Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Thursday 9 February 2023, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-
· at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
One public question was submitted by Mrs Anne Seex in regard to agenda item 7 as follows:
The report on this agenda about devolution says
‘It would be appropriate to decide not to submit the Scheme and Consultation Summary if it was felt that the consultation process has not been robust….
The quality assurance provided by the Consultation Institute to date suggests that the consultation process has been robust.’
This is a case of a private company ‘marking its own homework’ and the Executive should look further before accepting that there has been ‘consultation’ and that it has been ‘robust’.
The exercise would be better described as ‘marketing’ the information to the public was purely promotional and omitted important contextual information such as:
• the only elected position on the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) will be the Mayor.
• York City Council, population 211,000, will appoint 2 Councillors and North Yorkshire Council, population 607,000 will also appoint 2 Councillors.
• powers that are currently vested in directly-elected Councillors on the two authorities will be ‘sucked up’ to the MCA e.g. strategic highways and public transport
• the MCA will be able to ‘call in’ and decide on planning applications [ippr].
• the funding supposedly attached to the ‘deal’ is £210 million (28%) less than the bid from the two Councils [ippr].
• the supposed funding amounts to about £22 pp per year while Council spending across the north has been reduced by £431 pp per year in the decade 2010 to 2020 by Government action
• is insignificant compared to locally raised revenue - the domestic Council tax yield in North Yorkshire alone is £662 per person.
• most of the powers that the marketing information trumpets for the MCA [DLUHC] are already exercised by the two Councils e.g. transport and highways ‘Key highway and traffic authority functions to be transferred from LAs to MCAs’ [DoT], compulsory purchase, housing investment.
• the claimed ‘devolution’ of the Adult Education Budget excludes apprenticeships and traineeships. It offers only ‘…input into the new Local Skills Improvement Plan’ [DLUHC].
• Government funding in the future can never be relied upon and even the supposed devolution funding is subject to 5 yearly ‘gateway’ reviews with HM Treasury [DLUHC].
• ‘Any long-term future funding for the integration of LEP functions and roles will be subject to future funding decisions and business planning.’ [DLUHC]
• £13 million 2023 -2025 for new homes on brownfield land ‘…subject to sufficient eligible projects being identified…’. [DLUHC]
• £2.65 million on projects for affordable, low carbon homes across the area ‘…subject to final business cases’. [DLUHC]
The on-line ‘consultation’ responses are 0.3% of the electorate. There is no report of how the responses divide between North Yorkshire and York - critical information for NY County Councillors.
The full report from Westco on the focus groups (appended to appendix 1) is inaccessible but it is clear from page 99 Appendix 1 that the NY residents who participated saw more disadvantages than advantages. The way that comments made on-line have been ‘unassigned’ bears scrutiny.
The Consultation Institute is a private company with no academic or professional status. It was engaged, without competition or tendering, at the outset for the ‘consultation’ exercise so it is hardly ‘independent’ when it comes to assessing whether the process was ‘robust’. Strangely, after 15 days the Council’s procurement unit has not responded to requests for information about how it was selected when the usual timescale for reply is 5 days.
In response, James Farrar, Chief Operating Officer of York and North Yorkshire LEP addressed the points raised about the information shared within the consultation, the reach and response rate and the use of The Consultation Institute.
Firstly, he noted the consultation had taken place on the scheme, setting out how the Devolution Deal will be implemented, and not the relative merits of devolution itself. He explained the consultation structure and content was shared and discussed with government officials throughout its development prior to it being finalised and consulted upon. The consultation questions were similar to previous devolution consultations from other authorities that have successfully gone through this process.
He confirmed the consultation was widely promoted both publicly and through local networks and included a number of drop in sessions across both North Yorkshire and York, where residents could ask questions should they wish. The response rate exceeded the response rate received in any of the neighbouring devolution deals which have already been implemented and are now investing in their local communities. Traditionally the subject matter receives a low response rate from the public and therefore it was helpful that we got as many responses as we did.
The Consultation Institute were used because of their expertise and also experience in supporting consultations for other Devolution Deals. The ultimate decision on whether we have met the requirements of the Gunning Principles, which govern public consultation, lies with the constituent councils and North Yorkshire County Council are satisfied that the principles have been met. Ultimately, if it is decided to pass the consultation responses on to government, it will be for them to assess the suitability of the consultation process.
As a supplementary to the response received, Mrs Seex asked:
Will the North Yorkshire County Councillors get a breakdown of the responses received from North Yorkshire residents, York residents and people where no location is given?
County Councillor Carl Les responded that this would feed into the discussions when considering the ‘York and North Yorkshire Devolution - Outcome of Consultation’ report at agenda item 7.