LANCASHIRE BRANCH OF UNISON
Local Government Review Member Consultation
1. The Lancashire Branch of Unison has consulted its members on the Local Government Boundary Committee draft proposals for unitary local government in Lancashire in the event of a referendum vote in favour of an elected North West Regional Assembly in October 2004. This consultation was by way of a structured questionnaire which was distributed by email or paper copy to as many of the Branch’s members as was possible in the limited time available. This amounted to over 4,000. A copy of this questionnaire is attached and a summary of responses received.
2. A total of 416 responses were received which constituted an overall response rate in the region of 10%.
3. The reasons for this poor response can only be surmised. It could be taken to show that the current debate on regional government and local government reorganisation is not a major issue for Lancashire County Council employees at the present time. Recent consultations on staff car parking provision at Lancashire County Council offices have elicited a far higher rate of response. The level of response did vary from Directorate to Directorate - say what. The low level of response may also be partly due to difficulties in reaching individual members within the short period of time available for consultation.
4. The majority of respondents live within the administrative area of Lancashire County Council. While over three quarters of those responding had not received information from the Local Government Boundary Committee on the proposed changes, the majority (88%) were familiar with the Committee's proposed recommendations for local government reorganisation in Lancashire. This knowledge was largely gained from the local press and Lancashire County Council publications. Over half of those responding indicated that it was not their intention to respond directly to the Local Government Boundary Committee, further indicating either a lack of personal interest in the proposals or a view that such representations would be ineffective.
5. The overall level of support for the creation of an elected Regional Assembly in the North West was low. Only 16% were in favour of an Assembly with 16% undecided. 69% were against this proposal.
6. This low level of support for an elected regional assembly did not however, detract from a high level of support for the creation of a unitary local government structure should such an assembly be created. Some 65% were in favour of a unitary local government structure.
7. The majority of respondents (66%) were in favour of Option 1, a single unitary based largely on the current area of Lancashire County Council. The majority of staff responding felt that a new unitary based on the area of Option 1 would not be too large to effectively engage with local communities though a sizeable number (32%) felt that it would be too large to achieve this.
8. The majority of staff responding also felt that Lancashire County Council’s proposed local cabinet structure either was an attempt to recreate the existing two-tier structure (32%) or did not know (50%). A significant number of staff (35%) also felt that this proposed cabinet structure would lead to excessive administration costs with 41% not knowing what the effect would be on administration costs. Again significant numbers (26%) felt that this proposal would not work in practice with a high level (53%) not knowing whether it would work or not.
9. Levels of support for Options 2 and 3 were 13% and 11% respectively. One in 10 members suggested other possible options. These consisted of retaining the status quo: Option 1 but retaining Whitworth, Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood; the maintenance of separate identities for Fylde, Wyre and Rabble Valley and a separate unitary of South Rabble and Chorley.
10. It was widely felt (67%) that Parish and Town Councils would not have the capacity and/or desire to take on additional responsibilities for the delivery of local service.
11. The view was held by the majority of staff (66%) that regional government coupled with local government reorganisation would lead to public sector job losses. The majority of staff (49%) also felt that such changes would have a detrimental effect on their employment terms and conditions though a large proportion could not anticipate whether or not this would be the case.
GENERAL COMMENTS
12. One in three members (175) made general comments.
13. The largest single group of comments (30%) related to the costs of reorganisation. These comments split fairly evenly into two types. There was widely expressed opposition to any increase in local government costs on the basis that council tax payers did not wish to pay more per se. The second type of comment was related to the widely held perception that any cost increase would not result in improvements to the delivery of the actual services people were paying for. It was felt that in some cases service delivery would even worsen in the short term. These comments were based on experience of past reorganisations and a view that increasing amounts of local government finance were being spent on "image" and "management" as opposed to service provision.
14. The next largest group of comments (23%) related to support for a continuation of the existing local government structure. This view was either based on the assertion that current authorities were working well and performing to high standards or opposition to the upheaval of change itself. The latter view was largely based on the plethora of on-going changes currently affecting the delivery of specific services and the "debilitating" effect this was having on both service delivery and staff morale.
15. 13% of comments made related to issues of local identity. These comments reflected a whole range of personal views. They varied from the need to maintain or even recreate a "Lancashire" identity to the opposite view that such an identity has survived previous local government reorganisations and would continue to do so regardless of boundary changes. Other comments related to proposed local changes. Comments were made both for and against the inclusion of Whitworth with Rochdale. Support was expressed for and against the merging of Sexton and West Lancashire. No support was expressed for the inclusion of local areas within the boundaries of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwin.
16. 10% of comments related to employment issues. Staff expressed a range of concerns regarding their employment prospects in a reorganisation situation. These included:
· Disbelief in the assertions of managers and politicians that they were worried about employees jobs.
· Experience of worsened service conditions from previous reorganisations.
· Fear of out-sourcing and transfer to the private sector.
· Concern at cost and inconvenience of changes to travel to work patterns.
· Lack of information from the trade unions on the employment consequences of different options.
· Pension effects.
· Increase in temporary contracts.
17. 8% of comments related to a perceived failure to make out a case to support the need regional government. These comments centred on either the fear that Lancashire would loose funding and influence to the NW conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool or that insufficient powers were being devolved from Whitehall to a Regional Assembly. Concern was also expressed on the apparent lack of change devolution to English regions would engender at national government level in terms of numbers of MPs.
18. 6% of comments related to the lack of information on which people could base any informed opinion. This particularly related to the lack of information from the Local Government Boundary Committee.
19. Smaller numbers of comments were made that:
· an elected Regional Assembly for the North West is needed.
· unitary authorities were required.
· a Lancashire unitary authority would be too large to effectively engage with local communities and deliver local services.
· smaller unitaries would result in a loss of economies of scale and staff expertise.
· smaller unitaries would facilitate local service provision.
· larger authorities would reduce the need for cumbersome and expensive "partnerships".
· any reorganisation should be done objectively on a "once and for all" basis. It should not be "shoe-horned" into existing administrative boundaries and "historic" allegiances. This type of approach only paves the way for further reorganisation.
· Parish and Town Councils are not currently reflective of local opinion.
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTH WEST
and
UNITARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN LANCASHIRE
LANCASHIRE UNISON MEMBER CONSULTATION
Do you wish the Lancashire County Branch of Unison to make a collective response
to the Local Government Boundary Committee on your behalf?
YES NO
If YES, please answer Questions 2 – 18
Do you live in the current area of Lancashire County Council?
YES NO
Have you received a leaflet from the Local Government Boundary Committee at your home address, giving information on their recommendations for unitary local government in Lancashire?
YES NO
Are you familiar with the Local Government Boundary Committee recommendations for local government reorganisation in Lancashire?
YES NO
If YES, what was the source of your information?
Newspaper Website LCC Publication Other
Will you be responding directly to the Local Government Boundary Committee?
YES NO
What is your employing Directorate?
Social Services Education & Cultural Services
Environment Office of the Chief Executive
Resources Other
Are you in favour of an elected Regional Assembly for the NW?
YES NO Don’t Know
In the event of a vote in favour of an elected Regional Assembly, are you in favour of a unitary local government structure where one type of local authority delivers all local services?
YES NO
In the event of a vote in favour of an elected Regional Assembly, the Local Government Boundary Committee have proposed 3 draft options for unitary local authorities in Lancashire.
These are:
Option 1 A single unitary authority based largely on the current area of
Lancashire County Council with the exceptions of Whitworth which will join
Rochdale and Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood areas which will join Blackpool.
Option 2 Seven unitary authorities. Some new and some to be extensions of existing unitaries:
§ Central Lancashire – comprising Preston,South Ribble, Chorley and parts of Fylde and Wyre
§ East Lancashire - comprising Blackburn with Darwen,Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley and Rossendale (except Whitworth)
§ Fylde Coast - Comprising Blackpool and parts of Fylde and Wyre
§ South Cumbria and Lancaster – comprising Lancaster,Barrow in Furness and South Lakeland
§ Sefton and West Lancashire – comprising Sefton and part of West Lancashire
§ Wigan – comprising Wigan and part of West Lancashire
§ Rochdale – comprising Rochdale and Whitworth
Option 3 Eight unitary authorities. As Option 2 with the exception that East Lancashire will be split into two authorities:
§ Blackburn and Ribble – comprising Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley
§ South East Lancashire – comprising Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale(except Whitworth)
10 What is your preferred option?
Option 1 Option 3
Option 2 Other
If OTHER, please describe.
Do you think that Regional Government coupled with local government reorganisation will lead to public sector job losses?
YES NO Don’t Know
12 What effect do you think that Regional Government coupled with local government reorganisation will have on the terms and conditions of your current employment?
Improve terms and conditions
Worsen terms and conditions
No change to terms and conditions
Don’t know
13 Do you think that a new unitary authority based on the area of Lancashire County Council (Option 1) would be too large to engage with and be responsive to local communities?
YES NO Don’t Know
14 Do you think that Lancashire County Council’s proposed Local Cabinet structure is an attempt to recreate the existing two-tier structure?
YES NO Don’t Know
15 Do you think that Lancashire County Council’s proposed Local Cabinet structure will lead to excessive administration costs?
YES NO Don’t Know
16 Do you think that Lancashire County Council’s proposed Local Cabinet structure will work in practice?
YES NO Don’t Know
17 Do you think that Parish and Town Councils have the capacity and/or desire to take on additional responsibilities for the delivery of local government services?
YES NO Don’t Know
18 Are there any specific comments you would wish the Lancashire County Branch of UNISON to make to the Local Government Boundary Committee on your behalf?
Local Government Review Member Consultation - Summary
Q01 Do you wish the Lancashire County Branch of Unison to make a collective response to the Local Government Boundary
Committee on your behalf?
Yes: 409 Yes (%): 98
No: 7 No (%): 2
Total Respondents:
416
Q02 Do you live in the current area of Lancashire County Council?
Yes: 366 Yes (%): 88
No: 50 No (%): 12
Total Respondents:
416
Q03 Have you received a leaflet from the Local Government Boundary Committee at your home address, giving information on
their recommendations for unitary local government in Lancashire?
Yes: 100 Yes (%): 24
No: 316 No (%): 76
Total Respondents:
416
Q04 Are you familiar with the Local Government Boundary Committee recommendations for local government reorganisation in