Agenda item

To receive a presenation from the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council on the proposals for Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire.

Councillor Laura Williams, as Executive Member for Local Government Reorganisation/Devolution, and the Chief Executive provided a presentation entitled ‘Update on Local Government Reorganisation Progress’, following which Members asked questions.

Audio recording – 1 hour 47 minutes 39 seconds

 

Councillor Laura Williams, as Executive Member for Local Government Reorganisation/Devolution, and the Chief Executive provided a presentation entitled ‘Update on Local Government Reorganisation Progress’ and advised that:

 

·                Local authorities in Hertfordshire would merge into unitary authorities.

·                The Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process was currently in stage two which would involve a submission to central government on how the current authorities would like LGR to take place in Hertfordshire. This stage would conclude in late November.

·                Principles on working together had been agreed by the Leaders and Chief Executives of all twelve authorities including the Hertfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

·                An interim submission document detailing the outline proposals on behalf of Hertfordshire was submitted on 21 March to allow the Government to check-in on their progress relating to LGR.

·                Two sets of parallel work were undertaken by district, borough and county councils as well as districts and borough councils on their own, but the decision had been made that it would be better for a single set of work to be carried out.

·                The Governance structure adopted in March would operate until the November submission date, after which, there would be an opportunity to change this again. 

·                Hertfordshire Leaders Group meetings took place fortnightly, and the Chief Executive Co-Ordinating Group met weekly. 

·                There was a Programme Management Office with Project Managers to ensure workstreams stayed on track and that information was fed back to Leaders via Chief Executives.

·                North Herts were represented on every workstream by a Director or Senior Manager within the Council.

·                The Service Design work stream had five co-leading Chief Executives and North Herts represented one of these.

·                The Director – Customers was leading the Technology work stream.

·                The Programme Board had three Chief Executives who represented Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative led authorities.

·                Three work streams (Horizon 1, 2 and 3) with different deadlines had been created.

·                Horizon 1 was for the November submission document where the initial effort would be focused, but this would reduce in early October once the document had been finalised.

·                Horizon 2 involved transition planning and setting up the unitary authorities before launch day on 1 April 2028. Work on this was already underway but would increase after work on Horizon 1 had dropped off and would peak before the unitary authorities went live.

·                Horizon 3 was focused on ambition and vision which would be detailed within the submission document, however, it would be up to the unitary authorities and strategic authority to adopt their own council plans and strategies once they were formed, therefore, the effort on this workstream would be low until then.  

·                The submission document would be drafted in October using the stakeholder engagement data gathered in September.

·                Workstreams on Services and Finance were key for the submission document.

·                A Member briefing on LGR had been delivered.

·                Stakeholder engagement in September would take place through staff conference sessions and Community Forum meetings where Hertfordshire County Councillors would also be present.

·                Stakeholders were also being directed to online assets relating to LGR including a feedback form.

·                After seeking advice, King’s Counsel indicated that discretion sat with the Executive to decide on the model preference, however, it was recognised that all Members should have the opportunity to debate on the issue, therefore, an Extraordinary Council meeting had been scheduled before Cabinet made the final decision on the matter on 19 November.

·                Having a consistent submission from all eleven councils with the same recommendations would be desirable.

·                The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had informed them that each authority could only choose one option as their preference, however, it was also possible to express no preference at all.

·                Options for two, three or four unitary authorities would either be attached as appendices to the submission document or be embedded within.

·                The Secretary of State (SOS) would decide the outcome of LGR, not the local authorities.

·                They had asked MHCLG Civil Servants for more specific dates than what had already been provided by the SOS on 24 July.

·                After submission, the Government would decide which options would be put forward to statutory consultation.

·                Statutory consultation could be launched after the New Year and close after local elections in May 2026.

·                It was speculated that the Government would announce which proposal it would implement before summer recess in 2026. 

·                Deadlines were tight, therefore, they would start the transition work before the Government had made their decision.

·                Secondary legislation that would set out the ward boundaries, number of councillors, electoral cycles and the predecessor authorities could go to Parliament for decision after summer recess in 2026.

·                Elections to the shadow unitary authorities would happen on 6 May 2027.

·                Power for the shadow unitary authorities to make decisions needed to be in place so that a constitution, financial regulations and budgets could be adopted before the unitary authorities went live.

·                New authorities needed to be safe and legal as a minimum to go live.

·                There would be engagement with Leaders on how much transformation and ambition could be delivered upfront and as part of the transition programme.

·                There could be benefits with better services and savings being found sooner, however, they would have to balance risks with opportunities as they would not want to harm already vulnerable residents.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Ralph Muncer

·                Councillor Paul Ward

·                Councillor Jon Clayden

·                Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·                Councillor David Chalmers

·                Councillor Sadie Billing

·                Councillor Claire Winchester

 

In response to questions, Councillor Val Bryant, as the Deputy Leader, advised that she could not comment on how Cabinet would decide on the LGR submission document in November.

 

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised that:

 

·                There was a pressure to balance the delivery of day-to-day Council services as usual, work towards the submission document, and the desire of the administration to achieve what they could before North Herts ceased to exist.

·                Some officers would see LGR as an opportunity to retire early, however, lots of officers would still want to work and they would be reviewing their Workforce Strategy to support them through uncertainty and put them in the best possible position to retain their roles after LGR.

·                Consultants had supported the consultation process and would analyse the data to provide results for Hertfordshire as a whole and individual areas to allow comparisons. It had not been determined how this would be shared but this would be discussed with other authorities to ensure a consistent approach.

·                There was no template for the submission document, however authorities in Hertfordshire wanted to raise a single submission which would have a spine document detailing the common proposals with mini proposals for each option underneath.

·                Within the executive summary of the submission, they would detail which authorities supported each option.

·                Communication professionals and graphic designers would help to make the submission document persuasive, visually attractive and reflective of Hertfordshire.

·                The presentation slides would be made available to Members on The GrowZone as well as the slides that were presented at the Member briefing.

·                An Extraordinary Council meeting had been organised to discuss the submission document because LGR was of great interest to Members.

·                The submission document would be made public as soon as it was published.

·                Models for how LGR would look would not be made available to the public prior to this due to the pace at which they were working.

·                The Government would have the final decision on the unitary authority structure, however, it would be possible for them to challenge the decision via Judicial Review.

·                The Government could go against the preferences set out by the majority of local authorities in the submission document if they could justify their decision.

·                Consultation would be based on principles rather than detail due to proposals that would have to be made on assumptions.

·                It was speculated that the Government Executive would decide on the legislation for LGR that would also be voted on in Parliament.

·                There had been no suggestions that the elections in 2026 would be postponed as per conversation with MHCLG.

·                The scheduled district and borough council elections in 2027 would be cancelled and replaced by elections to the shadow authorities.

·                No clarity had been provided by the Government on the timeline for creation of a strategic authority and as such, they were discussing the potential to include a proposal for this to be created on the same timeline as the unitary authorities within the submission document.

·                They had not decided how the submission document would address electoral boundaries and constituency changes. 

·                Elections for shadow unitary authorities would be determined by the Government in terms of the structural changes order that would include the number of councillors and ward boundaries and more. 

 

In response to questions, the Director – Resources advised that there were many uncertainties relating to finances and LGR, therefore, the finance model was constantly changing but would be finalised for the submission document in October.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Laura Williams and the Chief Executive for their presentation.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 22.15. During the break Councillor Martin Prescott left the Chamber and did not return