Warwickshire County Council met to discuss and comment on proposals for unitary local government in Warwickshire, with a final decision delegated to the cabinet. The council voted to recommend that the cabinet consider the importance of town and parish councils, that full constituent membership of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) would be the best arrangement, and that a single unitary council for Warwickshire is the optimum model for local governance. Amendments to the proposals were put forward but were all rejected.

Local Government Reorganisation in Warwickshire

The main item under discussion was the reorganisation of local government in Warwickshire. Councillor George Finch, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Children & Families, opened the debate by stating that the council needed to consider whether the county would be best served by a single council or by two councils, one for the north and one for the south. He argued that a single unitary council would:

• save a minimum of £57 million over five years
• provide consistent services across the county
• drive the economy
• ensure crucial services are kept together with a whole county focus
• empower town and parish councils

Councillor Finch moved three motions to council, which were seconded by Councillor Michael Bannister, Portfolio Holder for Customer and Localities:

1. That the council recognises the importance of town and parish councils, supports the establishment of such councils where they do not currently exist, and endorses the role of town and parish councils as a means of preserving local identity, along with a devolution of roles and powers to such councils where there is an appetite to do so.
2. That the council accepts that full constituent membership of the WMCA would be the best arrangement for any new unitary authority or authorities in Warwickshire to meet the government’s requirement of full devolution,
3. That the council supports the proposal of a single unitary council for Warwickshire as the optimum model for local governance.

Councillor George Cowcher proposed a Liberal Democrat amendment to motions two and three, expressing concern that becoming the only Shire County to become a member of the WMCA could prejudice the electorate. He said that the districts had done a better job of engaging with people, and that 73% of respondents preferred two unitary authorities. He also raised concerns that council taxpayers in the south of the county would be asked to pay for services for people elsewhere, and that people in the south would not benefit from levelling up¹ council tax. Councillor Cowcher said that two unitary authorities would be every bit as viable for the county as a single unitary authority.

Councillor Jonathan Chilvers, Leader of the Green Group, proposed a green amendment to motion three, saying that the process of local government reorganisation would do damage, and that it was incumbent on the council to say something in its submission to that effect. He proposed that the government mandate a single waste authority, which he said could save the county a million pounds a year and deliver a better service for residents. He also raised concerns about the role that councillors can play in bringing expertise and experience into the role, and the need to ensure that there is a diversity of people, including what councillors are paid.

Councillor Keith Kondakor proposed an amendment to motion three, requesting that future elections to a new Warwickshire unitary authority or unitary authorities are undertaken using the additional member system² as used in the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly. He argued that this would mean that every district has a cross section of members that represent it, and that it would be a good way of keeping talent or getting new talent involved in local government. He also argued that 80 to 90 councillors would be more effective, and that the money saved could be put into town and district councils.

Councillor Finch did not accept any of the amendments as friendly.

Following a debate, the council voted to recommend that the cabinet consider the importance of town and parish councils, that full constituent membership of the WMCA would be the best arrangement, and that a single unitary council for Warwickshire is the optimum model for local governance.

The Liberal Democrat amendment to motions two and three was lost by 30 votes against, 14 for and 3 abstentions. The Green amendment to motion three was lost by 41 votes against, 4 for and 2 abstentions. The single member amendment to motion three was lost by 30 votes against, 4 for and 14 abstentions.

Border to Coast Pension Partnership Joint Committee

Councillor Chris Kettle has been given the honour of chairing the Border to Coast Pension Partnership Joint Committee. He explained that Warwickshire pools its investments with 10 other local authorities, shortly to be joined by seven further authorities, and that they are currently managing $60 billion of local government pension scheme assets, representing 1.1 million local government pension scheme members. Following the addition of the seven new authorities, that sum will increase to $110 billion. He said that the Joint Committee is a supervisory committee that looks over the management and the officers running it, and that he would do his best to ensure that they get the best possible return for their members.

Members' Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-pecuniary Interests

Councillor Andrew Unger disclosed that he was employed by Newton Europe up until July this year, but that he was no longer employed by them, and that he did not think it would impact the debate.

Councillor Peter Chilvers clarified that there was dispensation for all district councillors, and that they did not need to declare that separately.

The dispensation subcommittee had previously granted dispensation for members with relevant, disclosable, pecuniary interests to speak and to vote at any meeting in relation to the issues of devolution, the English devolution white paper, and or proposed unitary local government in Warwickshire. This meant that anyone who's an elected member or co-opted member of a district or borough council within Warwickshire, or whose spouse or partner is an elected or co-opted member of a district or borough council within Warwickshire, or whose spouse or partner is an employee of the county council or a district or borough council within Warwickshire, did not need to declare any interest. Additionally, members who are also members of town and parish councils did not need to declare an interest in today's business.