Local Government - here we go again
About six months ago, the government was dropping strong hints that they were about to propose the creation of Unitary authorities replacing the County and District level of government with a single tier of government, and that the May 2007 council elections would be cancelled, with elections to new unitary authorities in 2008 instead. They then got cold feet, and the window for legislation to carry out such a change on that timescale passed with no announcement.
Now Ruth Kelly has come forward for consultation with further ideas to reorganise local government, which include the option that authorities which want to make a case for Single Tier councils can do so.
There are some major advantages for single tier councils if it is done properly, and when the last Conservative government gave councils a similar opportunity I was in favour of replacing both counties and districts with single tier authorities which would be significantly larger than most existing districts but significantly smaller than most existing counties. However, attempting to achieve a local consensus on how big the authorities should be and what the boundaries should be proved incredibly difficult. Ironically at that time my district council and most of those in that county were in favour of going unitary whereas the county was against and lobbied successfully for the status quo: this evening on Border TV we had the leader of Cumbria County council arguing for unitary status and a district leader arguing against. These battles almost always go accross party lines (as they did tonight.)
If there is consensus for a change in any part of the country, that change should be allowed to happen. But given that the previous government introduced Unitary authorites in those areas where it had support - which effectivly meant re-introducing county borough status for a number of medium-size cities like Bristol - I think the government will find that most of those areas where there is an appetite for Unitary councils have already adopted them. The same goes for directly elected mayors - where people want their council to have a directly elected chief executive, they have already gone for such a system under the previous round of legislation.
Ruth Kelly made a facile comparison of Cumbria and Sheffield, pointing out that for similar populations Cumbria has vastly more councillors and executive members. This ignores the obvious point that Cumbria covers a vastly larger geographical area: it takes hours to get from one end of this county to another.
Both I and many other councillors will have to spend a lot of time reading the documents which came out today before we can reach any decisions on whether changes to the structures of our councils will make them more democratic and effective. But bearing in mind how many times council services have already been reorganised in the past two decades, it is for anyone who wants yet another change to prove the case. I suspect that today's proposals from the government may prove to be a damp squib.
Now Ruth Kelly has come forward for consultation with further ideas to reorganise local government, which include the option that authorities which want to make a case for Single Tier councils can do so.
There are some major advantages for single tier councils if it is done properly, and when the last Conservative government gave councils a similar opportunity I was in favour of replacing both counties and districts with single tier authorities which would be significantly larger than most existing districts but significantly smaller than most existing counties. However, attempting to achieve a local consensus on how big the authorities should be and what the boundaries should be proved incredibly difficult. Ironically at that time my district council and most of those in that county were in favour of going unitary whereas the county was against and lobbied successfully for the status quo: this evening on Border TV we had the leader of Cumbria County council arguing for unitary status and a district leader arguing against. These battles almost always go accross party lines (as they did tonight.)
If there is consensus for a change in any part of the country, that change should be allowed to happen. But given that the previous government introduced Unitary authorites in those areas where it had support - which effectivly meant re-introducing county borough status for a number of medium-size cities like Bristol - I think the government will find that most of those areas where there is an appetite for Unitary councils have already adopted them. The same goes for directly elected mayors - where people want their council to have a directly elected chief executive, they have already gone for such a system under the previous round of legislation.
Ruth Kelly made a facile comparison of Cumbria and Sheffield, pointing out that for similar populations Cumbria has vastly more councillors and executive members. This ignores the obvious point that Cumbria covers a vastly larger geographical area: it takes hours to get from one end of this county to another.
Both I and many other councillors will have to spend a lot of time reading the documents which came out today before we can reach any decisions on whether changes to the structures of our councils will make them more democratic and effective. But bearing in mind how many times council services have already been reorganised in the past two decades, it is for anyone who wants yet another change to prove the case. I suspect that today's proposals from the government may prove to be a damp squib.
Comments