Welcome to the Towards One Council Website, a one stop shop for all news relating to the transition to one council for Wiltshire.

Consultation With DCLG

Wiltshire County Council’s Response to the DCLG consultation paper 'Councils’ Proposals for Unitary Local Government – An Approach to Implementation'

27 September 2007

1. We welcome the opportunity to comment on this consultation document. We have discussed our approach with you over recent weeks and there are no significant changes to that which we have raised with you already. We intend to follow up this letter with further specific discussions to determine the final level of detail required for the generation of the implementation order over the next 2-3 weeks. We recognise that we will need to work closely with the DCLG in order to shape the transition to create the new ‘Wiltshire Council’ and to deliver the innovative, transformed services to which we mutually aspire and to which we are strongly committed. We can confirm that our local and regional stakeholders are up-to-date with the latest developments.

2. Three of the four district councils in Wiltshire have resolved to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision through a judicial review and the papers for this have been served. Notwithstanding this, constructive discussions are underway between County and District staff to ensure the cooperation necessary to achieve a smooth transition. Districts are extremely keen to participate in this process and the County is committed to an inclusive and consultative approach. A meeting of all the leaders and chief executives took place on 31 July and two further meetings of the chief executives and senior managers took place on 4 and 13 September. These were all focussed on the establishment of the transition programme. We have reached agreement with the district councils on a number of the key issues raised in the consultation paper and we highlight these in this letter. Inevitably there are certain areas where we have not reached full agreement and we will explain our stance on these.

3. We recognise and welcome the responsibility vested in us, as the transitional authority, to plan and deliver a NEW council. We are committed to working closely with our district council colleagues to determine the way forward and deliver the vision for the new authority that we articulated in our original ‘We’re Ready’ and ‘Next Steps’ submissions. We realise that this will not be straightforward and that unanimity will not always be possible during the transitional period due to the nature and scale of the transformation envisaged. However, we are committed to a comprehensive process of consultation with both internal and external stakeholders before decisions on the shape of future services are determined. Although we will work hard to foster this inclusive and collaborative approach, we feel it is essential that the transitional process adopted must enable decisive and effective governance at all levels and during all stages of the transition programme, with the ability to reach, stick to and implement decisions.

4. There is a theme through the consultation document of giving maximum local determination to the authorities concerned, to drive through the transition. We welcome this approach and would ask for as much discretion as possible to shape the programme and the governance structures to meet our local needs and to deliver the changes we have articulated in our submission.

5. On 21 September an extraordinary meeting of the County Council took place and determined the County Council’s approach in response to the consultation document in relation to the following key issues:

  • Election date
  • Implementation date
  • Composition of the Transition Cabinet
  • Overview and Scrutiny
  • Name of the authority

The resolutions relating to these issues are covered below. In addition the County Council resolved:

  • ‘That the Chief Executive should ensure full and equal opportunities for Wiltshire County Council and District Council staff to be involved in the transitional arrangements.’
  • ‘To authorise the Chief Executive to submit a response to the detailed issues contained within the DCLG consultation paper and to finalise the terms of the implementation order through negotiations with the DCLG, to liaise with the District Council Chief Executives in the process, and to share responses.’

Proposed Election and Implementation Date

6. In our submission 'Next steps..' we proposed elections in May 2008 (as per the County Council resolution of 16 January) and an implementation date of 1 August 2008. Since our original proposal, as circumstances have shifted, we have had the opportunity to reflect on this position.

  • The commitment by the Boundary Committee to complete a review of the electoral arrangements within Wiltshire County by a 2009 election provides a great opportunity to achieve single member electoral divisions. This will facilitate significantly the goals espoused of more direct engagement of members in influencing service delivery in their electoral divisions and delegation to local area boards.
  • The electoral cycle cannot be changed, so a five year term of office on current boundaries would be the consequence. A 2008 election would be conducted on the basis of the existing electoral divisions with a doubling up of current members leading to all multiple member wards, including three x 4 member wards.
  • Within the consultation paper an implementation date ahead of 1 April 2009 was clearly viewed as challenging. In addition, the position of all 4 districts was that an implementation date prior to April 2009 was too risky and would not be supported by them.
  • The whole purpose in proposing a May 2008 election was to secure an earlier implementation date. A long period between elections and implementation is likely to lead to frictions and confusion and is not considered to be in the best interests of the new authority.
  • Three district councils are seeking a judicial review which may well not be resolved for some months.
  • The 2009 election date may provide an opportunity to achieve parishing for Salisbury and concomitantly the establishment of a City Council, enabling local delegation in line with town council delegations that will be possible for other towns within Wiltshire.

7. We recognise, as does DCLG, that the arguments regarding election dates are finely balanced. However we feel that the transition would be best enabled by a May 2009 election with the responsibility for seeing through the transition vested in the leadership of the organisation that promoted it. Ultimately they will be held accountable in the May 2009 elections.

8. On the basis of the issues outlined above the County Council resolved the following:

  • ‘Election to the new council in May 2009 with a recommendation to the Boundary Committee for England that the new council should consist of a minimum of 98 members having single member divisions.’
  • ‘Implementation of the change to the new council on 1 April 2009.’

9. These proposals are supported by all 4 District Councils.

10. Parish elections. Parish elections took place in Wiltshire this year but in future would need to coincide with the new authority election timetable. With the likelihood of parish elections being required for Salisbury and the challenges that a 6 year term would pose for parishes, we want to conduct parish elections to coincide with the new authority’s elections in 2009. This would have the additional advantage of giving a new mandate for parish and town councils to establish the new community governance arrangements.

11. An associated issue is that Section 16, of the Representation of the People Act 1985, requires that where the date of a parliamentary general election is the same as the ordinary day of election of councillors for local government areas, any election of parish councillors due to be held on the same day would be postponed for three weeks. This again would mean extra costs to Town and Parish Councils. Some flexibility within the order to waive this requirement would be appreciated.

12. Likewise a transitional provision within the order that would allow a review of parish electoral arrangements commenced under the Local Government & Rating Act 1997 to be completed and determined under the new Act would be helpful.

Transitional Governance

13. We have looked carefully at the options for establishing a transitional governance process. We have determined that this should be an executive body, in line with the current Cabinet arrangements existing in 4 of the 5 Wiltshire authorities. We determined that, as the transitional authority, the full County Council would ultimately be holding this executive to account, through a proactive Overview and scrutiny process, and that this would be the source of political proportionality.

14. We propose that it be called a ‘Transition Cabinet’ and the County Council endorsed the proposal and resolved to create:

‘A transitional Cabinet responsible for preparation for the new council, comprising five members of the County Council’s Cabinet (including the Leader as Chairman) and the four Leaders of the District Councils or their nominees, with named members and substitutes for all councils. The terms of reference of the transitional Cabinet to be finalised with DCLG along the lines of paragraph 25 of the report. ‘

15. The County Council has agreed to establish this Transition Cabinet ahead of the secondary legislation and the intention is, following a meeting of Leaders and Chief Executives on 1 October, to hold the first meeting in late October and once a month from then onwards. In addition County Council resolved that:

‘That the transitional Cabinet should operate on the same lines as the County Council’s own Cabinet, including meetings in public (subject to the Access to Information Rules), opportunities for the public and County/District Councillors to attend and participate in the debate at the discretion of the Chairman, publication of a future work programme, and opportunities for overview and scrutiny through arrangements to be determined by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee in consultation with the District Councils’ Scrutiny groups.’

16. The detailed terms of reference for this body are being developed in consultation with the districts and will form the subject of further detailed discussions with DCLG over the next few weeks, in order that they can be incorporated into the secondary legislation. In terms of the overall role and responsibilities we envisage that the transitional authority, through the Transition Cabinet, would be authorised to prepare for reorganisation, including authority to make decisions in the following areas:

  • To determine vision, operating model and decide on options and overall service goals for the new authority
  • To prepare appropriate plans and budgets in respect of functions of the new authority and consult on these plans. This will need to include engagement and involvement in any decision, including for 2008-09, that is likely to have a budgetary consequence for the new authority.
  • To authorise contracts (letting or extensions), and to authorise requests from districts to
  • dispose of land or other assets
  • enter into capital contracts.
  • To authorise the use of reserves in the calculation of districts’ budget requirements for council tax purposes.
  • To recommend the constitution and decision making structures of the new authority to that authority.
  • To authorise organisational and structural changes.
  • To agree, on recommendation of the Joint Implementation Board lists of staff to transfer.
  • To approve proposals for redundancy and early severance and determine subsequent compensation/severance arrangements.
  • To make or approve appointments.

17. Some of these roles fall outside of the normal boundaries of a cabinet and we will be working with DCLG to ensure that correct provisions are included in the secondary legislation to cover these areas. If, as we understand to be the case, the Transitional Executive will be responsible for determining staffing matters, including the appointment of staff and determination of their terms and conditions, the Order will need to provide specific authority for this in order to override the provisions of the Local Authorities(Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended. These provide that the appointment and dismissal of staff and the determination of their terms and conditions of employment is a non-executive function. We would not wish to have to set up a separate committee to deal with staffing matters relating to unitary status.

18. There may be other functions which the Transitional Executive may need to undertake which fall into a similar category and consideration should be given to making provision in the order disapplying the relevant parts of the 2000 Regulations. In addition further work will be needed to delineate responsibilities between the current executive and the transition bodies.

19. Unanimity has not been obtained on this issue across the 5 authorities. Salisbury proposed a 16 person, proportionally based body and an amendment similar to this was put forward at the County Council by the opposition groups and defeated. N Wilts have proposed an executive body but with a majority for the District Councils. Kennet have preferred a body consisting of 2 representatives from each District alongside the full cabinet from the County, but appeared willing to accept the County’s proposal. W Wilts have discussed the possibility of a body with equal County and District representation.

20. Discussions on scrutiny are underway with Districts and a consultation paper is to be distributed. Once again there are different perspectives regarding composition and the proportion of district and county members. However we believe that these differences are resolvable.

21. Our view is that the ‘Transition Cabinet’ must, as indicated above, have the ability to reach and implement significant decisions that will shape the future NEW authority and some of these decisions will be challenging and will make major changes to the way we deliver our services to our customers, to the shape of our organisation and to the demands we will make upon our staff. All of these will be essential if we are to deliver the performance and financial benefits articulated within our proposals. Wiltshire County Council submitted the bid and has the responsibility, as the transitional authority, for delivering the new authority. As such we strongly believe that the Transition Cabinet must reflect this responsibility with the transitional authority holding the casting vote.

Joint Implementation Board

22. We have already established a joint implementation team, following on from our original programme board, which we have called the ‘Joint Implementation Board’ (JIB). This Board has already met twice, with a fortnightly schedule from hereon. There is general agreement on the creation and composition of this Board and it is recognised that as the programme progresses its composition may be altered. We support your view that the establishment of this group should be left to local determination.This group is comprised as follows:

  • Chairman and Programme Director –County Council - Director Environmental Services
  • County Council - Director Resources
  • 4 x District Council Directors ( one from each district)
  • County Council - Chief Finance Officer
  • Programme Manager
  • Programme Office Manager
  • As required – Workstream leaders, HR and communications leads

This Board would be directly responsible for driving the programme of transition up to and post implementation. It will have a wide remit including:

  • Ensuring that the vision, the customer focus and the new authority’s operating model are established and implemented.
  • Managing the programme through the workstream and project leads to transform service delivery areas.
  • Identifying and delivering cost and performance benefits through the introduction of lean techniques.
  • Managing programme risks and issues.
  • Developing structural proposals
  • Communications
  • Determining staffing arrangements including local protocols, relations with staff and TUs.
  • Ensuring key local partners (public, private and the third sectors) are given the opportunities to influence the priorities determined for the new authority.

23. In the consultation document, at para 70, it was suggested that the transitional authority chief executive might lead this body. As we have discussed previously, our view is that the Chief Executive will be heavily and intrinsically involved in LGR but will act in a reference and steering role with the other district chief executives. He will also be focusing on external stakeholders and on the breadth of other initiatives underway within the authority.

24. You also indicated that HR directors should sit on the JIT. We fully recognise the critical importance of the staffing issues and have appointed an HR assistant director to lead on the HR implications. He will attend and report to the JIB as required and this approach is agreed with our district colleagues.

25. Recognising that this is work in progress, an overview of the governance and programme arrangements is attached at Annex A.

26. Milestones. We are not convinced that embedding milestones into the secondary legislation will be helpful. As we have explained the circumstance of each authority will be different and although we understand the rationale was to provide impetus to the establishment of the transition process we feel that confident that most of this will be in place by the time the order comes into play.

27. However, we recognise and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate progress during transition and the ultimate delivery of benefits from the creation for the new authority and suggest that we discuss the potential sources to monitor progress in further discussions.

28. On a related issue we do have reservations about the wording of paragraphs 20 and 21, implying, as they do, that:

“It will be essential to put in place from the outset the engagement arrangements, the strengthened leadership models and devolved responsibilities” (i.e. by 1 April 2009).

We agree that this approach will be adopted from the outset but the realisation of our vision and the full adoption of strengthened leadership and devolution of responsibility will take considerably longer than this, especially as much of the change cannot practically be effected until post vesting. We would welcome further discussions about this with you as outlined above, relating to the programme plan and the planned delivery of the benefits that we have submitted.

29. Local Area Agreements. The CLG's proposal of Option 1 - a single LAA negotiated for the existing geographical area for 3 years (2008-2011) seemsappropriate but we will need to consider the role of District Councils in that negotiation. The District Councils will exist for the first year of the LAA (2008/9), and then the new authority will take over. It is important that District Councilsremain responsible for their performance in 2008/9 but they cannot be held responsible for performance from April 2009. This applies both to the relevant PIs in the new national indicator set and to the LAA targets. We will need to find a way to locally negotiate and agreethe LAA targets. This is likely to be a further responsibility of the Transition Cabinet rather than with individual District Councils, although District Councils would be heavily involved in developing the LAA.

30. CPA/CAA. One of the key reasons for inspection is that it should help to improve performance, and there is always a tension between the capacity takenand the value added bya particular inspection activity.The CPAends in 2008, and CAA begins in 2009. We feel that it is vital that theCPA regime in 2008 is light touch, particularly with the challenges and capacity issues of authorities facing reorganisation.We are due for a corporate assessment in June 2008 and at present the indications appear to be that the commission would like to conduct a full scale corporate assessment. This would not be helpful because it would take a great dealof capacity to service the assessment; capacity better spent on Transition and of course the council being inspected (WCC) would not exist in the same form from April 2009. We would welcome the involvement of the Commission but to replace a full blown assessment with a piece of work looking at the strengths and weaknesses of all 5 authorities, with a particular focus on services, to help inform thetransitionby identifying good practice. While this would not give a corporate assessment score, it would help improve performance and give an essential baseline position for the new authority. We would welcome your engagement on this issue and understand similar issues are being faced by Shropshire and Cornwall. CAA is due to begin in 2009. It is not yet clear how this assessment will be carried out but if assessments are being phased we would suggest that the new authorities are given at least a year to bed-in local arrangements before significant inspection activity.

Name of the New Authority

31. We understand that the legal name of the Council will continue to be Wiltshire County Council. However, we recognise the importance of indicating in all respects the creation of a new authority and that the name plays a key role in both public and staff perception regarding the nature and scope of change. As a result the County Council resolved that:

‘The name of the council to be ‘Wiltshire Council’ with the re-branding to be phased in to minimise costs.’

This is supported by all the districts councils.

Staffing

32. We have discussed, at a series of meetings with officers of the DCLG, our approach regarding your staffing proposals, contained in Chapter 5. We do have significant concerns about some of these suggestions and proposals and you have acknowledged this during the discussions. As with other areas, the districts and county are in agreement on certain areas with regard to staffing, but not all. We have already made significant progress with districts on practical measures to deal with both transition and some of the longer term implications. We have all agreed a secondment protocol and are at the final drafting stage of the recruitment protocol. We intend to develop a protocol regarding competitive recruitment over the next few weeks.

33. None of the Wiltshire authorities support the proposed transfer arrangements (paragraphs 110 to 117). We regard these proposals as:

  • Divisive between County and District staff.
  • Divisive between different sorts of staff within the District Councils (a front line versus support services delineation is no longer tenable or helpful).
  • Likely to generate greater uncertainty, particularly among District Council staff. This in turn may be reflected in excessive staff turnover and potential challenges in maintaining performance.
  • Potentially subject to legal challenge.

34. Rather we propose that all staff, in post on vesting day, be transferred to the employment of the new authority on implementation. It would then be for the new authority to make appointments, on an inclusive and equitable basis, from County Council and inherited District Council staff into jobs in reorganised structures. In some cases this could take place very soon after vesting. In other cases it might take longer. That would be determined by the pace of service reviews. This process would be consistent with the “appointments process” adopted by the County Council in respect of other internal reorganisations unconnected with local government reorganisation.

35. As indicated more generally above, we are keen to retain as much local determination as possible with regard to the staffing arrangements for the new authority and do not want national frameworks unless absolutely necessary. We recognise that some centrally determined general regulations may be of value but would wish to keep these to the minimum and wherever possible open to local transition management decisions.

36. The situation relating to the chief executives is somewhat different from the remainder of the staff. We agree that the Chief Executive of the new authority must be chosen through an open competition. Our view is that the recruitment process could be launched prior to the vesting and elections but can only be completed by the newly elected authority in May /June 2009, with a goal to complete the process with the new chief executive in post, potentially by the autumn of 2009. This would mean the existing county chief executive remaining in post on an interim basis until the new one takes office. We would be happy to see this process time limited in some form. Overall, this would ensure stability and continuity throughout transition and during the immediate period post vesting, as the new authority’s members establish themselves.

37. With regard to the chief executives of the district councils it is difficult to see a role for them post vesting day within the new authority. We are therefore suggesting that district chief executives alone would not be afforded the right to be transferred, but rather be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy by their existing employer. If this is not possible, then the Transitional Cabinet should be given powers to undertake redundancy consultations with those Chief Executives, and to issue notice of termination of employment on the grounds of redundancy to take effect upon vesting day.

38. We do not believe that other “senior posts should be subject to the same (recruitment) process” (paragraph 120), unless such a post is new or is substantially changed. In that case it will be subject to the same appointments process as referred to above. Indeed, to submit Chief Officers and other senior positions, in posts which are substantially unchanged, to a competitive recruitment process would be fraught with difficulty. If unsuccessful in such a recruitment process, we do not believe that the existing incumbent could lawfully be dismissed.

39. We agree that the determination of severance arrangements should be left to local determination, subject to those severance arrangements being in accordance with existing statutory powers (paragraph 124 to 126). We envisage that the transitional authority would need to be empowered to authorise redundancy and early severance arrangements to ensure that we are able to review employment opportunities across the whole authority and ensure we do not make people redundant unnecessarily. We also see the need for the transitional authority to be empowered to determine the local severance arrangements, so that these can take effect at vesting day. We would not be supportive of proposals that raised the redundancy and severance terms to the highest common denominator.

40. We agree that the post vesting harmonisation of terms and conditions, including grade and pay arrangements, will need to comply with equal pay requirements. That can be achieved through an equal pay audit rather than “an early pay and grading review” (paragraph 128), which implies a fully blown further exercise and we would envisage conducting this within a 12-18 month period post vesting. A full review, if undertaken afresh, would be unnecessary, expensive and lengthy.

41. As we have explained at meetings we would wish to further clarify the boundaries and implications of the “TUPE-like” (paragraph 109) arrangements.

Finance and Contract Issues

42. We have discussed issues with you regarding the management of budgets during the transition period. It is vital that the viability of the new authority or indeed the transition is not able to be undermined by decisions in the intervening period that may raise unsustainable expectations or commit the authority to ongoing cost. We welcome the provisions to be included in the Act. We also welcome your proposals to incorporate provisions in the secondary legislation, and to enable them, to empower the transitional authority, through the Transition Cabinet, to control these aspects and authorise proposals. We would emphasise that we have no desire to manage or take over responsibility from districts during the transition. However we feel that the transition authority must be consulted over all decisions that have future performance or financial implications. This consultation needs to relate to a broader range of potential budget decisions beyond contracts, asset disposal, capital investment and use of reserves.

43. We would like to receive guidance about the approval of the statements of accounts for 2008-09 of the district councils. This would usually occur in June 2009, after they have ceased to be. If their accounts aren’t being approved by their existing financial officer, would the new council approve them?

44. We are aware that the formula grant includes a basic amount for each authority before relative needs etc are calculated. We would be grateful for guidance as to whether any changes are envisaged to the calculations of this.

Ceremonial Arrangements

45. We are happy with the proposals for ceremonial arrangements and will be submitting details shortly on the preservation of these for the Salisbury charter trustees and any others.

Annex A – Wiltshire LGR Governance and Programme Overview (25 Sep 07)