Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Leader

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/156

Contact: Robin Rogers, Strategy Manager Tel: 07789 923206

Report by Chief Executive (CA6).

In September 2016, Cabinet considered reports from Grant Thornton and PwC and a recommendation from the Performance Scrutiny Committee on options for reorganisation of local government within Oxfordshire. Cabinet directed officers to engage with stakeholders and the public to prepare proposals for a new unitary council to cover the whole county.

A discussion document was published in January 2017 to inform an extensive stakeholder and public engagement process. This process has now been completed.

This report introduces the full proposal that has subsequently been developed and recommends that the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

In addition to the report there are a number of annexes:

Annex 1: Bid document

Annex 2: Social and Community Impact Assessment

Annex 3: Summary of the engagement report

Annex 4: Letter of 20^th February from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Annex 5: Full engagement report (to follow)

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)              Note and commend the approach taken by the Leaders of Vale, South Oxfordshire, and the County Council in putting the interests of residents, business and communities first in bringing forward these proposals.

(b)            Consider the proposals, in particular taking note that 70% of those responding to the representative household survey supported the proposal for a new single unitary council for Oxfordshire

(c)             Respond to the recent letter from the Secretary of State and submit the proposals for a new unitary council for Oxfordshire, subject to any minor amendments required

(d)             Delegate the power to make such amendments to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the County Council and with South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

(e)             Ask officers to seek local support from key stakeholders and the wider public to promote the proposals to Government, and respond to any subsequent consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State

(f)               Agree that the further development of the Area Executive Board model, through the establishment of a Joint Committee, open to all Districts and City Councils across Oxfordshire and the County Council, should be formed as early as possible.  This Joint Committee should work with the existing County Council advisory group, local communities, Town and Parish Councils, and key delivery partners to develop detailed proposals that articulate the role, powers, format, scale and responsibilities of the Area Executive Boards which will be submitted to the Implementation Executive for inclusion with the proposed constitution of the new council.

(g)             Ask officers to take steps to establish the City Convention to work with residents and local stakeholders to design the new model of governance in Oxford.

(h)             Authorise the Director of Law and Governance to agree the terms of reference of the Joint Committee, which will include making recommendations regarding the initial functions of the Implementation Executive, and to make this council's appointments to the Joint Committee.

(i)               In light of the above decisions, and the absence of unanimity among the current local authorities, confirm that the Cabinet does not support the proposals for a Mayor and Combined Authority as being the best structure for Oxfordshire.

In September 2016, Cabinet considered reports from Grant Thornton and PwC and a recommendation from the Performance Scrutiny Committee on options for reorganisation of local government within Oxfordshire. Cabinet directed officers to engage with stakeholders and the public to prepare proposals for a new unitary council to cover the whole county.

A discussion document was published in January 2017 to inform an extensive stakeholder and public engagement process. This process has now been completed.

Cabinet considered a report setting out the full proposal that has subsequently been developed and recommending that the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Councillor Hudspeth, Leader of the Council made a statement setting out the context and events leading to the report before Cabinet and summarising in brief the reasons for the bid.

Ian Green, on behalf of the Civic Society commented that they had thoroughly reviewed the original proposals and submitted comments. Having considered the Better Oxfordshire proposals the Civic Society was still of the view that it was not ready for public consultation and was certainly not ready for submission to the Secretary of State. In particular Mr Green highlighted that they considered the governance aspects were too vague to enable assessment of the effectiveness of Oxford City governance. They believed that more could be learnt from Wiltshire. Mr Green also referred to the lack of consensus from all six councils in Oxfordshire and felt that this meant it would not be agreed by the Secretary of State. He hoped that Cabinet would agree to more efforts to achieve a consensus.

Dr Barbara Hammond, spoke against the proposals on three grounds. Firstly she believed that there was no mandate as there had been no formal consultation. People in her neighbourhood were confused. The removal of public consultation from the transition stage was deeply worrying. Secondly she stated that there was no evidence that the move to a single unitary would meet the four objectives set out in the documents. Finally Dr Hammond commented that it was the wrong time to introduce something as disruptive as this in a region that was facing uncertainty due to Brexit.

Councillor Jean Fooks, local councillor for Wolvercote & Summertown spoke in support of the proposal which she pointed out had the support of the three main parties on Oxfordshire County Council. She expressed disappointment that the City Council and other district councils had refused to sit round the table. Councillor Fooks referred to the leaflet produced by the City Council which she believed should be rebutted as it made false claims. She would welcome greater detail and felt that the revised bid before Cabinet today was an improvement. It was essential going forward to involve local people.

Councillor Harris commented that it was an inevitable part of the process of forming a new unitary council that there would need to be rationalisation of staff. From his experience of this type of process strong political decision making would be needed to ensure that it was humanely followed through. Councillor Harris identified that there would be many jobs lost, retirements, redundancy and a higher than normal level of natural wastage. The process would be complex due to the need for continuity of service provision, the requirement to harmonise different employment terms and conditions. It was essential that the process of rationalisation was shown to be fair and equitable. He added that he spoke as a supporter of a unitary council but one that had been fully consulted on and where the final decision on going forward was taken by full Council.

Councillor Pressel, local councillor for Jericho & Osney, expressed her concerns that the proposals would be a disaster for Oxford. People were confused, there was insufficient detail and it was not acceptable if Oxford should become a glorified parish council. She added that a unitary council was not the only option but if it did go forward then she would wish to see the City retain its current powers, its current share of council tax and its current budget. Councillor Pressel added that she would wish to see a larger joint committee so that there could be a fairer representation of men and women.

Councillor Brighouse, Chairman of Performance Scrutiny Committee stated that the comments of the Committee were before Cabinet and that many of the Cabinet Members had attended the Committee meeting. This was not the first time that the Committee had had an opportunity to consider the matter as they had also looked at the two consultant reports. The Committee at that time had considered that the way forward was for a completely new council. The real issue was being able to run services for the most vulnerable with everyone working together in the new council. Councillor Brighouse recognised that this was a journey and that ultimately the Secretary of State would decide but that the new authority should be built from the ground upwards. Councillor Brighouse expressed concern that cultural issues be recognised and the importance of engaging the BME communities. An important principle going forward would be the need to listen to and engage with people and to hear even the voiceless.

Peter Clark, Chief Executive paid tribute to the many officers who had been involved in the bid development. He briefly detailed the results of the two consultant reports and the work undertaken since the decision by Cabinet in September 2016. In particular he referred to the stakeholder engagement work. He expressed delight that South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils had joined with the County Council to produce the joint proposal. Their involvement had led to an improved bid with strengthened local democracy, more detailed thinking around Oxford City governance and council tax harmonisation and better protection for local plans. The two District Councils had already agreed the proposal for submission to the Secretary of State. Peter Clark outlined the process going forward and confirmed that were the Secretary of State minded to agree the proposal then the Secretary of State would have a period of formal engagement with representations being invited over a 6-8 week period. Peter Clark advised of a minor amendment to recommendation (h) to include consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive.

Peter Clark addressing the points raised by speakers:

1.            Refuted the suggestion that the proposal was too vague and not ready. The bid was 149 pages long and clearly set out the principles to be applied. It recognised that the City Council was an important part of Oxfordshire and set out the principle of a new council with pre-cepting powers and the concept of a City Convention. It was not usual to attempt to set everything out at this stage.

2.            Referred to the engagement report that set out a significant amount of support. He highlighted the door to door survey which he considered was a true reflection of opinion and therefore carried considerable weight.

3.            Commented that the report and bid document set out the objectives and demonstrated how they would be met.

4.            Stated that there would be more detail going forward but that a lot of that detail was for the new council or the implementation executive to determine.

5.            Agreed that any process of staff rationalisation needed to be fair transparent and robust. However the evidence from other authorities was that compulsory redundancies would not be that great. It was not correct that everyone’s job was at risk. There would be management rationalisation but services would still need to be delivered.

6.            Commented that the City Council needed to engage in the process and that pre-cepting powers were contained in the bid.

7.            The size of the Executive Board would be determined by the Secretary of State.

From the floor Councillor Tanner made comments in relation to the Chief Executive’s fitness to lead the County Council and upon challenge apologised for those remarks. His apology was accepted by the Chief Executive.

During debate Cabinet made the following points:

1.            A number of Cabinet Members referred to parishes in their Division that were well aware of the proposals and were not confused by them. There had been strong support from rural parishes with one Cabinet Member highlighting that all 19 Parish Councils in her Division were supportive.

2.            Two separate reports had come to similar conclusions about the best way forward with limited resources and agreed that a single unitary saved most money. Cabinet Members supported the unitary proposal as the best possible outcome for the people of Oxfordshire, avoiding duplication, giving economies of scale and allowing the joining up of services. It was a great opportunity to provide a one-stop shop for all residents in Oxfordshire.

3.            Cabinet welcomed the increased opportunity for individual councillors to make a difference in their area.

4.            Several Cabinet Members refuted the suggestion that they and other County Councillors were remote from the people of Oxfordshire.  They attended parish meetings, knew their local communities and the vast majority of county councillors were the same.

5.            One Cabinet Member in supporting the proposals indicated a preference for 5 area boards with pre-cepting powers for each of them.

6.            Cabinet accepted the greater validity of the door to door research which had been carried out by an independent company when compared to the online survey which was self-selecting.

7.            A Cabinet Member refuted claims that a unitary council would pose a threat to arts organisations in Oxford.

8.            There was some discussion of the context to the current position including the role of the district councils with regard to the devolution discussions.

9.            Cabinet highlighted the changes made to the original discussion document “One Oxfordshire” which demonstrated that the engagement had not been a paper exercise. They welcomed that if the Secretary of State was minded to agree then there would be a period of formal engagement.

10.         Cabinet Members expressed disappointment over some of the press releases coming from the district councils.

11.         Cabinet compared the lack of democratic accountability in a combined authority and mayor model as against that in a unitary council.

12.         Cabinet highlighted that good work already underway in district councils around such matters as housing would be complemented when developed alongside strategic services such as infrastructure and education.

The Leader of the Council moved the recommendations with the suggested amendment to recommendation (H) and it was:

RESOLVED:                        unanimously to:

(a)               Note and commend the approach taken by the Leaders of Vale, South Oxfordshire, and the County Council in putting the interests of residents, business and communities first in bringing forward these proposals.

(b)            Consider the proposals, in particular taking note that 70% of those responding to the representative household survey supported the proposal for a new single unitary council for Oxfordshire

(c)             Respond to the recent letter from the Secretary of State and submit the proposals for a new unitary council for Oxfordshire, subject to any minor amendments required

(d)             Delegate the power to make such amendments to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the County Council and with South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

(e)             Ask officers to seek local support from key stakeholders and the wider public to promote the proposals to Government, and respond to any subsequent consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State

(f)               Agree that the further development of the Area Executive Board model, through the establishment of a Joint Committee, open to all Districts and City Councils across Oxfordshire and the County Council, should be formed as early as possible.  This Joint Committee should work with the existing County Council advisory group, local communities, Town and Parish Councils, and key delivery partners to develop detailed proposals that articulate the role, powers, format, scale and responsibilities of the Area Executive Boards which will be submitted to the Implementation Executive for inclusion with the proposed constitution of the new council.

(g)             Ask officers to take steps to establish the City Convention to work with residents and local stakeholders to design the new model of governance in Oxford.

(h)             Authorise the Director of Law and Governance in consultation with the Leader and Chief Executive to agree the terms of reference of the Joint Committee, which will include making recommendations regarding the initial functions of the Implementation Executive, and to make this council's appointments to the Joint Committee.

 (i)               In light of the above decisions, and the absence of unanimity among the current local authorities, confirm that the Cabinet does not support the proposals for a Mayor and Combined Authority as being the best structure for Oxfordshire.