Agenda item

That South Somerset District Council recommends that Option (c) of the report is adopted, with the commentary that follows

Option c. Agree that [SSDC] does not support the business case overall, with supporting commentary on the reasons why it does not support the business case; where it feels more work or clarification is required; and any aspects of the business case it does support.

Commentary

Summary statement:

“SSDC believes that this is a solution put forward by a discredited authority based on failed examples of change, with inadequate evidence and a high risk of bad outcomes for residents and communities.”

The reasons why SSDC does not support the business case; and where more work or clarification is required

1.   The proposed unitary authority is based on failed examples of local government which have lost vital local services and democratic accountability. SSDC cannot support a risky experiment to suffer a similar fate:

-        Currently, residents, businesses and communities are supported by high-performing districts that have demonstrated sound financial management and digital transformation, and have a mandate to deliver valuable discretionary services (such as town centre regeneration, theatres and swimming pools). The county administration has focussed on tax cuts not needs, reducing budgets to the point of service failure (transport, social care, special educational needs and disabilities) and abandoning other service areas, relying on others to fund them (youth services). This business case extends that approach over key services delivered by Districts which are valued by business and residents.

-        The ‘One Somerset’ business case relies on evidence from other single county unitaries, including neighbouring Wiltshire, and recent unitaries where it is too early to measure success. Wiltshire is reported to be on the verge of issuing a S114 bankruptcy notice. Wiltshire’s Local Council Networks (Area Boards) have been a conspicuous failure with little funding, autonomy and officer resource, and very limited devolution to parish and town councils. Local Council Networks on this model will in no measure replace the quality of service of the District Councils. Dorset has failed to devolve services to parishes, and a period of paralysis has followed the implementation of single unitary authorities, that can ill be afforded in the aftermath of Brexit and Covid-19.

-        Alternative options to the single unitary are given only superficial analysis.

-        The business case fails to recognise the transformation necessary in the delivery of social care.

2.   A single Somerset unitary is too big for effective local democracy in Somerset, and will lead to a substantial democratic deficit:

-        If two tiers of local government are to be reduced to one tier, it makes no sense for the new tier to be at the level of one of the previous tiers.

-        The government’s aspirations for devolved authorities are based on Local Enterprise Partnership areas (in our case, Somerset combined with Devon). A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too close in size to a future combined authority of Somerset and Devon.

-        A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too remote from local communities, residents and c.300 Parish and Town Councils.

-        The average size of the 20 rural unitary authorities in England is around 300,000. A single unitary for Somerset would serve a population of about 560,000, and would nearly be the biggest unitary population in the country, and spread over a great geographical area. 

-        Single Unitaries are not necessarily the norm, especially if an authority borders on differing authorities. Evidence is Cornwall which is the only single Unitary in the SW and borders only Devon. The SCC administrative area borders Dorset, Wiltshire, the other 2 unitaries in Somerset, and Devon (2 tier).

-        Under the business case, each Councillor will be expected to take on 8 times the work of an existing Councillor, over a wider area and on a much broader range of responsibilities: the loser in this democratic deficit will be the communities and residents.

-        The SSDC model is a recognised national leader in involving communities, as evidenced by being awarded Council of the Year and 3 Beacon awards for this work – the key element of the model is the Area Committees.

-        One of the government’s tests is a strong level of public support. The business case’s exaggerated claims on this are wrong, not only because the business case has just been published, but because the last time a single unitary was suggested, it was rejected by about 82% of the population.

3.   The financial arguments in the business case appear to be inadequate and flawed, and urgently need an independent and thorough investigation. Observations include: -

-        The cheapest solution is not usually the best.

-        There is a substantial risk of not delivering the financial benefits.

-        The business case has failed to demonstrate any duplication in front-line services leading to savings.

-        The business case takes no account of the transformation savings that have been realised in district councils.

-        The reported finances of the county and district councils are outdated, and in some cases misleading. The county’s claims of financial stability need to be carefully scrutinised, including any hidden borrowing.

-        Savings of Chief Executive salaries are claimed, when these are less than those of County directors.

-        Financial analysis appears to estimate cost from the County perspective, rather than from the point of view of the Council taxpayer.

-        District and Parish Councils have had to step in and fund community services that have been cut by the county council. Will these be funded under the single unitary?

-        No cost to the taxpayer has been taken into account when parishes take on responsibilities.

-        £18.5m per year saving, even if corroborated by scrutiny, would be less than the cost of poor delivery of social care, which is what has happened so far when delivered at a county scale.

-        It has been stated that the single unitary will discontinue commercial investment to save vital services. It is unclear how this lost income will be made up.

-        It is unclear whether the financial case relies on rises in Council Tax.

4.   The business case also claims to offer benefits that are not sufficiently evidenced. These also need an independent and thorough investigation.

Any aspects of the business case it does support.

-        SSDC is open to the view that a unitary authority can provide a solution to the future of local government in Somerset, but not at this scale. However the district councils do not underestimate the challenge of a unitary delivering the best services to residents and communities even at a smaller scale.

-        SSDC accepts that there are some services that should continue to be delivered at a county-wide or a regional combined authority level (eg. transport, health, police, regional strategies, waste partnership, home finder, some back-office functions), but not those working with and supporting communities

-        The discussion paper commissioned by SALC is worthy of further study. However SSDC agrees in particular with the views expressed that: -

o  The burgeoning demand, particularly for children’s and adult social services, will in any case soon dwarf any proposed savings

o  It is clear that the scale and complexity of Somerset’s challenges are so great they are unlikely to be effectively addressed from a unitary council which is too distant from recognising and responding to local concerns

(Voting: 42 in favour, 12 against, 1 abstention)

The Leader of Council introduced the report and said that there was a need to change and reform Local Government in Somerset but the County Council no longer wished to pursue any option other than a single Unitary Authority, which was their right. The District Councils were still working together on alternative options.  She said that until an invitation was received from the Secretary of State on a business case for Somerset then they would continue to work together.

Councillor John Clark, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, read out the proposed response of the District Executive working party to the SCC One Somerset Business Plan, following the presentation by SCC Council Leader, David Fothergill earlier in the week, as follows:-

That South Somerset District Council recommends that Option (c) of the report is adopted, with the commentary that follows:

Option c. Agree that [SSDC] does not support the business case overall, with supporting commentary on the reasons why it does not support the business case; where it feels more work or clarification is required; and any aspects of the business case it does support.

Commentary

Summary statement:

“SSDC believes that this is a solution put forward by a discredited authority based on failed examples of change, with inadequate evidence and a high risk of bad outcomes for residents and communities.”

The reasons why SSDC does not support the business case; and where more work or clarification is required

1.   The proposed unitary authority is based on failed examples of local government which have lost vital local services and democratic accountability. SSDC cannot support a risky experiment to suffer a similar fate:

-        Currently, residents, businesses and communities are supported by high-performing districts that have demonstrated sound financial management and digital transformation, and have a mandate to deliver valuable discretionary services (such as town centre regeneration, theatres and swimming pools). The county administration has focussed on tax cuts not needs, reducing budgets to the point of service failure (transport, social care, special educational needs and disabilities) and abandoning other service areas, relying on others to fund them (youth services). This business case extends that approach over key services delivered by Districts which are valued by business and residents.

-        The ‘One Somerset’ business case relies on evidence from other single county unitaries, including neighbouring Wiltshire, and recent unitaries where it is too early to measure success. Wiltshire is reported to be on the verge of issuing a S114 bankruptcy notice. Wiltshire’s Local Council Networks (Area Boards) have been a conspicuous failure with little funding, autonomy and officer resource, and very limited devolution to parish and town councils. Local Council Networks on this model will in no measure replace the quality of service of the District Councils. Dorset has failed to devolve services to parishes, and a period of paralysis has followed the implementation of single unitary authorities, that can ill be afforded in the aftermath of Brexit and Covid-19.

-        Alternative options to the single unitary are given only superficial analysis.

-        The business case fails to recognise the transformation necessary in the delivery of social care.

2.   A single Somerset unitary is too big for effective local democracy in Somerset, and will lead to a substantial democratic deficit:

-        If two tiers of local government are to be reduced to one tier, it makes no sense for the new tier to be at the level of one of the previous tiers.

-        The government’s aspirations for devolved authorities are based on Local Enterprise Partnership areas (in our case, Somerset combined with Devon). A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too close in size to a future combined authority of Somerset and Devon.

-        A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too remote from local communities, residents and c.300 Parish and Town Councils.

-        The average size of the 20 rural unitary authorities in England is around 300,000. A single unitary for Somerset would serve a population of about 560,000, and would nearly be the biggest unitary population in the country, and spread over a great geographical area. 

-        Single Unitaries are not necessarily the norm, especially if an authority borders on differing authorities. Evidence is Cornwall which is the only single Unitary in the SW and borders only Devon. The SCC administrative area borders Dorset, Wiltshire, the other 2 unitaries in Somerset, and Devon (2 tier).

-        Under the business case, each Councillor will be expected to take on 8 times the work of an existing Councillor, over a wider area and on a much broader range of responsibilities: the loser in this democratic deficit will be the communities and residents.

-        The SSDC model is a recognised national leader in involving communities, as evidenced by being awarded Council of the Year and 3 Beacon awards for this work – the key element of the model is the Area Committees.

-        One of the government’s tests is a strong level of public support. The business case’s exaggerated claims on this are wrong, not only because the business case has just been published, but because the last time a single unitary was suggested, it was rejected by about 82% of the population.

3.   The financial arguments in the business case appear to be inadequate and flawed, and urgently need an independent and thorough investigation. Observations include: -

-        The cheapest solution is not usually the best.

-        There is a substantial risk of not delivering the financial benefits.

-        The business case has failed to demonstrate any duplication in front-line services leading to savings.

-        The business case takes no account of the transformation savings that have been realised in district councils.

-        The reported finances of the county and district councils are outdated, and in some cases misleading. The county’s claims of financial stability need to be carefully scrutinised, including any hidden borrowing.

-        Savings of Chief Executive salaries are claimed, when these are less than those of County directors.

-        Financial analysis appears to estimate cost from the County perspective, rather than from the point of view of the Council taxpayer.

-        District and Parish Councils have had to step in and fund community services that have been cut by the county council. Will these be funded under the single unitary?

-        No cost to the taxpayer has been taken into account when parishes take on responsibilities.

-        £18.5m per year saving, even if corroborated by scrutiny, would be less than the cost of poor delivery of social care, which is what has happened so far when delivered at a county scale.

-        It has been stated that the single unitary will discontinue commercial investment to save vital services. It is unclear how this lost income will be made up.

-        It is unclear whether the financial case relies on rises in Council Tax.

4.   The business case also claims to offer benefits that are not sufficiently evidenced. These also need an independent and thorough investigation.

Any aspects of the business case it does support.

-        SSDC is open to the view that a unitary authority can provide a solution to the future of local government in Somerset, but not at this scale. However the district councils do not underestimate the challenge of a unitary delivering the best services to residents and communities even at a smaller scale.

-        SSDC accepts that there are some services that should continue to be delivered at a county-wide or a regional combined authority level (eg. transport, health, police, regional strategies, waste partnership, home finder, some back-office functions), but not those working with and supporting communities

-        The discussion paper commissioned by SALC is worthy of further study. However SSDC agrees in particular with the views expressed that: -

o  The burgeoning demand, particularly for children’s and adult social services, will in any case soon dwarf any proposed savings

o  It is clear that the scale and complexity of Somerset’s challenges are so great they are unlikely to be effectively addressed from a unitary council which is too distant from recognising and responding to local concerns

Councillor Linda Vijeh, Leader of the Conservative group expressed her concern at some of the statements within the proposed response and questioned the evidence to substantiate them.  She advised that the poll in 2007 had only a 50% response from all electors and 82% of those voted said no the proposed unitary authority at that time.  She said there were no examples or evidence given which demonstrated that SCC had been discredited in any way or that Councillors in a new unitary authority would have 8 times more workload than they currently had.  She welcomed the business case from SSDC and the other Somerset District Councils which was due in the next few weeks.  She noted the awards mentioned in the response had been received some years ago. 

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         The meeting was to look at the County Council’s business case and not any alternative proposal which would come forward in due course.

·         SSDC had avoided cutting services and had put money aside for town centre regeneration projects by sound financial management.

·         The Green Party were committed to proportional representation at elections and there was no proposal for this in the SCC business case so it was not supported.

·         The SSDC response has failed to evaluate the SCC business case in a fair and unbiased manner.  It was full of opinion and untested remarks.

·         SCC had stopped youth services 10 years ago and now library services.

·         SCC had engaged a private company to write to local businesses to gain their views and support for the SCC business case.

·         The people of Somerset should be allowed a voted on this issue.

·         We hear of several officers who have left the Council recently but can we be assured that we still have a viable planning service?

·         Concern as to how SSDC could work with SCC when such comments were made in the business plan response.

·         Change was needed but the proposal covered a large geographical area and all the major towns (Taunton, Bridgwater, Yeovil) were different.   Also most councils had gone through transformation and already made savings.

·         How had SCC accumulated reserves when they had so recently been in dire financial straights?.

·         How can we decide a response to the SCC business case without seeing the District Councils proposals as a comparison?

·         SSDC may not agree with a single unitary authority but two smaller unitary authorities may not be viable.

·         Agree with the public that during the Covid-19 crisis we are being asked to divide our efforts and staff may feel insecure if asked to set up a new authority.

·         There do not appear to be any duplicated front line services between the Councils to make savings from.

·         Large Wards with many parish councils were better if the work was divided between 2 or 3 Councillors as it created resilience.

·         There was no suggestion that SSDC would not work with SCC on any future proposal.

·         Not aware that Dr Brand of SCC had offered to assist the District Councils with their business case.

·         A response from the Finance Cabinet Member of Wiltshire Council confirmed that cost savings had been made in setting up their unitary authority by no longer duplicating roles, buildings and Councillors and was confident of delivering a balanced budget.

·         The residents of Somerset should be making the decision but unfortunately, it would be decided by the Secretary of State.  Local Government had to change the way they worked but local people should be allowed to make the decision.

·         Councils needed to change to save money on duplicated services but a population of 560,000 would be too large for one authority.  Two unitary authorities would provide the quality of representation.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Leader of Council thanked Members for a robust debate.  She said that although the District Councils business case was not yet ready, the SCC business case was not right for Somerset.  She proposed the SSDC response be that it did not support the SCC business case overall with the supporting commentary on the reasons why; where it feels more work or clarification is required; and any aspects of the business case it does support.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Adam Dance. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal was approved by 42 votes in favour, 12 against and one abstention.

That South Somerset District Council recommends that Option (c) of the report is adopted, with the commentary that follows

Option c. Agree that [SSDC] does not support the business case overall, with supporting commentary on the reasons why it does not support the business case; where it feels more work or clarification is required; and any aspects of the business case it does support.

Commentary

Summary statement:

“SSDC believes that this is a solution put forward by a discredited authority based on failed examples of change, with inadequate evidence and a high risk of bad outcomes for residents and communities.”

The reasons why SSDC does not support the business case; and where more work or clarification is required

5.   The proposed unitary authority is based on failed examples of local government which have lost vital local services and democratic accountability. SSDC cannot support a risky experiment to suffer a similar fate:

-        Currently, residents, businesses and communities are supported by high-performing districts that have demonstrated sound financial management and digital transformation, and have a mandate to deliver valuable discretionary services (such as town centre regeneration, theatres and swimming pools). The county administration has focussed on tax cuts not needs, reducing budgets to the point of service failure (transport, social care, special educational needs and disabilities) and abandoning other service areas, relying on others to fund them (youth services). This business case extends that approach over key services delivered by Districts which are valued by business and residents.

-        The ‘One Somerset’ business case relies on evidence from other single county unitaries, including neighbouring Wiltshire, and recent unitaries where it is too early to measure success. Wiltshire is reported to be on the verge of issuing a S114 bankruptcy notice. Wiltshire’s Local Council Networks (Area Boards) have been a conspicuous failure with little funding, autonomy and officer resource, and very limited devolution to parish and town councils. Local Council Networks on this model will in no measure replace the quality of service of the District Councils. Dorset has failed to devolve services to parishes, and a period of paralysis has followed the implementation of single unitary authorities, that can ill be afforded in the aftermath of Brexit and Covid-19.

-        Alternative options to the single unitary are given only superficial analysis.

-        The business case fails to recognise the transformation necessary in the delivery of social care.

6.   A single Somerset unitary is too big for effective local democracy in Somerset, and will lead to a substantial democratic deficit:

-        If two tiers of local government are to be reduced to one tier, it makes no sense for the new tier to be at the level of one of the previous tiers.

-        The government’s aspirations for devolved authorities are based on Local Enterprise Partnership areas (in our case, Somerset combined with Devon). A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too close in size to a future combined authority of Somerset and Devon.

-        A unitary for the whole of Somerset would be too remote from local communities, residents and c.300 Parish and Town Councils.

-        The average size of the 20 rural unitary authorities in England is around 300,000. A single unitary for Somerset would serve a population of about 560,000, and would nearly be the biggest unitary population in the country, and spread over a great geographical area. 

-        Single Unitaries are not necessarily the norm, especially if an authority borders on differing authorities. Evidence is Cornwall which is the only single Unitary in the SW and borders only Devon. The SCC administrative area borders Dorset, Wiltshire, the other 2 unitaries in Somerset, and Devon (2 tier).

-        Under the business case, each Councillor will be expected to take on 8 times the work of an existing Councillor, over a wider area and on a much broader range of responsibilities: the loser in this democratic deficit will be the communities and residents.

-        The SSDC model is a recognised national leader in involving communities, as evidenced by being awarded Council of the Year and 3 Beacon awards for this work – the key element of the model is the Area Committees.

-        One of the government’s tests is a strong level of public support. The business case’s exaggerated claims on this are wrong, not only because the business case has just been published, but because the last time a single unitary was suggested, it was rejected by about 82% of the population.

7.   The financial arguments in the business case appear to be inadequate and flawed, and urgently need an independent and thorough investigation. Observations include: -

-        The cheapest solution is not usually the best.

-        There is a substantial risk of not delivering the financial benefits.

-        The business case has failed to demonstrate any duplication in front-line services leading to savings.

-        The business case takes no account of the transformation savings that have been realised in district councils.

-        The reported finances of the county and district councils are outdated, and in some cases misleading. The county’s claims of financial stability need to be carefully scrutinised, including any hidden borrowing.

-        Savings of Chief Executive salaries are claimed, when these are less than those of County directors.

-        Financial analysis appears to estimate cost from the County perspective, rather than from the point of view of the Council taxpayer.

-        District and Parish Councils have had to step in and fund community services that have been cut by the county council. Will these be funded under the single unitary?

-        No cost to the taxpayer has been taken into account when parishes take on responsibilities.

-        £18.5m per year saving, even if corroborated by scrutiny, would be less than the cost of poor delivery of social care, which is what has happened so far when delivered at a county scale.

-        It has been stated that the single unitary will discontinue commercial investment to save vital services. It is unclear how this lost income will be made up.

-        It is unclear whether the financial case relies on rises in Council Tax.

8.   The business case also claims to offer benefits that are not sufficiently evidenced. These also need an independent and thorough investigation.

Any aspects of the business case it does support.

-        SSDC is open to the view that a unitary authority can provide a solution to the future of local government in Somerset, but not at this scale. However the district councils do not underestimate the challenge of a unitary delivering the best services to residents and communities even at a smaller scale.

-        SSDC accepts that there are some services that should continue to be delivered at a county-wide or a regional combined authority level (eg. transport, health, police, regional strategies, waste partnership, home finder, some back-office functions), but not those working with and supporting communities

-        The discussion paper commissioned by SALC is worthy of further study. However SSDC agrees in particular with the views expressed that: -

o  The burgeoning demand, particularly for children’s and adult social services, will in any case soon dwarf any proposed savings

o  It is clear that the scale and complexity of Somerset’s challenges are so great they are unlikely to be effectively addressed from a unitary council which is too distant from recognising and responding to local concerns

(Voting: 42 in favour, 12 against, 1 abstention)