Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  nick.graham@buckinghamshire.gov.uk

Annex A Council size template

Annex B Options paper with annexes

Annex 1: Introduction to Community Boards

Annex 2: Community Board in practice

Annex 3: Town & Parish Charter

Annex 4: EY Report

Annex 5: BCC Unitary proposal

Annex 6: Spreadsheet of Councillor time calculation

The Committee noted that the Boundary Commission wished to undertake an Electoral Review of Buckinghamshire Council. The first phase of that Review sought to determine what should be the appropriate size of the Council in terms of the number of Councillors. The process required the Commission to seek representations to assist its deliberations.

In July 2020 the Standards & General Purposes Committee established a Member Working Group to formulate the Council’s response and recommendations to the Boundary Commission’s Electoral Review of the Council. That Working Group has met 10 times since July 2020 and has sought the advice and guidance of the Boundary Commission in the formulating of the Options paper who have attended many of its meetings. The Options paper, together with the completed Council size template, was the culmination of the Working Group’s deliberations and concluded with a recommendation that the Council should submit to the Commission a proposal for a Council size of 120 elected Members.

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services reported on the submission as follows:-

• The Executive Summary was circulated in a supplementary agenda.
• The supporting annexes in the paperwork illustrated the role of the councillor in the governance structure and their role in the community they served, both critical to the work of the Council.
• Background information had been included such as demographic data and housing growth, plans on how the Council should be led and work carried out through regulatory functions.
• There was no scientific calculation in terms of the final proposal so the Working Group agreed to formulate an Options Paper with their thinking and rationale in terms of strategic and community leadership for a Council of this size. This included the future agenda for the Council; its ambitions concerning the involvement of Members in the strategic direction of the Council; the Scrutiny and Regulatory functions; and the role of Members as leaders in their localities.
• Evidence was provided of comparator unitary Councils largely drawn from recent data, but also referencing the earlier Ernst & Young report and the Unitary proposal from the former Buckinghamshire County Council.
• Phase 2 would look at ward boundaries.

During discussion the following points were made:-

• A Member commented that he considered 120 to high and suggested 80 or 90 councillors and referred to the previous county council unitary business case which had proposed 98 councillors.
• A representative of the Member Working Group commented that they had looked at all the detailed evidence and had come up with a logical proposal. With the new Council there would still be the same workload in relation to meetings and partnership work and it was important to recognise the consequences of moving to 120 councillors and individual workload. At current casework levels each councillor had 21 hours per week on average which would go up to 32 hours per week with 120 councillors. This was almost a full time job and would put off attracting new councillors who worked. He asked that the increase in hours be highlighted (point 24).
• Another Member supported the comment with regard to 120 councillors and that this could not be reduced any further as it would mean that only retired people would apply or those of independent means. He supported the strong conviction of the Working Group that Councillors should be drawn from the widest range of backgrounds, ages, knowledge and experience to better represent the communities served and that the amount of time required to be an effective Councillor – to prepare for and attend meetings and attend to casework - should not be at a level that was prohibitive, particularly for those who are employed or in a caring role, or just wish for a balanced life. It should not be considered a full time role.
• A Member commented that the previous unitary business case of 98 Members related to governance roles only and not the role of the local member.
• It was very difficult to make comparisons across authorities e.g. comparing Birmingham to Cornwall but 120 was right for Buckinghamshire.
• The timing of the review was unfortunate – not one single day of the unitary authority had been in normal times as the pandemic hit in March. There would be a reduction in May 2021 to 147 and it was unclear what this impact would have on councillor’s workloads. The review had been undertaken too quickly and the Council should have been allowed a year of normal operation with 147 Members before they were asked to provide evidence.
• One Member commented that this decision had been made back to front and that a decision should be taken first on the number of Members per ward and the number of wards. Some additional time should be given in the first year to provide evidence with 147 councillors. Members noted it was statutory guidance that the Boundary Commission reviewed the number of councillors first and then went on to look at warding arrangements.
• This Council would be radically different especially being the first unitary authority post-covid. The casework for councillors had increased exponentially since the pandemic started and with this proposal the number of councillors would be halved. In response it was noted that the document referred to the impact on the business of the Council including town centres with the pandemic rather than casework but a sentence could be added to reflect this.
• There needed to be a clear definition between the difference 120 councillors would make compared to 98 and that the Council would have to operate completely differently to deliver services and to remain directly connected to residents in their communities. There was particularly a heavy workload in relation to regulatory committees. The Working Group has undertaken an analysis of workload on Councillors by reference to Council size and outlined their concern that a smaller size could increase workload to such an extent that it would necessitate a departure from its ‘Member-led’ ambitions.
• Once the number of councillors had been reduced it would be difficult to increase the number.

Once agreed a letter could be written by the Chairman to the Boundary Commission with the Options paper and the council size template informing them of the Committee’s decision.

The Committee thanked officers for their in depth report. On a vote being taken it was RESOLVED (with one Member against) :-

1             That the work of the Member Working Group set up by this Committee in July 2020 to consider its response to the first phase of the Boundary Commission’s Electoral Review be noted.

2.          That the completed Council size template for submission to the Boundary Commission be approved.

3.          That the Working Group’s Options paper and recommendation as to the appropriate Council size of 120 (one hundred and twenty) Councillors to the Boundary Commission be approved.

4.          That authority be delegated to the Director of Legal & Democratic Services in consultation with the Chairman of this Committee to make any amendments to the submissions to the Commission in the light of any further comments from the Committee and any minor/typographical changes.

5.          That the Working Group should continue to meet so as to address any queries or questions that the Boundary Commission may have regarding the submission, and to plan for Phase 2 of the Electoral Review.