The County Council of Kent met on Thursday, 9 January 2025, to discuss the English Devolution White Paper. The council voted to endorse ongoing work with Medway Council and district and borough leaders to respond to the white paper, and to submit a request to the government for Kent and Medway to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme.

English Devolution White Paper

The council debated and voted on a motion to endorse the ongoing joint work between Kent County Council (KCC), Medway Council, and District and Borough Council Leaders in response to the English Devolution White Paper. The motion also proposed endorsing the Leader of the Council's decision to submit a request, jointly with Medway Council, for Kent and Medway to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP). Councillors were informed that acceptance onto the DPP would commit Kent and Medway to elections for a new Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) in May 2026, with local government reorganisation implemented by either April 2027 or April 2028. A key point of discussion was the potential postponement of the County Council elections scheduled for May 2025, which would be subject to a ministerial decision.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Roger Gough, introduced the item as a momentous decision for the Council in many years. He emphasised the importance of seizing the opportunities devolution would bring and noted that other areas in the south of England were also applying to join the DPP. Councillor Gough explained that the current financial situation of the council was unsustainable and that a mayoral strategic authority, built on the foundation of an elected mayor and strong unitary authorities, could deliver a strategic role in transport, planning, economic development, and public service reform. He also highlighted the potential for dedicated investment funds and a move away from competitive funding.

The Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor Alister Brady, acknowledged that something new was required and spoke positively about the white paper's focus on growth, joined-up public services, and value for money. He suggested that unitary councils could deliver better outcomes for residents in areas such as skills, transport, and environmental strategies.

However, concerns were raised by Councillor Rich Lehmann, Leader of the Green & Independents Group. He questioned the keenness of the council and Medway Council leaders for the proposals, suggesting that their financial circumstances might have weakened their negotiating position. Councillor Lehmann also expressed concerns about the speed of the process, stating that the future of Kent could be decided in just 25 days and that the process felt rushed, secretive, constructed as it went along, and lacked democracy. He voiced apprehension about too much power being concentrated in the hands of a single mayor with potentially limited oversight.

Councillor Antony Hook, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, highlighted that the council had existed since 1889 and had never been continuously elected without break, except for the two world wars. He questioned the necessity of postponing elections for local government reorganisation, suggesting that technical work could continue and political decisions could resume after a short break. He also expressed a preference for a leader subject to permanent scrutiny by peers rather than a mayor who could not be removed for four years. Councillor Hook also criticised the lack of transparency and consultation with the public over the decision to apply for the DPP.

Several amendments were proposed and debated. An amendment by Councillor Richard Streatfeild, seconded by Councillor Mike Sole, sought to add a point expecting as much transparency as possible in this process. This amendment was carried.

Another amendment, proposed by Councillor Mark Hood and seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock, sought to state that the council does not support the proposal for Kent and Medway to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme and that it would prefer to commence the Foundation Strategic Authority route in the fastest possible timeframe. This amendment was lost by a vote of 45 to 14.

An amendment proposed by Councillor Chris Passmore and seconded by Councillor Antony Hook, aimed to recommend expressing an interest in devolution while prioritising the right outcome over speed and ensuring public views were central through consultation. This amendment was also lost.

Finally, an amendment proposed by Councillor Rich Lehmann and seconded by Councillor Richard Streatfeild, recommended that the request to join the DPP should express a strong preference that elections happen as planned in May 2025, recognising the widely expressed concerns at the democratic deficit created by any cancellation of the planned elections. This amendment was lost.

The substantive motion, as amended by Councillor Streatfeild's amendment, was then put to a vote and carried by 39 votes to 19, with one abstention. The council therefore resolved to endorse the ongoing joint work, endorse the proposed decision to submit a request to the government for inclusion in the Devolution Priority Programme, and noted the implications for future elections and reorganisation, while expecting transparency in the process.