Twenty Sixth Report Contents

Twenty Sixth Report

Instruments drawn to the special attention of the House

Draft Dorset (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018

Draft Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018

Summary: These instruments provide for the reorganisation of local government in Dorset. In place of the existing nine councils, there would in future be only two: a single council for the areas of Bournemouth, Poole and the part of the county of Dorset currently comprising the Borough of Christchurch, and a separate, single council for the remainder of the Dorset county area.

Christchurch Borough Council has opposed the changes since they were first mooted in early 2017, and in December 2017 held a local advisory poll in which 84% (numbering 17,676 votes) of those taking part voted “no” to the changes.

The Committee notes the scale of opposition to the proposal expressed both by Christchurch Borough Council and by its residents. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has told us that Ministers intend to apply the criteria for local government restructuring “in the round” for the area subject to reorganisation, rather than considering whether the criteria would be met in relation to each individual council area.

We draw these instruments to the special attention of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

1.In the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) accompanying these two instruments, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) says that, in the Dorset area, there are currently two small unitary councils, Bournemouth and Poole, which are surrounded by a two-tier structure made up of Dorset County Council and the district councils of Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset, and Weymouth and Portland – a total of nine existing councils. The proposal to which these instruments would give effect is that there should in future be only two councils, rather than nine: a single council for the areas of Bournemouth, Poole and the part of the county of Dorset currently comprising the Borough of Christchurch, and a separate, single council for the remainder of the Dorset county area.

2.MHCLG explains that the nine existing councils developed and consulted on the proposal to reorganise local government in their area. Six of the councils (Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset County Council, North Dorset District Council, Poole Borough Council, West Dorset District Council, and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council) submitted the proposal to the Secretary of State on 9 February 2017. Christchurch Borough Council (“Christchurch BC”), East Dorset District Council (“East Dorset DC”) and Purbeck District Council (“Purbeck DC”) did not support the proposal.

3.On 7 November 2017, the Secretary of State announced that he was “minded to” implement the proposal. This was followed by a period until 8 January 2018 for interested parties to make representations. During this period, East Dorset DC made representations supporting the proposal, while Purbeck DC withdrew its opposition. However, Christchurch BC remains in opposition to the proposal.

4.MHCLG says that the establishment of the two new councils across Dorset would improve the sustainability of the services currently carried out by the existing councils. Estimated savings over the first six years would be at least £108 million, but there is the potential to save over £170 million over that period if a full transformation programme could be achieved.

Consultation

5.In section 8 of the EM, MHCLG gives a good deal of information about the consultation processes followed both by the councils and by the Secretary of State. The councils held a consultation from 30 August to 25 October 2016. This included a representative household survey based upon 20,000 randomly selected households. 73% of those responding to the survey agreed with the proposal to replace the nine existing councils with two new councils, with 65% supporting the two-council approach in the proposal embodied in these instruments.1

6.During the period for representations, between November 2017 and January 2018, MHCLG says that 210 were received from members of the public, local councillors, businesses and community organisations; and that these were split, with 96 representations in favour of the proposal, 12 neutral and 99 opposed (three representations were received which did not express views about the proposal). In parallel, Christchurch BC held a local advisory poll, declaring the result on 14 December 2017. The poll had a 54% turnout: 84% (numbering 17,676 votes) of those taking part voted “no” to the question “Do you support the current proposal for a single Council covering Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole?”2 Following the results of this poll, Christchurch BC made a representation to the Secretary of State containing an alternative proposal3 which the Secretary of State did not consider to be implementable.

7.The Government have set out the criteria against which proposals to merge local authorities are to be considered.4 These are that a proposal is likely to improve local government in the area, commands local support, and comprises a merged area with a credible geography. In this case, MHCLG says that, having had regard to all the evidence - the proposal, the representations received, the Christchurch advisory poll (which related to 6% of the total area population), representations about the poll, and all information available to him - the Secretary of State is satisfied that “in the round”5 across the Dorset area the criteria for local government reorganisation are met.

Conclusions

8.We put several questions to MHCLG about the proposal and local reaction to it, and we are publishing the Ministry’s answers at Appendix 1.

9.As already noted, three of the nine councils affected by the proposal did not support the proposal originally submitted in February 2017. MHCLG has told us that, of these, East Dorset DC has stated that “the council now accepts the [Secretary of State’s] decision, and works towards getting the best deal for the residents of East Dorset”; and Purbeck DC has stated that “the Council decided to withdraw its opposition to the proposed reorganisation of local government in Dorset”.

10.The third council, Christchurch BC, continues to oppose the changes. MHCLG has told us that Christchurch BC has two key concerns about the proposal. The first relates to the impact on residents, their quality of life and the services they receive if the proposal goes ahead. The second relates to the credibility of the evidence on which the “Future Dorset” submission is based, and on which Government have been asked to make a decision. As noted above, in a poll held in December 2017, 17,676 Christchurch residents voted against the proposal for a single Council covering Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole. The Ministry has also told us that Christchurch BC put forward an alternative proposal for a single unitary council for Bournemouth and Poole, with the retention of a two-tier structure in most of Dorset. MHCLG says that one of the reasons to reject this was the Secretary of State’s view that any proposed merger of district councils should be proposed by all the councils which are to be merged, and that the merger in Christchurch BC’s proposal would have been proposed by neither of the councils concerned.

11.MHCLG has told us that Ministers have made clear that they will apply the criteria for local government restructuring “in the round” for the area subject to reorganisation, rather than considering whether the criteria would be met in relation to each individual council area. However, given the scale of opposition to the proposal expressed both by Christchurch BC and by its residents, we consider that these instruments give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

Draft Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

Draft Somerset West and Taunton (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018

Summary: These instruments provide for the abolition of West Somerset and Taunton Deane councils, to be replaced by a single Somerset West and Taunton District Council which covers the same geographic area as the existing two councils.

During the period for representations on the proposal, 251 representations were received: 114 were supportive, 14 were neutral and 123 were opposed. The majority of negative representations received were from members of the public (99 representations) with a further 15 negative representations coming from local councillors. A recurring theme of the negative representations was an unwillingness among Taunton Deane residents to take on West Somerset as a financially unsustainable council.

It is clear from the findings of the independent auditor that West Somerset DC faces major financial difficulties, and that the concerns on this score expressed by Taunton Deane residents are not unjustified. Projections of the financial benefits to both councils of the proposed merger are “jam tomorrow”, and to undermine the significantly negative outcome of the period for representations by talk of “misconceptions” risks alienating those local residents who will be directly affected by the change. If a consultation exercise is to carry credibility, those who organise it must be open-minded about its results.

We draw these instruments to the special attention of the House on the ground that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instruments.

12.These two instruments, laid by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), provide for the abolition of West Somerset and Taunton Deane districts and their district and borough councils respectively, and for the creation of a new Somerset West and Taunton district and Somerset West and Taunton District Council which covers the same contiguous geographic area.

13.In the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to the instruments, MHCLG says that West Somerset District Council (“West Somerset DC”) and Taunton Deane Borough Council (“Taunton Dean BC”) developed and consulted on a proposal, which they submitted to the Secretary of State on 27 March 2017. From 30 November 2017, when the Secretary of State announced that he was “minded to” implement the proposal, until 19 January 2018 there was a period for representations. After considering the representations received, the Secretary of State concluded that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the proposal should be implemented.

14.MHCLG also says in the EM that the councils consider that becoming a single council will secure ongoing savings of £3.1 million per annum, including an additional £0.5 million of ongoing savings per annum from the current shared working partnership. It adds that the establishment of a single district council would improve the sustainability of the services that are currently carried out by the two councils individually, providing the opportunity to bring savings which would allow them to invest in services.

Consultation

15.In section 8 of the EM, MHCLG outlines the programme of engagement undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, to gather the views of a broad range of people, bodies and organisations within both councils’ areas. In describing the results of an open public consultation which was held by the councils between 12 December 2016 and 28 February 2017, MHCLG says that the most commonly expressed concern about the proposal related to the relative financial positions of the two councils, and the belief that residents of Taunton Deane would be subsidising West Somerset and that, as a consequence, Taunton Deane residents would be disadvantaged in a variety of ways, including having to pay higher Council Tax or receiving a reduced level of service.

16.MHCLG also explains that, during the period for representations in 2017-18, 251 representations were received, and that 114 of these were supportive of the proposal, 14 were neutral and 123 were opposed. The majority of negative representations received were from members of the public (99 representations) with a further 15 negative representations coming from local councillors. A recurring theme of the negative representations was an unwillingness among Taunton Deane residents to take on West Somerset as a financially unsustainable council.

Conclusions

17.We put questions to MHCLG about the proposal, and we are publishing the answers received at Appendix 2.

18.Given the concerns expressed by Taunton Deane residents, we asked about the financial position of the councils. MHCLG has told us that the independent auditor considers that West Somerset DC is financially unsustainable, and that the proposed merger would significantly improve this, stating that West Somerset DC has a “cumulative £0.8 million budget shortfall in the years 2018-2021 and although this represented a much improved position into the medium term, full financial balance was predicated on the ‘One Council’ proposal being realised”. Conversely, Taunton Deane BC is currently considered by the auditor to be sustainable.

19.MHCLG has told us that it considers that Taunton Deane residents are also likely to benefit from the proposal. Savings of over £1.8 million per annum have already been generated through the current partnership, whereby the two councils already have shared services, a senior management team and staff team. MHCLG believes that, if the merger does not go ahead, the financial unsustainability of West Somerset DC makes it likely that Taunton Deane BC would remove itself from the partnership agreement, which for both councils would risk the savings already generated.

20.The Government have made it clear that one of the criteria against which any proposal to merge local authorities is to be considered is that it commands local support. We asked MHCLG how this proposal could be seen as meeting that criterion, when the largest number of representations to the Secretary of State opposed the merger. MHCLG has said that the most common reasons cited for such opposition were the “perceived reduction in democratic representation for West Somerset following the merger, and the misconception that Taunton Deane would be detrimentally affected by the merger”. Since the first concern is to be met by an expected full electoral review by the Local Government Boundary Commission, and the second is seen as a “misconception”, MHCLG has said that “these concerns were therefore considered to be addressed ... More significantly, a substantial majority of the democratically elected representatives of the population are in favour of the proposal.”

21.It is clear from the findings of the independent auditor that West Somerset DC faces major financial difficulties, and that the concerns on this score expressed by Taunton Deane residents are not unjustified. Projections of the financial benefits to both councils of the proposed merger are “jam tomorrow”, and to undermine the significantly negative outcome of the period for representations by talk of “misconceptions” risks alienating those local residents who will be directly affected by the change. If a consultation exercise is to carry credibility, those who organise it must be open-minded about its results.


1 Opinion Research Services (ORS), acting for the councils, published the findings of this consultation in December 2016. See: https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/media/218499/Full-report-final-2016/pdf/2016_12_05b_Full_Report_FINAL.compressed.pdf [accessed 25 April 2018].

3 Dorset for you, Christchurch Borough Council makes representation to the Secretary of State, 5 January 2018: https://news.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/2018/01/05/christchurch-council-makes-representation/ [accessed 25 April 2018].

4 Commons Written Statement, 7 November 2017, HCWS232.

5 See paragraph 4.9 of the report laid by the Secretary of State under Section 15 (subsections (12) and (13)) of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9780111168141/pdfs/ukdsiod_9780111168141_en.pdf [accessed 25 April 2018].




© Parliamentary copyright 2018