Agenda item

Documents attached:

·       Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council’s response to the consultation

·       Submission from Adam Jogee MP

·       Letter from Adam Jogee MP

·       Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Simon Tagg

The Leader stated that the three local MP’s were unable to attend and had sent apologies.  Written submissions had been requested, following this Council’s Consultation response and one was received, from Adam Jogee MP.

Documents can be found at item 5 of the agenda.

The Leader thanked Adam Jogee for his submission.  In response the Leader felt that the record put forward by this Council and timelines did not support the claims put forward by the MP.  In addition it had been suggested that there had been no adequate engagement with the MP or partners although the documents showed otherwise. Also, a meeting had taken place on Teams with the three MP’s last autumn.

There had been extensive engagement, regarding LGR, with strategic partners and stakeholders within the Borough and there had been debates at three Full Council meetings.

There had been a claim of political motivation and a non-consistent approach, however, correspondence showed that Newcastle had a reason to consider every option, which was done – with Full Council choosing the Newcastle Unitary option.

There had been mention of the £200,000 that had been spent on LGR.  Although LGR had not been asked for, the Council had had to put forward a proposal that had gained cross-party support. 

The LGR process put forward by the Government required all Council’s to submit models by November, 2025 and this Council’s were prepared with the help of an external consultant and in accordance with the national criteria.

There was public support for the Council’s position and in response, the Council had put forward a proposal that would protect the Council and Borough’s identity, by creating a unitary authority.

The submission from the MP showed criticism of the current two-tier system, referring to coordination challenges.  This Council’s performance was strong with high quality cost effective services.

The Government had been actively consulting on the models with the results, as yet, unknown but civil servants had confirmed that local MP’s would be a key consultee going forward so the MP needed to talk to the Government to protect Newcastle’s identity.

This Council had been transparent with three debates in public, a consultation, talking to partners and key stakeholders in the Borough and reporting back at meetings. 

It was felt that the MP’s submission misrepresented what position this Council had taken.  This Council’s priority remained unchanged – to protect the Borough’s identity and it was hoped that the MP would support the Council going forward.

Councillor Fox-Hewit raised concerns over the remit of the Panel regarding earlier comments and whether it was appropriate to be discussing costs during the pre-election period.

The Chief Executive responded, as noted in the Terms of Reference document there was pre-election guidance accompanying it which set out what the Council was able to do and must not do.  Regarding the question on funding, the sum referred to had been previously published in previous Cabinet reports before the pre-election period.  Advice had also been sought from the Council’s Monitoring Officer that this meeting could go ahead if Members were reminded of the pre-election restrictions.

Councillor Jones disagreed that the current system worked, referring to a personal struggle regarding the education of his son and with adult social care.  Councillor Jones asked what the ‘what-if’ planning scenario would be if this Council ended up with one of the other options and what discussions had taken place.

The Leader stated that it had been discussed at Full Council to ensure that the Council had all of the base levels of Newcastle’s position if the unitary authority bid was not successful.  The £200,000 consultancy fee was providing those base lines and the full submission that was put in included a number of options – including East and West.  The consultants also looked at the North Staffordshire models.  The Leader had also had discussions with Staffordshire Moorlands but there had been a lack of engagement from Stoke on Trent City Council.

The Chief Executive stated that there had been a number of meetings across the Staffordshire Chief Executives discussing what needed to be prepared post-July including programme management arrangements and work streams.  There was a commitment across all ten authorities that post July the work would be carried out with all available resources to bring in best practice.

The Leader stated that, as he had mentioned at previous meetings, if the Government wished to put forward a proposal that this Council had not put forward, the Council would work to make it a success.

Councillor Holland agreed with Councillor Jones to focus on service delivery as a key element of what was being discussed at this meeting.  However, he disagreed that unitarization did not fix things that were broken.  Councillor Holland endorsed the Leader’s rebuttal of the MP’s submission.  Referring to page 2 of the MP’s letter, Councillor Holland quoted the first paragraph on page 18 of the agenda and other points raised on that page and stated that he was concerned that the stand alone unitary proposal differed from the three unitary proposal only in the fact that the northern Staffordshire area was further sub-divided into two and was worried that, if the MP was prepared to say publicly that Newcastle was inadequate or incompetent,  what was he doing to advance this Council’s cause behind closed doors.

Councillor Fox-Hewitt asked the Chief Executive what data had been examined and if financial modelling had been looked at in terms of what level of funding would be required to deliver the statutory functions as a unitary authority in Newcastle.

The Chief Executive advised that the appendices to the proposal contained the methodology that the proposal had used which had hypothecated the existing levels of spend and the existing levels of activity across Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent to reach the conclusions. Civil servants had specifically asked that the Fair Funding allocations not be taken into account as part of the modelling as they had not been determined at the point of submission.

Councillor Fear stated that he was disappointed in the timing of the letter – being received this afternoon. 

It was unfortunate to use hearsay comments with criticism of council officers and, moreover, the criticisms did not give any positives.  Referring to the three-unitary model, Councillor Fear stated that the MP should be asked whether he felt that that should be expanded.

Resolved:    (i)       That the information be received and comments noted

                    (ii)      That the submissions and correspondence tabled this

evening be added, under item 5 of the agenda.   

Watch the debate here