council-chamber-reading-papers

Solent Devolution: Isle of Wight Executive vote to stay to hear Government offer (updated)

The Executive of the Isle of Wight council has voted against the outcome of the Full council vote last Thursday, deciding to stay engaged with the Solent Devolution discussions.

As the full council motion to make a recommendation to Executive fell, there was no recommendation from full council for the Executive to consider.

In a meeting lasting an hour, starting at 5pm this evening, all councillors in the Independent-controlled Executive spoke, bar one.

The vote was five in favour and two against. Cllrs Stephens and Fuller voted against.

You can read the blow-by-blow detail in our live coverage of the Executive meeting.

Call-in?
The Conservative councillors have already said that they do not think that the Executive has a mandate.

Rumours have been circulating since OnTheWight published a clarification piece last week that the Isle of Wight council’s Conservative councillors might try and call-in the decision of the Executive, if they voted in the way they have this evening – OnTheWight has asked their leader about this.

The Leader of the IW Conservative councillors, Cllr Dave Stewart, is Chair of the Scrutiny Committee where the call-in would be made to.

Isle of Wight Council can stay at the table
Following the meeting the Isle of Wight council issued the following statement,

A meeting of the Executive of the Isle of Wight Council has tonight (Monday 24 October) agreed a decision to continue the process which may lead to the establishment of a Solent Combined Authority (with Portsmouth and Southampton city councils).

The Executive, as part of this process, has agreed to submit a request to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to establish a Solent Combined Authority – alongside Portsmouth and Southampton city councils, which made their decisions last week.

Isle of Wight Council leader, Councillor Jonathan Bacon, said:

“This decision will mean the Isle of Wight Council can stay at the table as these discussions progress, with the involvement of the secretary of state. The council will still retain the option of not joining the combined authority if suitable terms cannot be agreed or the expected devolution deal, including an expected commitment for £900 million investment funds over 30 years, is not secured with the government – both will need the further and final agreement of the council.

“By taking this decision to stay at the table, we are ensuring that every opportunity is examined and kept open as we endeavour to secure a long-term sustainable financial future for the council and the Island as a whole.

“As part of our future plans we have just approved a more positive medium term financial strategy which focuses strongly on regeneration and economic growth. The strategy buys us some time to grow our tax base as a result of planned regeneration activities. This will be more easily delivered if investment funds from government are made available.”

Article edit
Statement from the IWC added

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
39 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steephill Jack
24, October 2016 8:23 pm

Absolutely right ! Stay at the table, see what the deal is and then decide if it’s good for the Island.
Meanwhile, let the Conservative Councillors come up with a viable ’emerging’ alternative that may include Hampshire Co Council and we can compare all the options.

Mat
Reply to  Steephill Jack
24, October 2016 8:29 pm

Final argeement of the Council,does this mean Full Council or the Executive?

steve stubbings
Reply to  Mat
25, October 2016 4:08 am

Mat,
The ‘final agreement’ (or otherwise) will be a decision of Full Council.

Wise words
24, October 2016 9:12 pm

Yes we need to stay at the table to see what the deal will be and make the decision then. The only thing I’m against is the elected mayor as this is just another level of burocracy which will be paid for through higher council tax.

Rob
24, October 2016 9:28 pm

Bacon WILL do anything to become mayor of a quango council set up by the Tories and any money they may have have left over from other elected combined authority’s.

Then he will waste it like he ALWAYS DOES on HIS little whims.

Rod Manley
Reply to  Rob
24, October 2016 10:44 pm

Spot on, Mat. This is indeed the decision-makers and not the democratically elected Council who have taken their arbitrary decision.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Rod Manley
24, October 2016 10:50 pm

The Executive are democratically elected too. And there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any decision! It’s based on extensive reports and consideration of the facts after discussion with other authorities and government ministers. The Conservative-led opposition has enough members to take control but they declined to do this and voted in favour of keeping Cllr Bacon (and the Independent Executive) in power as the decion-making administration. I call… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
25, October 2016 7:21 am

Facts Luisa. The Executive is appointed by the Leader and your group only secured 19 out of 40 councillors in 2013 – not a majority.

Huffalump
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 9:27 am

More than anyone else = majority.

Semantics Geoff.

VentnorLad
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 9:34 am

More than half is a majority.

More than anyone else, but less than half is a plurality.

Accuracy, not semantics.

dave
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 9:54 am

DaveIOW has to nit-pick at everything. He obviously has nothing better to do with his time.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 10:06 am

It may be ‘semantics’ to you, but it is the reason they cannot get things that are important to them through Full Council.Particularly since there were only 16 of them left last Wednesday, 2 of whom abstained

VentnorLad
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 10:17 am

You are welcome to call it nit-picking, Dave. The truth however is that an elected member of our local government made an untrue statement: “…the electorate who returned an Independent majority”. Whether it was untrue because it was her intent to deceive or simply because of a poor understanding of the English language is a matter for her conscience. But it’s worth remembering that honesty is one… Read more »

Huffalump
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 4:10 pm

I suggest you look up the word majority.

It can mean more than half. It also means more than anyone else.

In this case, they have more than anyone else. No other group has more unless they ally with another group.

Rod Manley
24, October 2016 11:04 pm

I’m afraid, Luisa, the consultation was more or less inept and overturning the democratic decision has entered into a question of democratic rights. Litigation may have to be taken up to overrule this undemocratic action by the participants of the executive. We have our constitutional rights to consider here. Unfortunately this is such a big issue it may need to come to that because of attitudes like… Read more »

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Rod Manley
24, October 2016 11:13 pm

Whilst it’s rare that I am ever impressed by consultation questions the Executive has acted both democratically and according to the Constitution of the Council.

You can’t start throwing around false accusations just because you personally don’t like the result.

Rod Manley
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, October 2016 11:19 pm

Please, there are no false accusations and you do not understand the constitutional questions surrounding regional authority.

Council votes cannot simply be overturned by executives.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Rod Manley
24, October 2016 11:44 pm

Rod, your very comment, “Council votes cannot simply be overturned by executives.” shows that you have not read and do not understand the Constitution.

And yet again, I have to tell you that the vote was not ‘overturned’. The Full Council put forward a recommendation for consideration. That is all. A courtesy.

Sally Perry
Admin
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
25, October 2016 8:12 am

My understanding is that full council did not put forward a recommendation.

There was a motion for a recommendation to be put forward to Executive but that was voted against 17/16/2 which meant there was in fact no recommendation.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
25, October 2016 9:08 am

Precisely Sally.

Once the motion supporting the recommendations to Executive was lost, the Tory/Ukip/Odds & Sods Alliance should have immediately submitted an alternative Motion OPPOSING the recommendations to Executive. BUT – they are lead by someone who has no craft when it comes to Council debates.

Dictator.
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, October 2016 11:58 pm

Well the Independents seem to have over ruled a full council vote because they did not like the result. Pot and kettle come to mind.

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Rod Manley
25, October 2016 12:29 am

There may also be broader support for not wasting any more time and effort on a pointless discussion following a legitimate decision (as the Brexiteers like to shout, despite the signs of that not going well). Unfortunately the really big issues – like the economy (nationally, and in common with most other states, we’re broke, borrowing, cannot pay our debts, but are still withdrawing essential services and… Read more »

Andrew Garratt
Reply to  Rod Manley
25, October 2016 9:10 am

From a statistician’s point of view, the consultation was indeed weak. No inference about the views of the population in general can be reached from a sample that is self-selecting. To rely on its results could invite further scrutiny, perhaps through judicial review as has been in the news in the case of Derbyshire County Council and Chesterfield council over whether Chesterfield might join the Sheffield City… Read more »

Oppressed
24, October 2016 11:57 pm

In accordance with Luisa Hilliard’s suggestion I’ve just read the Isle of Wight Council Constitution and it is quite explicit in that the Executive answers to the full council, not the reverse! Her grasp of democracy also seems worryingly tenuous, while the members of the executive are democratically elected councillors, the executive are not, being appointed by the leader, hence, one assumes, the lines of responsibility. As… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  Oppressed
25, October 2016 4:02 am

You may have read it, Oppressed, but you clearly have not understood it. I refer you to article 6.1.
Please would you direct us the the section where ‘it is quite explicit in that the executive answers to full council’
Some decisions are executive decisions and last night’s was one of those.

dream boat
25, October 2016 12:50 am

this marks the end of bacon and co election next may . the people have long memories

phil jordan
Reply to  dream boat
25, October 2016 7:20 am

dreamboat:

…then they will also well remember the damage that eight years of conservative administration did to this Island.

Education….?
Childrens safety..?
Highways PFI..?
Sale of assets..?
Cowes enterprise college..?
Delegated decisions…?
Ventnor winter garden..?
Ryde theatre..?

…. for example.

billy builder
Reply to  phil jordan
25, October 2016 8:20 am

Phil, by the next Council elections we will be well on our way into the depths of the Tory/UKIP inspired BRexit abyss. I’m sure that by then the vast majority of BRexit voters who were misled by the Tory/UKIP misinformation during the BRexit campaign will realise that they were duped.

A non-Tory administration will be almost certain.

Steve Goodman
Reply to  phil jordan
25, October 2016 9:51 am

db, if you think things are bad now, you don’t remember what preceded the previous election. We also remember: The refusal to engage and explain Pugh Tube Frank James Beynon The quiet slashing of spending on road maintenance ahead of the push for a pricey PFI Burbage Undercliff Drive promises Giles The cost of Roads PFI consultants Mazillius Newport Harbour Love VBG Fiore Riverside Centre EcoIsland failure… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Steve Goodman
25, October 2016 10:52 am

Stewart (still lurking)
Failing schools-Hants takeover
Cousins
Vulnerable children not safeguarded
Hutchinson (still around)

nico
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 6:17 pm

Secretive decision-making by self-selecting ‘senior’ councillors ….

Oppressed
25, October 2016 7:49 am

Mr Jordan, The opening Executive summary of the constitution lays out the lines of responsibility of the Executive. Article 6.1 that you refer to gives the Executive power to make decisions in areas not otherwise covered in the constitution. Nowhere does it give the Executive the authority to directly override a full council vote that it simply disagrees with. This is no longer simply about devolved local… Read more »

Huffalump
Reply to  Oppressed
25, October 2016 9:35 am

They have not overridden a council vote. Full council rejected a motion, therefore voting to do nothing.

To me it’s simple. Stay at the table, get a deal before local elections, hold a referendum at the same time, new council has to follow referendum decision.

Then again, turnout is likely to be low, and many voters will be misinformed by the Tory bulls… Machine.

Tim
25, October 2016 9:32 am

Well done to the IWC Executive, a small step towards the integration with the mainland that we need to put the island back on its feet.

Oppressed
25, October 2016 10:22 am

Mr. Stubbins I find your lack of further comment curious. Since directing you to the section of the constitution you requested has not evoked a response I quote to you from the section of the opening Executive Summary of the constitution entitled ‘How the Council Operates’ which states; ‘Whilst the budget and many plans and strategies will be proposed by the Executive, Full Council has complete freedom… Read more »

Mat
Reply to  Oppressed
25, October 2016 11:15 am

This should go before Scrutiny.

VentnorLad
Reply to  Mat
25, October 2016 11:25 am

I agree!

If this goes before the Scrutiny Committee, the ridiculous idea that the Executive have behaved wrongly can be put to bed and the process of negotiating the best possible devolution deal for the Island can get underway without the distraction of these silly claims.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Mat
25, October 2016 11:39 am

That will largely be for the main opposition alliance – who control Scrutiny Committee with 6 out of 11 places. They only need 3 signatures…

Oppressed
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, October 2016 1:19 pm

But are formed as stated in the constitution or do we ignore that bit as well now.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined