The following item of Opposition Business has been submitted:
North Norfolk District Council position on a 4-day working week
Proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr N Dixon
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) has issued guidance for local authorities in England who are considering adopting a 4-day working week – where staff have their working hours reduced by 20% but retain 100% of their pay (or equivalent/similar). This states that:
· The government does not support a 4-day working week in local authorities, as it does not believe that it delivers local taxpayers’ value for money.
· The government does not expect councils to adopt this arrangement.
· Should councils disregard this advice and there is evidence of service decline or failure, DLUHC or another government department may raise concerns directly with the authority, monitor performance more closely and consider options to correct declining performance.
The government supports an individual’s right to request flexible working, which allows employees to apply for changes to the hours, timing, or location of work. This is clearly different as it relates to the right of an individual employee to request a different working pattern or place of work. This guidance does not seek to relate to the latter.
Local authorities must be mindful of the Duty of Best Value when it considers provision. This is a statutory requirement for councils ‘to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.’ In practice this extends to securing value for money in all spending decisions. It is the government’s view that the implementation of the 4-day week is unlikely to demonstrate adherence to the Best Value Duty. Neither, for clarity, does the government support trials, experimentation, or pilots (or equivalent) of the 4-day working week concept within the local government sector.
The 4-day working week is an organisation-wide approach to pay and working hours. NNDC staff have a well-deserved reputation for striving hard to deliver the services that the council provides to the public. We are regularly told that these services are stretched. The adoption would exacerbate staff stress levels by having to cram into 4 days the work that it would normally take them 5 days to do.
Given that the narrative around council services is that they are already hard-pressed, it is unlikely that reducing the working hours by 20% will be popular with North Norfolk Council Tax taxpayers, especially at a time when Council Tax is raised by the maximum each year.
Full Council resolves to:
· Recognise and respect the Government’s Guidance of a 4-day working week.
· Prior to any consideration of any form of trial or pilot exercise of a 4-day working week it collects and assesses the evidence of such trials conducted by other Councils, elsewhere, to inform an outline business case to justify it.
· Commits not to introduce a 4-day working week at North Norfolk District Council without an overwhelming detailed business case showing substantial benefits to North Norfolk residents and businesses and a concession from central Government supporting the case.
Minutes:
The Chairman invited Cllr C Cushing to introduce this item. He set out the motion, as follows:
‘The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) has issued guidance for local authorities in England who are considering adopting a 4-day working week – where staff have their working hours reduced by 20% but retain 100% of their pay (or equivalent/similar). This states that:
· The government does not support a 4-day working week in local authorities, as it does not believe that it delivers local taxpayers’ value for money.
· The government does not expect councils to adopt this arrangement.
· Should councils disregard this advice and there is evidence of service decline or failure, DLUHC or another government department may raise concerns directly with the authority, monitor performance more closely and consider options to correct declining performance.
The government supports an individual’s right to request flexible working, which allows employees to apply for changes to the hours, timing, or location of work. This is clearly different as it relates to the right of an individual employee to request a different working pattern or place of work. This guidance does not seek to relate to the latter.
Local authorities must be mindful of the Duty of Best Value when it considers provision. This is a statutory requirement for councils ‘to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.’ In practice this extends to securing value for money in all spending decisions. It is the government’s view that the implementation of the 4-day week is unlikely to demonstrate adherence to the Best Value Duty. Neither, for clarity, does the government support trials, experimentation, or pilots (or equivalent) of the 4-day working week concept within the local government sector.
The 4-day working week is an organisation-wide approach to pay and working hours. NNDC staff have a well-deserved reputation for striving hard to deliver the services that the council provides to the public. We are regularly told that these services are stretched. The adoption would exacerbate staff stress levels by having to cram into 4 days the work that it would normally take them 5 days to do.
Given that the narrative around council services is that they are already hard-pressed, it is unlikely that reducing the working hours by 20% will be popular with North Norfolk Council Tax taxpayers, especially at a time when Council Tax is raised by the maximum each year.
Full Council was therefore requested to resolve to:
· Recognise and respect the Government’s Guidance of a 4-day working week.
· Prior to any consideration of any form of trial or pilot exercise of a 4-day working week it collects and assesses the evidence of such trials conducted by other Councils, elsewhere, to inform an outline business case to justify it.
· Commits not to introduce a 4-day working week at North Norfolk District Council without an overwhelming detailed business case showing substantial benefits to North Norfolk residents and businesses and a concession from central Government supporting the case.’
Cllr Cushing said that the introduction of a 4-day working week was a topical issue in local government, following South Cambridgeshire District Council’s (SCDC) trial which commenced in January 2023. Norwich City Council had also recently indicated that it was considering introducing a 4-day week for its staff. Cllr Cushing said that he appreciated this was not something that the Administration had raised at all or that they had indicated that they were considering, however, he felt that it was beneficial to have a debate on the Council’s approach to this matter. He went onto say that the introduction of 4 day working week could raise several corporate-level risks, such as the Council’s duty to provide best value and being fair to council taxpayers and to its staff.
Cllr Dixon seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman then asked the Leader to respond to the motion.
The Leader, Cllr Adams, said that the Administration would not be supporting the motion. There were no plans to introduce a 4-day working week. It wasn’t in the Council’s Corporate Plan and no proposals had been discussed. However, he said that it was important to learn from the experience at SCDC and review the outcomes from such a model. He then said that a growing number of businesses had been driving this approach successfully but that when local government attempted the same, it was being pulled apart before the trial period had even ended. It was still in its infancy and he said it was not the Government’s place or that of any local authority to interfere whilst the trial was still ongoing. The Government should not be attempting to interfere on this scale with local government decisions. Cllr Adams concluded by saying that in his view, it was a simplistic attempt at populism to bring forward a debate on an issue that had not even been considered by the Council. Many of the lines used in the motion had been lifted directly from correspondence circulate by the Taxpayers’ Alliance and it was no secret that they were no supporters of Local Government. He added that he had not seen a similar motion being put forward by other Conservative groups elsewhere and he was sure that Conservative run councils would also be keen to learn about the trial at SCDC.
The Chairman invited other members to speak:
Cllr L Shires said that in the recent 2023 elections, across the country Conservative councillors ‘rebranded’ themselves as local conservatives who campaigned for local priorities. However, motions such as this brought these claims into question. She said that this particular issue highlighted a key conflict at government level as they consistently championed the transfer of powers to local authorities and promoted devolution, yet in this instance they were imposing their views and attempting to centralise decision-making. Cllr Shires went onto say that it was entirely appropriate for a council to test the ground for effective ways of working and seek more innovative ways of delivering their services to local residents. She said that a 4-day working week had been linked to numerous benefits such increased productivity, employee wellbeing and environmental sustainability. By not allowing local authorities to explore such a model, the Government was hindering councils from aligning workforce management with local economic and social aspirations. Local Government should be empowered to take such decisions not hindered by Central Government.
Cllr J Toye said that the motion asked members to recognise the guidance issued by the Government on a 4-day working week and should base any business case on evidence collated. However, the guidance set out the Government view which clearly stated that it was not supportive, regardless of any evidence. He said that he was supportive of basing a decision on the evidence but this was clearly not the approach that the Government was taking and which was reflected in its guidance. He would therefore not be supporting the motion.
Cllr P Heinrich referred members to a new report from the Autonomy Think Tank which said that Artificial Intelligence (AI) would improve efficiency in the workplace and allow millions of workers to move to a 4-day week. A reduced working week could improve working practice as well as work/life balance. Local authorities had to be able to take a flexible approach that enabled harnessing the use of rapidly changing technology. He said he would not support the motion.
Cllr W Fredericks said it was important to remember that a 4-day working week did not mean that the Council offices were only open 4 days a week. A rota system was used to ensure that all services were covered and operated as usual.
Cllr L Withington said that it was very disappointing to see that the focus for Opposition business was to agree with an out of touch Government response to a 4-day week trial. She said that they had failed to take an opportunity to really represent residents and their concerns and try to improve their lives. She said that a 4-day week was not part of the Council’s Corporate Plan and not even been raised by staff. She said that it was also disappointing to see the Opposition requesting a business case. This implied that they considered this not to be normal practice. A business case was always undertaken for key projects and good practice was at the heart of the way the Administration worked.
The Chairman, Cllr S Butikofer, said that the Government talked about devolution of powers, yet when a council leader stepped up and took a decision to take their council forward, the Government jumped in and attacked them at the first opportunity. All council leaders faced a range of challenges unique to their own authorities and if the Opposition had taken time to investigate why SCDC were trialling a 4-day working week they may take a different view.
Cllr Butikofer said that most local authorities were currently facing a recruitment and retention crisis and leaders needed to try new and innovative solutions. SCDC was based at the heart of a high-tech community with a wealth of opportunities and many private companies offering a 4-day week. Those working in the public sector should be able to expect the same rights as those working in the private sector. She said it was absolutely right that residents should be able to expect that service levels were maintained and that their local council was always striving for better. In conclusion, she said that thanks to the 4-day working week trial at SCDC, the council had saved £100k on agency staff fees and recruited to over 50% of hard-to-fill posts. SCDC’s performance was consistently amongst the best in the country. In conclusion, Cllr Butikofer said that local government was local and central government should focus on keeping their own house in order. She said that she was disappointed but not surprised that only a month after talking about working as a collaborative council, the Opposition sought to bring forward a debate on a divisive matter.
The Chairman then invited Cllr Dixon, seconder of the motion, to speak.
Cllr Dixon said that a lot of disappointment had been expressed during the debate. It was just an opportunity to have a discussion on what an approach to a certain topic might be. He said that the motion did not seek to restrict how local government responded to the issue. Cllr Dixon said that Full Council was the forum for debate and for members to explain what their thoughts might be on certain matters. He said that it was important that all members should keep an open mind on important topics and it was disappointing that there had not been a more constructive and positive debate.
The Chairman then invited the proposer of the motion, Cllr Cushing, to close the debate. Cllr Cushing said that the Administration seemed to be debating an entirely different topic. He said it was about discussing what the Council would put in place if it opted to go down this route. He said that it was interesting to hear the voracious response from the Administration to this issue. Although it may not be top of their current agenda, it clearly indicated that it was something that they supported for the future.
The motion was put to the vote, with 11 members voting in favour and 22 against. It was therefore not supported.