To consider the above report

Members considered the outcome of stage one of the electoral review process. Councillor McWilliams explained that in September 2016 a report was considered by Council to undertake a review based on a number of criteria, to make the council more efficient in light of the changing delivery model and the fact that some wards were over represented and others under represented. The first stage involved an internal review. The second stage involved submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGCE) to come up with new boundaries which would then be consulted upon. The cross-party working group had used a number of evidence bases including population numbers and predictions for the future. The group had considered the council’s position in the bottom quartile in terms of the ratio of councillors to electors. Members were surveyed on their views of a potential reduction in the number of councillors by 25%.

The Working Group was recommending to Full Council to propose to the LGBCE that, with effect from the Borough Elections in May 2019, the size of the council should become 43 elected Members, or 43 plus or minus one, subject to the outcome of Stage Two of the process.

Councillor Dudley thanked the working group and officers for their work on stage one. When the council was asking officers, suppliers and residents to come with the council on a journey of efficiency, councillors also needed to look at themselves. The right size and shape of the scrutiny function going forward would be important to ensure there was an acceptable burden for each councillor to deliver their democratic responsibilities. The different ways of interacting with residents including email and social media had been taken into account. The proposal would lead to a saving of over £200,000. If the council had not been proactive, the review would have been required anyway because of changing populations.

Councillor D. Wilson echoed the comments about the need for councillors to look a themselves in terms of overall efficiency. He had been on the council since 1991; the last boundary review had been triggered by rising populations in Oldfield. The current increase in the ward was not far off triggering another review anyway.

Councillor Smith highlighted that the council had the lowest council tax outside London therefore he asked what was broken that needed to be fixed? The council should not model itself on other less efficient local authorities. The saving of £150,000-£200,000 was a small amount, just a  third of  appoint on council tax. It was fantasy that the 25% reduction in councillors could be matched by a 25% reduction in meetings. It would also likely not translate into a 25% reduction in papers or time, particularly in light of the ambitious regeneration programme and a busy planning authority. Case work would also become less efficient. The executive would also likely shrink, thereby concentrating power in an even smaller body.

Councillor Da Costa commented that although the work the council did was going to change, the amount of work did not. Information flows would slow down and Councillors would have no direct influence over the new corporate bodies in comparison to officers. Councillors would need to know not just how the council worked but also how the new corporate entities worked. Councillors who were Directors would have extra conflicts because their primary responsibility would be to the corporate body.  If panels and committees were combined because of a reduction in councillors, it would become more demanding to understand the interplay of shared services and Joint Ventures. As a consequence scrutiny would either not happen or skill sets needed by councillors would dissuade ordinary people, including members of minorities, from becoming councillors. A reduction in the number of councillors would diminish democracy rather than improve it. A smaller reduction should be considered. He reported that Councillor Jones, a member of the working party, had not supported the recommendation.

Councillor Kellaway commented that some Councillors worked harder than others. Constituents would be pleased with the proposals.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that the working group had been ably chaired. Councillor Jones had agreed the recommendations but had stated that she could not verify what the other members of the opposition group would say. The number of Overview and Scrutiny Panels would reduce from seven to five. Councillors would need to work a little bit harder, just like others in society. There would be no change to the external boundaries of the borough, only the ward boundaries in between.

Councillor Werner stated that he was broadly in support of the reduction; it had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment at the last local election. However he had concerns about the claimed efficiency savings because he feared that allowances may rise as a result. He would like  guarantee from the Leader that this would not happen. He also commented that without an equivalent reduction in the size of the Executive, it could end up being over 50% of councillors which would be negative for democracy.

Councillor Hunt commented that if you removed Reading from the list of councils on page 15 of the report the figures were not so different, particularly West Berkshire and Wokingham. All councillors were volunteers paid a small allowance. Her work on council business meant that she would not be able to have another job. Workloads would increase with a reduction in councillors. There was a need to look at wards but not to the extent suggested because the council would end up relying on officers when the buck stopped with councillors.

Councillor Dr L. Evans commented that there was a clear understanding that the way the council worked was changing. It was important to look at the median figures in comparison to other councils. The review would have to happen soon anyway; being proactive gave the council the chance to think about it rather than accepting a fait accompli.

Councillor Beer commented that the lower number of constituents per councillor may not be a reflection of councillors’ efficiency but would offer residents a better service if the level were maintained or close to the level. If the number of councillors were reduced, this would reduce the service provided. The council had a more complex and wider range of duties than boroughs to which it was being compared, including Heathrow, the M25 and London overspill. There would be fewer councillors to undertake scrutiny duties and finding substitutes may be a problem. Some councillors had lots of commitments outside the council. Re-jigging the wards may cause problems as they may not fit with established communities. There would be a need for flexibility, perhaps plus or minus 3 councillors.

Councillor Bicknell commented that it was the right thing to do to reduce the numbers.

Councillor McWilliams thanked officers for producing the report in a short timescale. He highlighted that the council was currently at the very bottom of the graph of electors per councillor, therefore was highly inefficient yet at the same time the council was asking officers to find savings and provide improved services. The two stage process was in place to ensure boundaries would fit when revised.

It was proposed by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

RESOLVED: That Council:

i)     Notes the Stage One review report on the future council size in Appendix A and the cross party Working Group recommendation that the future council size be 43 Councillors.

ii)    Agrees that the Stage One review report be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. 

(41 councillors voted for the motion: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Brimacombe, Burbage, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, Dudley, D Evans, Dr L. Evans, Gilmore, Grey, Hill, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Muir, S Rayner, Richards, Saunders, Sharp, Sharpe, Shelim, Story, Targowska, Werner, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. Six councillors voted against the motion: Councillors Beer, Da Costa, Hunt, Lion, Majeed and Smith.)