabling a greener future and empowering communities.

2. A Member asked for clarity around the specific powers that would be devolved. The Leader of the Council said that potential devolved powers identified by the government had been set out in the ‘Devolution Deal for Surrey’ paper with areas for further devolution to be discussed more broadly with the districts and boroughs.  

3. A Member noted that the government had confirmed there would be no financial assistance to authorities to offset the powers devolved. The Leader of the Council said that devolution of the LEPs and adult education functions could bring with them pre-existing funding already available to them, this would be the only additional funding available through a Level 2 deal.

4. A Member queried if the SCC would submit a devolution bid if the districts and boroughs were not in agreement. The Leader of the Council noted that districts and boroughs had no right of veto, however following the positive engagement that had taken place following a programme of visits to various districts and boroughs to explain the deal, no opposition had been raised so far and the aim was to reach a unanimous approach.

5. The Member asked if Surrey County Council expected to take over any of the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding that were currently district funded sources. The Leader of the Council noted the SPF’s priority of supporting economic development and SCC needed to consider this within functional economic areas on a county wide level to achieve the greatest possible financial benefit. CIL funding was a matter for government to change or offer guidance on but the Leader of the Council noted the importance of using CIL to support the infrastructure and mitigate the impact of housing developments.

6. A Member asked for clarification regarding the transfer of LEP, SPF and CIL funding and enquired what would happen if all the districts and boroughs voted against a county deal. The Leader of the Council explained that examples of pots of money that may be included in a county deal had been provided to districts and boroughs and would follow conversations between all three tiers of government to ensure a wider benefit to residents. It was hoped that districts and boroughs would continue to engage positively and share the SCC’s aims as part of a county deal.   

7. The Chairman asked for clarity on the role of the LEPs and their position within a county deal. The Executive Director for Partnerships, Prosperity and Growth explained the discussions currently taking place with Coast to Capital and Enterprise M3, LEPs were?  to join to create a singular offer in the Surrey Enterprise Hub. The proposal to bring the four main LEP local government functions was under discussion with districts and boroughs as well as economic development officers. These responsibilities would be assumed with the transferral of funding they have already received and the appropriate elements of that funding deployed at the most appropriate level.

8. The Chairman, in reference to the Level 2 powers noted in the report, asked what ‘some local control of sustainable transport’ meant in practice. The Leader of the Council noted that this could potentially include the ability to introduce bus franchising in addition to the transfer of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing to the upper tier authority.

9. The Chairman, in reference to the last bullet point on slide 10 ‘facilitating conditions for double devolution under a county deal’ asked what those conditions would be in practice. The Leader of the Council explained that there was no commitment to particular functions but encouraging engagement with the districts and boroughs to identify their priorities was key. 

10. A Member asked when the scrutiny of the suggested areas for focus noted on slide 27 would take place, as no business cases had been submitted to date. The Leader of the Council said that a detailed business case would be produced during the summer to come back to the Select Committee in the autumn.

11. A Member noted that the centralisation of taxi licencing powers and the Surrey Enterprise Hub had not been mentioned during the recent consultation with Reigate and Banstead district. The Leader of the Council said that these were government suggestions and it was not yet known if SCC would be perusing them as part of a bid. The Leader of the Council reiterated that this was not a consultation with districts and boroughs, rather a conversation and the opportunity to explain and discuss the administration of any bid with feedback would be sought at the end of the process.

12. A Member, in reference to the Level 2 powers noted in the report ‘some local control of sustainable transport’ suggested the inclusion of fare setting powers to address inequality and provide more affordable public transport.   

13. A Member asked if there were additional governance and scrutiny structures planned within the SCC. The Leader of the Council said that a conversation could be had if Members did not feel there was enough scrutiny by raising it with the Chairman of the Chair & Vice Chair Select Committee. A Member said that their question did not refer to current scrutiny but scrutiny and governance around the proposals that will be provided in the autumn as some areas would require separate focus and resources. The Chairman noted that the provision of further reports as mentioned by the Leader of the Council previously would steer this process.  

14. A Member said that an update on the timelines from this point would be useful due to the changes expected going forward.  

15. A Member asked what the barriers were to agreeing a deal with the government who were on record as saying that they want to secure a deal where Level 1, 2 and 3 powers are built in and asked for a commitment that SCC would work for a deal that includes all three levels of powers, meaningful to the residents of Surrey. The Leader of the Council said that the government were clear that to acquire Level 3 powers, a directly elected mayor, leader, or single accountable individual would be required, therefore subsuming all the Level 3 powers into a level 2 conversation would not work. It was expected that in a straightforward Level 2 deal, 80 per cent would be common to all authorities with the possibility that the other 20 per cent could be tailored to local circumstances. SCC would be ambitious in its submission with one bid based on the bill and a supplementary submission setting out the areas that would be beneficial for SCC to manage itself.

16. A Member questioned if SCC skills development would be advanced by going forward with a Level 2 bid. The Leader of the Council noted the skill shortage in many areas and said that a Level 2 deal would provide the responsibility, opportunity and some funding into a local skills improvement plan to set out a clear path, this was currently being developed.

17. A Member asked if residents had been consulted regarding their thoughts on a democratically elected Mayor for Surrey. The Leader of the Council confirmed that there had been no discussion or consultation with residents and said that Members were free to request this course of action.

18. A Vice-Chairman noted concern regarding the ambitious timescale for this project and invited comments regarding this. The Leader of the Council said that there was nothing within the Level 2 powers that required SCC to change current processes.

Resolved:

The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee:

1. Supports the objective of Surrey seeking a County Deal on the basis of Levels 1 and 2, agrees with the principal stakeholders identified, and the proposed timetable.

2. Commends a cautious assessment, including any future governance, of what a Level 2 County Deal for Surrey will mean in practice, particularly for residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders to avoid raising expectations that may not be satisfied. This should be reflected in all communications and engagements. 

3. Requests that the Surrey County Council continues to bring boroughs and districts on board to develop a broader consensus in order to jointly support the journey for a County Deal. 

4. Asks that an update report – including a timeline, further and specific details raised (CIL, LEP funding, transport, skills shortage and apprenticeships mapping across the county etc.) – be brought back to the Select Committee by October 2022.

Cameron McIntosh re-joined the meeting at 11:08am.