Agenda item

Local Government Reorganisation

There are serious concerns about the way this Council is handling the preparation of its Local Government Reform (LGR) proposal and the supporting business case to be submitted to the MHCLG by 26^th September. We call upon the Administration to recognise and remedy the current flaws in the process, and accept the following recommendations:

1. Ensure the ongoing research and proposal presentation work includes cost comparisons for 1, 2 & 3 unitaries including transition, revenue and capital costs and with risk scores covering viability and quality scores for the range of services provided.
2. Address the need to investigate proposed decision-making structures and lines of functionality connecting with town & parish councils, for each Unitary model, to ensure local democratic participation and accountability.
3. Actively involve cross-party councillors in reviewing the research results and preparation of the proposal and supporting business case, either via Overview & Scrutiny or a cross-party working group, to make the process and results transparent and accessible to North Norfolk residents and businesses.
4. To either increase the 8^th – 17^th September period for all councillors to assimilate and respond to the proposal and supporting business case, or provide briefing/feedback sessions during that period to ensure all members are fully informed on all aspects of the proposal and the evidence supporting the selection.

The Chair invited Cllr C Cushing to introduce his motion. He began by saying that it was not about the merits of the various models of unitary authorities that were being explored, but about concerns about the approach the Administration was taking. There was a lack of openness about the analysis that had been undertaken and the opposition groups had been excluded. He said that there had been a different approach at Norfolk County Council, which had been an evidence-led process, comparing all three options. He said that the four recommendations were intended to be constructive and inclusive and he addressed them in turn.

He said any decision should be evidence based and the viability of each option. The needs of residents must be considered and there must be an assessment that showed that key services could still be delivered, without significant cost increases.

Cllr N Dixon seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

The Chairman invited the Leader, Cllr Adams to respond the motion.

He began by saying that it was driven by the Conservative group failing to agree a preferred model of LGR. This was an issue that played out across the country, however, he urged them to make the most of the opportunities that had been given to them. He said that there had been an extensive discussion of the proposals in March and he had requested that standing orders were waived to allow the debate to continue for as long as possible. However, the Opposition had abstained on most of the proposals, despite an indication of consensus during the debate. He therefore urged Cllr Cushing to commit to allowing his group to have a free vote on the final submission proposals for LGR in September. He said that LGR was happening regardless of what NNDC wanted and the choice was between a large, behemoth council or a smaller unitary with a better chance of understanding local communities and their needs.

Cllr Adams said that all the authorities involved in the LGR process were undergoing similar actions, including the engagement of consultants to examine data and develop models but it would take time and could not be rushed. All authorities were working from the same, shared data and had signed an agreement regarding this.

It was not possible to compare the various proposals against each other. Each one was unique and focused on distinctive geographic areas, with varying needs and drivers. He said that consultations had been carried out with town and parish councils, more so than other authorities. He added that there was no intention to set up a working group. The Council was at capacity and there were not the resources to support it, without increasing headcount, which he was not prepared to do. Feedback from other authorities indicated that working groups were of limited value and members often got lost in the detail. He concluded by saying that the three unitary option had the backing of several authorities and was cross-party, unlike other proposals. It was only two months until the final submission was due and time was very limited, there was strength in unity and he urged members to come together when the final submission was considered at Full Council in September.

The Chairman opened the debate and invited members to speak:

Cllr V Holliday said that she agreed with Cllr Adams that a decision should be made based on the best model for communities based in terms of democratic representation and their unique needs but she queried what would be the best model for critical statutory support such as adult social care and children’s services, in terms of financial viability. She said that she would expect there to be a scientific underpinning, regardless of the size of the unitary and she wondered why the decision seemed to be on purely subjective terms rather than data driven.

Cllr Adams said that this was a debate, not a question and answer session but he did say that no one wanted to damage services and the processes underpinning them would be reviewed and agreed as the development of the models progressed. 

Cllr T FitzPatrick said that the motion highlighted that concerns had been raised regarding the financial ‘narrative’ to back up some of the models that were proposed. He said that two thirds of the County Council budget was currently allocated to children’s services and adult social care and if members wanted to do the best for their communities then they needed figures to back up why different options were being proposed. North Norfolk was an ageing, rural area and there would be increasing demands placed on statutory services.

Cllr L Vickers said that it was very disappointing that there were no plans to set up a working party. She felt that members worked well together across party lines and it would facilitate transparency and allow time to explore the role of town and parish councils in any future model.

Cllr J Toye said that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity and members had to do the best that they could. These projects took considerable time and there were consultants undertaking a lot of the detailed work. It was not realistic to have a working party in the limited timeframe.

Cllr S Butikofer said that she was not happy with LGR and did not feel it was right for North Norfolk but it was happening and members now needed to engage fully or risk having an outcome imposed on them. She said that other councils had already been through the process and they had found solutions to the challenges presented by adult social care and children’s services. It was important to be data driven but it was being collated and shared across all of the authorities and this ensured that decisions would be informed and transparent. In conclusion, she said she shared concerns about the number of councillors and the democratic deficit but warned that there was some ‘scare-mongering’ regarding this from other authorities. She was hopeful that by September, members would have access to the information that they needed to make an informed decision.

Cllr L Withington said that she agreed with Cllr Toye and Cllr Butikofer. It was not where members wanted to be but there was an opportunity to do things differently and ensure the best outcome for North Norfolk. She said that she welcomed that several district councils across the county were working together collaboratively and using their collective skills and knowledge to delve into the data and information and evaluate it and this ensured that the process was evidence-led.

Cllr W Fredericks said that she would like to point out that the Leader updated the opposition group leaders regularly on LGR. She suggested that they could consider sharing this with their groups.

Cllr N Dixon seconded the motion. He said that members needed to fully understand the significance of the decision being taken. It was the biggest decision that the Council would ever make and it was important that members got it right. To do this, basic rules should be followed to ensure that a credible conclusion was reached. The first was to be open-minded and inclusive and he didn’t feel that this was currently the case. It had to be evidence-led and needed to cover all the reasonable models and the boundary options associated with those. It was also crucial that the best interests of the residents and businesses of North Norfolk and Norfolk more widely were placed at the heart of the decision. Party, personal and other concerns must take a back seat to the needs of the County and the District.

Cllr Dixon said that the process followed by the Council had not been open-minded and a closed approach with a preferred outcome had been stated by the Leader in March and this meant the process was prejudiced from day 1 and was therefore not open-minded.

He went onto say that it had not been inclusive and despite requests for a cross-party working group and offers from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, the Administration had not agreed. He then responded to the Leader’s query regarding the second recommendation and clarified that it was about exploring the connections between the unitary authorities and local communities, as well as town and parish councils. There was a lot of work to do here and members could add real value to this.

He queried the sharing of data and said that the County Council had made all of its datasets available. The Leader interjected and said that all of the Councils had signed an agreement to share data – not just the County Council.

In conclusion, Cllr Dixon, said that NNDC was aligned with 6 other district councils and he felt that the workload should be reduced not increased as there was an opportunity to share knowledge and expertise. He said that without an open, objective, evidence-based process then any model put forward by the Council would lack credibility. It was not too late to change the process and he urged all members to support the motion.

Cllr Cushing summed up as proposer of the motion. He reiterated that this was an extremely important decision and the impact would be felt for years. He said that his members would have a free vote when the final submission was presented to Full Council and he hoped that all members would make a decision based on evidence presented to them and currently this was not the case.

The Chair thanked members for their input.

It was proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr N Dixon that the following recommendations were made:

1. Ensure the ongoing research and proposal presentation work includes cost comparisons for 1, 2 & 3 unitaries including transition, revenue and capital costs and with risk scores covering viability and quality scores for the range of services provided.
2. Address the need to investigate proposed decision-making structures and lines of functionality connecting with town & parish councils, for each Unitary model, to ensure local democratic participation and accountability.
3. Actively involve cross-party councillors in reviewing the research results and preparation of the proposal and supporting business case, either via Overview & Scrutiny or a cross-party working group, to make the process and results transparent and accessible to North Norfolk residents and businesses.
4. To either increase the 8^th – 17^th September period for all councillors to assimilate and respond to the proposal and supporting business case, or provide briefing/feedback sessions during that period to ensure all members are fully informed on all aspects of the proposal and the evidence supporting the selection.

When put to the vote, members resolved not to support the motion.

When put to the vote, the motion was not supported.