by Hastings Green Group of Councillors
Hastings Green Group proposes to submit the following responses to the seven consultation questions:
Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority over the proposed geography will deliver benefits to the area?
Whilst Hastings Green Group broadly agree that the establishment of an MCCA has the potential to deliver benefits for the area, we have grave concerns about the process for establishing this new authority. We call for the whole process to prioritise democratic accountability, inclusivity, local oversight, and sustainability, ensuring that devolution is truly a transfer of power to communities, not just a reshuffling of centralised authority.
The current proposals for the election of the Mayor themselves holds various barriers to democracy. The current cost of standing for metro mayoral elections in England is a £5,000 deposit plus £5,000 contribution for inclusion in a candidate booklet. This is twenty times higher than standing to be an MP and deters capable individuals from running for office. Reducing the financial barriers to standing for election would foster greater participation and diversity among candidates, strengthening democracy. Whilst discouraging frivolous candidates may be important, alternatives to a high financial bar, such as the 100 nominating electorate signatures already required for Police and Crime Commissioner elections, would ensure legitimacy of candidates without economic discrimination.
Furthermore, current spending limits for mayoral elections are excessively high, there are no caps on single donors and loopholes allow foreign interests to donate. Given the powerful strategic role a Mayor will play in place-shaping, transport and economic growth for Sussex, the potential for outsized influence over strategic decisions is a significant concern. Therefore, we call for lower campaign spending limits, a cap on single donations, a lower donor reporting threshold and mandating business donors to fully active UK companies only.
Finally, the electoral system for Mayor should not be First Past The Post. This system returns poor democratic engagement – for example, the most recent mayoral election saw a candidate elected on just a 27% turnout. Instead, we need to use the Alternative Vote system as advocated for by the Electoral Reform Society.
Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed governance arrangements for the Mayoral Combined County Authority?
Hastings Green Group strongly disagree with the current proposed governance arrangements for the MCCA. Firstly, in the interim arrangement, the role of district councils is diminished unless they are fully represented and as non-constituent members are given full-voting rights on any decision making. As it stands, “non-constituent members can be given voting rights at the discretion of the Combined County Authority”. We think this must be applied.
Secondly, the proposed membership of the MCCA is too small, with only two members per unitary authority. This could result in a cabinet of just 6 across the whole of Sussex, once the new unitaries are established. Hastings Green Group call for the establishment of a ‘Sussex Assembly’, similar to the Greater London Assembly, as a proper body to hold this Mayor to account, with its own overview and scrutiny procedures. This Assembly should be elected by proportional representation such as Single Transferrable Vote.
Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the economy of the area?
Hastings Green Group agree that strategic working across Sussex to integrate services such as transport, skills and education could greatly support the economy of some areas, however we are concerned that coastal areas such as Hastings may continue to be neglected and underfunded. We need confirmation from government as to how an MCCA would support the economy specifically in Hastings. We welcome the ambition to provide employment support and upskill local individuals to match employer needs in the area – this is desperately needed in Hastings. We need to see a clear plan for prioritising areas such as Hastings that are lagging behind in skills and education provision.
Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve social outcomes in the area?
Hastings Green Group broadly agree that there is the potential to improve social outcomes in the area through the Integrated Care Partnership and that this could help strengthen the focus and increase the joined-up action to address issues around ill health and inequalities. We note that the consultation recognises this is particularly important for coastal communities. However, whilst the government’s white paper mentions “a new bespoke duty in relation to health improvement and health inequalities” to ensure MCCAs “have regard to the need to improve health… and reduce health inequalities”, we think this duty is weak, and that the focus on addressing health inequalities must be clearly embedded within the Mayor’s required Local Growth Plan and Development Strategies. For example, the consultation mentions a key focus for the MCCA will be on addressing the housing crisis, which we know has direct impact on people’s health and wellbeing. However, it is not yet clear how this will be addressed, and it is critical that the wider determinants of health such as housing, education, skills, jobs, and social care are addressed holistically.
Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve local government services in the area?
Hastings Green Group understand that the additional devolved funding to the MCCA has the potential to redirect essential spend to support delivery of critical services. This will require substantial cooperative working between the MCCA and the current district councils firstly, then later the newly established unitary authorities, and we are concerned that the framework for these partnerships between local, place-based councils providing services and the new strategic authority has not yet been established as part of the plan. We refer to our response to Question 2 and our concerns around governance.
Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve the local natural environment and overall national environment?
Hastingss Green Group agree that establishing a MCCA presents a rare opportunity to secure integrated, coordinated and effective locally-led climate action across Sussex. However we are seriously concerned that, while the Government’s White Paper envisages Strategic Authorities having a local role in climate and nature action, there are no statutory duties to produce local climate and nature strategies alongside the proposed duties to produce a Local Growth Plan and a Spatial Development Strategy. Neither does it propose to include key climate and nature objectives in the new “accountability” and “outcomes” frameworks. These measures are essential to ensure delivery of the UK’s legally binding climate targets.
We therefore want to see the new MCCA adopt the six key recommendations to Government set out by the South East Climate Alliance, which include establishing statutory climate and nature duties for Strategic Authorities and embedding climate and nature outcomes in the proposed settlement framework. Furthermore, a commitment to providing the necessary funding for Strategic Authorities to deliver on legally binding net zero targets must be made. We would like to see assurances that the establishment of a Local Power Plan and Warm Homes Plan would result in additional funding to the area to enact these plans.
We would like to see a Climate Change Officers Committee established from representatives of the current district, boroughs and county council, with recommendations going to a political Climate Change Committee. We would also like to see the MCCA review and adopt the individual Climate Change Action Plans of the Constituent and Non-Constituent Members into a Sussex-wide Action Plan, to join together the similar actions of each council and, alongside additional funding support, pave the way for greater buying power and faster deployment of the actions.
Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the interests and needs of local communities and reflect local identities?
Hastings Green Group believe that changes must be made to the proposals in order to provide assurance that the interests, needs and identities of local communities will be supported. We strongly disagree with the proposed name for the MCCA as ‘Sussex and Brighton’, as this shows preferential treatment for Brighton over all other areas of Sussex. We think it should simply be named the ‘Sussex Combined County Authority’.
If our concerns outlined in the questions above are properly addressed, and the changes we’ve suggested are made to both the electoral process and the governance structure of the new MCCA, then we can envisage that a Sussex MCCA could be a powerful tool to move us further towards empowered local communities thriving in balance with the breath-taking green and blue spaces that Sussex residents cherish and enjoy.
Have your say: respond to the government’s consultation by 13th April here.