ELECTORAL REVIEW
OF
HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND
Submission on Haringey Council Size
October 2018
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
Submission on HARINGEY Council Size
1.0 Introduction – background to the review
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body established by Parliament in April 2010. Its objectives include working with principal local authorities to help them deliver effective and convenient local government and a fundamental part of that is to conduct periodic electoral reviews to ensure equality of local representation. The LGBCE assesses electorate data for each local authority in England and operates a programme of both periodic reviews and interventions where electorates can be seen to be at odds with the principle of electoral equality. Most of London, including Haringey, has been set down for a Periodic review in the 2018 – 2022 period, the first since 1999 – 2002. Much has changed since then and a review is thus warmly welcomed.
As the establishment of the review preceded the “all-out” elections of May 2018, the Council appreciated the presentations made by the Commissioner and his Officers on either side of the polls, at which some 28 new Members were elected to Haringey Council.
An electoral review is an examination of a council’s electoral arrangements. This means:
the total number of members to be elected to the council; the number and boundaries of electoral areas (wards / divisions) for the purposes of the election of councillors; the number of councillors for any electoral area of a local authority; and the name of any electoral area.
The LGBCE will aim to ensure its recommendations remain relevant for the long term. The review of 1999 saw elections on new Boundaries in 2002, and these arrangements created Wards that retained remarkable electoral equality for some time, but factors such as the pace of regeneration and the accession of new European Union member states has brought new Voters in an uneven pattern across the Borough. A review is thus necessary and we need a Council size that will deliver effective and convenient local government well after the completion of the review. This first phase and submission in the Haringey Borough review is to determine the size of the Council. The number of Councillors is considered herein against four broad contexts:
2
the governance arrangements of the Council - how it takes decisions across the broad range of its responsibilities; the Council’s scrutiny functions relating to both its own decision making and the Council’s role within outside bodies; the representational role of Councillors in the local community and how they engage with local people, conduct casework and represent the Council on partner organisations. clear perspectives on how the role and operation of Councils has changed since 1999. Whilst much of what a Councillor does in Haringey is recognisable from that time, the world has also moved on enormously and this submission will delineate the many new and different challenges faced by elected members.
2.0 Haringey’s review machinery.
Since early meetings between the Commission and the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, and the commissioner’s presentation to Haringey Members, both a cross-party Member group and multi-disciplinary Officer group have been established to undertake the review process. Both are up and running and building work such as the present submission.
Several of the persons involved have been involved in reviews before, giving an understanding of the expectations, but all of those now involved will bring to the process a clear understanding of the circumstances facing Councils today and how electoral democracy needs to be delineated from 2022.
Haringey has 57 Members elected in 19 Wards of 3 each, with a political balance of 42 Labour and 15 Liberal Democrat Members.
The Boundary Review Group consists of the Leader of the Council, Cllr Joseph Ejiofor, (in the chair) the Leader of the Opposition, Cllr Liz Morris, and Councillors Gideon Bull, Adam Jogee and Sheila Peacock from the Labour Group and Councillor Josh Dixon from the Liberal Democrats.
Working alongside the Member group is an Officer group which includes the Head of Electoral Services & Census Liaison (in the chair), the Head of Democratic Services, and senior Officers from Planning, Education, Policy Development, Corporate Governance, Regeneration and IT.
The groups are working to a Programme Plan based around the LGBCE review timetable and the overall process operates under the aegis of the Chief Executive & Returning Officer, Zina Etheridge.
The groups are building an electorate forecasting model utilising Electoral, ONS, GLA, LEA and Planning Service data but for this first submission, a key resource has been a Member workload survey.
3
3.0 Haringey Borough Council’s size proposal and determining factors The member working party has considered maintaining, increasing and reducing the size of the elected body. It has conducted a survey of member workloads and commitments.
Given a change in the nature of demands made upon Members and the increase in the size of the electorate since the last review (some 152,000 in 2001, or a Member: Elector ratio of 1:2667 has now become 176,884 or 1:3103), the Haringey team could see a strong argument for an increase to 60 members, or a ratio of 1:2948.
A further strong argument for this is that as the growth of new electors is much more in the previous Tottenham Borough than other parts of Haringey, the creation of a single new ward would minimise disruption and upheaval in wards which in most other cases remain substantially correctly sized in terms of electoral equality. Even after almost twenty years, some thirteen out of nineteen wards remain within plus or minus 5% of the current standard Member:Elector ratio; and the Wards that are considerably oversized are coterminous.
We have said that the changes and new demands made upon Members have grown, and look very much as follows:
Firstly, the cabinet/regulatory/overview and scrutiny model of council governance which was in embryonic shape in 1999–2002 has placed greater responsibilities upon a wider range of members than did the old Committee structure. Later in this paper we will see just how considerable those responsibilities are in Haringey’s context.
Secondly, Elected Members are not merely akin to the governing Board of, say, an FTSE 250 with responsibilities for products and employees, but have by definition much wider roles in terms of community leadership and representation. Whilst Haringey Council has shared the common local authority experience of being much reduced over the last decade, the demands and needs of the community have grown – indeed, more complex and extended means of accessing services delivered through partnerships rather than directly tends to extend Member workloads both in terms of building collaborative arrangements and advising constituents thereon.
Thirdly, the closely- related consequences of the information technological revolution have presented both opportunities and new challenges. Whilst e-service “channel shift” has been highly successful in Haringey as it has relatively high connectivity (online electoral registration has, for example always exceeded the national average,) the social media side of the equation has not diminished constituent casework. On the contrary, it is commonly found that technology has contributed to increased contact with Councillors because they are readily available via email and mobile telephone and, increasingly, via Social media. Members are increasingly moving to being almost 24/7 public servants.
4
Fourthly, new services and responsibilities and legislative demands have accrued to Councils such as Haringey. The 2010 Equalities Act, Public Health oversight and activities contingent upon the Localism Act are examples. Haringey currently has one Neighbourhood Planning Forum area and a Business Improvement District, responsibilities created since the last review, but in addition there are two more nascent area forums in existence so this is a growing field of activity.
Finally, public expectation about the quality and integrity of local services has intensified across the country and Haringey understands what it means to be at the forefront of that. The section on our Overview and Scrutiny activities will detail this further. The responsibilities and profiles of Cabinet and Opposition Spokespersons is considerable. There is an expectation that the Borough Plan, a vital central “mind” of the authority, has active authorship, support and commitment from the Member body. It is, in short, essential that there are sufficient Members to set priorities,oversee service delivery, hold service deliverers to account, and represent the community at ward level - and the machinery for so doing is far more extended than it was at the turn of the Century.
Taking all that into account, Haringey is at the very least of the view that it needs to retain 57 Members in order to maintain effective and convenient local government. In so doing it does not consider that this is merely a status quo, but regards it as a retrenchment in practical terms as needs, demands, and the electorate have grown since the last review. The following sections constitute the rationale, backed up with evidence, for this proposal.
As we have detailed above, notwithstanding a much reduced budget and scale, the Council and community expect more from Members. Major changes in the nature of, and access to, local services has drawn members into more casework, advice and partnership working whilst support to them has been enhanced by technology but not by officers, as their numbers have been much reduced. The member workload survey delineated an average weekly workload of members, being some 20.5 hours. It is emphasised that this is very much an average but is in line with similar surveys we have seen. The commitment is considerable for any of these groups and connotes weekly activity of some 1,168.5 hours. Early electorate forecasting shows an unambiguous direction of travel for an electorate which will continue to grow – development in Haringey is such that by 2024 the population will have risen to around 290,000. The elected membership is highly reflective of the social, complex background, and economic diversity of the Borough and in terms of economic activity includes full-time, part time and retired persons – any reduction in the number of elected members would make it difficult to maintain the diversity of the existing Council. Even if there were to be no change in commitments by 2022 and the membership were to be increased to 60, the average commitment would be reduced to 19.5 hours per week. This is still a considerable workload.
5
On the same principle, a considerable reduction in members, to, say, 48, would connote an average commitment of 24.34 hours. This effective equivalent of a three-day week is a major commitment for anyone, regardless of economic circumstances, but would make it particularly difficult to retain Members in full or even part-time jobs. Such a reduction would raise the Member:elector ratio to 1:3685 on the present baseline electorate, and as our Appendix on other London Boroughs shows, that exceeds the ratios common to the Capital.
We now turn in more detail to nature of Haringey and to the factors making up the member workload to show how Haringey is managed and scrutinised.
4.0 Characteristics and profile of Haringey Borough.
Haringey Council is a north London Borough serving a population of some 270,000 and electorate of some 177,000. Created in 1964 out of the three Middlesex Boroughs of Hornsey, Wood Green Tottenham, it is often said to be an “outer London Borough with Inner London characteristics.”
As a London Borough Council it has been responsible for the full range of Local Government services since the abolition of the GLC in 1986 (the Mayor of London and GLA is effectively and additional rather than substitute tier.) As such, there is a significant intellectual and knowledge base required of Members if they are to understand the wide range of service needs dealt with.
Haringey is a place of enormous and exciting social and economic diversity with over 100 languages spoken. The full-franchise electorate includes communities from all Commonwealth and European Union member states, but there are many other communities alongside the British, Irish, Commonwealth and EU-franchise qualifying citizens living and working in the Borough who are not currently eligible for registration.
Though the LGBCE can only adjudge a Ward Boundary by reference to actual electors, in a Borough like Haringey the Member caseload extends some way beyond that. Many thousands of local residents will not appear in the electorate as they do not hold British, Irish, Commonwealth or European Union status – but they still contribute to, and require, local services. The point is illustrated by sudden uplifts in local electorate numbers as EU accession states since the last review saw local people suddenly able to join the register. There are major Turkish, Kurdish, Albanian, Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian and Brazilian communities in Haringey and research conducted for this review indicates that some 40 percent of the 13-17 age group Haringey school rolls are currently outside the British, Irish, Commonwealth and European Union electoral registration eligibility criteria. Many of these may in due course require dual or British nationality, and the EU electorate is continuing to grow.
It is clear from public discourse that there will be no diminution of EU status by 2022/23 and so they will remain within our franchise. We will be including a growing EU citizen
6 base within subsequent submissions to the LGBCE, and this will, for example, be explained in our forecasting methodology.
Extensive housing and population growth in the Tottenham area of the Borough is one of the factors that has imbalanced the Ward electorates, and this is a continuing trend. Extensive development continues around the new Spurs ground, for example. Considerable recent success in the schools sector is also making the Borough a more popular place for London families.
5.0 Governance – Leadership, Cabinet and related partnership responsibilities
The Council has operated a Leader and Cabinet system of governance since 2000. The Cabinet provides focused and strategic leadership, including in building the key foundation of the Borough Corporate Plan. It recommends the council budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to full council for agreement. As the council’s primary executive function, cabinet is also responsible for the development and oversight of council policies, plans, and strategies. The cabinet meets formally approximately once a month to take decisions in public meetings.
As well as taking decisions on how or policies and services are delivered, cabinet members also provide leadership within local partnerships such as the Metropolitan Police, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), the faith community and the voluntary sector. Cabinet members play an important role in communicating council policy externally and bringing communities together. This element of the role requires a lot of time spent in evening or weekend meetings with key stakeholders within the borough.
The Cabinet includes ten Councillors including the Leader. The current Cabinet portfolios are as follows:
Leader of the Council Deputy Leader & Housing and Estate Renewal Strategic Regeneration Adults and Health Finance Communities, Safety and Engagement Civic Services Environment Corporate Services and Insourcing Children, Education and families
Cabinet Members serve on other decision making partnerships, London-wide and national bodies. Appointments are considered on an annual basis. The Leader represents the Council in organisations such as the LGA and London Councils, for example. The Cabinet has 10 Members and meets formally 10 times a year .In addition, there is a Cabinet Sub Committee, the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee which meets 4 times a year and is chaired by the Cabinet Member for
7
Children, Education and Families and comprised of 6 non -executive members. The Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee is responsible for the Council’s role as corporate parent for children and young people in care. Members seek to ensure that the health, education and access to employment of children in care is maximized, monitor the quality of care provided, and also ensure that children leaving care have sustainable arrangements for their future.
The Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety and Engagement jointly Chair’s the Community Safety Partnership with the borough commander and this meets 4 times a year. The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) is a statutory body established pursuant to sections 5 -7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The CSP fulfils the duty placed on local authorities to address community safety in partnership with the Police and other partners. Haringey has been a member of the LHC, formerly the London Housing Consortium, for forty years. In February 2012 the Haringey Cabinet approved a recommendation to remain in the LHC Joint Committee as leaving this consortium would affect accessing some shared procurement expertise and support on compliance. These meetings take place twice a year and involve 10 other local authorities. The Leader of the Council, chairs the Health and wellbeing board which currently meets twice a year but meeting frequency is likely to increase following commitments in the manifesto. The Leader also jointly chairs the Haringey and Islington joint health and Wellbeing board which meets four times a year. This board includes the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health and Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families. The Sub-Committee oversees, at a strategic level, the programme of activities by the Wellbeing Partnership aimed at more integrated and joined up approach in service planning and delivery in health and care within and across both boroughs and to maximise use of resources and deliver better outcomes for service users. The workload of the Council’s Cabinet is intense and multifaceted with increased responsibilities over the last 15 years for Public health, community safety, commissioning, and co-ordinator of public services .This has been coupled with a decreasing budget, the management of over a £280million reduction in central government grant, a significant housing shortage, an increase in demand for Adults and Children’s services. With increased pressure for Councils to deliver services and outcomes with a much smaller budget, the engagement with statutory partners and key stakeholders in the borough to ensure that that the available resources and opportunities are co-ordinated are maximised has become significant part of the cabinet member role. This often means working closely with health partners in social care to pool funds and with partners to increase housing provision in the borough. The additional meetings attended by the Leader and Cabinet Members below demonstrate the above points: London Council’s – Leader - 3 hour meeting once a month Deputy Mayor of London meetings – 1 hour meetings per month Central London Forward - 2.5 hours meetings per month
8
Officer meetings on Alexandra Palace – 1 hour per month Neighbouring North London Leader’s - monthly meeting 2 hours. Meetings with representatives of key religious groups in the borough - 1.5 hours monthly MPS meetings - monthly meetings Haringey Business Alliance - monthly meetings Required meetings with external partners for regeneration monthly meetings Voluntary Sector and Charities /community organisations meeting - monthly meetings MOPAC monthly meeting Working group member meetings on health Working group meeting on Finance –weekly North London waste Association – monthly meetings more than 2 hours Borough commander - monthly meeting 6 weekly meetings on Youth and Risk Housing delivery meetings – 6 weekly Over the last 18 months the Cabinet and Cabinet Members have taken some 215 “key decisions”, a considerable uptick from the equivalent format involving the previous Policy and Strategy committee during the last Review period in 1999-2000. With less money and resources and more partnership working, comes more accountability to the electorate. Community engagement and establishing good community relations becomes a more paramount part of the Cabinet and Councillor role. This means ensuring that key decisions taken by the Cabinet are well researched and consulted with communities and stakeholders. This will also mean Councillors taking an active role in the compilation of reports and meeting with officers to ensure that the reports accord with the Corporate Plan and manifesto commitments. The Cabinet has 10 scheduled meetings per year but has also had 3 additional meetings in recent years to address specific issues of local concern that have arisen relating to Hornsey Town Hall, High Road West, and the HDV, The Cabinet Member and Councillor Leadership and decision making role in the community has become more recognised over the last 13 years in Haringey with the decision making meetings of the Council webcast and available on the Council website. Also since 2005, the Council has been publishing agendas and minutes of its public meetings online, making the decision making more accessible to the local community. With the development in social media, and 24 hour communications culture, there is now an expectation for Councillors to immediately communicate their decisions and the reasons for them. Therefore, although a Council meeting can be completed in 3 hours, the role of the Councillor as a communicator in the community continues with regular tweeting of Council decisions expected in today’s 24 hour culture. It should also be re-iterated that the Member Workload survey conducted for this Review demonstrated a major time involvement from official Opposition Spokespersons in shadowing Cabinet portfolios, reflecting not dissimilar reading and
9 research commitments in assessing corresponding briefs and holding Cabinet Members to account. They also regularly meet Heads of Service. There is a sense in which, therefore, the creation of the Cabinet system has created a manner of working not merely for ten members, but for twenty.
6.0 Governance - Regulatory and Committee machinery
The Council has a total of 23 different meetings composed of Committees, sub committees, and statutory partnerships.
All Councillors serve on at least one committee, 49 out of 57 members serve on at least two and 26 serve on three or more committees. Regulatory Committees
Following a governance review in 2011, the Council agreed to create a single Regulatory Committee, which combined the remits of the existing Planning and Licensing Committees, and their sub-committees. The Council agreed to establish the main Regulatory Committee, which would be responsible for planning and licensing policy; and Planning and Licensing Sub Committees. It was also recommended that the Regulatory Committee should meet four times a year, and the sub committees should meet monthly.
Regulatory Committee
The Regulatory Committee has functions either (1) as the statutory Licensing Committee of the Council under the Licensing Act 2003, which also exercises functions under the Gambling Act 2005, or (2) as a non-statutory Committee exercising other non-executive functions relating to Licensing, Town Planning and other regulatory matters generally.
The membership of the Committee is politically proportionate and comprises of 10 Labour Members and 3 Liberal Democrat Members. The Chair of the Regulatory Committee is also the Chair of Planning Sub-Committee and one Licensing Sub- Committee. The Vice-Chair is the Chair of the other Licensing Sub-Committee.
Since the establishment of the Committee in 2011, it has met on average of 5 times per year.
The Committee considers all matters of licensing and planning policy, as well as receiving quarterly updates on planning matters.
All members of the Regulatory Committee are required to attend Planning and Licensing training, so that there is a pool of trained members available as substitutes if required.
Planning Sub-Committee
10
The membership of the Sub-Committee is politically proportionate and comprises of 8 Labour Members and 3 Liberal Democrat Members.
Since the establishment of the Sub-Committee in 2011, it has met on average of 15 times per year. Members have considered 282 planning applications and 40 pre- application briefings since 2011.
Members of the Sub-Committee are also expected to attend site visits for all planning applications. These take place one week before the meeting takes place.
Members are also invited to attend Development Management Forums, which occur on average twice a month. The purpose of the forums is to consider proposals for major developments, and those of significant interest.
Members have considered a number of major developments, with a high level of public interest: Tottenham Hotspur stadium, Hornsey Town Hall, Hale Wharf and Wards Corner. These meetings have been well attended by members of the public.
The very particular manner of assessing and determining Planning matters is such that the Member training duties pertinent to this function are especially considerable. There are also some 28 Conservation areas, and as indicated above a Neighbourhood Planning Forum in existence for Highgate (which is a cross-Boundary NPF and thus wider than the Ward itself), and these factors also make Planning workloads more complex and involving for Members as well as Officers. The direction of travel is for yet more complexity in this field.
Licensing Sub-Committee
There are two Licensing Sub-Committees – A & B. The membership is politically proportionate and comprises of 2 Labour Members and 1 Liberal Democrat Members. Since the establishment of the Sub-Committees, Licensing Sub-Committee A has met on average of 7 times per year. Licensing Sub Committee B has met on average of 6 times per year. Members have considered a total of 123 applications.
There is also a Special Licensing Sub-Committee, which meets when there is no scheduled committee available to consider urgent applications. The membership of this committee is made up of available members from the Regulatory Committee (2 Labour and 1 Liberal Democrat). Since 2011, the Special Licensing Sub-Committee has met 41 times, and considered 46 applications.
Members consider different types of applications: new premises licence applications, review of premises licence, and Temporary Event Notices. There have been a number of well attended meetings, in particular, applications relating to Finsbury Park. These have been quite difficult meetings to manage, and the Committee have had to ensure that a fair hearing is given to all.
7.0 Governance - Scrutiny Functions
As Haringey is a local authority operating under executive arrangements, it is statutorily required to appoint one or more overview and scrutiny committees. The
11 current arrangements comprise an overarching Overview and Scrutiny Committee plus four standing panels: Adults and Health Children and Young People Housing and Regeneration Environment and Community Safety.
The Committee has 5 Members and each of its Panels has up to 7 Members. In addition, 2 Members of the Committee also sit on the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) for North Central London. In total, 31 Councillors are members of one or more scrutiny body of the Council.
The workload of the Council’s overview and scrutiny bodies is very high and it is often a struggle to complete the programme of work for the year. The work planning process focusses upon prioritising issues as there are limits to the capacity of overview and scrutiny to carry out work and it is not possible to deal with all the issues of concern that are raised.
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has six scheduled meetings per year but has also had a large number of additional meetings in recent years to address specific issues of local concern that have arisen, including a number that have due to “call- ins”. In each of the last two years, five additional meetings have been required.
The standing scrutiny panels have five scheduled meetings per year. They also undertake in-depth reviews on issues of local concern based on the Select Committee model and these are normally dealt with through additional “evidence gathering” sessions. Some of these reviews have been on issues that were very complex and highly contentious, with long term implications for the borough. The workload generated by these has been considerable. For example, the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel undertook a review on the Haringey Development Vehicle which required six additional meetings to gather all of the evidence necessary for Members to reach their conclusions.
The JHOSC is scheduled to meet 5 times per year but it’s workload has been heavy due to the many important health issues that have arisen recently, such as Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs), and a number of additional meetings have been required. In particular, STPs are comprehensive and extremely complex in nature with potential far-reaching impacts on local communities. Addressing them effectively has therefore placed considerable additional demands on the JHOSC Members.
The work undertaken by our Councillors on overview and scrutiny does not merely comprise of attendance at formal meetings and this particularly true for those chairing scrutiny bodies. There is a need to undertake research on issues that are being considered as well as a considerable amount of background reading, such as briefing papers, strategy documents and meeting agendas. This is an essential part of the role as Councillors need to be suitably informed to be able to carry out their work effectively. Overview and scrutiny has a key role in articulating the concerns of local communities and therefore regular engagement with residents is a necessary part of
12
the role of those Councillors who are involved. There are also frequent planning meetings with officers. The scheduling of additional meetings for overview and scrutiny has become more difficult due to the growing workload of our Councillors. Members of the overview and scrutiny bodies are normally on a range of other bodies and this can make it hard to find a suitable space in the calendar of meetings for an additional meeting. Particular problems can be faced when Members are on bodies such as the Planning Committee which need to meet frequently due to their heavy workload. In such circumstances, it has become increasingly necessary to schedule meetings during the day, which can create specific problems for Councillors who have full time jobs.
Both the Francis Inquiry into the failings of the Mid Staffordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the Casey Report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham highlighted the shortcomings of overview and scrutiny in addressing these issues effectively. From these, it is clear that overview and scrutiny shares the responsibility for ensuring that services are safe and fit for purpose and that the concerns of residents are addressed. This responsibility is also not just restricted to services provided by the Council. Haringey’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee reviewed its role in the light of these reports. It has sought to ensure that relevant services are subject to appropriate challenge and that Councillors are in a position to do this effectively. This necessitates seeking evidence from a range of sources and not merely relying of the evidence of officers and this has further increased the workload of overview and scrutiny members.
The conclusions of both the Francis and Casey reports have been reinforced recently by the recent House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee report on “Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees”. This stated that: “In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures”. It is clear from this that any reduction in the capacity of the Council to undertake effective scrutiny would be undesirable and potentially have far reaching consequences.
8.0 Non- executive meetings Alexandra Palace Park and Palace Board
It is worth noting that the Council has specific legal duties concerned with Alexandra Palace to fulfil the functions, powers and duties of the Council as Trustee of Alexandra Palace Orders 1900 to 1985. This responsibility is taken forward by the Alexandra Park and Palace board and its 3 subcommittees as well as an Outside Body. If the number of Councillors serving the Council were reduced there would be a much smaller pool of Councillors to select from to fulfil this vital community role, in an important transformation period for the Palace which serves both the local and regional population. Pensions Committee and Board
The Public Sector Pensions Act 2013 included a requirement that pension boards be established to assist pension administering authorities with the effective and efficient management of the Pension Scheme. The Regulations approved in relation to the
13 local government pension scheme (regulation 106(2) of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (Governance) Regulations 2015) allow for pension committees and boards to be separate or combined. A combined committee and board has to be individually approved by the Secretary of State. Haringey applied for authority for a combined board and committee in 2015 and this was approved by the Secretary of State by letter, dated 6th January 2016. In July 2016, the full Council approved the establishment of a combined Pensions Committee and Board. This was following consideration of the benefits of a combined committee and board to offer wider involvement and expertise of co-opted members. Part 2 of the Constitution, paragraph 4.02 (p) indicates that Full Council will appoint representatives to outside bodies unless the appointment is a cabinet function or has been delegated by the Council. Section 10.08 of Part 2 of the Constitution advises that the Council has nomination rights to a large number of different external bodies, referred to as “organisations‟. The practice of making nominations to organisations is a benefit to the Council and the links created contribute to the social well-being of the borough. These organisations can be categorized as follows: Association bodies, such as the Local Government Association or Association of London Government joint committees and panels. Community or voluntary bodies which cover a very wide spectrum of organisations serving the community, or community groups, in various ways. Partnership bodies which will usually involve the Council working with other agencies on local issues or projects. Statutory bodies, where the Borough of Haringey needs to be represented by law. Trusts and Foundations which generally have more specific and prescribed objectives.
The nominations to all outside bodies are made and confirmed at each Annual General Meeting Haringey has 37 Outside Bodies with 98 places to be filled by both executive and non- executive Councillors. These organisations include: local organisations that support the community which the Council has had a long standing relationship, School’s related forums to enable the good working relationships to be maintained and Alexandra Palace standing advisory board which allows working with the community on Alexandra Palace, an iconic London landmark. A list of bodies to which the Council appoints is reproduced below as an Appendix. It should be added that since the May 2018 Elections, the Council has also commenced the development both of a Fairness Commission, and a “Wholly-Owned Company” which are intended respectively to assess the challenges of achieving fairness and equality in opportunities and outcomes in the Borough, and to engineer some of those
14
outcomes in terms of Housing solutions by the Borough itself. These will produce considerable new workstreams for elected Members. 9.0 Conclusion This submission has sought to show that Haringey must at least retain it’s current 57 Elected members and has in fact a good case for upgrading to 60. The very considerable retrenchment in local authorities including Haringey is such that any case for an increase, however meretricious, is arguably too much against the direction of travel for a community to sustain. We would therefore conclude that we should retain our existing 57 Member-format, whilst stressing that in real terms this is in itself a retrenchment. Haringey is growing. Societal, economic, demographic and technical change have created enormous opportunities but also made new demands on Councillors. Even outside the extensive decision- making and influencing machinery of Cabinet and committees, Elected Members of Haringey Council may typically find themselves regularly engaged with Strategic partners, or groups on resident support, disability, health and wellbeing, local policing and safer neighbourhoods, supported housing panels, School Governing Bodies, Pensioners, heritage and parks.
There is much we could say about the training and peak organisation support that fulfilling these roles properly also requires, from such as the London Scrutiny network to give one example. But we have not merely listed all of the activities that might engage our members, we have rather, sought to demonstrate how the challenges made upon them have changed since the last review, and we have sought to delineate their workloads both quantitatively and qualitatively.
We have outlined the particular characteristics of Haringey, how and why it is continuing to grow, and why we need a Council reflective of its enormous diversity. We have indicated how current levels of representation are competitive with similar and neighbouring authorities. We have set out how and by what means we are taking the LGBCE Review with enormous seriousness and producing original work from a range of Members and Officers to support it. We hope we have demonstrated that even retaining 57 members is not an “ as you were” option but one which will continue to require even more input from members after 2022 as the electorate, population and needs of the Borough continues to grow.
15
Appendix One LGBCE 2018 Comparison of Member to Elector Ratios in random London Councils Borough Electorate, Elected Member to Ward Pattern May 2018 Members Elector Ratio
Enfield 215,596 62 3477 20x3 & 1x2 Greenwich 187,475 51 3676 17x3 Haringey 176,884 57 3103 19x3 Hackney 175,295 57 3075 15x3 &6x2 Islington 151,420 48 3154 16x3 Camden 151,155 54 2799 18x3
Appendix Two – Haringey Member Appointments
Outside Body Special Appointment Type Party Councillor/Representative responsibilities expiry date Cabinet Member for Corporate Greater London Enterprise Ltd, The Board Resources & 1 Deputy Cllr Tucker Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Moyeed Lab Deputy 4 members from Leader, D. Leader, Local Government Association, General Assembly Ch. Whip, Group Sec & Deputies Cllr Ejiofor Lab Cllr Ibrahim Lab
Cllr Bull Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr White Lab Cllr Chiriyankandath Lab Deputy Cllr Bevan Lab London Councils, Pensions CIV (Sectoral Joint One voting member and up to 2 named Committee) deputies Cllr White Lab Association Cllr Bevan Lab 21 May 2019 Deputy Cllr Moyeed Lab 1 voting member, up to 4 named London Councils, Grants Committee deputies Cllr M Blake Lab Cllr Brabazon Lab 21 May 2019 Deputy Cllr Adje Lab London Councils, Greater London Employment Cabinet Member for Human Resources Forum & 1 deputy Cllr Tucker Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Davies Lab Deputy
16
Outside Body Special Appointment Type Party Councillor/Representative responsibilities expiry date One voting member (Leader) and up to London Councils, Leaders’ Committee 2 Cabinet members Cllr Ejiofor Lab Cllr Ibrahim Lab 21 May 2019 Deputy Cllr Ahmet Lab Cabinet member for Transport/ London Councils, Transport & Env. Cttee Environment and up to 4 deputies Cllr Hearn Lab Cllr White Lab 21 May 2019 Deputy Cllr Tabois Lab London Road Safety Council, The Mgmt Cttee 2 year appointment Cllr White Lab 21 May 2020 Cllr Cawley-Harrison LD African-Caribbean Leadership Company Cllr Ogiehor Lab Cllr Hakata Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Tabois Age Concern London, Conference 3 year appointment Cllr Peacock Lab Not due for renewal May 2020 Consultative Committee, Highgate Wood A councillor from each ward below Cllr Hare LD Highgate 21 May 2019 Cllr Ogiehor LD Muswell Hill Hornsey links preferred, 4 year Hornsey Parochial Charities appointments Paula Lanning Lab October 2018 Dr Vivienne Manheim Lab 21 May 2020 Barbara Simon Lab Not due for renewal 16 May 2020 Jennifer Mann Lab 30 May 2021 2 reps attend each meeting, 1 from Jacksons Lane, Management Committee each party Jean Brown Lab Cllr Jogee Lab 21 May 2019
Community Cllr Barnes LD Cllr Dennison LD Markfield Project, Management Committee Cllr B Blake Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Opoku Lab Open Door Cllr Demir Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Dixon LD Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for London 3 year appointment (RFCA for London) Cllr Emery LD May 2021 The Council, Collage Arts Cllr Diakides Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Barnes LD Triangle Children, Young People and Community
Centre - Mgmt Advisory Board
17
Outside Body Special Appointment Type Party Councillor/Representative responsibilities expiry date 21 May 2019 Cllr B Blake Lab
Homes for Haringey, ALMO Board of Directors Cllr Bevan Lab Cllr Carlin Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Rossetti LD Local Authority Action for Southern Africa
(LAACTSA) Cllr Jogee Lab 21 May 2019 Cabinet member for Economic London Stansted Cambridge Consortium Development Cllr Adje Lab 21 May 2019 Safer Neighbourhood Board Haringey 2 year appointment Cllr Rice Lab
Partnership May 2020 Cllr Ogiehor LD Tottenham Green Enterprise Centre Board with
CONEL Cllr Adje Lab 21 May 2019 Create London, Board Cabinet Member for Culture Cllr Brabazon Lab 21 May 2019 Walthamstow Wetlands Lorna Reith Lab May 2019 Alexandra Park and Palace, Advisory Committee 6 of the 8 Cllrs represent wards below Cllr Chiriyankandath Lab Bounds Green Cllr Moyeed Lab Noel Park Cllr Jogee Lab Hornsey Cllr Hinchcliffe LD Fortis Green 21 May 2019 Cllr Dixon LD Alexandra Park Cllr Emery LD Muswell Hill Ward Cllr das Neves Lab Cllr Say Lab Haringey Council, Haringey Schools Forum Non Cabinet Member Cllr Stone Lab 21 May 2019 Lea Valley Regional Park Authority, The Authority 4 year appointment Cllr Bevan Lab
Statutory May 2021 Cllr Gordon (Deputy) Lab Cabinet Member for Environment & 1 North London Waste Authority other Cllr Hearn Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Berryman Lab Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education,
The Conference Jean Brown Lab Cllr Peacock Lab 21 May 2019 Cllr Chenot LD Cllr Rossetti LD Cabinet member for Health and Adult t
Tr Bridge Renewal Trust us Services preferred
18
Outside Body Special Appointment Type Party Councillor/Representative responsibilities expiry date Cllr Gunes Lab 21 May 2019 Finsbury Park Trust 3 year appointments Cllr Stone Lab 21 May 2021 Cllr James Lab Deputy Greig Trusts, The 4 year appointment Eddie Griffith Lab not due for renewal 15 May 2020 Groundwork London Local Authority Strategic
Input Board Cllr Bevan Lab 21 May 2019
Selby Trust - Board of Trustees 4 year appointment Cllr Hakata Lab
Cllr Stennett Lab May 2022 Cllr das Neves Lab Tottenham District Charity, The Management 4 year appointment Committee Cllr Bull Lab Cllr Palmer LD May 2022 Cllr Rice Lab Lorna Reith Lab Bibi Khan Lab Cllr Peacock Lab not due for renewal May 2021 Peter R Jones Lab Tottenham Grammar School Foundation, 5 year appointment,
The Trustees need not be a Cllr. Cllr Blake Lab May 2023 Andrew Krokou Lab May 2023 Wood Green Urban District Charity, The 4 year appointment Management Committee Cllr Moyeed Lab Cllr Chenot LD May 2022 Cherry McAskill Lab James Patterson Lab not due for renewal 15 May 2020 Julie-Ann Gregory Lab
19