Following a request from five Members to hold an extraordinary meeting to consider: “government proposals for devolution and also government proposals for local government reorganisation and to consider making any recommendations to the leader of the council regarding their response to the government on this issue”.
Minutes:
41.1 In light of the short notice for the extraordinary meeting and the tight timescales involved, the Chairman moved a motion to waive such standing orders as necessary, including standing order 36, to enable a motion to be put in relation to the matter specified on the agenda, and that the mover of a motion, and the relevant Cabinet member be provided with the opportunity of right of reply at the conclusion of the debate.
41.2 The motion was seconded by Councillor Beaver.
41.3 The motion was CARRIED.
41.4 The following motion was put forward by Councillor Denis, and seconded by Councillor Maples:
This Council believes:
1. That entering into negotiations on behalf of this Council in such important matters as Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation should be by elected representatives with a mandate established through the democratic process. After 30 April 2025 this conservative administration, which is already operating a diminishing minority administration, will have no mandate.
2. That progress can be made on negotiations towards a Mayoral Combined Authority without the need to cancel elections, therefore the request to suspend elections is not necessary for the council to request being in the priority devolution group. Local Government Reorganisation at the earliest timescale would mean the present administration would stay in power until 2028, not just another year.
Therefore: the May 2025 County Council elections should not be suspended and the people of East Sussex should be allowed their rightful vote for the candidate they wish to negotiate through these significant matters on their behalf.”
41.5 The following amendment was put forward by Councillor Field, and seconded by Councillor Holt:
[insert words]
We support increased regional powers, particularly around public transport, climate action, skills, energy and special planning as they relate to infrastructure, and also understand that the Government expects creation of unitary and strategic authorities.
However, we believe that this should not be at the expense of local democracy, and without consulting with residents, businesses and stakeholders on the future of Local Government for the region.
Therefore, we do not agree to the request to the government to suspend local elections.
This Council believes:
1. That entering into negotiations on behalf of this Council in such important matters as Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation should be by elected representatives with a mandate established through the democratic process. After 30 April 2025 this conservative administration, which is already operating a diminishing minority administration, will have no mandate.
2. That progress can be made on negotiations towards a Mayoral Combined Authority without the need to cancel elections, therefore the request to suspend elections is not necessary for the council to request being in the priority devolution group. Local Government Reorganisation at the earliest timescale would mean the present administration would stay in power until 2028, not just another year.
Therefore: the May 2025 County Council elections should not be suspended and the people of East Sussex should be allowed their rightful vote for the candidate they wish to negotiate through these significant matters on their behalf.”
41.6 A recorded vote on the amendment was requested and taken. The amendment was LOST, with the votes being cast as follows:
FOR THE MOTION
Councillors Cross, Collier, Daniel, Denis, Field, Hilton, Holt, Lambert, MacCleary, Maples, Murphy, Robinson, Rodohan, Scott, Daniel Shing, Stephen Shing, Shuttleworth, Swansborough, Taylor, Ungar, and Webb.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Councillors Adeniji, Azad, Beaver, Belsey, Bennett, Bowdler, Clark, Chris Dowling, Claire Dowling, Fox, Galley, Glazier, Hay, Hollidge, Howell, Kirby-Green, Liddiard, Lunn, Marlow-Eastwood, Maynard, Pragnell, Redstone, and Standley.
41.7 A recorded vote on the original motion was requested and taken. The motion was LOST, with the votes being cast as follows:
FOR THE MOTION
Councillors Cross, Collier, Daniel, Denis, Field, Hilton, Holt, Lambert, MacCleary, Maples, Murphy, Robinson, Rodohan, Scott, Daniel Shing, Stephen Shing, Shuttleworth, Swansborough, Taylor, Ungar, and Webb.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Councillors Adeniji, Azad, Beaver, Belsey, Bennett, Bowdler, Clark, Chris Dowling, Claire Dowling, Fox, Galley, Glazier, Hay, Hollidge, Howell, Kirby-Green, Liddiard, Lunn, Marlow-Eastwood, Maynard, Pragnell, Redstone, and Standley.