On 16 December, the government published its English Devolution White Paper which, at a stroke, called time on both Havant Borough Council (HBC) and Hampshire County Council (HCC) as we know them today.
It is quite clear now that both authorities have been locked in discussion on this particular commitment in the Labour Manifesto since it was published last June but have yet to share these discussions with the local community. Given the inevitable impact on the residents and businesses of Havant, we are disappointed by this lack of public engagement by the Council. While they have had some level of engagement with the proposals since the middle of last year, much was probably left until the publication of the final White Paper on 16 December.
The government’s deadline of 10 January, spanning Christmas and New Year, was extremely rushed and left little time for public engagement. Listening to the Hampshire County Council debate on 9 January, however, while writing up the account below, it became clear that many of the local county Councillors around the Hampshire region had in fact engaged closely with their constituents. This makes it all the more disappointing that not one of the County Councillors representing Havant Borough took the time to make the same effort.
This HCS post attempts to set the aims of this white paper in a local context. We begin with a few thoughts on the possible impacts of the measures in the white paper, particularly on the communities which make up Havant Borough, and round this out with a detailed account of the Extraordinary Meeting of Hampshire County Council on 9 January, which starts to make clear some of the details.
First thoughts on the impact of the ‘English Devolution’ White Paper on Havant residents and businesses
Since the white paper was published, the leaders of Hampshire County Council and its district and borough councils, including Havant Borough Council, along with the unitary authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight, have attended meetings and briefings with the Secretary of State and staff of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). As a result of these meetings, and in consideration of the English Devolution White Paper published on 16 December, extraordinary council meetings have been held by the unitary authorities aimed at voting on three main questions by the government’s deadline of 10 January:
- Whether or not to join the MHCLG ‘Devolution Priority Program’, an offer which had to be accepted by a deadline of 10 January. A positive response would indicate a firm commitment to the creation of a new, devolved unitary authority run by an elected mayor.
- Whether or not to vote for subsequent Local Government Reorganisation, which in reality would be a necessary consequence of a ‘Yes’ vote to the first question. At question here is the extent to which boundaries would have to be redrawn in order to achieve an effective top-down organisation for local government.
- Whether or not to take up the MHCLG option of deferring elections for 12 months, to remove the distraction of running elections from the government’s primary objective of devolution. As can be seen in the HCC debate, several councillors view deferral as a risk of an open-ended period without any democratic representation for the communities which they serve.
The dust has yet to settle but it is already clear that a wholesale reorganisation of local government is inevitable with wide ranging impacts on the current local representative bodies, their staff and the elected representatives who do their best to support us.
The devolution initiative aims to decentralise power from Westminster to local authorities to drive growth, improve services and address regional inequalities, with a focus on housing, transport, skills, and economic regeneration. The program proposes the creation of mayoral Combined Authorities and Unitary Councils to enhance local autonomy, following the model deployed elsewhere in the UK, for example in London, Greater Manchester and East Midlands.
The Combined Authority would not be a new council or a grouping of elected members. The Combined Authority and the Leaders of the new Unitary Authority would support the Mayor and helps make the decisions. The new Unitary Authorities will be set up from 2027, shadowing the current local government regime, being formally established in 2028. Each of these Unitary Authorities must have, at least, a population of 500,000, which is significantly larger, for example, than a simple combination of Havant and Portsmouth.
Quoting from the White Paper, “New unitary councils must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. For most areas this will mean creating councils with a population of 500,000 or more, but there may be exceptions to ensure new structures make sense for an area, including for devolution, and decisions will be on a case-by-case basis.”
The Isle of Wight could (conjecture alert!) be one example of a region which could class as an exception to that rule, though with a total population of only 150,000, it would would probably need the benefit of a much broader voice through which to amplify its unique funding needs. In all cases, and in particularly in communities which currently span multiple counties, it will be difficult to draw up these new these boundaries. What is inevitable is that the resulting Unitary Authorities would be far more remote from the public it serves than the current arrangements.
It’s worth noting that councillors are attracted to the idea of regional devolution with an elected Mayor since the Mayor would have a seat on the Council of Nations and Regions which brings more sustainable funding settlements and greater powers. It’s worth noting that Hampshire has a larger population than both Northern lreland and Wales.
To be fair, this isn’t the first time that sweeping changes have been proposed to local government in Britain. While the objective of devolving some currently central government functions, finance and decision-making power to the regions may be admirable, the opportunity to reduce local authority staffing, sell off former council office buildings and drive new efficiencies into public services will likely be the overriding government objective.
What could this mean for Havant’s residents and businesses?
The guidelines set out in the devolution White Paper mean that the scale of the new devolved mayoral authority would need to serve a community of at least 1.5 million, including new unitary authorities which each need to be at least 500,000.
To set an idea of scale, the population of Havant Borough at the 2021 Census was 124,200, and the population of Hampshire County, including the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, was approximately 1.9 million. While the Labour government’s devolution proposals were expected following last year’s general election, few if any of the unitary authorities across the Hampshire region have welcomed the proposition. Being in effect forced to sign up by 10 January to secure preferential government terms has resulted in heated exchanges in council meetings around the region.
Under the government’s proposals, neither Portsmouth nor Southampton, individually or in partnership, would be large enough to form a devolved authority. As a result, both have now voted to collaborate with other local authorities across Hampshire to enable the new devolved combined authority to be developed. The Isle of Wight Council, serving a population of less than 150,000, narrowly voted to remain ‘independent’ before its cabinet overruled that decision and decided to join with Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire in a Solent-wide initiative.
The prospects for change are significant and, looking further afield, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, which is already a combined unitary authority serving a population of almost 400,000, will now probably have to join Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire in a ‘Heart of Wessex’ devolved authority. It was interesting to note from the Hampshire County Council debate on 9 January, that Nick Adams-King stated that ‘the door had been left open’ for BCP Council to join with the potential pan-Hampshire combined unitary authority.
The upheaval caused for these current unitary authorities will be matched by similar upheaval for the eleven second-tier authorities like Havant, for which services are split between Havant Borough Council and Hampshire County Council. It is likely that both organisations would disappear in their current forms, with the upper tier replaced by the new devolved unitary authority and the lower tier by a new type of representative local body, in Havant’s case perhaps a ‘town council’, working with smaller ‘parish council’ style bodies representing, for example, the communities of Hayling and Bedhampton. Emsworth, straddling the border with West Sussex, might be served by a parish council linked to either a Havant or a Chichester representative body.
One possible outcome would be for Havant to join what would probably become a new ‘Greater Portsmouth’ unitary authority, extending the current city boundary to include the current ward boundaries of Havant Borough. Adding Fareham and Gosport would clearly help get Portsmouth towards the 500,000 target, but its obvious to see that Havant’s influence in such a merged authority would be diluted.
There are obvious synergies to be had, not the least of which would be a single Town Council overseeing operations at Langstone Harbour and Dunsbury Park while removing the split ownership and management of council housing estate across Havant’s existing boundaries.
However, all this is pure conjecture; it will be months before the new reality starts to take shape. What seems inevitable though is that having only just managed to regain its own ‘voice’ following the split from East Hants District Council, the town will now have to compete with every other local community in a new, devolved Hampshire-wide combined authority to make its local voice heard again.
While the idea of devolution is sound in principle, ensuring that the new devolved bodies can accurately reflect the economic and social geographies they serve will be fraught with difficulties. After a positive year of progress in 2024, the morale of officers, staff and elected councillors across both of our current local authorities, Havant and Hampshire, will have been hit hard.
We can but hope that the plans and funding for the promised replacement footbridge at Havant Station were finalised and signed off before the inevitable cutbacks begin.
The HCC ‘English Devolution’ debate – 9 January, 2025
For those interested in finding out more, we’d recommend watching the Extraordinary Hampshire County Council meeting held at Winchester on Thursday 9 January. It’s a four hour marathon to watch the whole meeting, but to make things a little easier for those with less time, we’ve summarised the speakers and speeches in the table below the video so you can dip in and out at will.
In the table below, click the highlighted phrase in the left hand column to listen to the question posed by the member, followed by the response from the Leader.
| Speaker / Link | Summary |
|---|---|
| Councillor Adams-King – Romsey Rural – Conservative | The Leader of Hampshire County Council introduces the session. |
| We have begun the discussions with the eleven districts and boroughs.. | Nick Adams-King confirms that discussions have been going on regarding devolution for some time, later confirmed as since last year’s Labour manifesto was published. This is a good place to start to understand the scope of the challenge facing both of our councils. |
| Councillor Philpott – Bridgmary- Conservative | Interesting question regarding how the public consultation will be carried out. |
| Councillor Tree – Whitehill, Bordon – Independent | Question from Andy Tree (Ind) Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford, on how boundaries will be affected and what opportunities boundary realignment might have. |
| Councillor Wallace – Meon Valley – Independent | Two questions. First on the potential risks of devolution, the second on the potential for significant extension of terms for existing council members before the first new unitary authority elections can be held. |
| Councillor Porter – Itchen Valley – LibDem | Two questions, first on period of election deferral. Second on where the costs of setting up the mayoral office will be defined. |
| Councillor Carpenter – New Milton – Conservative | Is it cheaper to have a mayor than eleven boroughs and districts? |
| Cllr. Glen – Odiham & Hook – Conservative | With regard to Scrutiny, would it be wise to ask our lead officers to set up extra meetings on the topic? And given the prospects for deferring elections, should councillors forgo their salaries for the next year?! |
| Cllr. Todd – Winchester – LibDem | Questions regarding Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council’s intentions. |
| Cllr. Harvey – Catherington – Conservative | In all the consultations that the leaders have already been through, where has the public voice been represented? |
| Cllr. Crawford – Aldershot – Labour | Why would the government accept HCC onto the priority program if we chose not to defer the election? |
| Cllr Hiscock – Winchester – LibDem | What are the pros and cons of being on the fast track register? |
| Cllr. Collett – Yateley – LibDem | How do you balance the advantage of doing it in a rushed manner against the alternative of doing it in a measured way. Interesting points made about BCP history. |
| Cllr. Williams – Bishops Waltham – LibDem | Would any bi-elections be suspended by the proposed process? |
| End of Questions to the Leader | |
| Amendment raised by Cllr Keith House, Hamble | An eminently sensible amendment which addressed the concerns about minimum population size limit, the reconsideration of boundaries and the deferral of elections. Well worth reading the amendment on screen while listening to Cllr. House’s points., |
| Councillor Tree, Leader of the Independent Group. | Responds to Cllr. Adams-King on the amendment |
| Councillor Taylor – Leader of the Labour Group | Responds to Cllr Adams-King on the amendment |
| The main debate | |
| The Chair introduces the Main debate, inviting next: Councillor Latham – Conservative | Supports the Council Leader, declines to support the Amendment |
| Councillor Parker – Conservative | Agrees with the amendment, but not vote for it. |
| Councillor Carpenter – Conservative | Will vote as directed, though doesn’t want ‘an Andy Burnham character swanning around’ |
| Councillor Glen – Conservative | Will vote in favour of all, but wants to see the arguments raised in the amendment debated and scrutinised once the Secretary of State has accepted the Council into the Priority program. |
| Councillor Wallace – Independent (Green) | |
| Councillor Philpott – Conservative | Outraged by the timing of the White Paper and the short time given for a considered response. Likens this to ‘blackmail’, pointing out – as others had beforehand, that while devolution and the appointment of elected mayors had been part of the Labour manifesto, local government reform on this scale had not been. Like Cllr. Glen, will vote for the motions but debate hard once permission is granted by the Ministry, suspecting that ‘this Government’s dystopian dreams may never actually be realised’. |
| Councillor Bryant – Fareham Conservative | Will be supporting motion, not the amendment, but concerned about the impact on the currently ‘stable’ Fareham Borough Council’. |
| Councillor Reid – Basingstoke – Conservative | Believes the Council have to follow the direction on behalf of the vulnerable people that the Council supports. |
| Councillor James – Basingstoke Lib Dem | Will be supporting the Amendment |
| Councillor Williams – Bishops Waltham – LibDem | “We live within Communities” – There is a real risk that communities will suffer. Quoting a Conservative Robbie Moore from a 2023 debate recorded in Hansard! Voting for the amendment. |
| Councillor Porter – Itchen Valley – LibDem | Supports amendment to hold elections in the autumn. Does support Hampshire joining the Council of Mayors. |
| Councillor Collett – Yateley – Lib Dem | Supporting the amendment, making the point that the Blackwater Valley community is large, but split across county boundaries. |
| Councillor Kemp-Gee – Alton – Conservative | Seems rather more concerned with the future of the Hampshire pension fund than with his residents, with some rather staggering numbers. |
| Councillor Henderson – Candovers – Conservative | Supports the Leader’s motion |
| Councillor Parker-Jones – Bishopstoke – Independent | Supports the devolution proposal, though concerned about the residents, the officers and the staff. |
| Councillor Wade – Dibden and Hythe – LibDem | At last! The HCS Webmaster award goes to this gentleman for being the first to mention ‘Turkeys voting for Christmas’! He also voices his concerns about the community, particularly the vulnerable, does not agree with deferring elections. |
| Councillor Drew – Test Valley – Conservative | Used to be a hurdler in his youth, and milks it to the limit while agreeing with his Leader and declining to vote for the amendment. Intends to call the incoming mayor a ‘Shire Reeve‘ |
| Councillor Crawford – Aldershot – Labour | Blowing Rushmoor’s trumpet with aplomb. Gung ho for the motions, including election deferral. |
| Councillor Ford – Fareham Warsash – Conservative | Voting with the leader. |
| Councillor Cooper – Romsey – LibDem | Another whose priority seems to be with the pension fund, rather than with the rather greater majority of his constituents who probably don’t have the same generous local government pension provisions. |
| Councillor Warwick – Winchester – Conservative | A big vote of thanks to her Leader, for the work put in on this ‘over the past few months’. |
| Councillor Harvey – Catherington – Conservative | If we do get rid of borough and district authorities, are we looking to parish councillors to take up the strain, and if so, are we going to have to pay them? |
| Councillor Todd – Winchester – Lib-Dem | Speaking as seconder to Councillor House’s Amendment. No-one has backed the 500,000 limit. Almost all have agreed with the basic points in the amendment. “Our mandate is to serve the public, not the government”‘”. |
| Councillor Adams-King sums up the debate | |
| The Voting Introduced by the Chair. | The public video record of the voting appears rather shambolic as the officers struggle to cope with the output from the ‘push button’ voting scheme. All was going moderately well until Cllr. House reminded the Chair that the request had been made for a recorded vote. The screen changes to show the names with their individual votes cast, at which page, the display lags badly behind the actual voting. A bit of a mess, but worth persevering for the expressions on the face of the Chair! |
If you’ve got this far…
You may have noted the number of Hampshire County Councillors who voiced the concerns of the residents of the communities that they represented. You may then have wondered why we’ve failed to capture the concerns raised by the County Councillors representing the Havant Borough Council wards. Well the simple fact is, not one of them raised a single comment in this critically important Hampshire County Council meeting.
You may also want to reflect on the fact that they all voted to delay their own re-election, thus quite likely staying in post, receiving their allowances of £14,000+ per year until the first elections to the new devolved unitary authority in 2026 or, more likely, 2027.
Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Councillor Glen’s book and forego their allowances.
Havant Civic Society 