Agenda item

Motion proposed by Councillor N Barker

“Council notes and supports the decision of all councils in Derbyshire to participate in the Vision Derbyshire initiative.

Council supports the principle in Vision Derbyshire that a two-tier system of local government, with councils working closely together, is preferred structural solution for delivering on the proposed White Paper’s agenda of reducing regional inequalities.

Council notes the decision of Derbyshire County Council at its meeting on 16^th September 2020 to write to the Secretary of State to submit a proposal for a single tier of local government for the county and to mandate its officers to prepare a case in support of a single unitary authority.

Council believes that the creation of a unitary authority is not in the interests of N E Derbyshire residents and opposes the creation of a unitary authority.  Council mandates officers within the council to prepare a case for the retention of NEDDC as part of a two-tier structure of local government.

Council also notes that the Leader of this Council, in his role as a Cabinet Member at Derbyshire County Council, supported the proposal to create a unitary authority in Derbyshire.

Council resolves to exercise it power pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 5.1 (c) (iv) to remove from office the current Leader of the Council and to proceed to elect a new Leader, who will safeguard the future of NEDDC, for the remaining term of this council in accordance with paragraph 5.1(a).”

In presenting the Motion Councillor N Barker stated that the Motion was about the conflict of interest of those who held positions of leadership at different local authorities and also to put on record the Council’s support for the two-tier system.  Councillor N Baker explained that at a County Council meeting on 16 September 2020 county officers had been mandated to prepare an alternative route for devolution in the form of developing a case for a single unitary model of local government.  He questioned where the priorities of the Leader would lie when any strategic decisions had to be made on the future of local government in Derbyshire.  He believed that the two roles the Leader of the Council currently held (Leader of a District Council and Member of the County Council Cabinet) were incompatible, could create a conflict of interest and therefore untenable. 

Councillor J Barry seconded the Motion and stated that this Motion was put forward out of concern for the Council and its staff.  The roles of the Leader were conflicted and the Council needed a leader who was committed to preserving the Council in its entirety, committed to its staff and would not make any job cuts.

Councillor J Funnell stated that a single unitary council for Derbyshire would mean the loss of involvement and control of local issues by local residents, which was not right.  He asked the Leader of the Council to withdraw his support at county level for any single tier proposal.

Councillor J Kenyon expressed the view that a unitary authority was not the right approach for North East Derbyshire but the views and actions of other organisations had to be considered and the Leader of the Council was in a position of power to get the best outcome for residents.

Councillor B Lewis stated that the agenda for Vision Derbyshire was to work with the District and Boroughs and Derby City to get towards an East Midlands devolution deal.  The Leader of this Council was protecting the interests of North East Derbyshire. 

Councillor A Dale responded to the Motion and stated that it was clear from the County Council report that had been considered that Vision Derbyshire was the preferred approach and he had made clear that he reserved the right for the District to take a different position.  The vote at the County Council had been non-binding.  He stated that the White Paper on local government re-organisation had not yet been published and it was therefore better to have all options on the table and for the public to have their say.  He also added that many Councillors had leadership roles at more than one Council.

Councillor T Reader, D Hancock, R Shipman and J Birkin all spoke in support of the Motion.

Councillor O Gomez Reaney, C Cupit, M Foster and A Foster all spoke against the resolution of the Motion, which sought to remove from office the current Leader of the Council.

The Chair put the Motion to the vote.  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.4 a recorded vote was taken following a request from Councillors K Tait, R Welton, M Foster, D Ruff and P Parkin.

For the motion – 21

(Councillors N Barker, J Barry, J Birkin, A Cooper, S Cornwell, D Hancock, L Hartshorne, E Hill, P Holmes, M Jones, P Kerry, J Lilley, G Morley, S Pickering, T Reader, J Ridgway, K Rouse, R Shipman, L Stone, P Windley, B Wright)

Against the motion – 30

(Councillors P Antcliff, W Armitage, K Bone, P Bone, S Clough, C Cupit, A Dale, L Deighton, P Elliott, M Emmens, A Foster, M Foster, O Gomez Reaney, R Hall, C Huckerby, A Hutchinson, J Kenyon, B Lewis, H Liggett, P Parkin, M Potts, A Powell, C Renwick, M Roe, D Ruff, K Tait, M Thacker MBE, R Welton, N Whitehead, P Wright)

Abstentions – 1

(Councillor J Funnell)

The Motion was DEFEATED.