The Leader is right to be disappointed by the Minister’s decision to close off a South Midlands Strategic Authority. It is inconsistent with the Government’s own published rules.
The English Devolution White Paper sets a default population of 1.5 million for Strategic Authorities. The South Midlands Business Board found that the six-council South Midlands geography, at almost 1.9 million people and more than £60 billion of output, is the only configuration in the region that meets it. The Minister is steering us towards a BLMK arrangement that does not.
The Minister says the South Midlands option lacks the support of every council. The same is true of BLMK. Central Bedfordshire and the Mayor of Bedford are reported to oppose it, and Milton Keynes has just voted 35 to 18 against exploring the South Midlands option. A consent test cannot be applied to one option and ignored for the other.
The White Paper also says there must be no “devolution islands”, and it provides for a ministerial directive where local leaders cannot agree. The Minister has not explained why he will not use it.
I have written to the Leaders of West and North Northamptonshire asking them to take legal advice and to write to the Minister to explain the decision. Residents stand to lose transport, skills and housing investment that other areas will receive.
Mark, Martin,I have read the Minister’s letter of 21 October and the Council’s news update. I think the decision is open to challenge as inconsistent with the Government’s own published criteria. I ask that you take legal advice before accepting it.1. Scale. The English Devolution White Paper (para 2.2.1) sets a default of 1.5 million or above for Strategic Authorities. The South Midlands Business Board found that the six-council geography, at almost 1.9 million, is the only configuration in the region that meets it. BLMK does not. The Government is steering us towards an option that fails its own test.2. Inconsistent consent test. The Minister rejects the South Midlands option because it lacks the support of all councils. BLMK lacks it too. Central Bedfordshire and the Mayor of Bedford are reported to have said they do not support it, and Milton Keynes voted 35 to 18 against exploring the South Midlands option, not in favour of BLMK. A consent test cannot be applied to one option and ignored for the other.3. No devolution islands. The same paragraph says geographies must not leave areas “too small to go it alone or which do not have natural partners.” Northamptonshire is that area if the South Midlands option is closed and no workable alternative is offered.4. Single-authority route. The White Paper (paras 2.1.1 and 2.2.2) states a strong preference for partnerships of more than one authority over a large geography. A single-authority arrangement is exceptional, Foundation level only, and a stepping stone. It is not a route open to us.5. Ministerial directive. Para 2.2.3 provides for a directive where local leaders cannot agree, to be used where there is majority support or where formation is essential to complete the map. The Minister has not explained why he will not use it. If the power is not yet in force, we should ask when it will be.6. Process. The letter relies on an “understanding… tested over a long period.” We should ask what was tested, with whom and when. If it was not put to the councils for response, that goes to fairness and failure to consider relevant matters.The weakness: the White Paper is policy, not statute. Scale is a default, and the paper says not every principle can be met in every place. Any challenge would turn on inconsistent application of stated policy, legitimate expectation and rationality. However, I am not a lawyer, may I suggest that we twin track a letter to the Minister asking questions along the lines above and take legal advice on the grounds for JR probably working as two councils together.