Archived decisions

Contact: Malcolm Cole ext.: 7385, Keith Kerslake ext.: 7317

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the position on issues relating to the Regional agenda and, in particular, sets out a proposed response to Government on the `Soundings' exercise on the level of interest in holding a referendum and on the draft guidance to the Boundary Committee.

2. Introduction

2.1 At the meeting of the Cabinet on 23 December 2002, consideration was given to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and the publication by the ODPM of

- a paper entitled `Soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly'

- a consultation paper on the proposed statutory guidance to be issued in respect of Local Government Reviews.

2.2 Both documents have the same response date of 3 March.

2.3 Cabinet agreed -

1 That a public survey be undertaken in co-operation with other South East counties.

2 That efforts continue to seek appropriate amendments to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.

3 That a position statement on regional issues in respect of both Hampshire and the South East be drawn up and distributed widely to Hampshire partner organisations and the Hampshire public to inform the debate by making clear the arguments against the desirability of either a referendum about, or the establishment of, an elected Regional Assembly for the South East.

4 That, following the above action, a draft County Council response to the `Soundings' document and the draft Boundary Committee guidance be prepared

2.4 It was originally intended to report to Cabinet on 10 February but the results of the MORI survey undertaken with residents across the south-east were not available until just before that meeting and had not, at that time, been analysed in terms of formulating the Council's response.

2 Survey Work

3.1 MORI Social Research Institute carried out 1,416 telephone interviews with residents aged 18+ across seven counties in the South East region between 14 and 26 January 2003. The interviews were stratified by county, so that at least 200 interviews were conducted in each county. Quotas were set on age, gender and work status.

3.2 Key Findings from the South East Counties research

_ One in six people claim to know more than a little about proposals that there should be elected regional assemblies for each region; the vast majority know little or nothing.

_ Only 27% of residents can correctly identify the South East as the region in which they live; 63% do not claim to know.

_ Around 70% of respondents do not claim to know of any of the functions the Government intends to be undertaken by regional assemblies.

_ Around a quarter of South East residents (24%) tend to support a referendum taking place to decide whether an elected assembly should be introduced in the region with a further 28% strongly supporting. There are, however, similar levels of support for referenda on other issues too-on whether Britain should become a republic or the House of Lords should be replaced by an elected assembly. All show support of around 50% in favour of a referendum. However, there is more support for a referendum on the Euro at 59% with 48% strongly supporting.

_ Over 70% of residents say they would be very or fairly likely to vote in a referendum on whether an elected regional assembly should be set up for the South East. From the MORI national omnibus survey undertaken in February 2003, the proportion of people who say they would vote in a referendum mirrors that of the findings in the South East-72%. However, history reveals a different picture. Turnouts for the referendum on Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in 1997 achieved 58% and 50% respectively and for the GLA referendum (on a local election day) in 1998 achieved only 34% turnout.

_ Initially the number of residents supporting and opposing the South East getting its own elected regional assembly is roughly split. Those who feel informed are more likely to oppose the establishment of an assembly in the South East than those who are not informed (49% of the informed oppose, versus 32% of the uninformed). This confirms the finding in the Hampshire research conducted earlier that the more people understand the proposals for regional assemblies the less they like them.




_ Residents' views significantly alter in the light of further information about local government reorganisation, the likely location of the assembly and the costs associated with setting up an assembly for the South East with over half opposing and only 1/3 supporting.

_ The main reasons for opposition to an assembly for the South East focus on fears of increased bureaucracy and another tier of government. The reasons for support centre on moving power and decision making away from central government and understanding the local area better. With over 60% supporting devolving powers to local authorities.

_ Less than 1/3 of residents agree that an assembly would look after the area better than their County Council-30% agree, 49% disagree.

3.3 Research in Hampshire.

Hampshire was one of the first Counties to undertake an exercise on residents attitudes and perceptions on regional government. The project was carried out by MORI prior to the publication of the government's white paper `Your Region-Your Choice'.

Many of the key findings from that research have been mirrored in the South East Counties research.

_ Hampshire residents had little or no knowledge of the government's proposals for regional government.

_ About the same proportion as those of the South East could correctly name the region they were in.

_ The majority of residents were satisfied with the area in which they live.

_ There was less support for a regional assembly if this was to mean the abolition of the County Council (21% in support compared to 54% against).

_ Residents did not feel that an assembly would look after the region better than the County Council (24%agree; 47% oppose).

3 Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

4.1 This Bill has now completed its passage through the House of Commons and while attempts were made to seek amendments, the Bill was passed without any substantial change.

4.2 At the time of writing this report, its passage through the House of Lords was due to commence on 20 February.

4.3 The Bill still contains a number of contentious issues, namely

- The level of interest to be established by the Secretary of State prior to holding a referendum - no indication of level of interest is included.


- Voters - voters in unitary areas will take part in the referendum including contributing to the decision to establish unitary councils in other areas.


- Repeat Referenda - 5 years is still the envisaged time limit if a referendum is unsuccessful. A period which will ensure continued uncertainty in local government structures.


- Majority vote in favour - no threshold of those eligible to vote is expressed.

4.4 County leaders in the South-East have met under the Chairmanship of the Leader of Essex County Council (a member of the House of Lords) and efforts are continuing to seek appropriate amendments.

5 Alerting and Mobilising the County Council's Partners

5.1 A position statement setting out the Council's case has been prepared and is currently being widely distributed - via portfolio holders and Chief Officers - to the County Council's `key partners' encouraging them to respond - in support of the Council's case - to the `Soundings' exercise.

6 The County Council's formal response to the `Soundings' document.

6.1 It is important to note that the ODPM `Soundings' consultation is to "seek views, information and evidence on the level of interest in each English Region in holding a referendum about whether to establish an elected regional assembly (This is distinct from the level of interest in each region in an elected regional assembly)". Views should be "backed up by evidence".

6.2 Responses are required on a proforma (Annex A) contained in the ODPM paper by 3 March 2003. In effect, therefore the County Council's case will be based on its answer to question 8.

6.3 It is important that the response from the County Council to the government `soundings' exercise should be evidence-based set alongside relevant contextual information. The government are seeking to assess the levels of support for a referendum about the establishment of a regional assembly. They have stated that they will also look at opinion polls providing they are representative of the population being sampled.

6.4 The South East Counties exercise shows that:

· About 28% of respondents strongly support and 24% tend to support a referenda on the establishment of a regional assembly with a significant proportion of people who oppose - 25%, with many others who are sitting on the fence or simply do not know - 22%.

· The proportions who strongly support referenda show a wide variation-from 48% on the Euro, down to 39% on Britain becoming a republic, 33% on the House of Lords and 28% on regional governance.

· Those respondents who are more informed are less likely to support a referenda versus those who are less informed-34%, 24%.

6.5 The willingness of residents to support a referendum on regional government should come as no surprise. The United Kingdom is a democracy with public participation at the core of its sets of values. This has been the case for centuries. People like to have the opportunity to have their say. In fact national referenda have been mooted on issues such as the Euro and other issues, but have not taken place as yet. People's expectations of being able to participate in a still rare exercise in the UK have been heightened. It is not surprising that when asked about whether or not they would like to have a referenda on regional government, just over 50% are in favour though only 28% strongly support the proposition. However, support for referendum on other issues is similar or stronger.

6.6 To assess how significant the level of support is for a referenda will depend on the results from the other regional exercises presently being completed. This information is unavailable for this Cabinet meeting. However, data will be available in time for the submissions to the ODPM on 3 March 2003.

6.7 In addition to reiterating the points already agreed by the Council in opposing the regional government (Annex B) both surveys clearly show that though there is support for drawing down power from central government there is no wish for the reorganisation of local government nor for the extra bureaucracy and costs associated with a regional assembly. The research also confirms that there is high level of satisfaction with county council services.

6.8 The Government in asking solely about support for a referendum has clearly avoided linking the question to what people will be voting about. It is also clear from previous research and evidence that the claims made about the wish for a referendum and voter turnout in the event of one are likely to be considerably different.

6.9 This research clearly shows there is little support for regional government in the south-east with all its implications. Only half those surveyed expressing any interest in a referendum and less that 1/3 showed any support for the proposals once the ramifications of their establishment was realised.

6.10 Our response to the government should draw on the findings showing that there is no more general support and indeed less strong support for a referendum on regional issues than any other matter. The Government are asking the wrong question and at the wrong time. What people want are the facts, once in possession of them they overwhelmingly reject regional government for the south-east. The Government's policy is one of modernising public services. Our response needs to stress that raising the spectre of regional government does not address the publics wish for continuous service improvement and distracts local authorities from the vital job of service delivery. Hampshire is a top class authority delivering excellent services in the south-east working alongside other high performing local authorities. The prospect of regional government provides no added value and the consequent reorganisation of local government places excellent service delivery in jeopardy.

7 Boundary Committee Guidance

7.1 Cabinet at its last meeting received a summary of the main features of the draft Guidance document. It is nevertheless worth repeating the main issues driving the guidance namely -

· The Boundary Committee

- must recommend unitary councils to replace all existing two-tier areas in a region

- cannot make recommendations which affect the boundaries and structure of existing unitary councils in the region or affect the boundaries of the region itself

- and must have regard to:

· the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities

· the need to secure effective and convenient local government


· The Boundary Committee must also assume for the purposes of any review that there is an elected assembly for the region.

7.2 In general terms, the balance of argument in the draft guidance does seem to favour bigger authorities rather than smaller, although there is, unsurprisingly, no threshold number discussed. Nevertheless, taken with the statement that the Boundary Committee should seek to identify the unitary structure which

"will result in authorities best able to deliver the local government modernisation agenda - in other words, effective community leadership and quality local services. So when considering both the identity and interests of communities and the issue of effective and convenient local government, the guidance will ask the Boundary Committee to give particular weight to those factors expected to have the most impact on councils' capacity to deliver the modernisation agenda"

it is suggested that the council's response should be as follows:-

7.2.1 There is no reason to discount the 2 tier option of local government in areas where it is demonstrably shown to work effectively in terms of quality local services, public support and effective responses to the modernisation agenda. There is no discernible lobby in Hampshire to change the existing arrangements.

7.2.2 The track record of existing authorities in responding to the modernisation agenda, in delivering quality services and in providing effective community leadership - particularly, where they have been the subject of `Excellent' CPA judgement - should be a prime factor in any review considerations.

7.2.3 On the assumption that there will be no change of mind regarding a move to `unitary' councils, the Boundary Committee be advised that the County Council considers that the over-riding key factors to be taken into consideration when considering a unitary configuration should be

- Quality of Service Delivery and Management - the utmost importance must be attached to the existing high quality of service delivery and management particularly undertaken by the existing authorities whose management and services should not be disrupted with the consequential damage to the communities they serve. County Council's have a particularly strong record of high quality service delivery and effective management as evidenced by the 2002 CPA process. 24 out of 34 county council's (71%) were rated `excellent' or ` good'. Another 7 were rated fair with only 3 in the `poor' and `weak' categories. Their services should not, so soon after this government sponsored assessment , be put at risk.

- Disruption : Local Government in England was reviewed as recently as 1997. Most authorities have only just settled from that major disruption which internally as well as, most importantly, externally to its clients and customers had a damaging effect on service provision. Any changes contemplated now should therefore be as minimal as possible. Re-organisation costs provide no services. At a time when the Government is driving improved standards in public service delivery and Hampshire has proved itself to be at the very top of the `excellent' category, now is not the time to be `fixing something that isn't broken'.

- Political and Executive Management : considerable importance should be given to the achievements of existing structures, their plans for development and improvement and judgements made of them by external accreditation e.g. Audit Commission, Inspectorates.

- Capacity : Key services such as Education and Social Services can only be efficiently and effectively provided where the providing authority has clear political direction and high quality executive management and financial and leadership strength.





- Partnership working : Delivery of key services is increasingly dependent upon key partnership working with agencies such as the Strategic Health Authority and the Learning and Skills Councils. New unitary authorities must be of a size and geographical relationship to such key partners.

- Costs : Particular consideration should be given to the cost of any proposed changes of structure. Close attention should be paid to the costs of the 1997 re-organisation and to work undertaken by the CCN on likely costs as at 2003. Decisions on future structures must be robust enough to make any change case in the light of transitional and ongoing costs. Consideration should, in addition be given to costs of operating partnership arrangements where small authorities have been set up under previous reviews.

- Tradition and Geography : Existing county areas are recognised and understood. They are also of sufficient size to provide the capacity to provide Community Leadership and quality local services. County boundary changes should be strenuously avoided.

Recommendations

1. That Cabinet note the outcome of the South East Counties Research as summarised in paragraph 3.2 of this report.

2. That the action being taken to secure appropriate amendments to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill be noted.

3. That a formal response to the ODPM `Soundings' Exercise be made opposing the need for a referendum in the south east based on the evidence of the Hampshire and South East Counties polls and the arguments set out in Section 6 of this report.

4. That a formal response to the ODPM consultation on the draft Boundary Committee guidance be made in accordance with the arguments set out in paragraphs 7.2.1 to 7.2.3 of this report.

Background Information

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works.

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

Survey of Attitudes to Regional Government in the South East Region - MORI (2003).