Agenda item

To scrutinise the final 2020/21 draft budget and business plan before it is formally approved at the 6 February 2020 meeting of the Combined Authority. 

The Committee received a report of the Director of Corporate Services outlining the work underway to progress the draft revenue and capital budget and directorate business plans for 2020/21.

The following were in attendance for this item:

·       Ben Still, Managing Director

·       Angela Taylor, Director of Corporate Services

·       Dave Pearson, Director of Transport Services

The Committee discussed, learned and concluded the following:

Budget and spending

• Future budget reports could present, in list or table form, changes from the previous year’s budget and what impact assessments have been conducted.
• An explanation of when the authority has chosen to make a saving and where there was a change in government or other capital funding arrangements could also be useful. 
• Most spending is directed towards transport services and project delivery and much less spent on social issues such as skills and housing.
• This imbalance between transport to non-transport spending is due to capital funding for certain areas, such as housing, skills and the environment, being more limited and ringfenced.
• Although it was felt that there was a relatively large amount spent on PR/marketing and consultants compared to other areas, marketing and consultant research activity and spending includes spending on skills, transport, inward investment and housing that require marketing. The Combined Authority operates a centralised marketing operation instead of placing marketing spend under the relevant service areas.

Mayoral devolution:

• Mayoral devolution would likely provide more funding and flexibility in spending.

·       Prior to the election, the government had previously indicated that it was unwilling to pursue a Yorkshire-wide devolution deal according to the same model in the existing mayoral city region devolution areas such as Greater Manchester and West Midlands.

·       Instead the government asked each sub-region of Yorkshire to consider separate proposals – South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York / North Yorkshire and the Humber.

·       The government’s increased majority in the election and intention to draft a white paper on devolution is expected to have strengthened the government’s position and their desire to conclude outstanding devolution deals in key economic areas like West Yorkshire.

·       As of this week, South Yorkshire leaders and ministers announced they are now moving forward with their Sheffield City Region devolution deal which will now unlock further mayoral funding over 30 years.

·       They did so on the basis of a letter from the government clarifying that they might consider a Yorkshire devolution model in the future.

·       There is an optimism and desire on all sides to conclude a deal in West Yorkshire and council leaders are due to meet with ministers soon to discuss next steps.

·       The date of any mayoral election in West Yorkshire will be part of the negotiations.

·       If the date is relatively far in the future, interim mayor arrangements might be necessary.

·       An interim mayor would be appointed by a meeting of the Combined Authority and it is understood that there would be no special election but any interim mayor must be a currently elected individual – a councillor, police commissioner or MP.

·       In terms of precedent, in Greater Manchester, the interim mayor for several years before the first mayor was elected in 2017, was the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester.

LEP geography changes

• Committee members received an email from the LEP Chair, Roger Marsh, the previous evening outlining changes to the Leeds City Region LEP’s geography.
• The Leeds City Region LEP’s position was that the overlapping geographies represented a functional economic area and was working well.
• When the government required LEPs to eliminate geographical overlaps, the Leeds City Region LEP expressed a hope to merge with the York & North Yorkshire LEP to create a new LEP covering West and North Yorkshire, in order to retain the overlapping north yorkshire areas.
• However, the York & North Yorkshire LEP have now decided not to pursue a merger any further.
• Consequently, the Leeds City Region LEP Board has reluctantly voted to change its geographical footprint to the five West Yorkshire authorities only – Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield.
• The LEP will retain the Leeds City Region name and brand.
• There might be changes in governance arrangements in the near future as north yorkshire representatives currently sit on the LEP Board and other panels.
• The Combined Authority and LEP will seek to retain strong partnership working and cooperative governance arrangements where possible with neighbouring authorities regardless of whether they are members of the LEP or combined authority – and continue to keep the situation under review.
• All existing spending and programmes in non-West Yorkshire authority areas will continue as contracted.
• As the government has yet to unveil the details of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – its post EU funding mechanism – it is not known how or if geography changes will affect funding allocations in the future.
• Previously, funding was determined and apportioned according to the whole LEP area, not on a district by district basis.

Resolved: 

i)       That the report be noted and the Committee's feedback and conclusions be considered further. 

ii)     That the Chair be kept informed of devolution developments and any changes in governance arising from the change in LEP geography.