Agenda item

The Chair outlined the various priorities noted in the paper and made a comment on a potential issue relating to the proposed work around community cohesion and Prevent. It was noted that the responsibility for this policy area rested with the Safer and Stronger Communities (SSC) Board and work needed to be done to see if there were any particular urban aspects of cohesion that could be expanded without replicating work already being done by the SSC Board.

The Chair asked Ian Hughes, Head of Policy at the LGA, to provide an update on Brexit. Ian explained that the LGA had developed an expansive work programme which sought to ensure the priorities of councils were being recognised and address by Government. It was suggested that one of the biggest questions currently was around the future of EU funding and how this might be maintained if a transitionary period meant the UK was still part of the EU when the next EU funding round began. Ian noted that current EU laws would be transferred directly into UK law, but that it was important for councils to put together a list of EU laws that might be amended, retained or scrapped as part of any future review. Ian also expanded on the LGA’s position that any repatriated powers must not simply be returned to Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont, but instead should be devolved to local communities.

On the work programme and policy direction of the Board, members made the following comments:

·         Members endorsed the strong focus on devolution and felt it was important that the benefits of devolution were highlighted in ongoing Brexit discussions. Members were clear that more transparency was required from Whitehall departments in terms of what would happen to EU funding and where any potential gaps could be once the funding is stopped. Concerns were raised about the Government blaming any funding gaps on the lack of EU funding and areas without devolution being at a disadvantage if post-Brexit funding was eventually devolved to local areas. A further point on devolution was made about the challenge of developing devolution deals with a mix of authority types. It was pointed out that successful devolution deals made so far were mostly in areas with unitary authorities.

·         A discussion was had about homelessness, people sleeping rough and begging. Members suggested that the Board could consider whether there was any research it would be helpful to do in terms of what the current issues were and what local authorities were doing to address it. Other members supported prioritising homelessness and the housing crisis as a policy area but it was noted that other areas also need looking at within this topic, including: education, mental health services, families, welfare and benefits, and public health concerns relating to the use of drugs and alcohol. It was suggested that if a research project were to be carried out, it ought to include combined authorities and homeless charities. The Chair noted these points and suggested that this issue could be looked at within the context of how city centres are managed given that there is a greater concentration of homelessness within city centres.

·         A number of members were keen to discuss the sustainability of university cities and towns. It was noted that up to a quarter of residents in some towns or cities could be students and that this had often lead to the loss of businesses and business rates in cities. Members said that there were both positives and negatives to being a university city but it was widely agreed that local authorities do not make, but rather lost income because of the considerable proportion of students living in their areas. It was explained that students and funding issues related to them were not included within the terms of reference of the Board but that the issue should continue to be raised through the political groups so that it could be focused on by the LGA as a whole rather than only by the Board. It was also suggested that this was not purely an urban issue and that sometimes the smaller the town, the more disproportionate the impact of universities would be.

·         Members noted that the LGA’s campaign to lobby the Government on social care had some success in the form of an enhanced care fund and the adult social care precept. The LGA Executive had decided to shift the focus towards addressing the underfunding of children’s social care budgets. Members wondered whether the City Regions Board could help shape the Executive’s view on this due to the disproportionate number of families in crisis in cities across the UK. It was suggested that it could be helpful for members to provide insight on this issue to the Children and Young People’s Board.

·         It was suggested that the Board might want to look at the future of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and how their governance might be changed in the context of Brexit and forthcoming Industrial Strategy.

Decision:

Members noted the work programme and policy direction of the City Regions Board over the coming year.

Action:

Officers to considered members’ comments and proceed as directed.