Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council River Hamble Harbour Board 23 November 2007 River Hamble Harbour Authority Governance Report Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage and the Director of Environment |
Item 11 |
Contact: John Tickle tel 01962 846000 email: [email protected]
1. Summary
1.1 This reports analyses the recommendations contained in two documents dealing with the future governance arrangements for the River Hamble - The Royal Haskoning Governance Review 2007 (the Haskoning review - Appendix 1) and the Trust Port Study Group report (TPSG report - Appendix 2) - and makes recommendations for the way forward. The Royal Haskoning review was commissioned by Hampshire County Council and the Trust Port Study Group was produced independently. The views of both the River Hamble Management Committee and the Harbour Board are requested prior to this report progressing through the Formal County Council decision making process.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the following actions should be taken to enhance the governance arrangements for the River Hamble Harbour Authority, in response to the recommendations made by Royal Haskoning in their governance review, and by the Trust Port Study Group report (figures in brackets refer to the recommendations in the Haskoning report):
2.2 Governance
a. The River Hamble should continue to be governed as a Municipal Port under the control of Hampshire County Council.
2.3 Consultation
a. A Consultative Committee should be established, consisting of local representatives of a prescribed list of organisations, to act in a consultative and advisory role to the Harbour Board in relation to key issues affecting the river. It should meet twice per year, in public, and its Chairman should have the right of access to the Harbour Board (4.1.9) and Management Committee. The Management Committee will be invited to propose a list of organisations to be represented on the Consultative Committee.
2.4 Harbour Board
a. A skills audit should be carried out to assess the balance of skills required by the Harbour Board to effectively govern the harbour and deliver against its Strategic Plan. The individual and collective roles and responsibilities of the Board members should be more clearly set out and this information should be made publicly available (4.1.1).
b. The Chairman of the Harbour Board should continue to be appointed by the County Council. Appointment of all other Board members (except the Marine Director) shall be made by the County Council on the recommendation of an Appointments Panel established by the County Council, chaired by the Chairman of the Board (4.1.2).
c. The Harbour Board should be expanded from seven to nine members. The two extra members should be one County Councillor and one co-opted member. Both should be appointed on the basis of the required skills identified by the skills audit. As at present, the Marine Director should be non- voting and the Chairman should have a casting vote (4.1.2). It is further proposed to appoint two deputies, one for the County Council members and one for the independent members of the Board.
d. The Harbour Board should continue to meet formally, in public, up to 6 times per annum. In addition, the Harbour Board should meet informally for training days and workshops, up to four times per annum (4.1.5)
e. Board members should serve for a term of four years (initially extendable to six years if required for succession planning), with a maximum tenure of two consecutive four-year terms. As far as possible, succession arrangements should ensure that a maximum of two members change in any calendar year (4.1.4).
f. The induction and training programme for Board members should continue (4.1.7).
2.5 Management Committee
a. The Management Committee should retain a crucial policy advice and scrutiny role (4.1.9), within the context set by the Strategic Plan, and meet a minimum of twice a year with the ability to convene special meetings or working groups as required.
2.6 Code of Conduct
a. The impact of the revised Code of Conduct on the work of the Harbour Board and Management Committee should be kept under review, reporting any difficulties to the Hampshire County Council Standards Committee after 12 months (4.1.6).
b. Specific training should be provided for members of the Harbour Board and Management Committee in terms of interpreting and responding to their duties under the revised Code (4.1.6).
2.7 Finance
a. The County Treasurer should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of possible alternatives to the current Harbour Authority financial arrangements, to include examination of the scope for formal ring-fencing of surpluses and establishing the Harbour Authority as an independent business unit of the County Council (4.1.8, 4.1.12).
2.8 Review
a. The effectiveness of the arrangements at (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5) above should be kept under regular review.
2.9 Manpower
a. The size, structure and fitness for purpose of the Harbour Office staff should be kept under regular review (4.1.11).
3. Background
3.1 Following a major public consultation, new governance arrangements for the River Hamble were introduced in 2005. They have proved to be very successful and, although they pre-dated the Government's Municipal Ports Review, they are generally compliant with its recommendations, to the extent that the Harbour Authority was awarded `Leading Lights' status by the Department for Transport for its achievements in complying with the Review. When the governance arrangements were changed, it was agreed that they would be reviewed after two years to ensure that they were fully fit for purpose and working as intended. This review has now been carried out by independent consultants Royal Haskoning UK Ltd (funded by Hampshire County Council). It was intended to be a `light touch' review, mainly aimed at ensuring compliance with the Municipal Ports Review.
3.2 In parallel to this exercise, the independent `Trust Ports Study Group' (TPSG), Chaired by Mr Peter Nicholson, submitted a report based upon 18 months of consideration which concludes that, subject to satisfactory transition arrangements, the River Hamble should be converted to Trust Port status. This has been considered and the recommendation in this report is that Municipal Port Status should be retained.
3.3 In broad terms, the Haskoning review finds that the current Harbour Authority has achieved most of the objectives set out when the governance arrangements were revised and that the Harbour Authority is generally compliant with the Municipal Ports Review - in short, a clean bill of health, but with scope to do even better.
3.4 The proposed Hampshire County Council response to both the Haskoning review and the TPSG report are covered by this document.
4. Haskoning Review Recommendations
4.1 The recommendations of the Haskoning review are discussed below. It is proposed that some should be adopted now, whilst others need amendment or further work before implementation.
4.1.1 Expertise and experience of Harbour Board members
An analysis of the skills required by members of the Harbour Board was carried out before the current governance arrangements were adopted. It is accepted that this could be usefully refined in the light of experience. However, not all the skills set out in Table 3 of the Haskoning report are applicable to a harbour such as the Hamble. Consequently it is proposed that a skills audit is undertaken with a specific focus upon the needs of the Hamble River.
4.1.2 Structure of the Harbour Board
The recommendation that the Harbour Board should be enlarged is accepted, and a total of nine members is proposed (four County Councillors (including the Chairman), four independent members appointed by Nolan principles, and the Marine Director. The Haskoning review suggests that only two members of the board should be County Councillors, but this is not supported, on the grounds that it would lead to an unacceptable reduction in the democratic accountability of the Board. The suggestion that the County Council may occasionally wish to co-opt up to two additional members for their special project advice and experience is accepted in principle, but there is no immediate requirement to do so. This tool will remain available to the Board.
4.1.3 Appointments Panel
The current membership of the Appointments Panel is the Chairman of the Harbour Board, a second County Councillor member of the Harbour Board, an HCC HR representative (non-voting) and three stakeholder representatives. The Constitution of the County Council requires that all members of the Harbour Board (apart from the Chairman and the Marine Director) should be subject to appraisal by the Appointments Panel prior to confirmation by the Council. On this basis, it is proposed that the Appointments Panel should remain as it is.
4.1.4 Terms of Office
The recommendation that the Harbour Board members should be appointed for a three year term is rejected, on the grounds that it would increase training costs and continuity would suffer. It is therefore proposed that the term of office should normally be four years, with a maximum tenure of eight years (two consecutive terms). The four year term should initially be extendable to six years if required for succession planning. This accords with the current Constitution. As far as possible, succession arrangements should ensure that a maximum of two Board members change in any calendar year. The County Council does not see any benefit in making changes to this arrangement.
4.1.5 Meetings of the Harbour Board
The cost of servicing ten formal meetings per annum of the Harbour Board would be prohibitive. Furthermore, the current decision-making workload is manageable within the existing arrangement where there are up to six meetings per annum. However, it is proposed that the Harbour Board should also meet informally about four times per annum for training and workshops.
4.1.6 Model Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members
Members of the Harbour Board have already applied to the Standards Committee for dispensation to speak and vote in certain circumstances, but these requests have been turned down, subject to review in 12 months. This was in light of the fact that the Members Code of Conduct has been recently revised by Government allowing greater flexibility in making representations where a member has a prejudicial interest. During this period, instances where the Code of Conduct causes problems with the Board's decision-making process will be noted and used in evidence for the Standards Committee. It is also recommended that specific training should be provided for members of the Harbour Board in terms of interpreting and responding to their duties under the revised Code.
4.1.7 Training
Harbour Board training and workshop sessions already take place and this should continue. A formal induction and training programme will be maintained for Board Members.
4.1.8 Memorandum of Understanding
This item is closely linked with 4.1.2 (Finance). The principle of a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is sound, but there are complex implications for the Harbour Authority and the County Council, which will require careful consideration before an MoU can be drafted. The Haskoning review recommends a cost-benefit analysis and this is supported.
4.1.9 Management Committee
The Municipal Ports Review clearly recommends that there should be a single, suitably skilled Harbour Management Committee to manage the Harbour Authority. In the case of the River Hamble, this is the Harbour Board (a committee of the County Council). The current Management Committee (a sub-committee of the County Council) is a statutory requirement. Nonetheless, the Haskoning review recommends that a Consultative Committee should be established, and this is fully supported. It is proposed that it should consist of local representatives of a prescribed list of organisations, with a specific remit to provide advice and support to the Harbour Board in relation to key issues affecting the river. It should meet twice per year, in public, and its Chairman should have the right of access to the Harbour Board. In parallel, the Management Committee should retain its policy advice and scrutiny role, meeting a minimum of twice a year with the option for special meetings or working groups as required. The focus for this will be the Strategic Plan for the river, which will provide the context and protocols to support this role. The Haskoning review goes one step further, by suggesting the removal of the Management Committee, leaving the reconstituted Harbour Board to manage the harbour, with a duty to consult the Consultative Committee. It is not proposed to pursue this suggestion at this stage, mainly because it would require a new Harbour Revision Order (which could be very costly).
4.1.10 Stakeholder Liaison
There is currently one Stakeholder Forum per annum. It is proposed that the establishment of a Consultative Committee which meets in public would provide for enhanced stakeholder involvement, particularly if members of the public are permitted to make deputations to the Consultative Committee. Agendas for the Consultative Committee could easily be published three weeks in advance. The Haskoning suggestion that agenda planning for the Management Committee and Harbour Board should be made publicly available six months in advance of meetings is unworkable, particularly in the case of applications for Harbour Authority works consent which tend to be submitted for consideration in a much shorter timescale. A skeleton agenda plan, showing the intended dates for consideration of key documents such as the budget and business plan is already produced and this should continue, with as much detail as possible.
4.1.11 Harbour Office
The Haskoning recommendation that the Harbour Office should be staffed with the minimum number of individuals required to fulfil its core duties and functions is supported. Unfortunately, the Haskoning proposals are not based on a detailed analysis of the operational requirements and working patterns of the Harbour Office staff and as such are ill-defined and not fully developed. Work is currently underway to clarify the roles of the Marine Director and Harbour Master. Overall staffing levels will be reviewed against specific operational and safety requirements on the river.
4.1.12 Finance
See 4.1.8 above
5. The case for a Trust Port
5.1 The TPSG report seeks to make a case for converting the River Hamble to Trust Port status, subject to satisfactory transitional arrangements. After careful consideration of the TPSG report, it is felt that the case has not been made and it is therefore recommended that Municipal Port status should be retained. The key reasons for this are as follows:
a. The TPSG report argues (Section 4) that 2005 reforms to the governance of the River Hamble have failed to satisfy the criteria for accountability, fitness for purpose and value for money rightly demanded by both users and stakeholders generally, and clearly laid out in Government guidance for Municipal Ports. This clearly does not chime with the recent award of `Leading Light' status, nor the findings of the Haskoning review which clearly indicates (Para 3.4) that the Harbour Authority is generally compliant with the Municipal Ports Review.
b. The TPSG report suggests that the Harbour Authority appears to serve the corporate objectives of the County Council rather than the needs of harbour stakeholders. This is hardly surprising since all three corporate objectives are entirely appropriate to the management of the River and precisely match the needs of the vast majority of river users. They are met as follows:
Hampshire safer and more secure for all - achieved by adherence to the Port Marine Safety Code and Health and Safety at Work legislation.
Maximising wellbeing - achieved by ensuring that recreational access to the River is available to all, wherever they live or work, and by supporting the commercial development of those businesses which rely upon the River for their trade.
Enhancing our quality of place - by protecting and enhancing the environment of the River and the riparian land (much of which is owned by Hampshire County Council).
c. The new Code of Conduct for local authorities is very similar to the rules set out in the Trust Ports Review for Trust Port Board members, so there would be little to be gained in this respect by a change to Trust Port status.
d. The TPSG makes a strong case for a Consultative Committee, very similar to that recommended by the Haskoning review, although both are a little short on detail of how such a committee might work in practice. Nonetheless, this recommendation is fully supported. The creation of a Trust Port is by no means an essential precursor to the establishment of a Consultative Committee.
e. The TPSG report highlights a number of historic management decisions which, in the author's view, raised issues of consultation and transparency. All these issues have been addressed since the revision of the constitution and the establishment of the Harbour Board in 2005. As such it is felt that the new arrangements coupled with the recommendations included in this report, will ensure that all key decisions continue to be taken in an open, transparent and accountable fashion.
f. The clear implication of the TPSG report is that the River would be managed better by a Trust. However, there is a widely held view that this would lead to a democratic deficit, with the River being run by a Board of unelected members, and a complete loss of the current democratic arrangements (where a substantial number of elected Councillors are involved in the management of the River). Under Trust Port governance, the minority with direct access to a Board member would gain a degree of influence over the management of the River, but the vast majority would lose the influence which they currently enjoy through their local County Councillor.
g. The TPSG report seeks to make the case for a Trust Port on financial grounds, but the absence of any hard data means that the case has not been made.
5. Impact Assessments
5.1 The services and facilities provided by the River Hamble Harbour Authority have been subject to Equalities Impact Assessments and this report does not change the basis on which these assessments were carried out.
6. Conclusion
6.1 There is considerable merit in many of the recommendations of the Haskoning review and a number of those in the Trust Port Study Group report. This report seeks to extract the best aspects from both documents and combine them into a set of proposals which, taken together, will ensure that the governance of the River Hamble is robust, fit for purpose and fully accountable for many years to come.
Section 100 D - 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. |
TITLE |
LOCATION |
River Hamble Harbour Authority Governance Review 2007 (Royal Haskoning) River Hamble Trust Port Study Group April 2007 |
Mottisfont Court Mottisfont Court |