COUNCILS in Staffordshire have been given six weeks to come up with initial proposals to change the county’s political map forever.
The Government announced plans in December that would see all two-tier council areas in England abolished and replaced with a single layer of unitary authorities.
In Staffordshire, local services are currently split between the county and district councils, but Ministers say the reorganisation will make local government more effective and efficient.
Local Government Minister Jim McMahon has now written to the leaders of all ten councils affected in Staffordshire to set out how they can submit an interim plan for reorganisation by 21st March, with a 28th November deadline for the full proposal.
Potential options for reorganisations are listed in the letter, including a single unitary authority covering the whole of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, or dividing the county between two or more bodies.
But Mr McMahon says the councils should make “every effort” to come up with a single proposal for the area rather than drawing up competing plans.
His letter says:
“We expect there to be different views on the best structures for an area – and indeed there may be merits to a variety of approaches.
“Nevertheless, it is not in council taxpayers’ interest to devote public funds and your valuable time and effort into the development of multiple proposals which unnecessarily fragment services, compete against one another, require lengthy implementation periods or which do not sufficiently address local interests and identities.
“This is a once in a generation opportunity to work together to put local government in your area on a more sustainable footing, creating simpler structures for your area that will deliver the services that local people and businesses need and deserve.
“As set out in the White Paper, my commitment is that clear leadership locally will be met with an active partner nationally.”
Guidance included in the letter reiterates the idea that the new councils should aim for a population of at least 500,000, although it acknowledges that there may be “certain scenarios” where this does not make sense.
It says that councils should cover “sensible economic areas” and be of the right size to “achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.
Mr McMahon added that areas should be able to meet the transition costs from existing budget, and that there are no plans to write off council debts as part of the reorganisation.
Councils will be expected to engage with residents, workforces, partner organisations and local MPs as they develop their proposals.
Staffordshire will not be among the first wave of councils to undergo the change – and unlike in some areas, May’s county council elections will go ahead as planned.
Cllr Alan White, the leader of the county council, said the public would be kept informed through the reorganisation process. He explained:
“The Minister’s letter gives extra clarity around the expectations of the Government which is helpful as we consider the options with our neighbouring councils.
“We are focused on maximising the benefit of any change for our residents and businesses and will update and involve people as we move through the process.”
Does anyone else think this major change to local government is being rushed and forced through with no input from local voters?
At least when an alternative voting system was proposed by the Lib Dems in their coalition with the Conservatives, a referendum was used to determine whether the electorate wanted the changes.
Why not have a question included, along with other votes, in the forthcoming local elections in May to ask the question:
“Do you want to see all two-tier council areas in England abolished and replaced with a single layer of unitary authorities?”
At least this would encourage our trusted representatives to outline the pros and cons of replacing the current system (district and county councils) with a single unitary authority covering most of Staffordshire.
A 6 week window for a change of this magnitude is ludicrously short, especially when no legislation has yet taken place in parliament to effect this foolish and anti-democratic change to our system of government.