Agenda item

Sheffield City Region Elected Mayor

It was moved by Councillor Brian Webster, seconded by Councillor Robert Murphy, that this Council:-

(a)       notes that on 2nd October, 2015 the Leader of the Council joined other local authority leaders from South Yorkshire, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in signing a ‘devolution deal’ for the Sheffield City Region;

(b)       notes that among the reported benefits of this deal is a pledge of an extra £900m over 30 years from central government for the Sheffield City Region, equating to £30m per year, but notes that this amount is not nearly enough to offset the substantial cuts that central government has imposed on Sheffield and other local authorities in the SCR over the past five years;

(c)        notes that as part of the ‘devolution deal’, it is proposed that there will be an elected Mayor for the Sheffield City Region from 2017, and believes that this is regrettable and a backwards step for local democracy;

(d)       recalls that in a 2012 referendum the people of Sheffield voted decisively against having an elected Mayor for Sheffield City Council, and believes that this demonstrates strong public feeling in this city against the centralisation of executive powers in the hands of a single individual;

(e)       notes comments by the Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (reported in the Yorkshire Post on 13^th October 2015) that the imposition of a Mayor on the Sheffield City Region and other areas is “what you would imagine in a dictatorship, not a democracy”, and agrees with the sentiment that elected Mayors should not be imposed on either local authorities or cross-authority areas without clear public support, for example via referenda;

(f)        therefore considers it disappointing that local authorities across the Sheffield City Region, including those that are Labour-led, are failing to stand up to what this Council believes to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s unreasonable demands with respect to the imposition of a City Region Mayor;

(g)       believes that while radical devolution of power to local authorities and cross-authority areas is necessary to counter the traditional concentration of power at Westminster, the current proposals for Sheffield City Region represent a step in the wrong direction both for the future of the local area and for local democracy;

(h)       welcomes the ‘Democracy Matters’ initiative of the Electoral Reform Society and a number of UK universities, including the University of Sheffield, which will see two pilot ‘Citizens’ Assemblies’ “[debating] a range of options for Britain’s constitutional future”, is proud that Sheffield has been chosen to host one of these two pilot Assemblies, and believes that these provide a far more positive model for future discussions over devolution than the negotiations that the Administration conducted behind closed doors in agreeing the Sheffield City Region devolution deal with central government; and

(i)         therefore:

(i)         calls upon the Administration to rethink its plans to accept the imposition of a City Region Mayor without a further referendum having established this as the will of the people of Sheffield;

(ii)        calls upon central government to ensure that, wherever devolution deals with local authorities call for the establishment of elected Mayors, central government funding is provided to cover the costs of holding referenda to determine whether this has the support of local people; and

(iii)       given the significant and far-reaching implications that this deal is likely to have on the development of Sheffield’s economy and governance for decades to come, urges all political groups on Sheffield City Council to demonstrate their commitment to democracy by giving Members a free vote on the Sheffield City Region devolution deal when that deal comes before this Council for debate and approval.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Julie Dore, seconded by Councillor Leigh Bramall, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-  

1.    the addition in paragraph (a) of the word “proposed” before the words “devolution deal”; and

2.    the deletion of paragraphs (b) to (i) and the addition of new paragraphs (b) to (f) as follows:-

(b)       notes that the current Administration has campaigned against cuts to the Council’s budget and will continue to do so, but notes that severe cuts to local government have been imposed irrespective of devolution and therefore does not believe that ruling out receiving powers and funding currently held at Whitehall would benefit the city;

(c)        understands that:-

(i)       investment is still heavily directed towards London and the South East at the expense of the North and that if the Government is to genuinely deliver on their rhetoric we need to see the Spending Review rebalance this; and

(ii)      the devolution proposal is just one part of the jigsaw, and that we can only create a strong northern economy with accompanying meaningful investment in the pan- northern transport programmes such as Transport for the North;

(d)         notes that the 2012 mayoral referendum was based on an elected mayor replacing the Council Leader but with no new powers or funding and covering a geography limited to Sheffield, whereas in contrast, the current proposal is fundamentally different with a mayor covering the wider city region geography, and importantly it is only about taking powers down from the Government, not taking powers up from local councils;

(e)         notes that the Chancellor has made it clear that any devolution of powers and funding down from Whitehall to local government is dependent upon an elected mayor as proposed, so whilst locally we have made it clear that a mayor is not what we want, it would be irresponsible to dismiss it out of hand and risk leaving the city behind; and

(f)          further notes that the public will be consulted on the proposal and that the proposal is also subject to final agreement and approval by each Council within Sheffield City Region.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor Colin Ross, seconded by Councillor Penny Baker, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of paragraphs (h) and (i) and the addition of new paragraphs (h) to (j) as follows:-

(h)        fails to see what direct benefits a directly elected mayor will bring for the Sheffield City Region, given the complex governance of the City Region;

(i)          regrets the determination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a directly elected mayor on any city that wishes to pursue further devolution; and

(j)          is concerned that accepting the condition of a City Region mayor at this stage of negotiations may have weakened our position to bargain for additional powers.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

It was then moved by Councillor Brian Webster, seconded by Councillor Robert Murphy, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of a new paragraph (j) as follows:-

(j)         believes that establishing the role of an elected Sheffield City Region Mayor without taking steps such as a further referendum and a free vote for Members would risk undermining the democratic legitimacy of any elected Mayor in the eyes of their constituents even before they took office.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-