Amazon Web Services



23717252190752019/20 update to 2018/19 Corporate PlanForewordI am pleased to present this update to the Commission’s five-year strategy which outlines our plans and activities for 2019/20. Our programme of electoral reviews for the coming year continues to support our core objectives. First, the plan will enable us to carry out electoral reviews that deliver fairness for voters in English local elections and we will continue to identify councils with high levels of electoral inequality and address them accordingly.As well as improving electoral equality, legislation also requires that we should review every local authority ‘from time to time’ and, for this reason, we began a programme of London reviews last year. This will continue with the aim of ensuring democratic arrangements keep pace with patterns of development, changes in community ties and local democratic governance. Our programme will also allow us to support English local government in adapting to changing circumstances. Accordingly, we will continue to respond to requests for reviews from local authorities where it is believed that these will help them deliver economic growth and better local government to people and their communities. Finally, we remain committed to supporting the introduction of those locally-led plans for mergers and reorganisation that have been endorsed by government. It is pleasing that, in recent months, we have been able to assist the ambitions of five new authorities (in Dorset, Somerset and Suffolk) in this regard.The Commission’s multiple objectives present us with diverse and complex challenges that require managing and balancing. They also place pressures on our capacity and resources, especially whilst maintaining the rigour of our review processes. However, we have a solid platform from which to respond to these challenges as illustrated by the 36 electoral reviews completed in the current year.Our expertise, tools and processes, alongside the support we receive from local authorities, mean we are well placed to deliver the aims set out in this update. The period beyond the scope of the plan, however, may be less clear. As set out in the report, we have delivered considerable savings and efficiencies since 2010 but additional cost pressures beyond 2019/20 could compromise our ability to fulfil the programme.Professor Colin Mellors Chair, Local Government Boundary Commission for EnglandIntroductionThis is an update to the eighth Corporate Plan and five-year strategy of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. It highlights the ways in which we have managed our business and output since we became independent in 2010 and sets out our plans for 2019/20.Our mission, vision and values are:Mission To sustain fair electoral arrangements and keep the map of English local government in good orderVisionWe are an independent body that consults, and decides, on the most appropriate electoral arrangements for local governmentWe promote openness, integrity and rigour in all of our dealingsWe use our resources responsibly and always strive to do things betterValues Openness, Rigour, IntegrityCapacity and resources 2019/20Since our establishment as a stand-alone body in 2010, we have significantly reduced both overall expenditure and budget and the cost of individual reviews, whilst increasing the number of reviews delivered. This represents a 25% decrease in overall budget and an average 58% reduction in the unit cost of reviews.Fig 1: Spending profile Civil Service Pension Employer ContributionFollowing the recent actuarial review of Civil Service Pensions the employer’s contribution rate is proposed to rise significantly (around 30%) due to the calculated gap between contributions and pensions in payments and the adjustment of the discount rate that the treasury applies. The impact on LGBCE will be ?55k (more than 2.5% of our total running costs) and we cannot contain this within our current resources. The increase will be funded by the Treasury for central government departments and we have been asked by them to build the increase into our budget plans for 2019/20. Other running costsOur resource requirement for 2019/20 has increased by ?55k (as outlined above) and has previously remained unchanged for 4 years. As previously reported, our ability to maintain the number (and complexity in the case of new or merged authorities) of reviews undertaken without inflationary increases in future years is less certain. Over the past four years, we have absorbed pay and prices increases within our existing budget. We used our resources to effect the following goals:continue to address variances in electoral equality accommodate requests from local authoritiespursue our remit to review all authorities at reasonable intervals assist with the introduction of new authoritiesWe will endeavour to identify, and achieve, further efficiencies wherever possible. Increasing capacity, and meeting rising prices in some areas, will be delivered through: Capital investment in our website is expected to generate savings in website maintenance work as we take on more website work in-house (approx. ?5-6k).SharePoint has been introduced and we will now look to generate efficiencies in the way we store and access our data (approx. ?2-3k).Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) Legal ProvisionIn December 2018, we were subject to a Judicial Review. Whilst the claimant’s case was rejected, and costs awarded against the claimant, the case underlined the potential risks involved with such cases and could have exposed the Commission to legal costs of around ?30k. In the light of our tight financial situation, we have discussed the situation with both the Treasury and the National Audit Office (NAO) and decided to approach the Speaker’s Committee for an AME budget provision of ?60k to be ring-fenced for this specific use. The provision will be retained and transferred into our Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) if required. We may need to make requests that the provision is topped up in future years if it has been used although, of course, we hope that this will not be necessary.0419100Fig 2: Funding profile 2018/19 to 2023/24 Review programmeThe programme of electoral reviews set out in this update will achieve several aims. First, we will identify authorities with high levels of electoral imbalances and conduct reviews to address them. These are known as intervention reviews.Second, the programme reflects our duty to review every local authority ‘from time to time’. We have started a programme of review of London boroughs – most of which have not been reviewed for around 20 years – and will complete them over the next two years. We will then turn to other local authorities that have not been reviewed for some time.Third, we retain capacity for councils to request a review where they think the process could help them improve local government and governance. In 2018/19, we completed 13 such reviews.Finally, we also remain willing to help councils merge and reorganise where that has been agreed locally and supported by government. In the current year, we completed three electoral reviews of pairings of district councils that had decided to merge (East Suffolk, West Suffolk and Somerset West & Taunton Councils). We also carried out reviews of the two new local authorities in Dorset (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and Dorset Councils) which emerged as a result of local government reorganisation in the county. In each case, despite the very tight timetable, by working closely with the authorities and with MHCLG, we have been able to complete the reviews with the same level of rigour associated with all of our reviews and each of the five new authorities will have new electoral arrangements in place when they are formally established in May 2019.The chart below illustrates the mix of reviews in the programme and their changing balance.Fig 3: Type of electoral reviewFig 4: Planned review completionsPerformanceFrom 2018/19, we have introduced more challenging effectiveness measures to help inform our work. Key indicators, and our performance against them, are depicted below:KPI 1A: Percentage of authorities with electoral equality0727710This indicator tracks the percentage of English local authorities which have good levels of electoral equality, namely authorities that do not meet the Commission’s criteria for carrying out an electoral review. KPI 1B: Percentage of electors living in authorities with good levels of electoral equality -6357181850This is the number of electors living in authorities that do not meet the Commission’s criteria on electoral equality as a percentage of all registered local government electors. KPI 2A: Percentage of electoral reviews completed in time for the election agreed at the start of the review process. 0906780The electoral review of Basingstoke and Deane was delayed by one year as the Commission decided to reconsider all the evidence presented to it. New electoral arrangements will be in place for the authority by 2020. This is the only review in 2018/19 that will not be completed in time for the original election.KPI 2B: Satisfaction 0669925Responses rated ‘positive overall’ as measured by c750 responses to customer satisfaction surveys. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download