Sussex: Elections postponed as fast-track devolution gets go-ahead
Sussex will now move towards having an elected mayor in March 2026 and reorganise existing councils into three unitary authorities.Councillor Keith Glazier, leader of East Sussex County Council, said: "I believe this is excellent news for the people of Sussex because it's an opportunity for more decisions to be made locally and for greater investment here."Councillor Bella Sankey, leader of Brighton & Hove City Council, said she was "optimistic and ambitious" about devolution."It will mean that more money is directly invested in our area and that better transport, affordable housing and skills and job creation can be accelerated," she added.While Councillor Paul Marshall, leader of West Sussex County Council, said: "A mayoral authority will give our communities greater influence in the big decisions that affect the region, such as our highways, housing, and economic growth, plus much-needed long-term financial stability."
'Deeply disappointed'
Rayner, who is also the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, agreed to cancel elections in May because she said the government was "not in the business of holding elections to bodies that won't exist".The Green Party and Liberal Democrat leaders of four out of five of the East Sussex borough and district councils had written to the government to object to elections being postponed.Following the announcement, Councillor Zoe Nicholson, Green Party leader of Lewes District Council, said she was "deeply disappointed".She added: "The Government has rejected our calls to protect the democratic rights of East Sussex residents and instead is favouring propping up an administration which has been a minority administration for the last 18 months, and will hang on to power completely unnecessarily for probably the next two years, maybe three."
A devolution consultation will now be held before the end of March 2025.The results will be assessed in the spring and a ministerial decision will be taken as to whether to proceed with a mayoral strategic authority prior to unitary re-organisation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
27 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Electric car grant expanded to offer discount on more new models
The decision means 22 cars are eligible for the electric car grant, with prices reduced by up to £1,500. Models from Volkswagen, Peugeot and Cupra have been added to the list. It is part of a £650 million investment by ministers to get people to move away from petrol or diesel cars. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander (Jeff Overs/BBC/PA) The new cars subject to the £1,500 discount are the Cupra Born, Volkswagen ID.3, Peugeot e-208, Peugeot e-2008 and Peugeot e-Rifter. The cost represents a 4% discount on the Cupra. The carmaker's website is advertising the car for £37,460. The Volkswagen is being advertised for £30,860, and the Peugeot models range from £20,245 to about £35,000. The number of electric cars registered in the first quarter of 2025 was 43% higher than the same period last year, according to figures published this week. DVLA data showed more than 120,000 zero-emissions cars were registered between January and March this year. Electric cars made up a fifth of registrations, up by 3% compared with the year before. The Government said it is also investing in electric car charging infrastructure in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. However the attempts to move people away from petrol and diesel has been criticised by some who claim electric cars are also damaging to the environment because of the precious metals that need to be mined for batteries. The announcement comes a week after the Government last broadened the initiative. Earlier in August it added 13 models, including cars produced by Nissan, Renault and Vauxhall. At the time, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the Government was 'delivering on our promise to make it easier and cheaper for families to go electric'. She added: 'This is about backing drivers, putting money back into people's pockets and creating the jobs and growth that will drive Britain forward.'
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Crown Estate: Westminster holds the power claims campaign group
It follows two letters received by the group. One from Welsh secretary Jo Stevens on behalf of prime minister Keir Starmer, confirming Westminster's refusal to transfer the Crown Estate to Wales. The other, from first minister Eluned Morgan confirming the Welsh Government's commitment to securing control of the Crown Estate. YesCymru chairman Phyl Griffiths said: 'These letters reveal exactly where decisions about Wales are really being made – and it's not in Wales. "The Welsh Government understands that control over our natural resources is key to our economic future, but Westminster's answer is simply 'no'. This is why our campaign will only intensify until the Crown Estate is transferred to Wales.' YesCymru has led a national campaign for transferring the Crown Estate to Wales, which is backed by all 22 Welsh councils. YesCymru director Rob Hughes said: 'It's a farce that YesCymru has to act as a go-between to get clarity on the Crown Estate. "Why are the Welsh and UK Governments not talking directly to each other about Wales' resources? This back-and-forth through us only highlights how little say Wales has in decisions that should be made here at home. "Until we have independence, we will remain at the mercy of a system where Westminster holds the power and Wales gets the leftovers.'
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
No U-turn as thousands more to be hit with inheritance tax
There will be others who may be simply unaware of the government's plans that could impact their private and workplace pension savings as other policies aimed at balancing the nation's books and controlling our borders continue to dominate the domestic news coverage. When the reforms were announced in the Autumn Budget back in October, a technical consultation followed seeking views on the proposals for the reporting and payment of any inheritance tax on the pension component of an estate. The response to that consultation has now been published and, whilst there are some changes around the administrative responsibilities (personal representatives rather than pension scheme administrators will be responsible), the government has made it clear that it intends to implement its overarching inheritance tax policy, despite strong industry consensus pointing to simpler alternatives. There are to be no U-turns afforded to these pension reforms. It is somewhat ironic that, on one hand the Government is increasing the tax burden on pensions, but has also revived the Pensions Commission to tackle the barriers that stop pension saving. Their policy of taxing pensions on death is not conducive with encouraging people to save more into their pensions. The reality of what this all means is that, from April 2027, if the value of a person's estate, once unused pension funds are included, exceeds the nil-rate band (currently £325,000), then inheritance tax may apply on the excess. It is important to note that the usual spousal exemption will apply. There is no inheritance tax to pay on estates passed to, and gifts between, UK domiciled spouses and civil partners. The government estimates that, from the estates with inheritable pension wealth in 2027 to 2028 (and before assuming any behavioural change), around 1 in 4 people will be impacted. That translates to 38,500 estates having to pay more inheritance tax than previously, and 10,500 estates becoming liable for inheritance tax where this would not previously have been the case. For those affected, simplicity has now been replaced with complexity and a much higher tax bill. As things stand, it is a relatively simple affair of ensuring expression of wishes are up-to-date and, there is the peace of mind in knowing that no action is necessary for any pension leftover to be passed on without any inheritance tax implications, no matter when death occurred. These changes will mean that active decisions will be needed to attempt to balance an individual's own needs as well as leaving beneficiaries in the best position, if they have concerns around the inheritance tax impact. A further sting in the tail is that the existing income tax treatment on unused pensions on death will continue to apply, whereby the age at death will be a determining factor for the income tax treatment in the hands of the beneficiaries. Where death occurs before age 75, any lump sum or income withdrawal will be tax free. Where death occurs after age 75, any lump sum or income withdrawal will be taxed at the recipient's marginal rate. This presents the dim prospect of some unused pensions on death suffering both inheritance tax and income tax (where the nil-rate band is exceeded and death occurs after age 75). No doubt, for some, the changes will make them consider accelerating the drawings of their pension benefits to enable gifting. But here time is of the essence as generally a seven-year rule applies to gifts, as no inheritance tax is due where the transferor lives for seven years after giving the gift. However, death within seven years of giving a gift is subject to inheritance tax (gifts given in the three years before death are taxed at the 40% standard rate and gifts given three to seven years before death are taxed on a sliding scale, reducing the rate by 8% per year). Additionally, regular payments made from income (including pensions) can be considered and benefit from being exempt from inheritance tax provided they are part of an individual's normal expenditure and they are left with enough to maintain their normal standard of living. Spare a thought to what could be described as an extremely unfair situation should death occur before age 55, which is normal minimum pension age, and the earliest point pension benefits can normally be accessed. In such a situation, an individual would not get the benefit of their pension in their lifetime (so not have the opportunity for gifting) but potentially suffer inheritance tax. That does appear particularly harsh and does not suggest joined up pension policy thinking. Often the cost associated with professional advice is the focus, rather than the value the advice offers. This is perhaps one area where the value of advice and planning can be tangibly measured. But whether getting professional help or going it alone, for some it is no longer the case of 'wait and see'. Lee Halpin is head of technical services @sipp
