The Leader of Warwickshire County Council, Councillor Isobel Seccombe OBE, decided to respond to the government's 'English Devolution White Paper' by signalling the council's willingness to be considered for local government reorganisation and devolution. This decision was made under urgency procedures due to a tight government deadline and carries the potential consequence of postponing the May 2025 County Council elections.

English Devolution White Paper and County Council Elections 2025

The meeting addressed the implications of the government's 'English Devolution White Paper', published on 16 December 2024. This white paper outlines plans for widening devolution across England through the creation of new Strategic Authorities and a programme of local government reorganisation to establish new unitary councils. The government intends to proceed at pace with these reforms.

Recognising that County Councils in England are scheduled to hold elections in May 2025, the white paper indicated that the government would consider postponing these elections if their timing interfered with the planning for devolution and reorganisation. Consequently, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to Warwickshire County Council, among other upper-tier councils, requesting their view on a potential postponement of the May 2025 elections by 10 January 2025. This deadline was set to allow sufficient time for secondary legislation to be passed before the elections were due to be announced in March 2025.

The council had two options: either not to respond and await further government indication, or to respond proactively, signalling Warwickshire's willingness to be considered for reorganisation and devolution within the government's ambitious timeframe, and to express openness to the postponement of elections.

The report argued that not responding would likely mean Warwickshire would not be considered in the first tranche of councils to move forward with reforms, potentially limiting the county's ability to influence the government's proposed timescales and the geographical landscape of any reorganisation. Given that Warwickshire already has a Level 2 Devolution Deal, a proactive response was seen as crucial to amplify devolution aspirations, drive economic growth, and secure benefits for residents. Responding positively would place Warwickshire in an optimal position to shape future decisions and move forward at a faster pace.

The decision was deemed urgent because of the government's strict deadline. Delaying the decision would prejudice the council and the public interest by preventing Warwickshire from responding by the deadline and potentially missing the opportunity to gain advantages through early implementation of the white paper's policies.

Several public speakers and councillors raised concerns and questions regarding the proposed decision. Councillor George Cowcher, Deputy Leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council, expressed concern about the lack of consultation with other councils and questioned the proposed structure of a single unitary council for the county, suggesting that the north and south of the county had differing interests. He also opposed the aspiration to join the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) and questioned the prudence of structural changes before the outcome of the social care review. He stressed the importance of holding the May 2025 elections as planned to ensure the council reflected current resident views.

Councillor Isabelle McKenzie of Rugby Borough Council highlighted concerns that Rugby might be further marginalised by the reorganisation, particularly as it lacked a town council. She feared that funds earmarked for town centre regeneration could be absorbed by social care and SEND costs.

Councillor Alan Boad, leader of the Liberal Democrat Group at Warwick District Council, urged caution and a cross-party approach to consultation with stakeholders, residents, businesses, and neighbouring authorities before imposing any reform. He argued that decision-making powers should remain closer to communities and that a new strategic authority would take time to establish. He also believed that holding elections in May would provide a fresh mandate for leaders to guide Warwickshire through reforms.

Warwick District Councillor Phil Kohler critiqued the council's 2020 case for change document, deeming it brief and lacking sufficient data, citing examples like the A46 Stoneleigh Junction and the closure of Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership. He argued that speed should not be prioritised over scope and quality and urged consultation with residents and businesses.

Mr Philip Burns, a resident of Rugby, aligned with concerns about the rushed process and sought clarity on the benefits of a swift response and the potential for alternative geographical alignments. He questioned the extent of consultation and the absence of impact assessments and SWOT analyses.

Councillor Isobel Seccombe, Leader of the Council, responded to these points, explaining that the government's intention was for all local government to be unitarised by 2028. She highlighted the financial benefits of moving to unitary status sooner, citing the cost of holding elections in both 2025 and 2026, and the ongoing strain on budgets from high-level services like adult social care and SEND. She also emphasised the importance of retaining experienced staff and the value of town and parish councils, suggesting the creation of more community area committees. She clarified that any consultation would be ministerial, hosted on council websites, and that she trusted a place in the priority stream would allow for shaping a new model council. Regarding geographical alignments, she noted that the white paper focused on functioning economic and health geographies, and while a unitary Warwickshire aligned with these, merging with other counties might be difficult. She reiterated her commitment to a cross-party approach and to engaging all local councils in shaping the future.

Councillor Jerry Roodhouse sought assurance on cross-party working, the future of town and parish councils, and the protection of district and borough council reserves. He also noted concerns about national policy favouring metropolitan areas over shire counties. Councillor Sarah Boad expressed dismay at the government's approach and the lack of consultation, lamenting lost opportunities for different reorganisation models. She also raised concerns about local government funding and the potential for county budgets to be depleted. Councillor Jonathan Chilvers disagreed with the recommendation, arguing that unitarisation would not solve the council's financial deficits and that postponing elections would create an unacceptable democratic deficit. Councillor Judy Falp noted the impact on staff and the unhappiness of residents regarding delayed elections. Councillor John Holland referenced Labour Party pledges regarding devolution and stressed the need for a clear structure for Warwickshire, supporting area committees and town and parish councils. Councillor Martin Watson highlighted the business benefits of combining services and identifying best practices. Councillor Barbara Brown echoed concerns about the structure of the new authority and the potential for a centralised, cumbersome system.

Ultimately, Councillor Seccombe decided to approve the recommendation, believing that the benefits of being in the priority stream outweighed the benefits of delaying. The decision was made to send a letter to the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution signalling the County Council's willingness to be considered for local government reorganisation and devolution, and its openness to the postponement of the May 2025 County Council elections. This decision was made under urgency procedures due to the government's deadline.

The meeting concluded at 1:32 pm.