Submission regarding the number of Councillors for the Northumberland Unitary Council By Cllr Ed Brown (Haydon Parish Councillor and Tynedale District Councillor) Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................... Structure of County .............................................................................................................. Appendix 1 – NCC draft response dated 11 Sept 2009........................................................ Appendix 2 – Scrutiny proposal papers................................................................................ Appendix 3 – Committees and meetings.............................................................................. Appendix 4 – Travelling times .............................................................................................. Background In November 2004 residents in Northumberland took part in referendum about the structure of Local Government. As part of this referendum they were asked whether they wanted one unitary authority or two unitary authorities. The majority voted for two unitary authorities. Following the Referendum the Government stated that it accepted the outcome but later enforced the implementation of a single unitary authority. The public were not consulted by the government on whether or not they wished to have a single unitary council. However every local poll conducted by newspapers showed universal opposition to the single unitary authority. When announcing the decision the Secretary of State acknowledged that the public were against the establishment of the single unitary authority but said that the majority of stakeholders were in favour of a single unitary authority. Following the announcement Northumberland County Council began consultations with residents and Parish Councils on the implementation of Belonging Communities – a key part of the approved bid. The strength of opposition to Belonging Communities, the imposed boundaries, and the total lack of democratic accountability led to the idea of 27 Belonging Communities being abandoned as unworkable. At present there is no structure in place below the approved 3 area levels. However there is a commitment from Northumberland County Council to work form the “bottom up” to establish a new locality framework led by the parish and Town Councils within Northumberland. This background is important in examining the future structure of the Unitary Council as the lack of engagement with the Unitary Council due to the lack of accountability and the way the new Unitary has been imposed against the wishes of the electorate and without consultation with existing democratic bodies such as Parish Councils. Many Parish Councils are keen to take on additional responsibilities together with funds and resources delegated from the Unitary Council. However, Parish Councillors are part-time, unpaid community representatives who dedicate several hours a week to Parish business. They are not in a position to take over the role of District Councillors. Since the elections in May 2008 there has been little progress in developing the Unitary Authority political and managerial structures. This means that any submission made is made against a background of uncertainty and confusion. The main document used for this submission is the official submission made by Northumberland County Council (appendix 1) although I understand from NCC Democratic Services that this was modified following the meeting on the 11 September 2008 to state that 79 councillors are required. At the time of writing this modified version has not been made available to the public. In addition to the main document in Appendix 1 the original Unitary authority bid documents, the Unitary Authority Blueprint, Minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC), Minutes of the Joint Implementation Team (JIT) and The Development of Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government - September 2002 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been used in an attempt to provide some analysis of the number of councillors needed. It is hoped that by providing some analysis rather than commentary this will enable a more robust debate about the number of councillors required. This submission approaches the number of councillors required from the position of the roles and responsibilities of the councillors, the time required to fulfil those roles and responsibilities, and therefore the number of councillors required. It then goes on to look at the voters required per councillor and possible adjustments to be made across the county. It can be seen that based on these calculations that 94 councillors is recommended and it is hoped that by putting forward this suggested number it will stimulate debate and a factual based analysis of what is required as opposed to the proposal from Northumberland County Council that does not appear to be based on defined roles and responsibilities. Structure of the new Authority Unfortunately the overall structure of the new Authority is not clearly defined and the two prime documents for a discussion of the structure of the new Authority are the submission by NCC to the Boundary Committee (appendix 1), and the minutes of the various JOSC and JIT meetings including the 1 April 2008 meeting on Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2). What is of particular importance here is the extensive debates that were held regarding whether 3 or 5 areas committees would be implemented and the role of the area committees in Scrutiny arrangements. The outcome of these discussions was that 3 area committees would be implemented as contained in the original bid with scrutiny powers devolved to those area committees. The 1 April 2008 meeting proposed the roles and responsibilities of the County and Area Scrutiny Boards and these appear to have been carried forward in the proposal made to the commission where it is stated that “each committee will operate area based scrutiny of service delivery”. The submission also goes on to define the additional committees such as planning and regulatory committees. Taking the submission (appendix 1), the proposed Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2), and the confirmed commitment of all parties demonstrated in the minutes of the JOSC and JIT to include scrutiny at area level together with devolving power to localities wherever practical the overall political structure of the council – although not specifically define in one place is clear. The structure of the New Unitary will be a Chair and Vice-chair of the council who will chair meetings and take on the majority of ceremonious roles across the whole county. There will be a leader and deputy-leader of the council together with 6 or 8 portfolio executive members (a total of 8-10). Each of the Executive portfolio members will have a deputy who takes an active participatory role in the Executive process supporting and substituting for the Portfolio holder where required. Since the current executive is 8 members (Leader, deputy and six portfolio holders) and it is expected the workload will increase significantly with added District services it would seem reasonable to accept a 10 person Executive (Leader, Deputy plus 8 Portfolio Holders). This leads to a total of 18 elected members (including 8 deputy portfolio holders) actively involved with management of the Council. Those involved as Executive members and deputies are unable to serve of Overview & Scrutiny committees. The Chair and vice-chair of the council could serve on Overview & Scrutiny committees. There will be full-council meetings and a variety of other committees and sub-committees (see appendix 3) and a range of appointments to outside bodies (see appendix 1 & 5). It is difficult to comment on the appointments to outside bodies as these are still being reviewed by the New Authority and the only details I have available are the details for Tynedale outside bodies and those for the County as provided in appendix 1. Tynedale District Council currently appoints to 46 outside bodies (see appendix 5). Of these outside bodies 23 (marked) are bodies where members are also appointed by Northumberland County Council. It is reasonable to expect these duplicates will disappear or be greatly reduced. Eight 8) are bodies associated with NCC and all are likely to disappear. The remaining 15 bodies (23 member places) are likely to continue to require representation to protect the long term interests of taxpayers. It is unclear at what level these outside bodies will report into the council but for this exercise it is sufficient to know that they exist and the numbers of such bodies are greater than those specified in appendix 1. A full analysis of these bodies across all council is already underway to establish what rationalisation can be undertaken. However it is clear that given the financial and officer support given to many of these organisations that it would be sensible for appointments to continue to the majority of these bodies to protect taxpayers interests. In summary this leaves us with: Chair and Vice-chair of Council – both likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties. Leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Deputy-leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten (10) Executive members – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten deputy Executive