Copeland Borough Council’s Budget Consultation

I promised I’d write something about Copeland Borough Council’s consultation on the budget options.  I’ve had a lot of questions and given a lot of answers.  I’m writing this both to make my own position clear on the key issues emerging from the public debate, and in the hopes of fielding many of the questions I get on twitter, which I’m often unable to answer fully in 140 characters.

I don’t intend to go into detail on all the consultation or budget in this one post, that will come in time, rather I will focus on the six things which have been most talked about both to me in person and on-line.

Political blame game

I’ll get this out of the way first, because frankly we are where we are and no amount of blame is actually going to address the challenge we face.  However, I do blame the last Labour government for this mess.  It was they who borrowed far too much during an economic boom (and they call themselves Keynesians, he’d be spinning in his grave to see such profligacy) and now the coalition government is having to make very unpopular decisions to save us from becoming another case like Greece.  It is worth remembering that even if Labour had won the 2010 general election, under the plans put forward by Alistair Darling to cut the deficit, there were similarly large reductions in public spending planned.  One difference is that the Conservatives have ring-fenced NHS spending (unlike Labour’s plans to cut the NHS budget) so other departments do have to take a bigger hit.  Thanks to that decision, more patients are being treated, hospital infections are falling massively, and dentist numbers are up hugely.  I think that was the right thing to do, but it does make the task for other areas of government spending a little bit harder.

Regardless of who won the 2010 general election, the money local government gets from central government was going to fall and cuts like this made.

Councillors allowances

People are understandably looking to elected members and asking why should they not shoulder some of the burden.  Firstly, Copeland has the second lowest allowances for elected members in the county, and low by wider standards.  Secondly, it has been frozen in cash-terms for four years and will continue to be so.  Thirdly, while there is nothing on this subject in the consultation, that is because the consultation focuses on the non-statutory services (i.e. the things the council doesn’t have to do by law), and in full council last week the Leader Cllr Woodburn stated that there will be savings made in the cost of having Councillors in the budget in February.  Fourth, the Boundary Commission has been asked ages ago to come in and look at how many councillors we actually need, but they said then and maintain that they won't do that until 2015, to take effect at the 2019 local elections, sadly (I believe we can manage on about 30 councillors, personally  if Copeland Council must exist).

While I to some extent agree with those who argue that public service should be for its own sake, in reality this would restrict being a Councillor to the retired, sponsored (by trades unions) or generously employed (such as at Sellafield).  It would make it hard for me, and others not lucky enough to have a nuclear job or generous benefactor, to be a councillor.

I promised on twitter to say what I do.  After leaving University I worked in West Cumbria as a Consultant until the firm went bust and I was made redundant in 2010.  After three months on the dole, for the following eighteen months I worked freelance for various organisations as a researcher, lecturer and consultant.  In 2012 I took the opportunity to leave that work and return to University as a full-time PhD student.  This is both for my own career as a researcher and lecturer, which I need a PhD to further, and it also allows me the flexibility to attend meetings during the day, something I found very difficult when working.  Due to the choices I have made since being elected, I am not now financially able to give up my allowance until 2015 when the PhD is over.

However, I maintain that for some of my colleagues who have to take unpaid leave to attend meetings, it is unfair to expect them to be out of pocket as a result.  Additionally, while councillors can claim travel expenses for attending a scheduled meeting, there is a significant amount of travel dealing with casework which is not able to be claimed for.  I for one would not like to see excellent potential councillors put off by having no allowance, because the price of poor decision makers is higher than any allowance.

The Copeland Centre PFI

Many people have rightly noticed that the Copeland Centre, the nice building in Whitehaven the Council operates from, is rather expensive.  The building was built during the boom in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes under the last government where private firms build something, and we pay it off in instalments, like hire purchase for a car.

It has been suggested that we should move out, and we can fit the whole Council into the offices at Moresby.  Believe me, this has been looked into, but the cost of upping sticks would be huge, and just not viable at the moment.  Think of it like this, if you have a mortgage, you can’t just move out of your house without paying it off, and the cost would be big.

The boom of badly negotiated PFI deals under the last government was a rouse to build new things without it showing up on the national debt.  We are in Copeland, like with the hospital in Carlisle (the first, and one of the worst, PFI hospitals), literally paying for the mistakes of Gordon Brown’s chancellorship.

The Beacon

People have said to me how awful it would be to lose the Beacon.  I agree, but I say two things in response.  First, when did you last use it, and the answer has been an overwhelming ‘ages ago’ or in many cases ‘never’.  Secondly, the Council is in talks with potential partners which would see the Beacon stay open and indeed be improved.  Let us hope that goes well.

The Civic Hall

I worked at the Civic Hall for eight years.  I was a member of the North Country Leisure Copeland Board that oversees its running for 12 months recently.  I was on the policy development group which looked into sports and leisure as part of this consultation.  I know the civic well and am very personally attached to it.  I don’t want to see the Civic Hall close.  I’m also sure that I couldn’t in good conscience ask the people of Copeland to subsidise it to the tune of £200,000 per year, nearly £3 for every visitor.  Just like with the Beacon, I find too many people who don’t use it, which is a shame.  However, I’m confident there are organisations out there who can run the Civic for no subsidy.  I will be keeping a very close watch on this search and discussion and be pushing very hard to get the Civic run for no public subsidy.

A petition has been talked about, but I assure you the Council doesn't want to have to close the Civic Hall.  We know how much people want it to stay.  We don't need a petition to tell us that, we all live here as well.  Rather what we need are alternatives which mean it can run for no subsidy, and all suggestions are welcome. The Council is out there looking for others to come in and run it, but tell us your thoughts.

The future of local government in Cumbria

I wrote in a letter of Thursday 9th August 2012 in the Whitehaven News, the following is an extract from that letter:

“I believe it’s time to make me, the other 50 councillors in Copeland, and the hundreds of others in the seven Cumbrian councils obsolete. It’s time for two councils, one for the north and one for the south.”

The full letter can be seen here.

I believe that the time has come to unite the industrial north and west of the county under one local authority, and the tourism-oriented south and east in another.  Someone even suggested we call the first ‘Cumberland’ and the second ‘Westmorland’.  Not only would the savings be massive, but two powerful councils would have a better voice speaking for their respective areas to the wider world.

The one key issue brought to my attention would be the further job losses this would impose on the area.  However, these wouldn’t be so severe.  We’d still need as many bin-men, planning officers, receptionists and street-sweepers.  What we’d need fewer of is Chief Executives, Directors, Portfolio Holders, Leaders and Councillors.

When doing this, I think that a Whitehaven Town Council would be necessary to ensure people have proper local democratic voice and control over things that only affect their town, like Millom, Cleator Moor, Egremont and the parished rural areas have.

To achieve this we need the call to come from the people.  Government won’t impose a reorganisation on us.  I think the time has come for a local referendum on this move, and I’d be happy to help in any way I can.

This is my unedited and not-proof read initial thoughts on the major issues.  I hope this goes some way to making clear my position on those important issues which have emerged in the lively debate.  I will write more in due course, and answer any questions people have.  Bear in mind I do have work to do, so bear with me when I don’t immediately reply on twitter or write another big blog post right away.

One final thing I’d like to see is folks laying off the personal insults.  I can take pretty much anything you can throw at me an give as good back, but not everyone can and Councillors are still people after all.  No one wants to be in this position, regardless of who is to blame.  Keep it civil, keep it constructive, and don't forget to send your comments to the council.

BUDGET CONSULTATION CAN BE FOUND HERE

Speech to Council on Managing Radioactive Waste Safely

Below is the copy of my speech to Copeland Borough Council's special meeting tonight on the Decision to Participate in the next stage of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely process, amended to reflect the changes I made during the meeting to ensure it was accurate and up to date.

--

Thank you Mr Mayor, Councillors, Aldermen, members of the public from Copeland and beyond.

Let me say up front, as this isn't some drama where I save the big reveal until the end – I believe we, Copeland Borough Council, should take the necessary and right decision to participate in the Managing radioactive Waste Safely process.

That isn't to say, however, that there are not some very important issues to air and discuss, many of which have been and will be covered by fellow Councillors.

If certain voices are to be believed, this debate concerns the most important decision ever to be taken by this council.

However, I believe such over-hyping is damaging to seeing this debate and the decision in its proper context.
Yes this debate concerns the formal Decisions to Participate in the MRWS process, but this is only one of several opportunities available to pause and take stock of our involvement over the course of the next fifteen years or so.

As I see it, this debate and the decision to participate merely involve asking geologists and other experts to take a closer look at the geology in a desk-based study, while in parallel we continue the discussions which have already started regarding the social and other aspects through the formally constituted Community Siting Partnership.

However, as I have said, there are still some vitally important issues to air.

I would like to give my own position on two main points which have emerged in the public debate, before covering one of my own particular concerns for the next stage of the process.

Firstly, that the geology of west Cumbria is unsuitable.

I find this a peculiar justification for not proceeding to more detailed geological investigations.
The right time to take a decision based on geology is after stages four and five, when we have the proper information from the desk study and borehole data in front of us.

The second issue prevalent has been public opinion.

Yes there were a high percentage of responses to the Ipsos MORI polls stating they knew little about the MRWS process.

However, to use this as a justification for withdrawal fundamentally misunderstands public opinion and its basis.
Opinion polling elicits an immediate response.  Poll anyone on the vast majority of issues and it would reveal a similar pattern.

People are entitled to hold an opinion while knowing little about it.

At the moment the MRWS process is neither salient nor proximate for very many people by virtue of it covering a wide area with no specific site or sites identified or likely to be any time soon.

The issue simply isn't that important to many people until it is almost literally next to or under them.

I find it incredibly patronising that some people with no background in opinion polling or generally any experience of or training in the political or social sciences exhort us to follow their apparently more valid ‘informed’ opinion rather than the overwhelming opinion of the residents of Copeland.

My main concern however is the definition of an affected community.

We are at the moment at a stage where all of Copeland and Allerdale Borough Council areas are involved in MRWS, and may continue to be so after the 11th October.

In this situation the Council has simultaneously taken on the role of both decision making body and host community.

However, Copeland is not a community and nor will it be the sole holder of the title ‘host community’.
Indeed, as page 14 of the MRWS white paper says:

“Local government will be fully engaged in a partnership approach and will play a part in local decision-making during the site selection process”

However, the white paper is not terribly specific about what a host community will be nor how such decision making will look like in reality.

I believe that as a site or sites begin to emerge, this Council and partners on the community siting partnership must allow for the potential sites and affected community to be incorporated.

Unfortunately, an affected community is not a simple task to define.
 
As I have said, it is not just the Borough, but nor is it just any town, village, parish or small area which contains the repository site.  It is more complex.

Work conducted for the European Commission’s Framework 6 project Community Waste Management in Practice, of which I was a part, concluded that defining an affected community is a two-stage process.

The first stage, a Directly Affected Population is identified.

This focuses on the individuals who perceive themselves as suffering some type of dis-benefit as a consequence of the planning, construction or operation of a radioactive waste facility.

It may be, however, that this does not conform to an existing community.

It may exist within a wider community or may extend over a number of communities in a wider area – especially if transportation routes to a facility are taken in to account.

Therefore, the second aspect of the definition of an affected community must focus on the relationship between a directly affected population and the wider definitions of community - the geographical, administrative and social context.

The directly affected populations may possess some elements of a community but as John Donne famously wrote no man is an island.

Experience from elsewhere in the UK, such as the siting of a Low Level waste facility at Dounreay, suggests while a directly affected population will possess many distinctive characteristics, they emerge as a subset of the wider community or communities.

I raise this as an issue now, before the Community Siting Partnership is formed as a key challenge is to respect and accommodate a plurality of communities and the diversity of their interests and perspectives.

Given the argument that later in the process, as a site is identified, any such directly affected population may argue they did not volunteer to take part in the first place, rather they were volunteered by Copeland Borough and Cumbria County Councils, you see my concern for proper governance.

Additionally, it impacts upon the thorny issue about who has the right to withdraw and what special recognition any directly affected population should have.

I believe that these are important issues to raise now, as the executive - I hope - makes the right choice for my electorate in the Hillcrest ward and all of the Borough and makes the decision to participate and take Copeland into stage four of the MRWS process.

Thank you Mr Mayor, fellow Councillors, aldermen and members of the public for your time and attention.

Turning down the turbines

On Wednesday this week, the Planning Panel of Copeland Borough Council rejected an application to site six wind turbines, with a height of 115 metres and a swept area of over 5000 square metres, on a high ridge to the west of Frizington.

Officers had recommended acceptance, and it is very unusual for the panel to vote against officers advice.

What is the relevance of this little story?

The role of elected members in planning decisions is minimal at the best of times.  Between national policy, the planning inspectorate, delegated authority to offers and the constant threat of the cost of appeals, members aren’t left much leeway, but in exceptional circumstances all of this has to be put aside to do what is right.

Officers are rightly the professionals, and their assessment of any particular application must be given thorough consideration, but ultimately for large and contentious applications such as big wind turbines their assessment is as subjective as the next, and Councillors take the decisions based on a range of advice.

The report which came to the planning panel for these six turbines summarised planning policy, but in doing so made absolutely no mention of any elements of the recent National Planning Policy Framework which would warrant a refusal of the application.  The role of officers is to advise, but the willingness of elected members to take their advice on matters of planning policy at face value means that officers use planning policy to justify their assessment, not to provide a balanced policy position.

Members need to be less afraid of taking officers on when it comes to planning policy – I always take a copy of the NPPF and our own policies to meetings, having read them in relation to any contentious application.   Members set policy, yet seem to give up remembering much about it at that point, letting the officers tell them the policy position for any given application.  This needs to change if planning is to be anything approaching democratic.

One day I’ll write about planning in principle - how it can become more democratic, less intrusive, and serve a more libertarian end.

In the meantime, Councillors need to make greater use of planning policies, national and local, to protect natural beauty and general amenity in the face of the relentless march of the turbines.

Remember: officers advise, members decide

Regionalised pay – an opportunity for the North West

Last night, at the end of Copeland’s Full Council meeting, we debated the issue of regonalised pay.  Needless to say, the Labour Councillors don’t like it, and even some of my Conservative colleagues have reservations as well (for wildly different reasons).  What we all said is neither here nor there, but one point I made needs to be considered in more detail, because it never gets a hearing over the hysterical screams of the Labour party and their assorted hangers on in the unions and Guardian newspaper.

The debate on regionalsied pay up this way usually revolves around, like it did last night, the left complaining that it means pay cuts for public sector workers, and the loss of spending power in the local economy.  These are both wrong.  Firstly, workers in the low cost areas such as the North West wouldn’t see pay reductions, simply smaller rises than their counterparts in the higher cost areas such as the South East.  Secondly, this necessarily disproves the idea that spending power will drop; it will just be a little lower than it otherwise might have been.

The key issue in the debate last night which I raised and which not disputed, but conveniently ignored, by Labour Councillors, was that regionalised pay represents a significant opportunity for areas like Copeland and the many other places in the North which enjoy a lower cost of living than the South.  Regionalised pay, if it did lead to pay which more accurately reflects the local cost of living, would make it cheaper to locate public sector workers in the North.  Would I rather have all public sector workers paid the same, while unemployment is high in the north, or pay differences and people in work?  It’s a straightforward no-brainer. 

Labour Councillors profess to be concerned with jobs, but supporting national pay bargaining is keeping the cost of employment too high in the north and preventing new jobs being created, and keeping wages too low in the south east and trapping people in underpaid jobs.  National collective bargaining benefits only one group of people, the trades’ unionists.  That’s why Labour councillors support it, for short term political gain rather than long term prosperity.  Labour councillors support keeping power with their union baron paymasters in London at the expense of more jobs in the North West and in Copeland.  For shame.