Agenda item

7.1  The Vice Chair reminded Commission Members of the questions in the terms of reference for the review. She observed that devolution was a moving piece. The main focus for this item was on Members shaping recommendations. However prior to that she asked for a brief update from Ian Williams and Cllr Taylor.

7.2  Ian Williams provided a verbal update of the key devolution deals which were under negotiation at the moment:

7.3  Employment and Skills: Last year, the Council sought to align itself with the Central London Forward (CLF) grouping. In June this year the CLF Board agreed to extend CLF’s work on devolution, and employment and skills to Haringey, Tower Hamlets, Lewisham and Hackney. Hackney was formally invited by Mayor of Newham Robin Wales and Leader of Waltham Forest Cllr Chris Robbins to join the Local London partnership in December 2015 and in January 2016 Local London was formally constituted with Barking and Dagenham, Enfield, Greenwich, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. We requested to defer our consideration and re-stated the value of continuing to work as part of the Growth Boroughs on issues such as Convergence, transport and employment. We noted that geographies around opportunities for devolution were still clearly very fluid and, we therefore needed to remain open to working in different geographies in the future.

7.4  Government review of Further Education and devolution of skills funding:Hackney is part of the central London area for the purposes for the review which seeks to rationalise FE provision to ensure financial sustainability of colleges. Brooke House has submitted a proposal to remain a standalone sixth form, with a reduced curriculum based on areas of highest student demand. 

7.5  Health:  a detailed presentation from Paul Haigh went to Health in Hackney on Monday October 10^th. The focus currently is on the STP – Sustainability and Transformation Plan – for which Hackney is in the north east London region.

7.6  Work and health programme: DWP has issued the OJEU notice for the Work and Health Programme, establishing a national framework umbrella agreement for employment and health related support services. The timetable for the launch of the programme is November 2017, with a staggered start from November 2017 – February 2018. The umbrella agreement is designed to allow London to run a devolved Work and Health Programme. 

7.7  Discussion on devolution deal for London: The Government has invited London to agree a devolution deal in time for the Autumn statement on November 23^rd. The view is that the outcome of the EU referendum has opened up the potential for a more ambitious devolution deal for London.

7.8  Ian Williams pointed Commission Members towards the London Councils Devolution briefing. He also referenced the way that local authorities in London had pooled pension funds as a successful example of devolution and also suggested that the Commission should consider business rates devolution in greater detail.

7.9  Being involved in overlapping devolution deals was both a problem and an advantage. A scheme could be very rational scheme but entail a greater loss of local control.

7.10  Members stated the need for a local plan for devolution that set out priorities that we would want to see out of any devolution arrangement. This plan would set out:

·  What are we trying to combine

·  What is the public accountability

·  What are we trying to get out of this?

7.11  The Vice Chair outlined the exercise she wanted Members to undertake next to develop recommendations. She suggested Members should refer to the crosscutting issues raised in the briefing provided by overview and scrutiny officer (Power, Responsibility and Resources, Accountability Structures and Public Engagement) and identify recommendations under the following groupings:

·  General principles

·  Actual actions

·  Skills set required.

Whilst it was fine to undertake the exercise, Members stressed the importance of contributing to an overall strategy.

Having undertaken the exercise it was agreed that Members were not yet in a positon to draft recommendations and the Vice Chair proposed spending more time on this in November rather than drafting a general report of recommendations. She asked if there was a plan where all approaches were summarised. Cllr Taylor referred to the London Councils Paper. There was currently no local plan or strategy. 

Members acknowledged that there was still a lot of uncertainty and unanswered questions that even those leading devolution deals could not yet answer. It was important to engage further with officers. The Vice Chair clarified that the Commission would not be helping draft a strategy or plan but had highlighted through this review the lack of one. Members felt that it was nevertheless important to consider what the Commission’s contribution could be. They had to oversee a process through which governance and resources were better used. Members wanted to clarify if there was someone thinking about how all of this fits together and what the costs and benefits were. The advantages of a plan would be to:

Set up the variable geography

Identify the key priorities, benefits and costs

Consider what form of accountability should be set up

Ian Williams explained that Cllr McShane is the new lead for devolution overall. The challenge is that neither the partnerships nor the geographies are obvious.

It was important not to be parochial and to consider the bigger picture.

Cllr Taylor reminded the Commission that the discussion was considering two different things – partnership working and devolution. However there was a discussion about the fact it was not always possible to make that distinction.

Ian Williams stated that some government departments were not interested in devolution.  The judgement had to be made as to whether local areas were being set up to fail or whether deals would deliver limited benefits.