Copeland

Group

This is Copeland Labour Group’s submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission review into Copeland Borough Council. We understand that the Commission is interested only in the case being put forward and not who, or when that is put. However we feel it necessary to explain why the evidence backing our assertions, whilst strong, may not be as comprehensive as we would like it to be. 1) Process 1.1. Our submission has been prepared in barely two weeks, after failure of the internal Copeland processes to engage the elected representatives. 1.2. Councillors were not adequately informed that a group of Council officers had been gathering information for about 6 months in order to make a submission. 1.3. The Electoral Review Technical guidance section 4 point 4.4 (Figure 1), under the section headed Action says that informal dialogue with the local authority full council would take place but this does not seem to have happened as comprehensively as would be expected. It would be fair to say that the vast majority of Copeland Councillors did not know that the actual preliminary review had started. A briefing with yourselves did take place in June: this was notified late to councillors, many of whom were unable to attend. We were led to believe that this preliminary stage would be a collaborative, information gathering exercise, and there was no mention of formal submissions from either the council as a whole or the political groups on it. If briefings took place with the Group leaders then again, we as Labour councillors, were not informed by the then Leader of the Group. The only liaison Councillors have had were events advertised as workshops for members, which were in fact briefings. The first briefing, in July, was a repeat of information on the process (again without mention of formal submissions) and statistics regarding numbers of electors and councillors from Copeland and peer group authorities, as well as some facts about committees. The next Councillors heard was when they read a Council press release in the local paper stating the Council's alleged position on the number of councillors. We had been invited to a “workshop” stating the Council’s position but this was after the press release. This alleged second “workshop” was simply an explanation of the submission that was being sent to full council for approval and was not a workshop as Councillors were presented with a “fait accomplis”. In reality Councillors have had no involvement in the report that came to Full Council, hence the outcome of the Full council rejecting the report. 1.4. Secondly, the Mayor’s Executive engaged an independent officer to work on the submission. However members were not notified of this until the first briefing in July. This officer had previously been employed by the Council and is well known to most members. We understand much work and evidence has been compiled by this officer. However it has not been available to us in making this submission, owing to a combination of the officer now being on leave (he is abroad) and a cyber attack on Copeland Borough Council. The information relied on in the compilation of the full council report was not appended to that report (although we believe it did accompany the submission made by the Mayor to the Commission). We have also been informally told we are not entitled to the information in any case! Additionally we have sought further information on other aspects but have met with similar difficulties in obtaining it.

Page 1 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

1.5. We further note in Section 6 point 6.2 (Figure 2), the information you need from the Authority including a comprehensive mailing list of community groups, partners, stakeholders, etc. This further information has not yet been disclosed; therefore we do not know whether the list is in fact comprehensive and includes all the community groups we, as Councillors, work with. 1.6. The Council’s report also includes the collated results of a survey carried out by Officers asking about councillors’ workload etc, but at no stage were we informed of the purpose of that survey. We were certainly not told it was to feed into the preliminary stage of the Boundary Review and we are appalled as it feels like the wool has been pulled over our eyes. We have not seen the raw data from this survey and Councillors had no input into the design. Crucially councillors were not asked questions about their personal commitments, ability to make council commitments and whether they could expand the time spent on council business. Therefore because of the lack of openness with regards to the survey we feel the results should not be seen as reflecting reality. 1.7. The Council has a long standing Council appointed Electoral Review Working Group. This cross party working group was deemed competent enough to be used for Parliamentary, County and Parish boundary review submissions, but strangely was not involved in any way with this review of its own boundaries. 1.8. Councillors obviously knew the Commission had been invited in to carry out a review; it was Full Council who had agreed to make the request. From then on communications have been minimal and even when Councillors asked for a briefing to be arranged it was made clear that this would be a factual task collating information in the initial phase. Members' involvement, Councillor numbers, ward changes and formal submissions would only occur later once the public part of the process happened. However in light of the expertise of the group in potentially developing responses with consideration of factors affecting the Council, it seems bizarre that they have not been involved even informally at this early stage. 1.9. We could continue in this vein and please note we make no criticism of the Boundary Commission. The failure lies solely with Copeland. Due to these issues The Copeland Labour Group hopes you will understand why our response is perhaps not as comprehensive as we would have wanted and allow for that in your considerations. As a Labour Group, we support asking the Boundary Commission to carry out a review. We want to play an active part but feel we are making this response without the benefit of the information Council officers have been using for the last 6 months. We feel this is grossly unfair, leaving us unable to make a full and comprehensive assessment for the preliminary stage, which we acknowledge is extremely important. We ask you to consider allowing us more time for the preliminary stage, to allow us to gain access to the information the Officers already have. The work of the Elected Mayor and the Conservative Group has in reality been done for them by Copeland BC officers and we feel sure their responses will reflect the Council report recommendations that the Full Council rejected. While we want this review to be as smooth as possible, this can only be achieved when we all have access to the pertinent information and support. It is important to us at Copeland to ensure the democratic balance is right for future years. It is also imperative that we have an equal opportunity to be involved. We refer throughout to the Council report which became the Mayor’s submission to the LGBC. For clarity this is the Report that went to the full council of 31st August 2017 entitled Local Government Boundary Commission for England Review – Submission on Council Size.

Page 2 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

For avoidance of doubt this report was not approved by Council and thus was not submitted in the Council’s name. Any implication of approval by the Council is false. 2) Copeland – The Place This section contains facts and figures about Copeland at this present time. Future development is elsewhere. Statistics within this section are from three sources: the paper presented to Copeland Borough Council regarding this review; Cumbrian Observatory (https://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/county-district-profiles/); and the Office for National Statistics. Geography 2.1. The Borough of Copeland spans an area of 73,174 hectares situated in western Cumbria. The Borough shares boundaries with Allerdale Borough to the north, Barrow Borough to the south and South Lakeland District to the east. 2.2. The Borough has unusual topographical characteristics, being bounded by the Irish Sea to the West and the Cumbrian Fells mountain range to the East, including Scafell Pike, the highest mountain in England. East-west travel routes within the Borough are almost non- existent, being confined to the tortuous and steep Hard Knott and Wrynose passes. Transport 2.3. The partly de-trunked A595 runs north-south through most of the Borough, joining the A590 north of Millom for connections to Kendal, and the A66 to the north, connecting to the M6 at Penrith in east Cumbria. The A5086 links Egremont on the A595 to Cockermouth. There is one very short stretch of dual carriageway as the A595 enters Copeland to the north. All other portions are single carriageway, and the majority of even these major routes extremely bendy. The Cumbrian Coast rail line runs the length of the Borough providing passenger connections to main lines at Barrow and Carlisle together with freight traffic to and from the nuclear sites at Sellafield and Drigg. However there are no services to or from Millom after 17:30 or at all on Sundays. The immediate Whitehaven area has reasonable bus services, although even here after working hours the service is limited. However even the areas with Whitehaven postcodes are poorly served or have no buses at all. South of Egremont there are no connecting bus services. Given the public transport situation it might be supposed that car ownership would be high. However 23.4% of households have no car. Even in the rural areas significant numbers do not have access to a car e.g. Beckermet 11.6% and Bootle 12.7% without cars. Population 2.4. The sub-regional centre is Whitehaven, with a population of some 27,000, which also serves as the Council’s administrative centre. Other centres are at Cleator Moor, Egremont and Millom, each with a population of 8,000-10,000. 2.5. The ONS mid-2012 estimate of the population of the Copeland Borough is 70,329. The age profile of the population is older than the national average, and ageing. 2.6. The whole of the Borough of Copeland is parished, following a Community Governance Review of Whitehaven in 2014-15, which resulted in the creation of a new parish council in Whitehaven the only previously unparished area. There are 27 parish/town councils and two parish meetings.

Page 3 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

2.7. Two thirds of the geographical area of the Borough lies within the Lake District National Park and the local planning authority for this area is the Lake District National Park Authority. Copeland BC is a statutory consultee and its councillors represent their areas just as they would were the Council itself the planning authority. Urban deprivation 2.8. Copeland is economically diverse. Statistically, it has the highest average wage in the North West yet it is also home to some of the highest deprivation nationally. Of the 49 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in Copeland, 6 are in the worst 10% on the indices of multiple deprivation, and a further 6 LSOAs in the worst 20%. LSOA 005F in Sandwith Ward is ranked 238 most deprived in the whole country. Rural isolation 2.9. Despite this urban deprivation, the borough as a whole is largely rural. On the standard national classification of rurality, Copeland is categorised in the ‘Mainly Rural’ band. The deep rural nature of much of the area means that 4 LSOAs are in the worst 10% for living environment and 6 LSOAs in the worst 10% for barriers to housing and services. Broadband and Mobile 2.10. Broadband connections are poor. Rural areas are getting some investment but it will be many years before there is decent coverage. In the supposedly commercial areas the broadband speeds are poor and often unreliable. Mobile signal outside of the immediate urban areas is extremely poor. We have one councillor who has no mobile signal (on any network) and his broadband speed so poor the connection times out before he can download even the smallest of files. His experience is not unusual and combined with the generally older population and deprivation limiting affordability of equipment and connections, means that Internet usage is much lower than might be expected, resulting in people wanting more face to face interaction. Employment 2.11. For over 70 years the giant Sellafield Nuclear Plant has sat in the middle of the constituency and it will remain here for at least another 100 years. This plant must arguably be the most complex and controversial industrial site in the world. For the past 70 years Sellafield has produced electricity, reprocessed spent nuclear fuel, created, packaged, stored and managed nuclear waste all to a very high standard in both effectiveness and safety. Although it no longer produces electricity and reprocessing is coming to an end there will be a massive operation to decommission and clean up the site. Copeland Borough Council will have a major role in helping to ensure the management of the site is accountable to not only the workforce but also the general public both locally and nationally by working with the management of the site and the workers representatives thus ensuring public accountability. Copeland Councillors also have an ongoing input into what the works on the site entail ensuring mitigation measures are complied with regards to any impacts and that benefits are accrued for the local community where possible. This takes all Council involvement as impacts are different depending on proximity to the Sellafield site. At the time of writing, there is no permanent solution to the issue of where the final storage of the nuclear waste will be. Without a solution the waste will be stored above ground on site for many years. The Government favours a Deep Geological Repository, and this will be most likely be on or near the Sellafield site, as it would be highly controversial and not have much public acceptance to move the waste elsewhere. A repository itself will

Page 4 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

take an estimated 40 years to complete meaning the waste will remain on site thus requiring more storage facilities as the site will continue to create and package more waste as the decommissioning activities will continue to take place. Copeland Borough Council will be the planning authority that will have to permit or not supporting developments as well as ensuring the local impact reports are submitted with the full, long term and comprehensive impacts that such a development would have on Copeland. This is an extensive piece of work that has started and will continue over a period of many years. Sellafield employs over 12,000 people directly and many more thousands in the supply chain, it is by far the largest employer in Cumbria. 2.12. Copeland also hosts the National Low Level Waste Repository, the National Nuclear Lab, Dalton Facility (which houses an Ion Beam Accelerator) and much more which legitimately means Copeland is accepted as the UK’s centre of nuclear excellence. Copeland – The Place – councillor workload implications 2.13. Copeland’s geographical size will always result in the need for representatives to travel. On average it can take well over 1 hour to get from one end of the District to the other but that can commonly increase to up to 2 due to livestock on the road or agricultural vehicles, and the general inadequacy of the local roads. 2.14. In rural areas, the issues revolve around access to services and public transport. The older population profile means a greater reliance on, and importance, of all public services. This also results in councillors’ workload crossing areas of direct responsibility (i.e. areas that are not Copeland’s responsibility but residents need an enabler to get solutions; consequently their workload is greater and more diverse than is the case elsewhere. 2.15. Lack of public transport, low car ownership and the geographical separation of settlements, means that councillors must travel more to meet constituents. Even for public meetings they have to hold more numerous, lesser attended events than might be the case in urban areas. It also means that councillors are the only public servants from any organisation that some constituents can get to meet face to face, meaning councillors often are approached as the first port of call when seeking information. 2.16. Two thirds of the area of the Borough lies in the Lake District National Park (LDNP) which has its own planning authority. There are no Lake District Authority councillors so Copeland Councillors act as residents’ advocate on planning matters. The nature of the restrictions on planning in the Park nearly always makes these applications particularly complicated and time consuming. Additionally there is the fact that to attend planning meetings or to discuss applications councillors must travel for more than two hours to the LDNP’s Kendal offices. 2.17. The urban areas each have their own challenges and all, excepting Hillcrest ward, have pockets of deprivation and social exclusion. Their needs are wide-ranging, from support for benefits, housing association issues to having to liaise with other authorities on adult and child support services. No councillor can respond to a cry for help but then choose where they can and can’t offer support. While councillors may have a direct influence on some issues, holistic support for a constituent is important and advice, guidance or sign-posting constituents towards help is also important. Often, this results in a councillor escorting residents to meetings with organisations outside of Copeland BC’s control. 2.18. Sellafield is by far the greatest single influence on Copeland. Whether on planning changes to the site, consultation on storing nuclear waste, liaising with the employees (of whom over 60% are residents of Copeland), it takes time and expertise to represent an area with

Page 5 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

a nuclear presence such as that in Copeland, and for a Copeland councillor this representation may be on a local, county or country-wide basis. Copeland Borough Councillors also act as chair to many if not all the local public committees associated with Sellafield; these include, Spent Fuel management, Waste Management and Decommissioning, resulting in councillors from all political parties spending time on these and other associated committees. We believe dealing with issues arising from the nuclear industry places an extra burden on Copeland Borough Councillors in terms of time and effort and, in addition, can also be very stressful; something other Borough Councils do not have to deal with. 3) Copeland BC – Governance 3.1. The Local Government Act 2000 (LGA 2000) fundamentally altered the political management of local authorities by separating executive from non-executive functions. Previously the Council had been managed, like all local authorities in England, by a range of committees each with its own remit and responsibility for overseeing, and taking decisions on, a function of the Council. 3.2. The LGA 2000 was significant as, whilst Full Council now sets the broad policy and budgetary framework, much of the executive decision-making was placed within the Executive. There was no requirement for political proportionality within the Executive so the majority political group could take up all its seats. 3.3. From 2001 to 2015 the Council operated the Leader and Cabinet model of executive governance, with a Leader appointed by the Council and a single-party Executive of councillors chosen by the Leader. In 2014/15, the last year of the Leader and Cabinet model, there were six members of the Executive including the Leader. 3.4. Following a petition and referendum in 2013, the Council changed its executive governance model from Leader and Cabinet to directly elected Mayor and Cabinet, with the first Mayor elected in May 2015. Full Council 3.5. The Council currently has 51 councillors, elected every four years at a single set of elections, the last in May 2015. Full Council is responsible for appointing the Committees of the Council and for setting its Budget and Policy framework, on the recommendation of the Executive. The Full Council meets on average 6 times per year. Occasionally the Council has found there is a need for additional ad hoc meetings to conduct its business, but these are avoided wherever possible. Executive 3.6. The Borough Council operates a Directly Elected Mayor model with an Executive appointed by the Mayor from councillors. The Executive is responsible for most day-to-day decisions on local government functions specified as executive functions in the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000, as amended. In addition to the Mayor himself, the Executive can comprise of between 2 and 9 elected councillors. The Mayor may choose any councillors to sit on his Executive regardless of political affiliation and may alter both the post holders and the number of them at any time (provided he informs the Full Council he has done so). The current Mayor has appointed an Executive of three councillors in addition to himself.

Page 6 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

Responsibility for groups of Executive functions (portfolios) are allocated to Executive members by the Mayor. The use of Portfolios enables Executive Members to establish a close working relationship with Officers. Legislation provides that executive functions in the Directly Elected Mayor model can be delegated to individual Executive members by the Mayor but the current Mayor has not adopted this option. Executive meetings take place monthly where Executive business is discharged by collective decision-making. These meetings are not long, typically 45-90 minutes, but Executive reports are discussed in more detail at informal planning meetings attended by Executive members and Corporate Leadership Team (senior management) held some two weeks before each Executive meeting. Other Committees 3.7. In respect of other Committees, the following Committees are scheduled to meet on a regular basis and each has a substantial workload:  Planning Panel  Audit and Governance  Overview and Scrutiny

 Overview and Scrutiny Performance Sub Committee

3.8. Committees/Panels meeting on an intermittent basis  Overview and Scrutiny Housing Panel  Licensing Committee  Taxi & General Licensing Panel  Strategic Nuclear and Energy Board  Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Panel (NSIP)  Personnel Panel  Local Development Framework Working Party  Electoral Review Working Party  Member Training and Development Panel  Council Tax Setting Committee

Quasi-Judicial Processes 3.9. The Planning Panel currently meets 13 times a year to determine planning applications and consider other planning issues. The Planning Committee has 12 members with places allocated according to proportionality rules and there is a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Planning Committee meetings currently last around three hours. Some 90% of planning applications are determined by officers using delegated powers. The majority of planning meetings have associated site visits. These usually last an additional full day, due to the travelling required between sites.

Page 7 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

The Scrutiny Process 3.10. The Local Government Act 2000 requires each principal local authority to appoint at least one overview and scrutiny committee with powers to call-in decisions of the Executive for review by the overview and scrutiny committee. The call-in power has been little used since the introduction of overview and scrutiny at Copeland and only once in the past 12 months. When the overview and scrutiny function was introduced to local government in the early 2000s, the Council appointed four overview and scrutiny committees to reflect its then corporate priorities. This was subsequently reduced to two (Internal and External) and later still in 2013 to a single committee. Other recent legislation has placed additional obligations on local authorities in respect of overview and scrutiny functions including the Police and Justice Act 2006 which requires all councils to have a Scrutiny Committee that has the power to consider crime and disorder issues; and the Local Government and Public Involvement Act 2007 which provides for councillors to raise issues of local concern as a Call for Action and requiring certain partners to provide information to Overview and Scrutiny and have regard to its recommendations. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has a full work plan and a number of activities have been completed in the current year. Copeland BC – Governance – Councillor Workload implications 3.11. It is an important role of a councillor to sit on Council committees to ensure the views of constituents are heard and taken into account in decision-making. 3.12. While the Elected Mayor may choose up to a maximum of nine councillors to sit on the Executive and the present Mayor chooses not to do this, it has to be recognised that this could change. Mayors change, like councillors, and this review needs to ensure the optimum number of councillors for any possible scenario. Councils change and already since the writing of the Council report the makeup of the Executive has changed and the majority party now has no Executive positions. 3.13. Executive meetings last on average only 45 minutes because pre-meeting discussions are held. This might seem to some to be a positive, but the reality is that Executive meetings, which are open to the public, are seen merely as a tick-box exercise. This way of working does little for openness and transparency. Scrutiny becomes an even more vital function in this situation, with subsequent implications for workload. It should be noted that scrutiny does not have fulltime officer support, and therefore much of the work is physically carried out by councillors, not just the decision making. 3.14. Full Council meetings are held throughout the Borough and commendable as this might be, trying to get all elected Councillors to Millom alongside the necessary officers is both time consuming and expensive. The 6 Millom and Haverigg Councillors of course have to make the same journey in reverse to get to Whitehaven but in reality it is easier for the few to travel rather than the majority. The point is: due to circumstances around travel, attendance at meetings outside of Whitehaven tends to be significantly reduced; if Councillor numbers are reduced the risks for meetings not being quorate are greater. 3.15. There is a significant concern that with 33 councillors as has been proposed, with potentially 9 taking an Executive role and 13 on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee,

Page 8 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

only 11 councillors would be available to carry out the Council’s other functions, Planning and Licensing plus Audit and Governance. There are very strong arguments that members should have roles on certain combinations of committees yet, excluding Executive, NSIP and Full Council, 100 places on committees would remain to be filled by just 24 councillors. The statement in the Council report (and the Mayor’s submission) regarding numbers of committees that a councillor could reasonably sit on (one major, at least two minor), is one that we do not support and is based on no evidence nor of actual speaking to any Councillors. 3.16. Currently, councillors’ attendance at meetings is erratic, especially among councillors in paid employment, and increasing the Council workload would prove problematic for some and could potentially deter prospective councillors. We estimate the average age of a Copeland Councillor is around 60 years and the Borough already faces a challenge to find councillors, particularly younger ones. Reducing the number of councillors would not make this problem go away. In fact increasing the workload of fewer councillors would result in councillors not being a true representation of the Copeland communities. Overview and Scrutiny 3.17. The LGA 2017 Councillor Guide states “Overview and scrutiny lies at the heart of local accountability. It is the principal democratic means, between elections, of ensuring that decisions made by the council and its partners are held to account”. With a Directly Elected Mayor system there is little except for elections to hold Mayors to account, which makes the role of scrutiny vital. 3.18. What has failed to be mentioned and omitted from the report is the number of task and finish groups there have been and will continue to be. One scrutiny member listed 116 meetings (to the end of August 2017) she had attended, and she is not unique in this. These were: Whitehaven Partnership meetings 9 meetings Car Parking PDG [policy development group] 7 meetings Reserves Working Group 3 meetings Equalities Working Group 8 meetings Safeguarding Working Group 8 meetings Accommodation Working Group 8 meetings Policy Meetings 2 meetings Consultation meetings 7 meetings Training Sessions for Cllrs 6 meetings Social Inclusion Project meetings 3 meetings Mayors Briefings 15 meetings Call- in meetings 4 meetings Lead Managers Group 1 meeting Task & Finish Groups

Page 9 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

Whitehaven Courts 5 meetings Disabled Facilities Grants 7 meetings Success Regime Response 12 meetings Social Media Policy 2 meetings Constitution 4 meetings Recycling 5 meetings It should be noted that these are in addition to actual committee time, commitments to outside bodies (as a council appointee) or any external briefings. We do not believe this workload is unusual. It should also be noted that whilst OSC members do the bulk of scrutiny work, task and finish groups recruit from the full councillor pool (bar Executive) and thus their workload is also increased by proper scrutiny. National Strategic Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) 3.19. It would be wrong to ignore the changing times in Copeland and even though the Commission cannot consider developments that have not secured planning permission, in the case of nuclear this would be an incorrect stance to take as there is a workload effect now. There is an extensive amount of work that has to be gone through before a nuclear development can even think about submitting an application. Hence the need for Copeland to have a NSIP committee, but as such developments affect more than the immediate area. ALL councillors need to play their role to ensure all impacts are listed. This workload extends beyond the Copeland boundary into both the County and National arenas. 3.20. Moorside (new nuclear reactor site) is just one of those developments and is extremely significant in considering councillor workload. As with any such development, the Council will be expected to compile local impact reports. Both the nuclear station and the associated development as well as the National Grid connection are planned for Copeland so this work will be extensive, demanding wide-ranging democratic involvement and representing a massive call on members’ time. Apart from the construction of the actual power stations, which will attract in excess of 20,000 extra people to Copeland, the project requires provision of worker accommodation sites, highway improvements, railway improvements to both tracks and stations and connection to the electricity network amongst other things. There will be a need for extensive consultation ahead of decisions that will affect Copeland for hundreds of years to come. Getting it right is vital and councillors are best placed to do this. 3.21. Local impact reports are reliant on local councillors who know their area and who are well placed to act as two-way communication conduits. No one should underestimate the amount of work this will entail but as it will secure the future of Copeland, socially, economically and environmentally having sufficient councillors to fulfil this role is vital and anything else will result in Copeland failing to benefit from the investment to the extent it should. The link below sets out the expectations to be placed upon Copeland. https://nugenconsultation.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/Stage-2-Socc-proposal- vsingle-AW.pdf 3.22. As an idea of what developments, infrastructure and worker requirements will be needed Nugen published the following: all of these developments apart from the Power stations themselves will lie with the remit of the Council's planning department:

Page 10 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

NuGen breaks down the scheme into various parts - the three reactor Moorside power station itself, the Moorside project railway, accommodation sites, highways improvements and developments at the Port of Workington. The power station would be capable of producing up to 3.8 Gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 6m homes and supply 7.5 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs. NuGen has signed a deal to export most of that to the National Grid. The power station would include three nuclear 'islands' each having concrete shield and auxiliary buildings and a free-standing steel containment vessel; three turbine, three diesel generators, three radiological waste and three annexe buildings as well as personnel facilities would be constructed. A visitor centre, which may include conferencing facilities and a viewing platform/elevated walkway, are also indicated. New access roads for Sellafield and Moorside, a River Ehen floodplain bridge and a marine off-loading facility and beach landing facility are mentioned. Railway improvements include an on-site railway and stretches at St Bees and Corkickle to Mirehouse. The on-site project would involve laying up to 9km of new track alongside the re-use of a disused branch line and one or more spurs and sidings. It is also proposed to build a worker rail platform complete with canopy and buildings. The St Bees work would comprise a new 30m stretch of track alongside and connected to the existing Cumbria Coast railway. This would provide more capacity for the line and enable NuGen charter and freight trains to operate alongside scheduled services. A new 3.2km stretch of track is proposed for Mirehouse to Corkickle alongside and connecting to the Cumbria Coast line. New platforms would be created at Corkickle and Mirehouse. Sprawling accommodation sites are outlined for Mirehouse, Corkickle and Egremont to "provide infrastructure and facilities needed to support construction of the Moorside Project". The Mirehouse site would cover about 166 acres and have accommodation and facilities for an estimated 2,500 people, with reserve space for a further 1,000. It would have 809 car parking spaces, a shuttle coach interchange and various facilities buildings, one of which could provide evening entertainment. There would also be sports pitches and amenity spaces. The Corkickle accommodation would be over two parcels of land, totalling about 49 acres. It would house 1,000 workers and have space for 500 more. It would have 295 car parking spaces as well as a coach interchange and facilities buildings. The 40-acre Egremont accommodation site would house an estimated 500 people, with reserve space for 500 more. It would have two facilities buildings, up to 218 car parking spaces, a coach interchange and a potential link into the Sustrans cycleway network. Road alterations are scheduled for the A66/A595 roundabout and on Ramsey Brow and Hall Brow in Workington 3.23. Copeland participated in the Government-run Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme, the process to locate a long-term home for the country’s higher level nuclear waste within a Deep Geological Repository. http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/ This work, over a three year period, involved all Copeland councillors at all stages. This is a prime example of Copeland councillors having to be actively involved in significant and long term work, simply because the nuclear waste is already located in Copeland. Currently Government is still actively seeking a site and its direction of travel is about to result in further consultation. Whether Copeland volunteers to be part of these discussions is yet to be determined but in reality we have little choice since Copeland is significantly affected

Page 11 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

whether the waste leaves the area or stays and councillors will need to help mitigate the impacts of these nationally significant developments. 3.24. Another massive development is the building of a new mine for coking coal just outside Whitehaven. Like the nuclear work this has already necessitated much preparatory work involving councillors. It too is not self-contained, involving both rail and road improvements to enable both the build and the working of the mining operation. 3.25. It cannot be underestimated the time and importance of carrying out site visits. On average these are as regular as the planning panel meetings and because of the geographical size of Copeland these, again on average, take up to one full day to carry out. Copeland – Representational Role – councillor workload implications Workload questionnaire 3.26. The Mayor’s submission (the paper to Council) has made much of the data gathered from the questionnaire completed by councillors, although many of those councillors were unaware of the ultimate purpose for which that questionnaire was devised. The majority of councillors report they are contacted by constituents at least 6-10 times a week but the questionnaire omitted to ask and therefore cannot report how much time some of these queries take to respond to and complete. The notion that councillors work, on average, between 7 and 14 hours a week on ward business is in addition to time spent on actual council business. The questionnaire fails to give a true picture as questions to elicit a more insightful response were simply not asked. Just 28 responses to the questionnaire were submitted but if councillors had understood the real reason behind the survey, it is likely the response rate would have been greater. This poorly-constructed questionnaire does not represent open and transparent consultation. It crucially did not ask questions about work and caring commitments, current stresses in managing council workload or ability to undertake additional work. Additionally we have not had sight of the raw data. There were qualitative, free-hand answers to questions and potentially useful information that was not available to us. Averaging responses implies all are equally logical and valid, and also that workload is balanced across the borough. Also in contradiction to the aims of the review it assumes that councillors representing 900 constituents have the same workload as those representing double that. Councillors’ arguments about increasing or decreasing workload may be equally valid; one councillor may have come up with a pertinent point not considered by the others. ICT 3.27. The mention of IT does not in reality not reduce the workload of Councillors. The Council does not have an extensive range of services to access through the website and cognisance needs to be taken of both the aging population of Copeland and the number of people who don’t have access to computers. The fact that there is a large amount of Copeland that is not covered by a decent broadband reception which disbars them from being able to liaise with the council via the web. All it takes is what has happened to Copeland recently; a cyber-attack which has resulted in the Council having no IT and no sign of when things will be returned to normal, and access to the Council is virtually impossible. In any case a large part of the constituent/councillor workload is around identifying the correct organisation to respond to the need.

Page 12 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

Outside bodes 3.28. Outside body representation is fundamental to representing the Borough so Copeland co- operates with a plethora of outside organisations. Uniquely, Copeland’s outside bodies include representation on a number of nuclear-related panels; a special challenge not seen in most other authorities. The Mayor’s submission however, does not highlight where these meetings take place, nor their frequency or length. Many outside bodies are countywide meeting in Carlisle or Kendal; a significant number meet outside of the county. Nor does the report say anything about the number of briefings councillors require before attending outside bodies. 3.29. There is very little mention of the role Copeland councillors play within Parish and Town Councils. Out of the 51 present Copeland councillors 37 are dual hatted and are active on a Parish or Town Council. We can only hazard an estimate as it was not a question asked, but at least another 10 attend their Parish or Town Council meetings as the Copeland ward councillor. No one should underestimate the importance of the Parish / Town Councils and in Copeland it is really seen as mandatory to attend and any councillor who truly wants to represent their area should attend. They are an excellent source of information and in these times of austerity they are taking on services that Councils, like Copeland are having to pass down to them. 3.30. To reach a fair understanding of the time and resources required here, an in-depth examination is needed before confirming support for a change in the number of existing councillor numbers. The Commission should receive all pertinent information before starting the formal consultation but as previously explained, we as a Labour Group have not had sufficient notice in order to undertake this significant piece of work. Emergency Response 3.31. Further cognisance has to be given to the Councils ability to respond in emergency situations. Copeland is prone to flooding, has heightened risks to nuclear facilities requiring an Emergency Response plan and sadly was also the victim of a mass shooting 2010. In each of these situations Gold Command led by the Emergency services has been implemented but in all cases the first point of call for the man in the street is their councillor. It also needs to be considered that ALL of Copeland’s senior officers live outside of Copeland and at times councillors have had to lead on emergency responses due to officers not being able to access Copeland. The Council does not pay for officers to be on call so it is the good will of those who carry the brunt of the response. Thought should also be given to dealing with the aftermath of emergencies, when the initial emergency is over the Local Authority has to pick up the mantle, with reduced capacity within the Council officers it is falling onto councillors as community leaders. As said Copeland has a significant record of having to deal with emergencies and in more cases than not it is councillors who are first and last in attendance. Councillors are needed for this essential role. The nuclear facilities within Copeland’s borders mean that Emergency Planning means more exercises than in other Local Authority areas; by necessity these also involve councillors, as outlined above 4) Council Services – councillor workload implications 4.1. We accept that the number of employees directly employed by Copeland has reduced (as described in the Council paper) but that does not necessarily equate to a proportional reduction in workload. Copeland must provide the same statutory services; we suggest the

Page 13 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

discretionary services identified in that report do not impact on councillors’ Council workload. The removal of public toilets, changes to bin collections, etc does not impact directly on councillors who were never active in these areas. 4.2. The Council retains some play areas but to claim all these assets were transferred is incorrect. Similarly, the transfer of building assets does not absolve the Council of responsibility as they remain the building owners. The “In-bloom awards”, as they should be, have always been led by community representatives and areas who compete involve their councillors as community activists. 4.3. The decision to provide leisure facilities remains with the Council and councillors are active members monitoring the work of the providers who are working from Council owned buildings. 4.4. The Council report overlooks additional discretionary works the Council has taken on. Commercialisation, a priority for the Mayor, is a role the Council now carries out. Economic development has merged into prioritising the unemployed and skills agenda as well as dealing with derelict buildings. This is important to the economic development of Copeland, taking on the role of accountable body responsibility for external organisations,. As an example, tackling social inclusion for the elderly and more vulnerable people in Copeland, is one of the Council priorities We have allocated monies to work in partnership with AgeUK and there are two councillors who attend meetings and monitor this project against targets ensuring best value and high performance. Please note that this working is not even identified in the Council report as an Outside body and in reality there are many more like this. An important issue here in Copeland is the high rate of people with disabilities, the number of elderly and the rurality of Copeland. Although we no longer own our own housing stock we do have statutory responsibility to provide disabled facilities grants (DFG) The introduction of the Care Act 2014 stresses independence, and with cuts to social care it is vitally important. With Nationally made changes to the benefits system, with yet more to come, we find we are called upon more and more to help people deal with PIP claims, accompanying applicants to appeals and supporting them through the process. A big chunk of our work is acting as liaison with the social housing providers. Even though as said the Council no longer owns its own housing there is still a major call on our time and support to help tenants sort out their problems. Part of the reason for this is that the largest housing provider has now closed its offices in Copeland, has no presence and all dealings are via a call centre. This, as said, has increased Councillors workload in dealing with tenants' problems. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Copeland Borough Council itself has closed its area offices except for Millom, the latest being Cleator Moor in January. Now Copeland has six main areas and groups of communities known as ‘Localities’ which are identified as distinctive functional areas having their own particular issues and needs. These are led by six area based Community Regeneration Partnerships with different governance structures underlying an approach to placemaking considered to be a key spatial planning tool helping to deliver sustainable communities. It is of note that Copeland councillors do not have dedicated officer support to undertake any work for them (as occurs for example in the County Council). This means that councillors, not officers, are often the ones drafting reports and undertaking research: a hidden time commitment that needs to be allowed for.

Page 14 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

5) Sense of Place

Page 15 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

5.1. Areas within Copeland have very strong allegiances to others; these are limited usually to their immediate neighbours or towns where people do their shopping. This in Copeland is of no real surprise as the geographical size of Copeland makes it impossible for e.g Distington to have any sense of place with Millom. Even areas closer to each other are not necessarily aligned, Beckermet neighbours Egremont but looks towards more to Gosforth and Seascale due to their socio economic similarities. As stated above, Copeland has six main areas and groups of communities known as ‘Localities’ which are identified as distinctive functional areas having their own particular issues and needs. These are led by six area based Community Regeneration Partnerships with different governance structures underlying an approach to placemaking considered to be a key spatial planning tool helping to deliver sustainable communities. These localities have been in existence for many years and have been used to define policing areas, parish council groupings, community regeneration areas and are used by the Council for LDT and spatial planning. Therefore these localities are recognised as having a sense of place, commonality of environment, economy and challenges and notice needs to be taken of these when numbers and boundaries are been considered. Working on a 1:1300 electorate the changes to the representation is shown on the locality map on the previous page. 6) Proposals – Response 6.1. This section outlines our opinion on the proposals contained in the Council report which has become the Mayor’s submission, and likely the Conservative submission, despite being defeated in the democratic vote at full council 6.2. The Copeland Labour Group acknowledges that the current ratio of councillors to electors is relatively high compared to other Cumbrian authorities, but Copeland is not like other authorities. Barrow and Carlisle are very much urban areas while South Lakes and Eden are predominantly rural. Allerdale is probably our nearest similar Authority but does not have the geographical isolation or economic challenges Copeland has. Allerdale, our nearest neighbour, has recently undergone a boundary review which saw their councillor numbers reduce from 56 to 48. While their electorate is just under 20,000 more than Copeland, it seems Allerdale warrants 15 more councillors than the number currently proposed in the Copeland Mayor's submission. Only Copeland includes Sellafield and whilst accepting the challenges which face each of the other Cumbrian authorities, Sellafield and the other nuclear facilities here pose a challenge and opportunity now and for years to come, of a very different magnitude. 6.3. Recognition of Copeland’s uniqueness is imperative; this is not a “usual” call but one that is backed up and evidence is enough to stand up to close scrutiny and support the need for approx. 1 councillor per 1300 electorate

6.4. Cognisance of Councillors present workload, is not truly represented in the Mayor's report, and the age profile of Councillors has to be considered. Copeland BC has always struggled in attracting a younger demographic and by placing an increased workload, in a geographically large Borough will not change that situation. 6.5. Increasing the workload and the electorate in wards and significantly reducing the number of Councillors would ensure that Copeland BC would not have a Council that is truly

Page 16 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

representative of the local population. Employers locally cannot or choose not to allow additional days leave for Council duties; only Sellafield and the LLWR are able to do this, but this in itself raises a risk that only nuclear workers are able to stand for Council. This cannot be allowed to happen as the risk to true representation of the communities of Copeland is too high. 6.6. In the relatively new form of governance we have at Copeland it is important that scrutiny and challenge are adequately resourced to enable them to carry out their duties. Having enough Councillors to sit on committees is important and thought has to be taken of some Councillors just not wanting to attend meetings, illness of Councillors and other matters which would pull them away from meetings leaving them at risk of not been inquorate. It would be easy to say that this could be dealt with but in reality it would take potentially 4 years to make any changes, if at all 7) Summary 7.1. Bearing in mind the limited time the Copeland Labour Group has had to compose this response we still feel there is enough evidence to request that the Boundary commission do not accept the councillor number of 33 as proposed by others, but consider something more in line with a 1:1300 ratio. 7.2. This is in consideration of the uniqueness of Copeland, the need to attract younger, more demographically representatives of the Borough to be Councillors, the need to ensure there are adequate Councillors to carry out the necessary governance and representative roles that exist now and in the future, and the geographically size and isolation that Copeland suffers from. 7.3. There are 6 existing and recognised localities which need to remain connected as they are known and recognised and worked with by many organisations. 7.4. The number of councillors should not be the driving reason for any review; ensuring areas have the best and right representation is essential. There are a number of unique factors that mean Copeland requires a slightly higher councillor :electorate ratio than suggested by the Mayor's report and elsewhere in similar sized authorities.  Urban deprivation  Rural isolation  Poor transport  Poor broadband and mobile coverage  An aging population profile  The nuclear challenge / opportunity  New nationally significant infrastructure project development  A Mayoral system with additional scrutiny needs. We have attached a copy of the draft full council minutes; they will be agreed at the next full council meeting which unfortunately is after the due date for this response. You will read that councillors, not all Labour did not support the report. It was sad that the Portfolio holder set the tone for the meeting by concentrating on the number of councillors when in reality the review is so much more than that. The work of the Commission will help dictate what the future governance of Copeland Borough Council will look like. Copeland has a national role when it comes to nuclear and it is in the local

Page 17 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017 community and national interest that Copeland is adequately resourced with Councillors to allow it to fulfil all its roles. That is why this review is too important to get wrong and if more time is needed then in relative terms it would be worth it to ensure we get it right. We would welcome the opportunity to speak to the commission direct about this document and will happily provide any further information if you require any. Councillor Ray Gill – Leader of Copeland Labour Group.

Appendices A.1 Copeland Borough Council Minutes – 31 August 2017

Page 18 Copeland Labour Group LGBC submission September 2017

Local Government Boundary Commission for England Review into Copeland Borough Council Additional response from Copeland Labour Group October 2017

Firstly, we very much appreciate the time taken to talk to us via conference call, and the extension to 27th October to allow us to supply extra information. This submission supplies additional evidence and information in the four areas you asked us about: 1. Governance 2. Delegation 3. Council sizes 4. Remote working We have also updated the list of contacts that were supplied with the Mayor’s submission, and as discussed in the phone call, we have added some additional groups to the list but there are still some others that we know about, but it will take a bit longer to secure the contact details. You will also see that we have made some comment on the list as we have concerns that the majority are either organisations who are statutory service providers, receive funding from the Council or the Copeland Community fund or are Govt organisations that really should not be seen to have an influence on the running of a Local Authority. If you have any further queries on this then please just let us know. We refer often in this submission to the Council’s Constitution. This can be found at http://copeland.moderngov.co.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD242&ID=242&RPID=516543&sch=do c&cat=13112&path=13112 1. Governance 1.1. The Council operates with a Directly Elected Mayor model which in reality provides few opportunities for a significant number of members to be directly involved in decision making. Consequently, workloads between members does vary. 1.2. Currently the Executive consists of:‐  Directly Elected Mayor  Deputy Mayor  Portfolio Holder  Portfolio holder 1.3. Although currently consisting of three councillors, in addition to the Mayor, legislation and indeed the Council’s constitution allows the Mayor to have between 2 and 9 of the elected members of the council on his Executive. It also allows him to change both the number and the portfolios at any time, so long as Council are informed. He may also change the occupants of the roles. 1.4. Until September 2017, the Mayor’s Executive was cross‐party, but this was dissolved and the party with the greatest number of seats, Labour, is now in opposition. A result of which is that shadow members are being appointed, whose portfolios will align to those held by the Executive members.

Page 1 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17

Outside Bodies 1.11. There are 94 places on outside bodies. (Those places exclude Copeland Partnership and 3 Tier Quarterly Meetings as all 51 councillors are invited to attend these. It also doesn’t include the Champion roles because these do not necessarily mean attending outside meetings.) The Mayor’s submission suggests that these positions could be held by 33 councillors along with the Mayor. We assert that this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what outside body works entails and the workload implications. Some of this argument will also be explored further in the section on delegation. For example, the representative on the North‐West Employees organisation attends meetings in Manchester (3 hours from Whitehaven) quarterly, BUT also attends working group meetings and pre‐meetings; taken together this means he is in Manchester at least once per month, at times rising to 2 or 3 times. The Cumbria Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meets in Carlisle (1 hr 15mins from Whitehaven) recently due to proposed changes in acute hospital service provision the CBC representative has been at formal and informal meetings at least every 2 weeks. The representative on the National Park, not only attends the main meetings but subgroups as well. The National Park meets at Murley Moss near Kendal (1¾ hours from Whitehaven) and our representative is attending at least 6 times per month. These examples are representative of outside body attendances, and the distances involved in attending. In the majority of cases, (and this is different from other councils) the member is the only representative of the council on the outside body; there is neither an officer appointment nor does any officer attend in support of the member. Additionally, the majority of members (excluding Mayor and Executive) receive no CBC officer support or briefing prior to their outside body meetings, and therefore the member relies on their own knowledge, own reading of materials as well as seeking advice and attending pre‐meetings with the outside body organisation. They are responsible for obtaining and printing all their own papers. Likewise, post‐meeting there is no support to carry out tasks that may have been delegated to that member as result, or to provide clarification, further evidence or explanation, or identify where there experience impacts upon the Council and what actions need to be taken as a result. Officers of the Council may meet with members to assist but the member must identify the correct officer, book time and do all the preparatory work. 1.12. There is already a very strong argument that the outside bodies should be more fairly distributed, but what is not worthy of further discussion is that if the councillor numbers are decreased to 33 the workload on those councillors would be unworkable, and in a time when reliance on outside bodies is increasingly important due to the council’s inability to deliver anything in isolation representation is vital. Scrutiny 1.13. With a Mayor and executive model, scrutiny has a vital role to play in holding the executive to account and challenging decisions. Scrutiny is also essential in proactively investigating the activity of the Council and suggesting changes that require either executive or Council consideration or approval.

Page 4 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 Thirdly, as the Council staff reduces in size as a result of the funding cuts, the Council rightly is concentrating on being an enabler of partnership working and holding other bodies to account. This means there is an external scrutiny function also being undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Council only employs a halftime officer to support all the overview and scrutiny work. This means that as with outside bodies, councillors do much of the preparation, exploration of information and investigation (including meetings with external bodies) themselves. It is also worth noting that it isn’t just Scrutiny Committee members who take part in task and finish groups, as these are open to ALL members. (Excluding Mayor and Executive members). Reducing numbers would again place more pressure on other members. Our previous submission showed the workload of a scrutiny member in terms of meetings attended. Although at the higher end of commitment, this is not an unusual level of expectation i.e. she is not an outlier. Briefings and Training 1.14. Councillors are offered briefings, workshops and training on a variety of topics. These are also provided by outside institutions e.g. NUGEN (proposed new nuclear generators), West Cumbria Mining etc. On average there is one two‐hour session per week during ‘term‐time’ (i.e. not August, end of December and over Easter). Councillors need to be able to rely on their own knowledge and understanding far more than some other councils, as they do not have the officer support to back them up. Since councillors must have a working knowledge of a broad range of topics including the work of the Council, legislative and operational changes and the economic and political environment in which they and their constituents live and work, these briefings are essential, and almost compulsory. Unfortunately, attendance is never 100% at these briefings or training sessions, so again we find that it is a few who have taking part and consequently workload on those few increases. Temporary workforce 1.15. The workload of councillors is like most of the rest of the Council services variable. There is no doubt that those councillors representing urban wards simply by their constituent numbers and deprivation indices have a heavier workload. 1.16. Also of consideration is the transient workforce we have here in Copeland. Sellafield has a high number of contractors that for 5 days of the week reside in Copeland, predominately in the main towns. Other employers including the NHS and the Council itself also have a higher than average number of weekly commuters, compared to larger urban centres. These people are quite rightly not registered on the CBC electoral roll but that does not stop them having needs whilst living in Copeland. Issues like missed bins, and access to services such as dentists and doctors are regular queries councillors have to respond to in respect of temporary residents. 1.17. Having the right governance for now and in the future, is vital if we want to have a Local Authority that is fit for purpose. 2. Delegation Delegation of tasks 2.1. Councillors do not receive any real officer support. This is not a criticism of the officers of the Council but a reflection on how the Council is structured. Individuals meet frequently

Page 5 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 with councillors and offer telephone and email advice from their subject area. There is however no officer who has in their role doing work on a member’s behalf outside of an operational brief. 2.2. Therefore, members are dealing with issues single‐handedly, which is not necessarily a bad thing, they are a self‐sufficient group of councillors; they have had to be as budgets and consequently staff have been decimated. There is need for sufficient councillors to ensure that people from all over Copeland have a voice and are adequately represented. There is no scope for CBC to appoint support for councillors due to diminishing budgets therefore councillors must do ALL the work themselves. 2.3. Section 1 gave examples of where members of the Council needed to dedicate time to undertake work that in other councils might be delegated to an officer. This extends to casework as well. For example, a resident recently approached a councillor regarding some flytipping. The councillor needs to identify the correct officer to approach: they may do this from knowledge of previous instances, or work through other officers to find the correct person, their email and contact telephone number. The member needs to discuss (face‐to‐face or email) the issue and possible solutions with the correct officer(s), that might involve some diary planning if more than one officer is involved. In this example the councillor needs to liaise with people in waste (to remove the item) and property (to determine whether the land is in the Council’s ownership). The way forward has been determined as writing to residents likely to have contributed to the flytipping. The councillor needs to compose and possibly deliver the letter. By contrast on the County Council, the member would approach the Support Officer who would do research and find the correct officer to approach. The Officer would contact them and set up the meeting, or arrange for the officer to call the member. They might prepare a pre‐meeting briefing, and would draft letters. The workload difference for the councillor is significant; hours vs minutes. 2.4. In our original submission, we talked about emergency responses such as to flooding. Councillors play a key role on the ground in such scenarios. They are often firstline responders and initial co‐ordinators as senior staff are not resident within the Borough, and in any case the distances involved in a response means it takes over an hour to get from the council offices in Whitehaven to Millom (even in good conditions). Delegation of decisions 2.5. We have considered the Scheme of Delegation presently in operation in Copeland and cannot see where any further delegation of decision‐making could be made without making councillors feel even less effective than they do now when it comes to decision making at CBC or removing the strategic oversight provided for in the Constitution. 2.6. There is no doubt that with the introduction of the Mayor model of Governance there is less input into decisions by the vast majority of Councillors. 2.7. There is some scope for the Mayor to delegate down to Executive members or indeed some non‐executive members, but the Mayor has not chosen to do this, nor has he chosen to delegate any more decision making down to the officers. 2.8. There is a very obvious gap between what the Executive know and what non‐Executive councillors know or are consulted on. The Labour Group want this to change through more effective scrutiny of decision‐making. Since the current Group Leader took up post at the end of August, this has started to happen. However, it is early days and this new system has

Page 6 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 to bed down. Shadow portfolio roles are not developed. The workload implications have yet to be fully understood but undoubtedly it means more not less work for councillors. 2.9. Additionally, more delegation of decision‐making away from Council and the Committees will alienate the majority of the councillors and simply would not be tolerated. It also would contravene the Constitution which is clear on the responsibility for strategic decision‐making. 2.10. The officers are rightly and clearly the most occupationally‐competent people, but councillors are qualified in representing their community and the balance of being able to influence decision making must be right. At present this is the case and there is no reasonable case for further delegation away from councillors to the Executive, or from the Executive to officers. 2.11. Delegation in some ways is irrelevant as councillors have a wider role outside of the council offices, we represent those who elected us, we ensure their opinions are heard, we defend them where and if needed and tell them when they are wrong. Delegation of the representative role is simply not possible. 3. Council size 3.1. We do not consider that coming up with a number of councillors then finding justification is the right way to do go about things. Instead, we have worked backwards by looking at workloads, talking to councillors and examining the present governance structure. 3.2. This work has resulted in us settling on a ratio of 1 councillor to 1300 electorate i.e. a minimum of 42 councillors which we believe is right for Copeland the council and more importantly right for Copeland, the people. 3.3. Alternative sizes of Council were considered. Obviously, we considered the Mayoral proposal but after a serious look at it, it is clear, that 33 is simply unworkable, will leave no room for any flexibility and will reduce the non‐executive councillors’ ability to correctly scrutinise and hold the Executive and Mayor to account. It would place an ever‐increasing and overwhelming workload on councillors which would act as a deterrent for those who are interested in becoming councillors, and also work full or even part time. It would also lead to good conscientious councillors standing down as they cannot meet the commitment to do a good job. It would ensure that we continue as a council with a high (and increasing) average age and therefore not truly being representative of the Copeland community. 3.4. We also considered the status quo, and, in some ways, that would have been a very easy and probably the most political thing we could have done as an opposition group. But we recognise change is needed but we want that change to be positive, not negative. 3.5. It is obvious that, with 51 councillors, a percentage are simply being carried and some are not even members of any committees, that in itself might be a bit more acceptable to others if they were active within their communities but unfortunately that is not the case. 3.6. Politically, with the high number of Labour councillors (which has remained reasonably steady since Copeland’s inception), retaining 51 would be in our best interest, but again we accept changes have been made at the Council and we need to change to ensure the right structure is in place for the Council. 3.7. We also looked at councillors’ attendance and on average councillors were attending one meeting per month and think this could be increased without any negative impact on workloads.

Page 7 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 3.8. It would be fair to say we also considered other numbers in between 33 and 51 but found anything less than 42 would impact negatively on present workloads. Too few members would negatively impact on the councillors’ ability to hold the Mayor and Executive to account, and community representation would be too onerous as councillor workload has not decreased in fact, as we argued, that it has increased. 3.9. We have read comments made from the public that there were too many councillors, though none were supported by any evidence more opinions whipped up by political opportunists. We are aware that the Mayor, pledged in his manifesto to reduce councillor numbers (based on no knowledge, facts or understanding of the extent of a councillor’s role) and is billing any movement from his proposed 33 as empire building. 3.10. In reality, we have tried to be dispassionate and believe that we have presented a balanced, factual argument to support a 1:1300 ratio, that is 42 councillors. 4. Remote working and communications 4.1. In our original submission we commented on communication links in Copeland (2.10 of that submission). Broadband 4.2. Appendix 1 shows broadband coverage within Copeland as at October 2017. It can be seen that there are significant areas with no coverage and large areas with poor coverage. Although the county has accessed funding to upgrade rural areas to superfast broadband, this funding has limited impact on the area. 4.3. Commercial areas are excluded; these are those where it is deemed that a service could be profitably provided, whether it actually is or not. This definition covers the most urban areas but superfast broadband is not being provided to all cabinets in that area. Broadband connections are reported to be unreliable, in that they cut out for short periods each day, throughout the area. 4.4. Additionally, deep rural areas are not being connected under the scheme as it is sought to maximise the use of the funding. Therefore, the larger villages are being prioritised and smaller ones, hamlets etc will not be connected. 4.5. Where properties are some distance from a box and have not been upgraded e.g. Ennerdale there is no functional broadband at all i.e. connections timeout before even simple email application open and documents cannot be downloaded; it certainly would not be possible to load or complete online forms. Mobile 4.6. Appendix 2 shows the combined coverage of all networks in Copeland. Again, there are significant areas with no access to any network. 4.7. Most access is 3G at best with significant areas of 2G. 4.8. BT maintains a significant number of payphones in the valleys of Copeland for emergency use by visitors who have no recourse to a landline. A journey from the north to the south of the borough often elicits a roaming message from network operators, as the signal from the Isle of Man is picked up as the phone searches for any available network! 4.9. Outside the main towns and larger villages, it is often not possible to use a smartphone for Internet access. Even where there is access it can be difficult to achieve any task other than simple social media access via the mobile networks, as apps timeout before loading e.g. filling in DWP applications.

Page 8 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 4.10. It should be noted that areas with poor mobile coverage are likely to have limited or no broadband access either. 4.11. Many websites and applications are still very difficult or even impossible to access via a mobile phone, no matter how good it, the network and the user’s ability are.

Age 4.12. The age profile of Copeland is higher than the national average. That average age is rising and is predicted to rise further (in part due to the migration of younger people out of the area and retirees into it). 4.13. Older people are less likely to use email and the Internet. Even where they have access to Internet enabled devices e.g. smartphones, they do not tend to use their full capability. They tend not to default to Internet use to solve problems but to seek information in person from a council officer or councillor. 4.14. Where older people do not already have Internet access, they tend to be resistant to using it even where facilities are provided e.g. free usage for pensioners in libraries. 4.15. Whilst these are generalisations and many older people do use IT, it undoubtedly increases workload for councillors as this generation looks to them to help find the correct avenue to solve their issue. Poverty 4.16. Paragraph 2.8 of our original submission show that many areas of Copeland are amongst the poorest in England. 4.17. Many households do not have landlines and do not have broadband contracts. Broadband contracts are seen as expensive and unnecessary. In part this is why the commercial broadband providers have not upgraded boxes in the more disadvantaged areas as the demand for such services is not there. 4.18. Mobile contracts can be expensive for unlimited data, and the handsets required for decent Internet access expensive to buy. 4.19. Free Internet for the unwaged, and cheap access for others is available through libraries in Cumbria. However, many branch libraries have been closed through funding cuts and travel to main libraries on public transport can be too expensive and difficult. Ability for councillors to use ICT 4.20. The factors which prevent Internet access by the general population also apply to councillors. Lack of mobile and broadband access can restrict a councillor’s access to information, including notification and papers for meetings. When undertaking work on behalf of constituents, councillors may have to travel into Whitehaven in order to access the Internet. For example, there is a councillor, who lives in a hamlet with very poor broadband (speeds worse than dialup) and no mobile coverage. He was until recently (2015) an Executive member and is IT proficient; he has had to switch to paper notifications as despite the best efforts of the council’s IT department to come up with a solution, nothing has enabled Internet or email access. 4.21. Where access is poor, IT proficient councillors have often come up with ‘workarounds’ to enable them to use their limited and often erratic connections. However new councillors are typical of our communities and may have had no IT usage prior to becoming councillors. They are shown how to use the equipment, but this does not give them the skills needed to work it when it malfunctions due to the vagaries of their connection (or even to know that

Page 9 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 it is connection problems that are the issue). Nor are they able to do some of the more advance searches required when working on behalf of constituents. 4.22. All it takes is for a cyber‐attack to cause even further problems. CBC was hit in August and is still not back fully working, meaning councillors and more importantly the public have no access to online council services, and no definitive date of when this will be rectified. Impact on councillor workload 4.23. Cumbria has three‐tier local government. In Copeland there are parish councils of varying sizes and ease of contact. The council housing stock has been transferred to a social landlord. As in other areas, trunk roads are managed by Highways England, other roads by the County Council, footways mostly by Copeland unless they are in social housing areas or by the harbour! In other words, it is a complicated, often confusing set up when it comes to service provision. 4.24. Both the County Council and Copeland Borough Council have reduced the number of public serving offices where residents can drop in and ask questions. Both councils have downsized dramatically, and officers are less able to answer queries as they used to do. Not long ago, if an officer received a query which was not strictly their area, they would still try and ensure that an answer was provided. Sheer volume of work means that the response to such a query now would be a simple reply of the ‘not me, try someone else’ variety (without necessarily the pointer to who that might be). CBC used to have area offices in the four main towns in recognition of the geographical nature of Copeland, now we have one in Whitehaven and one in Millom. Our residents are now expected to contact the council via the internet or phone, the internet is down now and regularly even before this incident and on average it takes between 10 and 20 mins to get the council to answer the phone. The main social housing provider has shut its Copeland‐based customer drop in centre and instead all queries must go through a North‐East call centre. 4.25. Without access to the Internet, telephone costs and without easy recourse to face to face queries, residents are increasingly turning to councillors to help with queries. Even with Internet access it can be difficult to know who does what i.e. which website to go to. Low ICT skill levels (in part due to lack of practice due to lack of opportunity due to lack of access) make more than the most basic of searches very difficult. 4.26. Councillors pick up all these pieces: they are resident in their communities, their phone numbers in the public domain. It is more and more common to get a knock on the door, a telephone call or an ambush in the supermarket by someone desperate just to know where to start their search. 4.27. Councillors can find themselves playing detective for residents: and may themselves have to do extensive non‐Internet research to help signpost to the correct organisation and person. In an Internet age it is increasingly difficult to find telephone numbers within organisations and can take hours of research to do so. They often have to physically go into the Council offices to undertake such work. 4.28. As previously discussed this is often done without any help from any officer of the Council. All work is done by the councillors themselves. 4.29. In addition, many of the Council’s own systems still do not allow residents and businesses to do as much online as they might want (or expect). Whilst the Council has well‐developed plans to be digital by default (all business ought to be done online if the customer would like to) this will take several more years to achieve. The recent cyber‐attack on the Council

Page 10 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 has also taken existing systems well and truly back into the paper era. Certainly, it will be the time of the next periodic review of the council that these electronic systems are both established and robust, with a population that are more or less all enabled to use them.

Councillor Raymond Gill Leader Labour Group Copeland Borough Council

Contact via: Copeland Constituency Labour Party Phoenix House Jacktrees Road Cleator Moor CA25 5BD [email protected]

Page 11 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17 Appendix 1. Superfast Broadband areas Downloaded 19th October 2017 from Connecting Cumbria 1. Areas with Live Superfast Broadband

2. Live Superfast plus basic broadband Superfast is defined as being faster than 24Mb/s speeds. There is no numerate definition of basic broadband.

Page 12 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17

Appendix 2.

Map updated 19 September 2017 (accessed 21 October 2017) Map shows coverage across all network providers

Page 14 Copeland Labour Group LGBC additional submission Oct ‘17