Written evidence submitted by Susan Hedley [OSG 038]
1 SUMMARY
As plain voter and tax-payer, I see two basic questions
1.1 WHAT PRICE DEMOCRACY?
1.2 HAS THERE BEEN AN EROSION OF DEMOCRACY? IF SO, WHERE AND HOW?
2 Credentials
3-4 Background to communications, Northumberland County Council and North East Combined Authority
5 Effectiveness of Scrutiny Committees
6 Extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
7 Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised
8 Selection of chairs and members
9 Potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
10 Selection of topics for scrutiny
11 Support given to scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers
12 Effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations
13 Role of scrutiny in devolution deals
14 Recommendations:
14.1 Portfolio holder
14.2 Emulate
14.3 Audit/ publish
14.4 Participation
14.5 Consultations
14.6 Communities
14.7 Media coverage
ANNEXES
A My Meeting Watch posts for last 3 months
C Govt reply, 2015 Re: Devolution/NE Combined Authority
E NCC’s Arts, Leisure, Culture Scrutiny Committee
G 2015 email to MPs: Quality and Validity of Local Government Consultations
K Correspondence with Scrutiny Cttee and Active Northumberland about library services
N Email re. North East Combined Authority sent to Cllrs. incl. Scrutiny
O NECA: Time for urgent questions? 23/11/15 email to Cllrs, + level of replies
See also
b) map on p.7 of " Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications” by Tim Pateman, Office for National Statistics, or Map 1 in his Palgrave Journals article
d) results: Northumberland County Council>About the council >Policy & priorities>Council performance>Corporate peer challenge.
f) - [correspondence about provision of community noticeboards in libraries can be supplied]
h) section 3.2.1 of my submission to PACAC inquiry: Lessons Learned from EU Referendum
i) Hexham Courant, 24/02/17 & 03/03/17
j) Morpeth Herald, 09/03/17, p.1,4,15
l) Northumberland Gazette, 09/03/17, p.29
m) Morpeth Herald, 09/03/17, p. 12,16
p) NE Combined Authority website, especially Devolution section
1) SUMMARY
As a plain voter and tax-payer, I see two basic questions
1.1 WHAT PRICE DEMOCRACY?
Should operation of and access to democracy be subservient to any other considerations?
1.2 HAS THERE BEEN AN EROSION OF DEMOCRACY? IF SO, WHERE AND HOW?
Probably, due to financial cutbacks.
2) CREDENTIALS
2.1 A private citizen, widely floating voter with no paid or voluntary office, and no previous involvement in politics other than going to cast my vote, until, made possible by variable work shifts, observing numerous Northumberland County Council Full Council, Cabinet, and various Scrutiny Committees over last 3½ years, NCC North Area Committee, and Longframlington Parish Council meetings, and various meetings of North East Combined Authority committees. Also invited to final meeting of an NCC working group not normally open to public, after exchanging much correspondence and being invited to some meetings with officers.
Examples of meetings observed: see Annex *A) for meetings watch posts to my handful of connections on social media for last 3 months.
2.2 My resources limited, so get information from Radio 4, local weekly papers, and reading reports on the BBC and local authority websites when enough time on public access computers at library. No TV or internet access. ALL LOCAL PAPERS TO BE DISCONTINUED FROM LIBRARY ON 24/03/17. National newspapers and magazines cut 2 years ago.
2.3 12% of my net income goes on Council Tax for small 1970s bungalow in my home village, which has had a housing development for most decades since 1950s, but in the same time has lost its school, library, petrol pumps, post office, and bus services on Sundays and after 7.25 pm Mon-Sat.
3) NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
3.1 Though used to watching Parish Council and occasional NCC North Area Committees, I first watched a meeting at County Hall in autumn 2013 after reading in local papers about concerns about how chairmanship of scrutiny committees was allocated by new administration. NCC administration had turned from no overall control to 32 Labour out of 67 Cllrs with, as it turned out, consistent support of 2 or 3 of the 5 Independent/non-aligneds. As I understand, all Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Scrutiny have been Labour since then, apart from one Independent who usually votes with them.
2.2 Cabinet has seven Labour members, and, after some remonstration I believe, the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Independents. On a line from Amble to Bywell near Stocksfield, all Cabinet members represent wards south-east of it. This is highly significant in Northumberland, because approximately half of the population live in the rural areas, which are more or less divided by this line from the built-up area of south-east Northumberland. [*b) See map on p.7 of " Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications” by Tim Pateman, Office for National Statistics, or Map 1 in his Palgrave Journals article].
2.3 Seeing my first NCC cabinet meeting, but apparently no other members of the public or even journalists, I continued going to observe, so that meeting rooms weren’t solely occupied by Cllrs and officers of the Council or related organisations. As often as not, for NCC Scrutiny and even Cabinet meetings, and for North East Combined Authority Scrutiny and Transport Committee meetings, I seem the only public there, often with no press either. NECA Leadership Boards have better press coverage, but SEE 14.2.2 FOR HOW THIS IS CONTROLLED.
2.4 For Northumberland, sparsity seems the defining issue, but this administration seems to have worked hard on innovative and bold ways to preserve appropriate services despite massive government funding cutbacks, not just identifying the easiest budget headings to cut, but putting much careful work and thought into identifying the most essential elements and finding ways to make the money stretch further to provide them, so we seem to have been left with more services than many other authorities.
4) COMMUNICATING WITH COUNTY COUNCIL AND NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY
4.1 With elected representatives handling ever-increasing workloads and legislation, and my County Cllr heavily involved in Planning Committees, I have said that I don’t expect him to deal with my queries, and have sent my observations, suggestions or questions Council direct to portfolio holders and members of scrutiny committees as well as to my own Cllr.
After making enquiries of government [see ANNEX *C)], I understood that voters can make direct representations to members of the NECA Leadership Board and their Overview and Scrutiny Committee, so I do that too.
4.2 Although they can see that I have also sent my correspondence to my Cllr., I very rarely get responses to my concerns and questions from NCC Scrutiny Committees either direct or through my Cllr, though Cllrs. are friendly enough when I go to observe.
Better response from NECA Committees, though not from Northumberland representatives on them.
Honourable exceptions are Cllr. Dale, in her capacity as member of NCC Audit, Performance, and Governance Committees, and as an NCC representative on the NECA Governance Committee, who acknowledges all of my emails and obtains answers for those of my questions relevant to her role, and Cllr. A. Tebbutt, a Cllr. both for NCC and Morpeth Town Council (where I have worked in the town centre for some years), who deals with my emails the same way as Cllr. Dale.
4.3 MAIN CONCERNS:
4.3.1 LEVEL OF REPRESENTATION FOR RURAL AREAS,
4.3.2 QUALITY AND VALIDITY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
4.3.3 MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING DELIVERY OF APPROPRIATE AND ACCOUNTABLE SERVICES AFTER RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELIVERING THEM HAS BEEN GIVEN TO NEW ARM’S LENGTH OR PARTNERSHIP BODIES.
4.4 FAVOURABLY IMPRESSED BY THE AMOUNT OF WORK WHICH NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF NECA DO, AND EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMITMENT OF THEIR OFFICERS.
4.5.1 Looking at other LA websites in region and beyond because of NECA, NCC website seems much the clearest, most informative and accessible for democratic involvement and information.
4.5.2 Meetings diary in Cllrs and Democracy section is particularly useful for seeing what meetings I can go to and being able to look at all agendas, minutes, and reports, though being reliant on using public access computers at my nearest library in between work shifts, I can’t make full use of minutes.
4.5.3 The publication of the Forward Plan of Key Decisions also makes it easier to look out for particular issues coming to scrutiny committees.
4.5.4 NCC Democratic Services section is also indispensable for dealing with my questions effectively and almost instantly or directing them to correct recipient.
4.5.5 *d) See NCC’s very positive peer review results at Northumberland County Council>About the council >Policy & priorities>Council performance>Corporate peer challenge.
5 WHETHER SCRUTINY COMMITTEES IN LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE EFFECTIVE IN HOLDING DECISION-MAKERS TO ACCOUNT
5.1 Though favourably impressed by generally non-political and constructive nature of discussions at Scrutiny, as a plain voter I am most bothered by lack of detail. Meetings between 30 minutes and 2 hours, but normally around the hour.
5.2 Impressed by how Cllrs. deal with the number of large reports, and by immense expertise and commitment which officers put into compiling them.
HOWEVER, I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEES BARELY QUORATE, OR WITH TOTAL ABSENCE OF MEMBERS FROM RURAL AREAS. In a unitary authority (apparently not wanted by most Northumbrians, but they were never given the choice) such as Northumberland with vast distances from north east to south west, and where even major roads like A1 aren’t completely dualled, perhaps these distances requiring so much time/expense are reason for not attending all committees – COULD MEETINGS BE MORE EFFECTIVELY /FAIRLY LOCATED?
5.3 Even in most meetings where there is good turnout, there is limited time to deal with questions and detail, and usually depends on Cllrs. being there who have specific examples from own wards.
Increasing legislation, complexity and cutbacks put immense pressure on remaining staff, but reports and policies still admirably capture realities of life for voters. However, with fewer staff, they must rely more on desk-based studies rather than actual contact with voters and situations, and as one desk-based study is informed by a previous one, so they risk becoming increasingly remote from reality. With such an immense amount of paperwork to go through, Cllrs must place very heavy reliance on officers supporting them, so AS A VOTER, I AM CONCERNED AT REPORTS PRODUCED IN A PARTICULAR FORM AND TERMINOLOGY WHICH CASTS OPACITY OVER REALITIES OF TAX-PAYERS’ LIVES AND SITUATIONS. Please could every report include a real story, to keep human realities at forefront of deliberations, especially of officers developing strategies based on desk-top studies, who probably don’t have the contact with voters that Cllrs. do.
5.4 Some concerning examples I noted in scrutiny over last 3½ years:
5.4.1 A particularly contentious (but supposedly non-political) scrutiny meeting where a Labour member suggested brief adjournment to Labour Chair for discussion amongst their group, which they did.
As one of many meetings with no reporters or other members of the public present, and Cllrs. and media probably not wishing to advertise lack of observers and reporters, and officers not being allowed to, this probably went unnoted except in the minutes.
5.4.2 A scrutiny meeting where many concerns expressed over a report/policy, but instead of agreeing full inclusion of these concerns in report to Cabinet, Chair eventually called a vote divided along political lines, won by Labour group, so report was recommended to Cabinet.
5.4.3 Sometimes officers presenting a report to Scrutiny/Cabinet slip up, saying “when” rather than “if” this report goes forward. As a voter, it dismays me to hear this mind-set operating in our democracy.
5.4.4 NCC’s ARTS, LEISURE AND CULTURE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [see annex *E)]
6 EXTENT TO WHICH SCRUTINY COMMITTEES OPERATE WITH POLITICAL IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE FROM EXECUTIVES
6.1 Para. 5.3 above - extent of Cllrs reliance on officers, who receive their directions from administration, so may have been briefed in a way that limits choices and scope of information before coming to scrutiny.
e.g. NCC’s controversial policy to move County Hall from Morpeth to Ashington. Cllr. A. Tebbutt, active in questioning this, was scrupulous in not putting political arguments at one Scrutiny Committee of which I think that he was a member, rather than someone invited to speak, because, as he said, the correct time for political arguments would be at Cabinet.
As the next Cabinet meeting approached, I saw that the agenda had had an amendment inserted in red, to the effect that having examined previous proceedings, it had been discovered that this matter had already been decided, so there was no further need to discuss it. Cllr. Tebbutt therefore had no opportunity to put the political side of his case, although, as a plain voter out and about, I felt that the opinion of a great many of my fellow voters is that it is very much a political policy, and such use of tax-payers’ money in an authority such as NCC where physical geography is a major factor very much deserves to be questioned.
6.2 See paras 5.4.1 and 5.4.2.
7) WHETHER SCRUTINY OFFICERS ARE INDEPENDENT OF AND SEPARATE FROM THOSE BEING SCRUTINISED
The conduct and professionalism of NCC Scrutiny Officers appears to be exemplary.
8) SELECTION OF CHAIRS AND MEMBERS
As I understand, nominations are not known in advance of the meeting where selections are confirmed, but arrive in a list in the Council Leader’s pocket. As a voter, I don’t know how nominees are selected, or whether there is any real opportunity or likelihood of getting alternative incumbents. I could try asking NCC’s excellent Democratic Services department, but suspect that their answer might be constrained.
9) POTENTIAL FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY SCRUTINY TO ACT AS A VOICE FOR LOCAL SERVICE USERS
9.1.1 Scrutiny might work much better if voters knew that it existed, how it worked, how to find out about it, and how to get involved. A very tiny proportion of voters probably knows this. Most who I know seem to think that Council meetings are all about planning applications.
9.1.2 Most only get involved AFTER their chance to influence matters by contacting Cllrs and members of Scrutiny Committees has passed i.e. when an issue discussed at Scrutiny has been controversial enough to be reported in the press.
9.1.3 Preferable if local service users could have a voice at working group stage.
NCC is quite conscientious in running consultations, but certainly difficulties in publicising and making them available in places and forms accessible to a truly representative sample of Northumbrians.
9.1.4 See Annex *G) – 2015 email to MPs about quality and validity of consultations.
A Rolls Royce example of an NCC consultation - the Core Planning Strategy.
Opposite extreme - NCC budget consultation – DETAILS OF VALIDITY AND STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION in * h) section 3.2.1 of my submission to PACAC inquiry, Lessons Learned from EU Referendum
9.1.5 Generally, Cllrs seem more dismissive than otherwise about validity of consultations.
9.1.6 EXCELLENT IMPROVEMENT TO NCC WEBSITE - INCLUSION OF WORKING GROUPS ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS CALENDAR - even if we can’t see agendas or minutes, by looking at the forward plan of key decisions, and Cllr. membership of working groups, anyone can have timely input by contacting Cllrs.
9.2 In a large county with such marked geographical divisions as Northumberland, where unitary authority has been imposed on voters, THE FOUR AREA COMMITTEES SHOULD BE PART OF SCRUTINY PROCESS. As I understand, they currently function to convey local concerns to administration, but don’t appear to have power in decision-making process.
e.g. *i) Hexham Courant, 24/02/17:
P.1 Council puts local democracy at risk: Tynedale robbed of vital information
P.3 £1.3m council hub plan scaled back: Queen’s Hall budget revised to £430k
P.2 Your right to know, our right to report
Information blackout: County Council accused of penalising local residents
P.14 County Hall work is under way: Protests continue as work starts on £32m council Headquarters
and issue for 03/03/17.
+ *j) Morpeth Herald on what has happened to Neighbourhood Plan
10 ) SELECTION OF TOPICS FOR SCRUTINY
10.1 Topics seem automatically selected according to Forward Plan of Key Decisions, and further topics identified by Committee members for Task and Finish Working Groups, which will report and be taken forward if deemed necessary.
10.2 A small Cumbrian authority asks voters to suggest and choose a topic for scrutiny?
- probably risks extreme political manipulation, but might be useful in educating voters about the scrutiny process.
11) SUPPORT GIVEN TO SCRUTINY FUNCTION BY POLITICAL LEADERS AND SENIOR OFFICERS
THE RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO SCRUTINY AND NCC’s DEMOCRATIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING CLLRS. AND DEMOCRACY SECTION OF NCC WEBSITE, APPEAR TO ALLOW THEM TO BE EXEMPLARY AND SHOULD BE EMULATED AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. Without these, “democracy” would be too inaccessible to voters to be anything but a sick joke.
12) EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SCRUTINY OF EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
12.1 As a voter, I see arm’s length bodies as being at arm's length from voter and community accountability and scrutiny too.
Two (external) arm’s-length/partner organisations in Northumberland which I am concerned about:
12.2 Active Northumberland –see Annexes *E) and *K). Perhaps libraries have been saved for now, but it allow sweeping of libraries under the carpet in future without NCC being accountable.
12.3 ARCH – website information steadily improved, but concerns over scrutiny could be similar to Active Northumberland, though to a much lesser extent. Out and about, and observing local meetings, there seems a sense that this is asset-stripping in communities across the whole county, with most benefits going into the built-up south east corner. In rural communities, once a building or land is disposed of, there is little opportunity of getting a replacement when necessary, unlike in urban areas, where there is more likely to be a turnover of alternative land/buildings.
Examples:
12.3.1 - intended disposal (probably for houses) of land reserved for replacement school in Longframlington (original lost in 1950s), just as number of households in parish is increasing by minimum 20% in 3 years from 600, with greater proportion of new houses for families.
12.3.2 - the issue at Wooler raised by Cllr. Murray at Full NCC meeting on 22/02/17, where the community needs use of some land which it formerly used.
The routes of registering and purchasing as Community Assets/using Cllrs’ small schemes budgets, as suggested to Cllr. Murray, aren’t financially viable for small rural communities where selling off land for houses has potential to earn huge amounts of money for County Council as a whole.
12.3.3 Two months before elections, should external bodies be promoting content of NCC’s budget presentation video in full page advert [see *l)], or full page promoted content from Active Northumberland *m), p.16?
13) ROLE OF SCRUTINY IN DEVOLUTION DEALS
[I find NECA officers, and Scrutiny Chair, are welcoming and exemplary].
13.1 See
Annex *N) Email re. North East Combined Authority sent to my own Cllr. and members of Corporate Resources and Regional Affairs Overview and Scrutiny Committee after watching their first meeting, May 2016.
Annex *O) My email - NECA: Time for urgent questions?
13.2 Having delegated powers to NCC reps for North East Combined Authority, and transferred powers to arm’s-length bodies e.g. Arch and Active Northumberland, there are an increasing number of places where Cllrs., voters, and media must look in order to keep properly informed about things being done in their name [?], but everyone has diminishing time to do so.
13.3 There should at least be a requirement for regular presentations to Full Council about such bodies, enabling all Cllrs, and not just those attending a particular scrutiny committee, to be aware of developments and concerns, and to put questions about general overview, not just specific issues.
13.4 Such bodies are now taking over increasingly major sections of work originally done by NCC and overseen by all Cllrs.
13.4.1 e.g. see Devolution section of NE Combined Authority website *p):
[“Discussions regarding North East devolution are on hold following a Government announcement on 8 September 2016 that the region's deal has been withdrawn.
Members of our Leadership Board had reached a majority decision on 6 September 2016 not to begin the next stage in the process at this present time. This was because they had been unable to reach an agreement on the terms under which they were being asked to proceed.
Although current devolution talks have been brought to an end, our work in a number of areas will continue, including the work of the HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE COMMISSION and projects relating to TRANSPORT, EMPLOYABILITY AND INCLUSION and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION.“]
13.4.2 This illustrates concerns which I had raised about progress being based on personalities getting on together, and there being no mechanisms to accommodate subsequent changes in membership which might change dynamics e.g. change of leadership, Gateshead Council, May 2016.
13.5 ORIGINAL INTENTION: VOTERS WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF REPRESENTATION THROUGH AN ELECTED MAYOR, BUT NOW ON HOLD, SO WORK ON MAJOR ISSUES LISTED ABOVE CONTINUES WITHOUT OVERSIGHT FROM ANYONE SPECIFICALLY ELECTED TO NECA BY VOTERS, AND IS LARGELY CONDUCTED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WITH MINIMAL CONTENT RESERVED FOR THE PARTS OF NECA MEETINGS OPEN TO PRESS AND PUBLIC.
14) RECOMMENDATIONS: A rolling Commission?
14.1 Require a LOCAL PORTFOLIO HOLDER with specific budget to uphold and promote democratic systems.
14.2 EMULATE
14.2.1 Northumberland County Council’s excellent Democratic Services Department
14.2.2 Councillors and Democracy section of NCC website, especially Forward Plan of Key Decisions and Calendar of Meetings, which includes working groups not open to observe. The latter would be particularly useful for NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY, where the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OF BUSINESS SEEMS TO BE CONDUCTED IN FRONT OF PRESS AND PUBLIC, with adjournments happening at Leadership Board if there is controversy, and no clear published diary of other meetings taking place away from press and public.
14.2.3 Conduct of meetings at NCC North Area Committee under chairmanship of Cllr. Bridgett, where satisfactory opportunity is given to local voters to raise issues and ask questions.
14.2.4 Conduct of Longframlington Parish Council – no politics, just much hard work and commitment for free on behalf of community.
14.3 AUDIT & PUBLISH
14.3.1 Require a regular audit, public presentation and publication of
- what powers and responsibilities have been DELEGATED and to whom
- the number and nature of meetings and items where press and public have been
EXCLUDED
- the proportion of desk-top studies v. information-gathering from random voters
14.3.2 Keep track of PREVALENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF SELF-APPOINTED AND/OR UNELECTED BODIES [see Annex *O] by
recording and publishing
- number of ordinary voters observing meetings
- number and details of press observing meetings
- number of officers and reps of other bodies there to present reports
- number and identity of non-participating Cllrs there to observe
-number and identity of representatives of other bodies there to observe
14.3.3 WHEN A POLICY IS ADOPTED, PUBLISH A RECORD OF WHEN AND WHENCE THE SUGGESTION FIRST CAME INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND HOW AND BY WHOM IT WAS PROGRESSED e.g. the moving of Northumberland County Hall – this is where voters have most suspicions, and would do a great deal to improve the reputation of Local Government.
14.3.4 Require regular audit and publication of use of WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, which prevents matters being discussed in an elected forum, and excludes most voters from information given.
e.g. the number of written answers given at NCC’s Full Council meeting,22/02/17, though questions were asked in person
14.4 ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION
14.4.1 Examine LOCATION of meetings for maximum access for communities which their agendas affect. [see also 14.5]
14.4.2 Publish DRAFT MINUTES – currently, minutes of meetings aren’t generally available to voters until published in agenda of following meeting, when too late to get questions onto agenda.
With internet, it should be possible to circulate draft minutes to members quickly, and publish them to voters with any queries to be raised at next meeting highlighted.
This way, voters could contact elected representatives in meaningful time, rather than always being left one step behind until next meeting agenda, awaiting publication of previous minutes.
14.4.3 Rolling examination of whether FREQUENCY OF SCRUTINY MEETINGS keeps pace with speed of developments – with Active Northumberland possibly not?
14.4.4 Look at providing more detailed minutes for those who can’t observe due to time or distance – e.g. HANSARD. COULD VOLUNTEERS OR STUDENTS BE ENCOURAGED TO HELP?
14.5 CONSULTATIONS
See Annexes *G) on Consultations and *O) on NECA, but meetings for Parish Councils were organised at time and place where most rural parish Cllrs would struggle to get there.
Publish list of all open consultations in one dedicated and easily accessible part of website like parliamentary consultations.
14.6 COMMUNITIES
14.6.1 With cutbacks, not enough staff to make proper contact with voters, so more is done through snow-balling desktop studies.
14.6.2 Ensure validity for communities, particularly in an authority like Northumberland, where there are such marked geographical and corresponding political divisions, but where at present, other than the two-monthly Area Chairs’ Briefing, THERE IS NO DIRECT CHANNEL TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES even as Chair or Deputy of a Scrutiny Committee, let alone at higher levels, none in decision-making NE Combined Authority Committees, and no NE Combined Authority committee members from anywhere in its vast area who live further than 10 miles from a railway or metro station – MAKE A COMMUNITY STAGE PART OF THE SCRUTINY PROCESS.
14.6.3 People’s communities are being submerged in the economic tide, and as a neighbouring attendee said at a NECA consultation, “WE ARE LOSING OUR POWER OVER EVERYTHING”.
14.7 MEDIA COVERAGE
14.7.1 Ensure information access for those on limited means.
e.g THAT LIBRARIES CARRY LOCAL PAPERS, AND ENOUGH LIBRARIES for people to access.
Remember, evening papers rare in rural areas.
License library public computers for local TV news – now blocked by new licensing arrangements.
14.7.2 Press releases –less money for reporters, so local papers rely more on these, so must be clear if they’ve published press release with little alteration/ investigation.
14.7.3 More reliance on press releases, so should be released for various sections of authority, not just as a gloss for administration. NCC website’s news section seems the latter.
14.7.3 Two months before elections, should there be full page promoted content on NCC housing? see *p), p.12.
ANNEX A
MY MEETING WATCH POSTS FOR LAST 3 MONTHS (to my handful of connections on social media)
MtngWatch 22/02/17, 3pm NCC FULL CNCL. Herld/Gazt reprtr gone, still on item 10, budgt debate, when left at 18.35 fr last bus home. SRPRISNGLY UNPREDICTABLE!:UNANIMOUS fr Cllr. Pidcock’s motions speakng up fr those whose cause needs to be heard most, tho Cllr. J. Reid said action shld follw wrds. ALL SIDES VOICD NEED TO STICK UP FOR NLAND’S NEEDS IN WESTMINSTER. Alnwck Gdn loan: unusuly numrous & wide-rangng concrns expressd->srprisng concessn to leave ‘til more info on risk fr nxt full cncil. Missd end of debate on sitng of fast fd outlets/schls v. urgnt need to progress Plannng Strategy.
SERVICES/SCRUT/DEMOC-WHAT PRICE? -Activ Nland price chnges [&libraries savd?]–last Arts,Leisure,Cultr Scut-14/12/16. 23/02/17canclld, next 19/04/17, 2 wks ‘fore electn, but minutes won’t be genrlly publishd ‘til agenda 1 wk bfor nxt 2 mnthly meetng-June? (Active Nlnd presntatn with figrs to NCC Area Comms W/C 09/01/17.) Whr is scrut & transparncy to votrs, or is this Comm powerless ovr arm’s lngth srvices?
MtngWatch 15/02/17 NCC COMMUNITIES & LOCL SRVICES SCRUT. Cldn’t go, but appendices 5 & 6 lookd intrestng.
MtngWatch 09/02/17 LONGFRAMLINGTON PC-memorial donatn fundd outdoor fitness equipmt,King George V Playing Fld (not NCC –freehld ownd by Longfram). Intrest from surrndng communities. . [NB. CLG Comm’s reprt, Public Parks pubd 11/02/17.]
MtngWatch 07/02/17 NCC CABINET. Gd trnout- 9/10, NCC Chr+Deputy, 1½ press +me. Slick video, worth watching - NCC projcts (grp leadrs said mstly with cross-prty suppt, & this is past, not comng budgt). Cllr. Jackson apparntly havng troubl gettng detaild figrs on which to base his vote. Cllr. Ledgr - whr is locl reps commnt on LGF?-Nlnd gets only 10% cf nghbrs, but sprse, gtr distnces more rds,bridges etc. Excllnt presntatn by Cllr. T Reid-pensns chnges drivn by govt.-biggest fund held by NCC.
Interactive report summary is superbly done, and full of fundamentally important points for all communities:
Parks face threat of decline with severe consequences - News from Parliament
parliament.ukCommunities and Local Government Committee publish report on public parks
MtngWatch 17/01/17 NECombindAuthrityLeadrshipBrd. 25 mins of nodding thro, til p&p excludd. Agreed holdng budgt fr yr ‘til 3 NoTs hav directn.Appntmnt of 2nd Vice Chr from priv sectr (Gillian Hall?)fr EDRAB- needs some constitutnl chnges.
MtngWatch 09/01/17 NCC North Area Comm. Infrastructr funds fr hsng devs –NCC’s intrestng definitn, “local”. My qs: When will NEXUS complete bus info provisn for Nlnd, Why librries mvd from top headng,Active Nlnd hmpg,to smllprint at bottm?
MtngWatch 04/12/16 LONGFRAMLINGTON PC.Press&public?-only me. Usual display, dedicatd hrd wrk fr free. Housng devmnt applic deluge continues – I see massiv incrse in wrkload.Extraordinry FramStats:Nov/Dec Nthbound vehicls thro busy junctn.
MtngWatch 08/12/16 HLTH&WELLBEING BRD. Press&Public?-only me. 1st time watching this-gd NON-POLITICL discussn ‘tween Nlnd’s top reps for Hlth & Wellbeing. Puts media reprts into comprehensible context. VANGUARD –well worth tracking.
MtngWatch 07/12/16 LONGFRAMLINGTON PC.Press&public?-only me. Locl electns loom, but no politics here–just hnds-on locl knowldge, incrsng respnsibilities & hrd work fr free, -but less NCC supprt?Plannng applics-continud deluge via govt/NCC.
MtngWatch 07/12/16 FULL NCC. No press?Locl electns loom! Mv Democ HQ/await votrs’ decisn? Conduct-Sanderson,Dale,Flux’s commnts justified – incl obsrvrs . Disrespectng electd reps = disrespectng votrs &drives to BREXIT,Trump,etc?
MtngWatch 06/12/16 NCC CABINET.1 press+me ‘til exclusn.Gd humourd.Genrl agrmnt re. pressrs.Futr schls budgts uncrtnty,poss riskng Nland’s smll 1s;2nd hms&benefit dpndnt areas impactng C. Tax receipts;rent settng;Transport Levy to NECA explaind.
ANNEX C
REPLY FROM GOVT, 2015
RE: DEVOLUTION/NE Combined Authority
….@communities.gsi.gov.uk>
Fri 06/11/2015, 13:10
Ms Hedley,
Thank you for your email of 10 October that you copied to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I have been asked to reply.
I was working on the establishment of the combined authority for the north east in 2013 and 2014, and I recall your detailed and considered response to the consultation. I am sorry to hear that you consider that the Combined Authority is not engaging effectively with its community, and in particular those in rural areas.
In terms of your concerns, I should begin by explaining the relationship between central Government and local government. Local authorities, including combined authorities, act independently of central Government. Ministers have no remit to intervene in the day to day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in an Act of Parliament. Local authorities are accountable for their actions to their electorate and must act within their statutory powers.
There are a number of ways in which citizens are able to hold a combined authority to account. There are eight members of the North East Combined Authority who are responsible to the local area – one councillor from each constituent council and a representative from the Local Enterprise Partnership:http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/sites/default/files/file_attachments/NECA%20Committee%20Membership%202015-2016_3.pdf. You are, of course, able to raise any issues relating to the Combined Authority directly with these members, through their surgeries or direct communication. The Combined Authority has a Monitoring Office to ensure that it stays within the law. The Monitoring Officer is Viv Geary, and you are able to raise any complaints with her (0191 643 5339, email: Viv.geary@northtyneside.gov.uk). You are able to attend meetings of the Combined Authority, and can ask to speak at meetings: http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/committee-meetings/public-attendance-meetings. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is another important mechanism in providing accountability: http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/committee-meetings/overview-scrutiny-committee-background-information-papers.
Members of the North East Combined Authority and the Government have signed a proposed devolution agreement which would see decisions about big issues including jobs, investment, transport and housing made in the region instead of in London, and would also see the election of a Mayor. I understand that the North East Combined Authority is holding a series of consultation events on the devolution deal over the coming weeks, which you may wish to attend: http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/news/get-involved-devolution-discussion
With kind regards,
…..
Local Government Policy and Productivity
ANNEX E
NCC’s ARTS, LEISURE AND CULTURE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE which was formed when/after NCC decided to respond to LA funding cuts by forming a charity partner called Active Northumberland, of which NCC was the only member. Initially the running of leisure centres and their staff were taken over by AN, who leased the buildings from NCC. The running of libraries and tourist information centres were then transferred to it as planned.
At this point I had some correspondence [*f) can be supplied if necessary] with AN about the lack of provision of noticeboards for community information and events, which had been very much a part of the library service, but seemed to be missing in AN’s new arrangements, even though this might have a significant impact on the viability of some community activities.
I also met someone who had found that as a charity, there were no minutes, agendas, or contact addresses for trustees available, and that Freedom of Information requirements were not as stringent as for NCC. Apart from the Chief Executive, it was impossible to contact any of their decision makers other than the NCC representatives who formed only a fraction of the Board.
At an ALC Scrutiny committee meeting on 23/03/16, I watched them discussing how they would proceed, since the governance plan for AN was still being worked on, and they didn’t know how far they could take their role of Scrutiny since AN was not an NCC body. One Cllr. pointed out that if it wanted to, AN could make all of the staff redundant, and NCC would be able to do nothing about it.
A few weeks later I saw in the local papers that a problem had been found in AN finances, and NCC had had to make them a further loan on top of the money which had already been put in, and appeared to be taking a greater part in AN again, although it was still pointedly referred to as a partner.
N.B. This scrutiny committee is scheduled to meet every two months, but I think that two of the meetings have been cancelled, which means that there have been two intervals of four months between meetings. The last one was due in February, less than two months after a very controversial pricing change for leisure centres had been introduced, but this meeting was cancelled, so as far as I know this committee has not yet had a chance to discuss the effects of these changes, although AN made a presentation with initial results to NCC Area Committees in January. At that presentation I raised further concerns about the functioning of libraries within AN, but did not feel that the written answer which I got from the Chief Executive was entirely satisfactory, so forwarded it to all members of the Scrutiny Committee and my own Cllr. in case they should want to investigate [see *F], well within the timescale for it being put on the agenda. I received no acknowledgement from anyone until after the meeting had been cancelled, when one of the members of the committee let me know that they might also have concerns, and were seeking to pursue it. The next scheduled meeting is in April, two weeks before the local elections, so unless members of the public were able to observe the meeting, and assuming that, as usual, there would be no reporters there, whatever transpired would not be in the public domain until the minutes were published as part of the agenda one week before the next two monthly meeting due in mid/late June.
ANNEX G
Quality and Validity of Local Government Consultations: Please inquire
Wed 15/07/2015 18:14
To:
annemarie.trevelyan.mp@parliament.uk;
clive.betts.mp@parliament.uk;
maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk;
bernard.jenkin.mp@parliament.uk;
contactholmember@parliament.uk
From Susan Hedley
Dear Ms. Trevelyan and Chairs of Select Committees, including Lord Sewel,
PLEASE WOULD YOU HOLD AN INQUIRY INTO THE QUALITY AND VALIDITY OF LOCAL (AND PERHAPS EVEN NATIONAL AND EU ) GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS? (PERHAPS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT NOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN EXTRA LAYER OF DECISION MAKERS IN COMBINED AUTHORITIES).
My 9 concerns are:
1) THE MEANS USED TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF CONSULTATIONS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE, SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEST PLACED to find out about them in time to participate, or even to find out about them at all, ARE THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY "IN THE KNOW", so those who are more geographically or socially distant or disadvantaged probably run the risk of being consistently under-represented in consultations.
e.g. if I remember rightly, the recent Northumberland County Council budget consultation got about 85 responses, of which 4 or 5 were from various organisations and about half of the remainder were from people employed by the Council or associated organisations. Given the size of the County's population, I don't think that many ordinary Council Tax payers were evident amongst the responses.
In my experience, Northumberland County Council does a very good job of explaining the main policy issues as clearly as possible, but that is of no use if most people are not aware that a consultation is happening until it is too late for them to find out how to take part.
2) SHOULD SPECIAL PROVISION BE MADE FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT USE COMPUTERS for whatever reason, so that the equal democratic rights of particular individuals and groups to express their needs, experiences, and opinions are not overlooked or disregarded?
I have even seen a survey where people were told how they could submit a paper copy, but the only place where they were told this was after they had pressed the button to start the online survey.
3)) THE CONCEPT OF STAKEHOLDERS: is this valid for use in public consultations in a democracy? As citizens and taxpayers of a democracy, WE ARE ALL STAKEHOLDERS, and no-one has the right or business to judge otherwise on behalf of their fellow citizens.
The only valid person to identify a stakeholder is the stakeholder themselves.
4) SHOULD THERE BE RING-FENCED FUNDING FOR THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN CONSULTATIONS?
I suspect that if consultations do fail to reach and reflect the views of the majority of the population, it is because Local Authorities do not feel that they can use their sparse funds to publicise them.
5) ARE EFFECTIVE MEASURES IN PLACE TO STOP INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANISATIONS FROM MAKING MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS?
E.G The EU consultation on Equality Between Men and Women which closes on 21/07/15. I am not a computer person, but so far as I can tell this is anonymous, so it is probable that interested people, organisations, or countries could make more than one submission by using different personal devices, public access computers in libraries etc, and promoting it heavily to their associates to do the same. (The same might be possible with many Northumberland County Council and North East Combined Authority consultations, unlike Parliamentary consultations where contributors always have to identify themselves properly).
6) HOW ARE QUESTIONS FRAMED AND RESULTING STATISTICS USED?
Again, in the recent Northumberland County Council budget consultation, the questions put were framed in such bland and general policy terms that it would have been difficult for anyone to disagree with them.
The actual details about what the financial plans were and how they would be implemented were in a series of at least 6 appendices with uninformative titles which were listed in small print at the very end of the consultation page on the website, one of the two most important and informative documents being the very last on the list, so inexperienced people would have had to go into every appendix to find out what it contained before they got to the full information in the last one.
I have seen a consultation where the main policy was explained, and immediately below it was the button to press to start completing the survey, but the appendices with the details in were below the survey button, so anyone who had pressed the survey button as soon as they came to it would not have seen the detail.
7) SHOULD EVERY CONSULTATION HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW ACCESS, PRESENTATION AND CONTENT COULD BE IMPROVED IN FUTURE?
e.g I have observed Council meetings where the low response rate was commented on, but no - one questioned why it was low or how it could be improved.
8A) SHOULD CONSULTATIONS HAVE A MINIMUM RESPONSE RATE BEFORE THEY ARE VALID, IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE CONSULTATION BODIES TO OBTAIN A LARGE AND WIDE ENOUGH SAMPLE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE?
8B) IF BODIES CHOOSE TO DISREGARD THE RESULTS OF A CONSULTATION, SHOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE A PUBLIC ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS WHY THEY HAVE USED RESOURCES TO DO A CONSULTATION AND THEN DISREGARDED THE RESULTS?
At present, having fulfilled its obligations by conducting a consultation, the consultation body can use the resulting responses to produce statistics from such a small sample size that it might be statistically invalid, or it might conclude that it can disregard the results because e.g only those who have something to lose would respond .
9) SHOULD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS BE USED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, OR SHOULD THEY ONLY BE USED FOR GATHERING AND MAKING MAXIMUM USE OF PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES, EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, AND SUGGESTIONS?
(I am of the latter opinion. I think that M.P.s are elected to represent us and they have the best means of evaluating the facts, but they should also be able to make maximum use of the insights which the rest of the population can offer, and the most convenient way of doing this is by public consultation).
Yours sincerely,
Susan Hedley
ANNEX K
CORRESPONDENCE WITH SCRUTINY CTTEE AND ACTIVE NORTHUMBERLAND ABOUT LIBRARY SERVICES
The only acknowledgement which I had to my email [after the proposed Scrutiny meeting on 23.02.17 had been cancelled]:
From: ALC Scrutiny Committee member@northumberland.gov.uk>
Sent: 20 February 2017 12:44
To: Hedley Susan; Scrutiny Officer
Cc: My own Cllr., all Cllrs on ALC Scrutiny Cttee
Subject: Re: Fw: Northumberland Libraries questions
Dear Chair, Scrutiny Officer,
Can the ALC OSC look again at library services?
What checks do we have on level of service wrt publications rather than just accessibility and opening hours.
I had a similar complaint from one of my residents who was very upset to find music manuscripts had been withdrawn from …. library.
The response that was they were in poor condition but she quoted one which had been brand new and now removed.
Woodhorn is not easily accessible for those of us in the north of the county.
There is a lot of focus on leisure centres and we have looked specifically at the arts wrt theatre but less focus on library services.
Please advise how best to follow up.
Cllr …..
On 13 February 2017 at 13:04, Hedley Susan wrote [to my own Cllr. Portfolio holder, and all members of ALC Srutiny Cttee:
Dear Arts, Leisure and Culture Scrutiny Committee,
These are questions which I asked at the last North Area Committee meeting.
Although ….. has provided this reply, I am not convinced that the answers actually address my specific questions, so I am forwarding this to you in case you think that any of this needs your attention.
Kind regards,
Susan Hedley
(private citizen)
From: …… @activenorthumberland.org.uk>
Sent: 08 February 2017 18:32
Cc: North Area Cttee Clerk
Subject: Northumberland Libraries
Dear Ms Hedley
In response to your questions below:
I would particularly like to know where I can find documents about the latest position of libraries within Active Northumberland, because, as I explained to you at the meeting, I have noticed that libraries have been demoted from a section heading the Active Northumberland homepage to the small print at the very bottom.
I appreciate that as you explained, the situation of individual libraries differs according to their location and what other services are provided alongside them, but I presume that there is some policy or strategy document which clarifies the criteria by which library services are going to be provided at various locations, and that there is some form of documentation which provides information about this to NCC Scrutiny and Northumberland County Cllrs in general.
As you say, service users should not notice any difference in practice, but I was concerned in December when I saw this change to the Active Northumberland website, but had not spotted anything which would explain it.
RESPONSE
THE CHANGE ON THE MAIN ACTIVE NORTHUMBERLAND WEBSITE IS DUE TO THE LAUNCH OF A NEW LEISURE WEBSITE FOR ACTIVE NORTHUMBERLAND, I WILL PASS ON YOUR COMMENTS TO THE WEB TEAM. HOWEVER, THE "MY LIBRARY" WEBSITE REMAINS UNCHANGED. LIBRARIES THAT HAVE MOVED OVER TO NCC WILL CONTINUE, AS NOW TO OFFER THE SAME SERVICES TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT STAFF WILL BE TRAINED TO PROVIDE A WIDER OFFER OF INFORMATION TO CUSTOMERS. INFORMATION PROVISION WILL INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT BOOKS, COUNCIL SERVICES AND TOURISM. THIS CHANGE IS DUE TO THE RATIONALISATION OF COUNCIL BUILDINGS, TO GENERATE EFFICIENCIES AND PROTECT COUNCIL SERVICES.
In terms of service structure, the example which I gave you, and which you offered to chase up for me is as follows:
The book which I was trying to get is a book about the history of engineering by a well-known author who wrote for the general public.
It is "The Mechanicals: progress of a profession" by LTC Rolt.
The library catalogue says that there are 4 copies available at Woodhorn library and 3 copies available at Morpeth and Woodhorn Library.
I see that these are listed as being in the Local Studies Reference Library which cannot be loaned, but can be viewed at Woodhorn in the Study Centre.
However, since it seems that at least one of these copies was at Morpeth but is no longer, even though 7 copies are listed, and that Woodhorn is not easily accessible to people in large parts of Northumberland, especially if they are restricted to the rather short opening hours and reliant on public transport, and that this is a book which would have been designed to be read cover to cover rather than dipped into for a specific reference, I think that it would be helpful if arrangements could be made for such a book to be made available to be temporarily held and read at a specific local library on request, rather than its availability now being restricted to those Northumbrians who are able to travel regularly to Woodhorn to read it.
A librarian at Morpeth did ring Woodhorn to ask if a copy could be made available, but did not seem to be offered any help in this matter.
RESPONSE
YOUR NEXT QUESTION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER, I HAVE ASKED THE LIBRARY TEAM WHY INFORMATION ON THE LIBRARY CATALOGUE WAS INCORRECT AND AWAIT THEIR RESPONSE. UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WOODHORN, WHO MANAGE THE LOCAL STUDIES REFERENCE COLLECTION ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL. WHERE POSSIBLE WE ARE TRYING TO EXTEND THE OPENING TIMES OF OUR LIBRARIES AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS IS PONTELAND WHERE THE LIBRARY IS NOW OPEN AT THE SAME TIMES AS THE LEISURE CENTRE. WE ARE PLANNING TO DO THE SAME AT ASHINGTON, NEWBIGGIN, HIRST AND CRAMLINGTON ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO ENJOY THE LIBRARY FOR A MUCH LONGER PERIOD THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM PREVIOUSLY.
Kind regards
….. Active Northumberland
ANNEX N
EMAIL ABOUT THE NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY SENT TO MY OWN CLLR. AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE NCC CORPORATE RESOURCES AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE after I watched their first meeting, though I haven’t been free to observe any subsequent ones.
I did get brief acknowledgements from the Chair, and Cllr. Watkin.
Regional Affairs Scrutiny - 4 questions
Fri 27/05/2016 11:15
To: all Cllrs on Corporate Resources and Regional Affairs Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Cc:
clerk@longframlington-pc.org.uk
From Susan Hedley,
Longframlington,
(private citizen with no office or party political affiliation).
As usual, I am sending this in case it contains anything of interest to you, but please don't feel obliged to read or acknowledge - I have seen the large amounts of paperwork that you already have to deal with.
At the Full County Council meeting in February, I heard Cllr Watkin declare his interest in standing as a candidate for North East Mayor, so I am also copying this to him.
Dear Elected Representatives,
SEE END FOR LIST OF 4 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
After two years of watching devolution and arrangements for NECA proceed without a County Council forum where they can be scrutinised in public as a whole rather than restricted to being the subject of specific questions, I was delighted to hear your discussion at today's Scrutiny Committee. I was also pleased to hear the constructive aspirations for developing procedures to make budgets more transparent and accountable to enable greater participation.
Most of you will have received at least one email from me on the subject of NECA, particularly my concern about the limitations of public consultations so far, dated 23/11/15.
As a rural resident with special concerns about public transport, I have contributed to the NCC and Government consultations on NECA in December 2013, the Parliamentary Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in August 2015, participated in the NCC Devolution Events for the Public in March and November 2015, made submissions to both the NCC online survey and the NECA online questionnaire in February 2016, contributed to the NECA Scrutiny Committee's Transport - Barriers to Work consultation in November 2015, and the NECA consultation on the Draft Transport Manifesto in April 2016, observed the following NECA meetings:
Scrutiny Committee, October 2015 and February 2016
Leadership Board, November 2015 and May 2016
Transport NE Committee, April 2016
After requesting and receiving from the DCLG information on how voters are to communicate with and get accountability from the Combined Authority, I have sent emails to various members of these committees, including the NCC representatives, and our NCC representatives on the Governance Committee, and received replies from some of them.
The main issues which I have raised have been:
- the complete lack of rural representation on any of these committees, our own Cllr. Dale on the Governance Committee being one of the most rural at present, but hardly from a far-flung or particularly isolated area of Northumberland
- the difference in factors which need to be considered for urban and rural transport
- how voters can be represented by their NCC members on NECA when the NCC Cllrs and staff involved have vastly increased their workload as a result, and will therefore have proportionately less time to have contact with or deal with the needs of Northumbrian voters. There is also the question of how they deal with their responsibilities to Northumbrians, and to the region as a whole, which might conflict on some issues.
- the absolutely pathetic level of public awareness and involvement in the devolution process so far, which was commented on in unfavourable terms for the English devolution process in general by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee Inquiry into Wave 1 City Deals, and also in an inquiry by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
e.g. With reference to the email which I circulated on 23/11/5, listing my concerns about NECA including consultation arrangements, and the report of the actual consultation for NECA in general and Northumberland, (SEE NECA LEADERSHIP BOARD, 24/03/16 P. 4 SECTIONS 12-15, AND P.49 APPENDIX 2 RESPECTIVELY, SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA PACK NO.2), I think that it is pathetic that there is no mention of a meeting with the North East Rural and Farming network, which was mentioned as an aspiration at the Devolution Event which I attended at Woodhorn in November 2015, nor is there mention of a briefing with trade unions ,which I also understood was an aspiration as part of the consultation. Apparently meetings with NECC and VCS happened according to plan, and with Town and Parish Councils on 9/12/15, but see p.6 and 7 of attachment to my email of 23/11/15 for concerns about accessibility of this meeting because of time of day and location, and the make-up of participants at the Devolution Event at Woodhorn.
On page 49 of Appendix 2, it also says that there was a People's Panel which got 350 responses.If I remember rightly, the aim was to have 2000 people on the People's Panel. Googling Northumberland Households, I believe that there were 138,500 in the 2011 census, so that the PEOPLE'S PANEL AMOUNTS TO 1 IN 69 HOUSEHOLDS (1.44 %?), AND THE ACTUAL RESPONSE RATE WAS 1 IN 395 HOUSE HOLDS (0.25%?). N.B. My comparison is the number of responses compared to number of households in Northumberland (I believe that there are about 800,000 households in the region, so Northumberland is an important proportion of this). WHEN YOU COMPARE THE RESPONSES TO THE NUMBER OF VOTERS, THE PARTICIPATION FIGURES WILL BE EVEN MORE DIRE. REMEMBER ALSO THAT ABOUT HALF OF THE POPULATION OF NORTHUMBERLAND IS RURAL, AND THAT SOME OF THOSE DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO CHOOSE TO GO ONLINE, AND ARE FAR AWAY AND WITH POOR OR NON-EXISTENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT FROM LIBRARIES WITH PUBLIC ACCESS COMPUTERS, AND PLACES WHERE PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE HELD AND DECISIONS TAKEN. HOWEVER, MOST OF THESE CONSULTATIONS HAVE BEEN SITED IN PLACES WHERE RURAL PEOPLE WOULD HAVE STRUGGLED TO GET TO AT THE TIMES ARRANGED, OR HAVE BEEN SOLELY ONLINE, OR IF AN OFFLINE OPTION WAS NOMINALLY OFFERED, THE CONTACT DETAILS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE EXCEPT AT THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE HAD PRESSED THE COMPUTER BUTTON TO START THE ONLINE CONSULTATION.
IMPRESSIONS: I HAVE BEEN VERY FAVOURABLY IMPRESSED WITH THE IMMENSE HARD WORK WHICH ALL INVOLVED HAVE PUT INTO NECA, and the way in which they have managed to work together to achieve so much. If it all continues like this then I think that we can be optimistic for the North East, so far as is possible with such a difficult government to deal with. However, I am concerned that this success is SO FAR MOSTLY BUILT ON THE QUALITIES OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED, AND I CAN SEE NO MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING CONTINUED SUCCESS WHEN PERSONALITIES CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
I have been particularly impressed with Cllr. Watson of Sunderland, who is the only one who generally asks any searching questions [e.g. at the first Leadership Board that I observed last autumn, he asked how the requisite public consultations were going to be able to be fitted into the tight devolution schedule along with NECA and local councils having to set their budgets around the as-yet-unknown Local Government Finance Settlement. He also asked if more of the discussion should not be held in the Leadership Board meeting itself where it would be open to the public and press to report, rather than in the Chief Executives' meeting which precedes it, and which is closed to press and public]. At the Leadership board meeting on 17/05/16 he asked what they were going to do if they voted through this first order for devolution which would put the position of mayor in place, but then in the autumn decided that the government had not accommodated their requirements enough for them to agree to the second devolution order which would put the mayor's powers in place, thereby leaving the mayor in an embarrassing position. The response given to Cllr. Watson was something about "keeping it flexible".
MY QUESTIONS:
(Questions 2-4 could equally apply to other NCC issues such as the budget).
1) What is going to be put in place to ensure the continued success of working arrangements within NECA, including clarification of how representatives are going to deal with potential conflicts of interest between the region and the authority which they represent?
2) What is going to be done to ensure that the substantial proportion of rural people in the NECA area are spoken for with a proportionate voice and power within the discussions and decision-making of NECA?
3) What is going to be done to keep voters properly informed and able to participate in informing and shaping NECA's policies, and able to access processes to ensure transparency and accountability?
After all, it will be their Council Taxes and quality of life which are at stake.
I agree with Cllr. Davey that the issues are complex, which is all the more reason to make sure that voters are properly informed, especially when some consultations are a legal requirement, and so the result should be important.
4) What is going to be done to ensure that the nature of consultations is valid - i.e. open to all sections of the Northumbrian populace, regardless of where they are, whether or not they are in particular special interest groups, or what media they use for communication?
The government has left no real choice but to take NECA forward, and if the potential opportunities are to be fulfilled, then we need more information about it on the NCC website, and maximum opportunities for people to get behind it and make it a success. So we need to make vast improvements on consultations where most voters don't know that they are happening or how to find information relating to them, and are only open to people in particular places at particular times or using particular means of communication so that the level of response is absolutely minimal.
IF PEOPLE ARE TO GET BEHIND THIS, WE CANNOT AFFORD FOR DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THOSE GROUPS WHO ARE THE CHEAPEST AND EASIEST TO MAKE CONTACT WITH i.e. those who are online and/or in the NCC staffroom - e.g see report on the results of the NCC budget consultation in spring 2015, when there was a very low response rate (85 including 5 organisations if I remember rightly), and almost half of the individuals were employees of NCC or organisations which had dealings with NCC. Of course the figures (proposed cuts) which actually mattered to ordinary people were at the end of a long list of untitled appendices in the report on the proposed budget, which was positioned after the online questionnaire on the consultation webpage.
Kind regards,
Susan.
ANNEX O
EMAIL ADDRESSED TO MY CLLR + LEADER & CHAIR OF NCC AND COPIED TO ALL OF THE 62 NCC CLLRS WITH EMAIL ADDRESSES OUT OF THE REMAINING 64, + THEN CHAIRS OF NECA LEADERSHIP BOARD AND SCRUTINY + LONGFRAMLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL.
I got no acknowledgements from the 3 addressees, or any of NCC’s Cllrs on NECA committees [2 NCC reps per committee], except for Cllr. Dale, an independent Cllr who is one of NCC’s reps on the NECA Governance Committee, who explained her role with NCC/NECA and what she was doing. I also got requests for more information from one other NCC Cllr and Longframlington Parish Council, and a brief statement of interest from one NCC Cllr.
Seen at the North East Combined Authority: Time for urgent questions please?
Mon 23/11/2015 14:53
To:
embletonhall@btinternet.com;
Grant.Davey@northumberland.gov.uk;
Scott.Dickinson@northumberland.gov.uk
Cc:
62 NCC Cllrs
simon.henig@durham.gov.uk;
cllr.norma.wright@sunderland.gov.uk;
clerk@longframlington-pc.org.uk
From
Susan Hedley
(private citizen with no office or political affiliations),
Longframlington,
Northumberland.
Dear Cllrs. Thorne, Davey, and Dickinson,
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR CURRENT CONSULTATIONS AND FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AT NECA IN THE FUTURE, INCLUDING NECA SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
(see page numbers in attachment for details and examples)
1) Observation of NECA meetings
2) Consultation arrangements
3) Arrangements for fair and equal representation in future
4) NECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee
I think that all at NCC should be doing a great deal more to improve the quality of accessibility, information, and participation in NECA for Northumbrians and the journalists who report to them on the most local issues if this is to be a success for Northumberland.
1) (p.5) OBSERVATION OF NECA MEETINGS IN THE LAST MONTH I HAVE BEEN TO OBSERVE THE NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON 20/10/15, and the North East Leadership Board on 18/11/15. I also participated in Northumberland's North East Combined Authority "Devolution Events" on 10/11/15 and 26/3/15.
I am not hostile, but I DO HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THAT NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS WILL BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN THE FUTURE.
2) (p.6) CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO GET AS INVOLVED AS THEY CAN AT THIS STAGE, BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL ISSUES AND PROJECTS ARE MAJOR IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING, FINANCE, AND MANAGEMENT THAT THEY WILL NEED, AND THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE ON ALL VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS.
I AM PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY WHICH IS FALLING ON JUST A FEW SHOULDERS.
SINCE WE ARE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXTRA LAYER OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IT IS A TRANSFER OF POWERS DOWN FROM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN UP FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES, I HAVE STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND HOW VOTERS CAN BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN SUCH MAJOR DECISIONS FOR OUR REGION, given that our elected MPs are therefore locked out of representing us at NECA.
After making enquiries of government, I understand that it is OPEN TO VOTERS TO MAKE DIRECT REPRESENTATIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE NECA LEADERSHIP BOARD AND THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE.
It seems to me that it is an immense burden for people who are already charged with so many responsibilities to have the additional task of BEING AVAILABLE TO EVERY VOTER WITHIN THEIR LOCAL AUTHORITY, and so that is why I think that THOSE WHO ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO HELP THEM IN THIS SHOULD DO SO.
I understand that in the current consultation on the devolution deal, in addition to the Devolution event at Woodhorn on 10/11/15, announced on the NECA website on 4/11/15, and which so far as I could tell had an absolute maximum of 42 places available for Northumberland's populace, had they been aware of it and able to book online in time and get there for 5pm on a Tuesday evening, and which was headed on the slides as "stakeholder event"
the other events planned are:
Two parish council briefings on 9 December at 3pm and 5.30pm, both at Morpeth
and possibly
A briefing with the Northumberland Committee of the North East Chamber of Commerce
A briefing with the Northumberland Voluntary and Community Sector Assembly
A briefing with the North East Rural and Farming Network
A briefing with trade unions
plus an Online questionnaire – which will also be sent to the Council’s People’s Panel [so far as I know the People's Panel is only open to those who are online] and to the Council’s “stakeholder” list including parish and town councils
In other words, APART FROM PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE ONLINE, (and anyone else who might be aware of it by other means which I haven't seen), and the few people who were able to get to Woodhorn, who included (as delegates rather than presenters or facilitators) five county councillors, several county council officers, several parish councillors, several representatives of businesses, organisations, and County Council partners, and less than a handful of plain voters and council tax payers, THE VOTERS AND COUNCIL TAX PAYERS OF THIS COUNTY WILL NOT BE REPRESENTED UNLESS THEY ARE IN TOUCH WITH A DELEGATE FROM ONE OF THE GROUPS LISTED ABOVE.
(p.7) I AM BAFFLED BY THE FACT THAT THOUGH EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT A PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE LATEST DEVOLUTION PROPOSALS FOR NECA, I HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED IN FINDING ANYTHING ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL WEBSITE TO ANNOUNCE IT,
(p.8) therefore I SUGGEST THAT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING BE USED AS A CONSULTATION EVENT FOR COUNTY COUNCILLORS
AFTER ALL, WE HAVE ELECTED OUR COUNCILLORS TO REPRESENT US, THEY KNOW THE SITUATION AND PEOPLE OF THEIR WARDS BEST, AND THEY ARE ALREADY IN PLACE TO BE BRIEFED AND TO DISCUSS MATTERS WITHOUT HAVING TO EXPEND ANY MORE RESOURCES TO BRING THIS ABOUT.
In fact OUR COUNTY COUNCILLORS ARE THE ONLY LEVEL OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE GENERAL POPULACE.
MORPETH WOULD BE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MOST NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS THAN THE NECA MEETINGS ARE, AND IT WOULD ALSO BE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND LOCALLY RELEVANT FOR LOCAL JOURNALISTS TO REPORT THAN THE REGION-WIDE NECA MEETINGS.
Most polls and campaigns appear to show that voters are interested in issues, but turn away when discussion diverts into party political lines.
Surely therefore, (along the lines of a Parliamentary “Committee of the Whole House”), a Full Council item on this subject, possibly of the greatest importance in decades for the future of Northumbrian voters, would enable a discussion with the minimum of party political content [since all political group leaders voted to support it in Spring 2014,] and show voters how most of the work is done on their behalf, in scrutiny committees etc. Prior publicity might encourage more voters to go to see for themselves - a sort of County Council open day on the most important subject for decades.
Some of the issues which people might want to hear more about are:
- the RURAL WORKSTREAM
- MANAGEMENT OF ALL REGIONAL PUBLIC ASSETS - would NECA have the power to sell them off to fund itself?
- any moves towards NECA seeking LOCAL TAX-RAISING POWERS
- the EXTENT TO WHICH ISSUES SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT THE NECA CHIEF EXECUTIVES' MEETING, WHICH IS NOT OPEN TO PRESS AND PUBLIC,
- the VERY SHORT TIME-SCALES FOR THE REQUIRED CONSULTATIONS
- there appears to be an ONGOING ISSUE OF HOW TO DEFINE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST when leaders are there to make decisions for the region as a whole, but also need to represent the interests of their own local authority
- PLANNED MAJOR PROJECTS and their finance and organisation
- effect of elected mayor, especially if they can be out-voted by five out of seven of the council leaders anyway
3) (p.10) ARRANGEMENTS FOR FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN FUTURE I do think that there are some gaps in representation which should not be left simply to chance or goodwill in the future.
Though I use rural Northumberland as an example, these concerns could also apply in a major extent to various communities in the south east of Northumberland.
GIVEN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND POLITICAL MAKE-UP OF THE NCC CABINET AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES, I DO WONDER HOW AND WHEN CLLR. DAVEY, AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE AT NECA, AND CLLR. LEDGER, HIS SUBSTITUTE, GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH CLLRS. WHO HAVE A WIDE AND DEEP KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES FACED BY THE 50% OF NORTHUMBRIANS WHO ARE RURAL, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT OUR LEADER AND HIS NORTHUMBRIAN COLLEAGUES AT NECA HAVE SO MUCH MORE WORK OUTSIDE OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND ACROSS THE REGION.
The Area Committees have been reduced from monthly to two monthly, so this reduces the chances which they have to discuss NECA issues as they affect their areas and relay the results to Cllr. Davey, even if they were able to keep up with NECA events and announcements, which at present are more in the way of happening weekly or even daily rather than bi-monthly.
FOR THIS REASON I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE A REGULAR BRIEFING AND QUESTION SESSION BE PART OF EVERY FULL COUNCIL UNTIL MATTERS AT NECA BECOME MORE SETTLED AND PREDICTABLE.
4) (p.11) THE NECA SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, THOUGH AS I HAVE SAID I AM FAVOURABLY IMPRESSED WITH ITS ATTITUDE AND DETERMINATION TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR ALL OF US, has one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat out of 14 members, and though they are not supposed to be political, this might well have some bearing on their insight into issues as they affect rural people. Though Northumberland and Durham could have put forward a rural member or two, THE TWO MEMBERS FROM NORTHUMBERLAND ARE FROM NOT VERY FAR EITHER SIDE OF CRAMLINGTON, and the members from Durham are from within a few miles of Durham City and Peterlee.
The Scrutiny Committee seems to meet less than every month, and it looks as though there are no meetings scheduled for November or January, at a time when devolution consultations are taking place and budgets are being considered within a very tight schedule before the spring.
At their meeting on Tuesday 20/10/15, just a few days before George Osborne was due on the Friday to sign the devolution papers, the second major item on the Scrutiny Committee's agenda was a Devolution Update from Mr. Wilkinson, NECA's Interim Head of Paid Service. IN THE EVENT, HE DID NOT TURN UP TO BRIEF THE COMMITTEE AND ANSWER ITS QUESTIONS, OR SEND A SUBSTITUTE, and the next scheduled meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is not until December 1st.
ON 27TH AUGUST THIS COMMITTEE ALSO ANNOUNCED A PUBLIC CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOR A REVIEW INTO TRANSPORT - BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT, EXPRESSING PARTICULAR INTEREST IN RURAL AREAS, with a deadline of 08/10/15.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ON NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL'S WEBSITE, though the present arrangements for Northumberland being in charge of its own delegated transport functions are described as interim.
On 21/09/15 I checked the websites of all the seven Local authorities in NECA, and the only one where I could find any mention of this public consultation was the County Durham one, despite the original call for evidence ending with "Please bring this Call for Evidence to the attention of other groups and individuals who may not have seen the request". Only on 02/10/15 when the deadline was extended to 30/10/15 did I see an announcement on the news page of the NCC website.
IF NCC DOESN'T DO THE MINIMUM TO TELL ITS VOTERS WHEN A NECA COMMITTEE IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR SUBMISSIONS FROM PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS, THIS DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS ACHIEVING FAIR OR WELL-INFORMED REPRESENTATION IN NECA. I think that all at NCC should be doing a great deal more to improve the quality of accessibility, information, and participation in NECA for Northumbrians and the journalists who report to them on the most local issues if this is to be a success for Northumberland.
Yours sincerely,
Susan Hedley
ATTACHMENT WITH FULL DETAILS:
CONCERNS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR CURRENT CONSULTATIONS AND FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AT NECA IN THE FUTURE, INCLUDING NECA SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
1) LACK OF MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THAT NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS WILL BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN THE FUTURE
Over the last two years I have been observing Full Council, Cabinet, and Scrutiny meetings to see for myself how much chance our elected representatives actually get to represent us, and as a result I have sometimes sent emails because I concluded that they did not get nearly so many opportunities to represent us as I might have expected.
IN THE LAST MONTH I HAVE ALSO BEEN TO OBSERVE THE NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON 20/10/15, AND THE NORTH EAST LEADERSHIP BOARD ON 18/11/15.
I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN NORTHUMBERLAND'S NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY "DEVOLUTION EVENTS" ON 10/11/15 AND 26/3/15.
I was particularly impressed by the NECA Scrutiny Committee's attitude and determination to do a good job for us,
and the immense amount of additional work and responsibility which is now required of the members of the North East Leadership Board and their chief executives.
Whether or not they expected it when they were chosen to lead their authorities, they and their staff now find themselves having to follow a path laid largely by government at a time of difficult circumstances, or risk our region being not only neglected but disregarded in future arrangements for the nation.
Cllr. Henig made the point that we are getting devolution in a time of falling budgets rather than increasing budgets.
I have also heard him say that the outcome of the "devolution events" which he has attended around the region during the consultation process have been "extremely positive", and this certainly seems to be the sense of the gloss which I see on the North East Combined Authority website.
Having been to two of Northumberland's devolution events myself, I have gone away with the impression that the mood was hopeful rather than "extremely positive", but also contained some apprehension as to what extent the government might be stitching us up and as to what significant unknown challenges and pitfalls the future might hold for us, though, most of all, an intention to work for the best possible outcome for our region in this situation.
2) CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
Eventually some of the vast amount of extra work and responsibilities are going to trickle down to all of us, from local authority leaders and their chief executives and staff to representatives of Parish and Town Councils, organisations and businesses, who will need to feed in their views as projects are developed, and even voters who are fully occupied with trying to keep things reasonable for their families and neighbours, but who will eventually have to deal with what is coming along the track towards them, whether or not it is as yet on anyone's horizon.
FOR THIS REASON, I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO GET AS INVOLVED AS THEY CAN AT THIS STAGE IN SHAPING AND PREPARING MATTERS FOR THE FUTURE, BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL ISSUES AND PROJECTS ARE MAJOR IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING, FINANCE, AND MANAGEMENT THAT THEY WILL NEED, AND THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE ON ALL VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS. I am convinced that those who are involved in NECA at present are doing the best job that they can for us, but we have no way of knowing the qualities of those who will be involved in the future, or how well they will work together, and so while we have the chance we should be using it to forge strong foundations for the people of Northumberland.
I AM PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY WHICH IS FALLING ON JUST A FEW SHOULDERS.
Many of the people on the main NECA committees (North East Leadership Board, Transport North East [during an initial period of operation there are three delivery organisations: Durham County Council manages delegated transport functions within its own boundary, Northumberland County Council manages delegated transport functions within its own boundary, Nexus manages the functions which it previously delivered within the Tyne and Wear area] , and Economic Development and Regeneration and Advisory Board) are on more than one, which, whilst it is sensible in terms of having to brief and advise fewer people, means that they are charged with an immense amount of work.
SINCE WE ARE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXTRA LAYER OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IT IS A TRANSFER OF POWERS DOWN FROM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN UP FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES, I HAVE STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND HOW VOTERS CAN BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN SUCH MAJOR DECISIONS FOR OUR REGION, given that our elected MPs are therefore locked out of representing us at NECA.
After making enquiries of government, I understand that it is OPEN TO VOTERS TO MAKE DIRECT REPRESENTATIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE NECA LEADERSHIP BOARD AND THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE.
It seems to me that it is an immense burden for people who are already charged with so many responsibilities to have the additional task of BEING AVAILABLE TO EVERY VOTER WITHIN THEIR LOCAL AUTHORITY, and so that is why I think that THOSE WHO ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO HELP THEM IN THIS SHOULD DO SO.
I understand that in the current consultation on the devolution deal, in addition to the Devolution event at Woodhorn on 10/11/15, announced on the NECA website on 4/11/15, and which so far as I could tell had an absolute maximum of 42 places available for Northumberland's populace, had they been aware of it and able to book online in time and get there for 5pm on a Tuesday evening, and which was headed on the slides as "stakeholder event"
the other events planned are:
Two parish council briefings on 9 December at 3pm and 5.30pm, both at Morpeth
and possibly
A briefing with the Northumberland Committee of the North East Chamber of Commerce
A briefing with the Northumberland Voluntary and Community Sector Assembly
A briefing with the North East Rural and Farming Network
A briefing with trade unions
plus an Online questionnaire – which will also be sent to the Council’s People’s Panel [so far as I know the People's Panel is only open to those who are online] and to the Council’s “stakeholder” list including parish and town councils
In other words, APART FROM PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE ONLINE, (and anyone else who might be aware of it by other means which I haven't seen), and the few people who were able to get to Woodhorn, who included (as delegates rather than presenters or facilitators) five county councillors, several county council officers, several parish councillors, several representatives of businesses, organisations, and County Council partners, and less than a handful of plain voters and council tax payers, THE VOTERS AND COUNCIL TAX PAYERS OF THIS COUNTY WILL NOT BE REPRESENTED UNLESS THEY ARE IN TOUCH WITH A DELEGATE FROM ONE OF THE GROUPS LISTED ABOVE.
On 27/07/15 the House of Lords Social Mobility Committee announced an inquiry into "How Can Young People Be Best Prepared for the World of Work?"
A paragraph in the announcement read as follows:
"Recently, focus has been placed on those who study A-levels and who are able to go on to university, and those who are not in education, employment or training at all. WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE GROUP THAT FALLS BETWEEN THESE TWO CATEGORIES. THEY ARE OFTEN KNOWN AS THE 'MISSING' MIDDLE, AND COULD MAKE UP AS MUCH AS 50 PER CENT or half of all of 16-19 year olds – if not more. TOO LITTLE ATTENTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS GROUP FOR TOO LONG, and we hope to establish with our inquiry what this group needs by talking to businesses, experts and most importantly, young people."
I FEAR THAT THE SAME APPLIES TO THE MAJORITY OF NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS WHO ARE PROBABLY SIMPLY DOING THEIR BEST TO MAKE THEIR WAY IN LIFE AND ARE NOT IN CONTACT WITH ANY OF THE GROUPS LISTED ABOVE FOR CONSULTATION.
e.g. even in groups who are often targeted for special attention, such as the elderly, there are plenty who still prize their independence and won't be staying at home to be contacted by agencies.
After long working lives they will have contributed more than most others in the population have done so far, and their opinions should not be missed out just because they go out and about rather than going online.
I AM BAFFLED BY THE FACT THAT THOUGH EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT A PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE LATEST DEVOLUTION PROPOSALS FOR NECA, I HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED IN FINDING ANYTHING ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL WEBSITE TO ANNOUNCE IT, EITHER ON THE HOMEPAGE WHERE CONSULTATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL AND ITS PARTNERS ARE USUALLY ANNOUNCED, OR ON THE NEWS/PRESS RELEASE PAGE.
I know that resources are short for consultation, and therefore I SUGGEST THAT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING BE USED AS A CONSULTATION EVENT FOR COUNTY COUNCILLORS, rather as Parliament did in a "Committee of the Whole House" on 21/1/0/15 and 17/11/15 for the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.
AFTER ALL, WE HAVE ELECTED OUR COUNCILLORS TO REPRESENT US, THEY KNOW THE SITUATION AND PEOPLE OF THEIR WARDS BEST, AND THEY ARE ALREADY IN PLACE TO BE BRIEFED AND TO DISCUSS MATTERS WITHOUT HAVING TO EXPEND ANY MORE RESOURCES TO BRING THIS ABOUT.
IN FACT OUR COUNTY COUNCILLORS ARE THE ONLY LEVEL OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE GENERAL POPULACE, because Parish Councillors often have to be co-opted. If it hasn't happened already, a briefing at Full Council would be the most efficient way of bringing all of them up to date and enabling a constructive and well-informed discussion. It could also be a good way of raising the profile of the issues, NECA, and Northumberland County Council with voters, because MORPETH WOULD BE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MOST NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS THAN THE NECA MEETINGS ARE, AND IT WOULD ALSO BE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND LOCALLY RELEVANT FOR LOCAL JOURNALISTS TO REPORT THAN THE REGION-WIDE NECA MEETINGS.
Most polls and campaigns appear to show that voters are interested in issues, but turn away when discussion diverts into party political lines.
At the NCC Cabinet before the April 2014 NECA agreement, all Cabinet members, including the group leaders, were unanimous in their support for it, the only doubt raised being when one member said that "the devil will be in the detail", which is of course proving to be all too true.
Surely therefore, a Full Council item on this subject, possibly of the greatest importance in decades for the future of Northumbrian voters, would enable a discussion with the minimum of party political content, and show voters how most of the work is done on their behalf, in scrutiny committees etc. Prior publicity might encourage more voters to go to see for themselves - a sort of County Council open day on the most important subject for decades. (I have met people who would have liked to go to the event at Woodhorn, had they been aware of it in time and able to get to that location at that time of day).
At the devolution event at Woodhorn I got the impression that the concerns were the same for most people, whoever they represented, whether rural or urban, in a business, organisation, or democratic capacity, namely that they are yet to find a mechanism in which they can have the confidence that the needs of their local area and residents will have adequate representation in the face of major high-profile region-wide projects which will need vast amounts of finance and staff resources.
Some of the issues which people might want to hear more about are:
- the rural workstream
- management of all regional public assets - would NECA have the power to sell them off to fund itself?
and issues which I heard about at the NE Leadership Board meeting such as:
- any moves towards NECA seeking LOCAL TAX-RAISING POWERS, assuming that the Local Government Finance Settlement is going to be reduced in favour of getting income from business rates, producing a significant shortfall which would probably fall on local taxpayers to fund ( This was mentioned by the Interim Chief Finance Officer at the 17/11/15 meeting).
- the EXTENT TO WHICH ISSUES SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT THE NECA CHIEF EXECUTIVES' MEETING, WHICH IS NOT OPEN TO PRESS AND PUBLIC, as opposed to the North East Leadership Board which is open to the public to observe and enables the media to report, as raised by Cllr. Watson at the NELB meeting on 17/11/15 in relation to the importance of transparency for achieving public support, as well as Mayor Redfearn's point about the opportunity for misinformation leading to initial hostility amongst voters until they were enabled to find out the facts.
- the VERY SHORT TIME-SCALES FOR THE REQUIRED CONSULTATIONS when they have to be within the required timetables of Local Authorities being able to set their own budgets subject to government announcements late in the year such as the Autumn Statement on Wednesday and the Local Government Finance Settlement, probably late in December.
- there appears to be an ONGOING ISSUE OF HOW TO DEFINE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST when leaders are there to make decisions for the region as a whole, but also need to represent the interests of their own local authority
- PLANNED MAJOR PROJECTS and their finance and organisation
3) ARRANGEMENTS FOR FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN FUTURE
As I have said, having been to observe the Leadership Board and Overview and Scrutiny Committee at NECA, I have every confidence that they, and probably the other NECA committees too, have the determination and capabilities to do the best possible job for us, and I am certainly not hostile to NECA.
HOWEVER, IN SUCH A NEW ORGANISATION, I THINK THAT THERE ARE MATTERS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE WAYS OF WORKING SETTLE INTO A PATTERN, IF ONLY TO SAFEGUARD CREDIBILITY AND TO AVOID POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES IN THE FUTURE.
Whilst I have confidence in the individuals who are in the committees at present, I do think that there are some gaps in representation which should not be left simply to chance or goodwill in the future.
Though I use rural Northumberland as an example, these concerns could also apply in a major extent to various communities in the south east of Northumberland.
For rural Northumberland, it is still the case that no member of the NCC Cabinet represents an area which is at any distance from south east Northumberland or the urban fringe, and this is also the case with all of the chairs and vice-chairs of the scrutiny committees.
In addition to this geographical bias, the chairs and vice chairs of the Scrutiny committees, though I know that they are not supposed to be political, are all from the Labour group with the exception of Cllr. Lindley. Though I do not think that this will have an impact on the way in which they approach their role, IT DOES MAKE ME WONDER HOW AND WHEN CLLR. DAVEY, AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE AT NECA, AND CLLR. LEDGER, HIS SUBSTITUTE, GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH CLLRS. WHO HAVE A WIDE AND DEEP KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES FACED BY THE 50% OF NORTHUMBRIANS WHO ARE RURAL, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT OUR LEADER AND HIS NORTHUMBRIAN COLLEAGUES AT NECA HAVE SO MUCH MORE WORK OUTSIDE OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND ACROSS THE REGION.
I don't know the status of Area Chairs' Briefing at present, but even if it is still operating, the Area Committees have been reduced from monthly to two monthly, so this reduces the chances which they have to discuss NECA issues as they affect their areas and relay the results to Cllr. Davey, even if they were able to keep up with NECA events and announcements, which at present are more in the way of happening weekly or even daily rather than bi-monthly.
FOR THIS REASON I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE A REGULAR BRIEFING AND QUESTION SESSION BE PART OF EVERY FULL COUNCIL UNTIL MATTERS AT NECA BECOME MORE SETTLED AND PREDICTABLE.
I have heard from more than one source that Cllrs. Davey and Henig, being from counties with a substantial rural population, worked very hard to get this fact recognised, and eventually won recognition of the need to address rural issues by getting "the rural workstream" into the proposed devolution deal, but so far as I am concerned, this has been dependent upon their goodwill, motivation, and effectiveness, and we have no guarantee or mechanism to ensure that this will be the case with future members of the Leadership Board.
EVEN IF WE ENDED UP WITH AN ELECTED MAYOR WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF RURAL ISSUES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY COULD BE OUTVOTED BY 5 OUT OF 7 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LEADERSHIP BOARD, who at present are all members of the Labour group from urban wards.
4) THE NECA SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, THOUGH AS I HAVE SAID I AM FAVOURABLY IMPRESSED WITH ITS ATTITUDE AND DETERMINATION TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR ALL OF US, has one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat out of 14 members, and though they are not supposed to be political, this might well have some bearing on their insight into issues as they affect rural people. Though Northumberland and Durham could have put forward a rural member or two, THE TWO MEMBERS FROM NORTHUMBERLAND ARE FROM NOT VERY FAR EITHER SIDE OF CRAMLINGTON, and the members from Durham are from within a few miles of Durham City and Peterlee.
The Scrutiny Committee seems to meet less than every month, and it looks as though there are no meetings scheduled for November or January, at a time when devolution consultations are taking place and budgets are being considered within a very tight schedule before the spring.
At their meeting on Tuesday 20/10/15, just a few days before George Osborne was due on the Friday to sign the devolution papers, the second major item on the Scrutiny Committee's agenda was a Devolution Update from Mr. Wilkinson, NECA's Interim Head of Paid Service. IN THE EVENT, HE DID NOT TURN UP TO BRIEF THE COMMITTEE AND ANSWER ITS QUESTIONS, OR SEND A SUBSTITUTE, and the next scheduled meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is not until December 1st.
On 27th August this Committee also announced a PUBLIC CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOR A REVIEW INTO TRANSPORT - BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT, EXPRESSING PARTICULAR INTEREST IN RURAL AREAS, with a deadline of 08/10/15.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ON NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL'S WEBSITE, though I would have thought that it would have been important for Northumbrians to have an input, since the present arrangements for Northumberland being in charge of its own delegated transport functions are described as interim.
On 21/09/15 I checked the websites of all the seven Local authorities in NECA, and the only one where I could find any mention of this public consultation was the County Durham one, despite the original call for evidence ending with "Please bring this Call for Evidence to the attention of other groups and individuals who may not have seen the request". Only on 02/10/15 when the deadline was extended to 30/10/15 did I see an announcement on the news page of the NCC website. I also failed to find any mention of NECA at all on some of the Local Authority websites.
IF NCC DOESN'T DO THE MINIMUM TO TELL ITS VOTERS WHEN A NECA COMMITTEE IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR SUBMISSIONS FROM PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS, THIS DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR NORTHUMBRIAN VOTERS ACHIEVING FAIR OR WELL-INFORMED REPRESENTATION IN NECA. I think that all at NCC should be doing a great deal more to improve the quality of accessibility, information, and participation in NECA for Northumbrians and the journalists who report to them on the most local issues if this is to be a success for Northumberland.