Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet has voted unanimously to ask formally to take part in the government’s “devolution priority programme”.
The aim is for Sussex to be run by an elected mayor and a “combined authority”, taking strategic decisions for the entire county. Smaller district and borough councils face being scrapped in favour of new bigger unitary councils.
Labour council leader Bella Sankey told a special cabinet meeting at Hove Town Hall today (Thursday 9 January) that it was an exciting moment and an opportunity for Brighton and Hove.
The decision today, she said, was not about the future of the council. It was about whether to be part of a proposed new strategic authority making the sort of decisions currently often taken by officials in Whitehall.
Councillor Sankey said, in answer to questions, that the request to become part of a “mayoral combined authority” covering all of Sussex would not mean changing the boundary of Brighton and Hove.
East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council also held cabinet meetings today and agreed to make the same joint request to the government along with Brighton and Hove.
Councillor Sankey was asked several questions by opposition Green councillors about the proposal for an elected Sussex mayor and what it would mean for the council and its staff.
She was asked what it would mean for the number of councillors and the number of people each councillor would represent.
The same government “white paper” that covers devolution and elected mayors also proposes scrapping district councils, sometimes known as borough councils. These run local services such as housing, planning and rubbish and recycling collections.
They would be replaced by unitary councils covering a wider area and serving a bigger population – ideally about 500,000. Some believe that Brighton and Hove could be too small to survive although no decision is likely for months.
Councillor Sankey said that a new mayor would benefit the wider community by having more say over transport, housing and even the National Health Service.
The Labour leader said: “I see this as a really exciting moment and an opportunity for our city and our region.
“I’m optimistic and ambitious about devolution because of the direct benefits that it would bring to our residents, our businesses and our community.
“There is already an extensive economic and business case for Sussex devolution to build on the experience across all of our local authority boundaries.
“Overall, Sussex is an economically prosperous region but there are significant disparities within our region with pockets of deprivation and unmet potential.
“Devolution has the potential to turn these challenges into opportunities and to support collaboration to drive economic and social benefits.”
She addressed concerns that Brighton and Hove might lose its identity if it becomes part of a larger unitary authority, repeatedly saying that being part of local government reorganisation was not something sought by the council.
A member of the public, Ben Thomas, asked whether the council was seeking to be exempt from the government’s proposal to create more unitary authorities with a population of 500,000.
Or, given that the population of Brighton and Hove was about 280,000, would the boundaries have to be extended, he asked.
Councillor Sankey said that this was not a discussion that Brighton and Hove City Council was having with the government or “in earnest” with any neighbouring council.
She said: “It is worth saying what is clear in the white paper – there is a clear vote of confidence in unitary authorities, including Brighton and Hove.
“They (the government) believe unitary authorities like us are best placed to deliver high-quality public services.
“It’s clear they see more potential in unitary authorities. We can deliver better, have greater coverage and be in the driving seat of total place leadership.
“It’s an exciting moment to be in a unitary authority and to look at what the government has in store.”
Quoting an old local saying, Councillor Sankey added that, as a Sussex woman, she “wunt be druv”.
Green councillor Pete West said that decision taken today by the cabinet should also have to be ratified by the full council and subject to a public referendum.
He said that it was best not to place the future of millions in the hands of just one person when there was no precedent to concentrate so much power into the hands on one person.
Councillor West said: “Decisions are best taken at the lowest possible level – bottom-up government – where we can co-create with our communities the changes needed to tackle climate change and build a sustainable society.”
He called for “doing things with communities – not doing things to communities, as a concentration and remoteness of power in a Sussex mayor and three giant unitary councils will mean”.
Fellow Green councillor Raphael Hill said that voters in Scotland and Wales each had a referendum on devolution during the last Labour government – as did those in the north east of England. The latter rejected a devolution plan.
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor cited the book Failed State by Sam Freedman in which the former policy adviser said that our government departments and ministers were overmighty and overwhelmed.
Councillor Taylor said that councils in Britain spent a much lower proportion of taxpayer funds compared with other countries’ local authorities.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, the council’s cabinet member for transport, sustainability and the public realm, said that Sussex devolution would have “substantial benefits” for integrated transport.
He said: “The public transport offer can be considerably better within a devolved region, compared with a smaller unitary authority.”
He cited Greater London, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, adding: “London’s integrated transport system – as Transport for London – offers interconnected tickets for buses, the underground, trams and trains.”
In Manchester and Liverpool, they had more local say on buses and budgets. He said: “When the national bus fare cap was increased last year, both Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region were better placed to keep the £2 fare.”
The government white paper on devolution set out policy areas where strategic authorities could be expected to shape public services. The list, which may expand, includes
- Transport and local infrastructure
- Skills and employment support
- Housing and strategic planning
- Economic development and regeneration
- Environment and climate change
- Health, wellbeing and public service reform
- Public safety
Live posts from the cabinet meeting are available to view on @bhdemocracynews.bsky.social Bluesky bsky.app/profile/did:plc:drhjjfrozftmeoldhxniydyu/post/3lfclfjb3xs2h, Skyview social and from @BHDemocracyNews on Twitter/X through Threadreader.
Can there be any sight more pitiful than the silent screams of whipped Labour turkeys being forced to vote for Christmas?
An elected Mayor will be the least of both their and our problems.
They should take courage from their Labour Councillor Colleagues up North and do what needs to be done in the face of this attack on democracy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewxrzq0489o
It’s undergoing moderation in another post currently, but I’ve detailed why devolution is beneficial to democracy according to academia.
The article does suggest communication and understanding of the subject is really important though.
Benjamin, you claimed under a previous post that “Referendums have no legal standing according to academia”. Please therefore explain how academic modelling has legal standing, never mind when applied to democracy and without a public referendum? Or the Gunning principles?
Nor is modelling based on academic theory known for its accuracy when applied to real life.
It is not academics who count in this debate, but Sussex residents finding these theoretical scientific and social models imposed on them in real life and without their consent, undemocratically from on high, who matter. Also where will the liability lie if and when the social experiment goes horribly wrong? Let’s hear the terms and conditions of this deal, the alternative options and the get out clauses, before we agree to it.
We are human beings with rights and, in this country, can only be governed by our consent, which has not yet been sought in the matter of devolution.
Absolutely, Mike. Whilst academic theories are not laws, they often inform policy-making. Academic research provides frameworks for understanding potential outcomes and risks, which are important for informed decision-making, it helps to create guidelines and frameworks logically.
Such as the Gunning Principles you refer to.
They are not always perfect predictors of real-life outcomes, this is true. They are, however, tools to anticipate and inform decisions; and that is why research is never a one-and-done situation – rather one that is continuously evaluated and adjusted accordingly, based on real-world data and outcomes. It’s why meta-analysis are more compelling than a single study, for example.
Academia is important because it is robust, scientific, and creates strong factual information on any particular subject, avoiding common pitfalls such as emotive fallacy; and political biases. On devolution, there is already a lot of information available that helps to inform some initial thoughts.
We still need further details about what this specifically will entail, so we can only really talk about it at a broad level for now. Once there is a more specific proposal in place, I would say that is the best time to gather opinions.
Consultations that don’t adhere to the four Gunning Principles are subject to Judicial Review.
Yet you are dismissing this fact as being of nIl legal importance and ascribing more importance to academic modelling and theory with NO legal weight, just a few study links.
To be clear, you are signalling a personal bias here which makes no sense. Unless you have a personal vested interest in bypassing the democratic processes.
Mike, I’m not dismissing the importance of the Gunning Principles; I fully acknowledge their critical role in ensuring lawful consultations and their basis in case law.
My point is that while they are not statutory law, their legal weight comes from judicial precedent, which is itself informed by both legal reasoning and academic thought.
Far from bypassing democratic processes, I’m emphasising that these principles and the devolution framework under the Localism Act 2011 are well-established mechanisms, both legally and academically.
My perspective is rooted in these foundations, not bias or personal interest.”
This should mean less council managers with those that remain getting a broader oversight with presumably lower costs instead of multi managing the same projects, doesn’t really require several Mayors all repeating the job in several mini fiefdoms, bring out yer dead, get the job done instead of administrating it into oblivion. Only 1 circus can only have so many monkeys.
I can’t imagine Billingshurst are going to thank Brighton and Hove for deciding their parking charges. Or anyone thanking Brighton and Hove for imposing Cityclean on them. Any proposed savings due to economies of scale will take years and be vastly outweighed by the cost of reorganising and devoluting the entire county for no proven taxpayer benefit.
If the idea is to rip off the whole county and impose ridiculous traffic, council tax, parking charges and surveillance schemes throughout to the same extent as Brighton and Hove, I can foresee angry mobs marching across Sussex bearing flaming pitchforks for Sankey to face.
One thing to remember about we Sussex folk. “We won’t be druv” as Sankey attempted to misappropriate at yesterday’s council meeting, turning the ‘we’ into an ‘I’ for her own political gain.
She owns the title “me myself and I”
Are you conflating the idea that there would only be one parking rate across all of Sussex? Because that’s just an absurd notion. There is a lot of proof that shows the benefits, and risks of devolution, so I’m afraid this isn’t accurate either.
Kind of ironic that Bella Sankey misapplies the Sussex phrase, saying SHE “wunt be druv” when it’s normally WE “wunt be druv” or “Sussex wunt be druv”.
She’s talking about electing mayor if a super large local authority handing one person huge power over Sussex people. Her decisions at the council should be about residents, not her, and unless her and her colleagues allow a referendum on this huge proposal, she’s going entirely against the spirit if the Sussex motto she draws on.
It’s all about Bella. She is angling for Sussex power and titles even Meghan Markle couldn’t dream of.
The Swiss have great local government and that is because the people have the right to referendums at every level of government, from national down to the equivalent of parish council. Yes, they have democracy, we have an elected oligarchy. We live in a failed representative system and need to vote for politicians who actually want democracy, ie a semi-direct system like the Swiss have shown works so well. Yes, you have to vote on stuff 4 times a year, but the services are miles better than ours and the schooling is run locally – and is internationally recognised as one of the best on the planet. All this is because the system is decided upon by the people, and they are happy with the system, almost twice as happy as we are with a recent survey shaming us with a 42% satisfaction rate versus the Swiss at 75% – the top rated on the planet. It’s time for the people to take charge and the politicians to take orders! Back the Greens on this – demand a referendum and take control!
You want a vote about if you should have a vote? Referendums have become a bit of a misused buzzword.
The Swiss paradigm is very different, so they run in this way, unfortunately it can’t be compared. Voter fatigue is already a problem, with historically low turnouts year on year, you’d be better of pushing for mandatory voting or voting reform first and foremost, if that’s the route you wanted to go down.
Greens don’t inspire confidence in competence for me personally. The damage they did to Brighton, in various facets, was substantial.
Never thought that I might back the Greens but this blinkered proposal is just an attempt at a power grab. Brighton & Hove have little in common with the likes of Wadhurst, Plumpton, Heathfield, Billingshurst, Pulborough etc. One size fits all just doesn’t work and doesn’t make sense. BHCC should concentrate on providing & improving existing services in their area whilst co-operating with other authorities to improve & integrate important systems like policing and transport. This plan is not what we elected our councillors for and is only another jolly talking shop to justify further expenses to the cost of the taxpayer.
What you just described that BHCC should focus on is the core concept of devolution. Centralising services where it makes sense whilst respecting the unique aspects of local areas.
I think it highlights that at this early stage, it is really important that a deep understanding is developed about what devolution actually is.
London is encircled by the M25, it has a Mayor. From the centre to the M25 boundary it is no more than 9 miles in any direction.
From Brighton, where a Mayor would undoubtedly be based, it is 20 miles to the northern boundary of Sussex, 30 to the western and 40 to the eastern.
Living near Rye as I do, it is noticeable that the furthern a location is from the source of power and finance the less it receives.
Eastern Rother is one of the poorest areas in the District, where even the public toilets are in danger of being sold off, being governed by a Mayor 40 miles away is simply not acceptable.
Spatial bias is actually a good point, Rod.
In one aspect, you can apply that devolution tackles the national level of this, bringing governances from London down to Sussex, but within Sussex, how does the devolved government ensure fairness across Sussex?
I guess it would require a combination of fair funding mechanisms, inclusive decision-making structures, and robust accountability measures.
It’s a really important challenge to make.
This could point to a new flashpoint in the fraught world of UK territorial politics. Mayors operate amidst a ‘complex web of relationships, which can enable or restrain.
They are subject to relationships with government departments that are rarely joined up, impeding their ability to promote a strategic, integrated approach to policymaking at the sub-regional level.
Mayors must also navigate complex relationships in their own cabinets and local power dynamics between local authorities which inevitably reflect the particularities of place. And they must constantly tend to relationships with political parties, interest groups, and the electorate. As these roles are complex and evolving, they remain subject to a great deal of uncertainty.
Will mayors genuinely listen to residents. Will they consult and hold assemblies or become Whitehall/Westminster puppets?
How do we hold a Sussex Mayor to account if residents voices are weaker?
Accountability is participatory democracy are important, I agree with you here, Katy. Several people have commented similar, and to me it highlights the need for something like a Citizen’s Assembly, or at least a reform of how participatory governance is conducted.
vote them in out out every 4 years ?
Listen and you’ll hear the terrifying sound of the thin slither of local democracy we have undemocratically and unlawfully leaving the building
Oh no, I think that’s the sound of thin sheets of foil, made from tin, being folded into hats and helmets.
An example of a politician representing the whole of Sussex is PCC Katy Bourne. Who ? is a typical response.
How accountable has she been in the last decade ?
Depends how involved you have been in projects such as Immediate Justice, diverting children away from judicial sentences, instead committing to community service tasks appropriate to the misdemeanor they committed.
I think it is important to remember that personal incredulity doesn’t make a good argument, other than perhaps better lines of communication.
Sir Humphrey would be proud.