Directly Elected Regional Government

Consultation on Draft Guidance to the Boundary Committee

Response from the Green Party of England and Wales

Contact:

Cllr Dr Nic Best

National Spokesperson for Regional Affairs

57, Olympia Gardens

Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 1JQ

Tel 01670 517915

Email: nickel@globalnet.co.uk

Recommendations:

  1. The contribution of CPA results to the Boundary Committee’s deliberations should be modified to take into account the facts that District Councils will probably be in the middle of CPA inspections while the Committee is working.

  2. Areas with urban settlements no larger than about 50,000 people and large rural communities should not be forced into unitaries with large geographical areas. In general unitaries created from existing district councils and reflecting the manifestly different interests and histories of existing district areas should be preferred.

  3. The Boundary Committee should take into account the fact that changing from a two-tier to a unitary system will lead to a sharp reduction in the number of councillors representing communities, and so should opt in favour of promoting democratic responsiveness where there is an apparent conflict with efficiency or cost-effectiveness.

  4. The Boundary Committee should be required to develop "democratic differential" models for options proposed to be considered alongside the "cost differential" models.

  5. Clearer Guidance is needed for the Boundary Committee to assess the merits of complementary Community Strategies prepared by different level authorities in two-tier systems.

  6. Clearer Guidance is needed on the fate of established Local Strategic Partnerships if local authority boundaries are changed.

  7. The Boundary Committee should be required to consult parish councils in the early phases of their work and also to take into account the various joint working and clustering arrangements currently being undertaken by parish councils.

  8. The Boundary Committee should additionally be tasked with creating new parishes in unparished areas where unitary authorities are to be introduced.

  1. The Green Party supports the principle of directly elected regional government and views the present proposals as a single step in a progressive devolution of powers to the lowest appropriate levels. However, we cannot understand the reasoning behind the linkage between the creation of directly elected regional government and the re-organisation of local government to create wholly unitary authorities. Insistence on this linkage could seriously jeopardise the successful delivery of directly elected regional assemblies. We also consider the view that ‘three tiers of subnational government would be too many’ to be an insult to the political intelligence of the general public.

  2. This submission should be taken in conjunction with our earlier submissions on proposals for Quality Parish Councils and on the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice". We would also note that some regional Green Parties are submitting their own comments in response to the various phases of the regional government project, and that those responses should also be taken in conjunction with this submission.

  3. The draft Guidance to the Boundary Committee identifies quality service delivery and effective community leadership as the twin objectives of local government. However the measures for assessing community leadership are largely in terms of service delivery. It should also be noted that, in our view, true representative democracy is about accommodating the wishes of minorities as well as meeting the wishes of the majority.

  4. It is our view that the most important function of local government is to reflect the identities and interests of the local communities. It is not merely a matter of delivering cost-effective services but of being able to recognise local needs and wishes, and customising and adapting the type and style of services, as well as their delivery, to meet the needs of local communities. We are concerned that national performance indicators and targets coming through the Best Value and CPA process do not allow councils sufficient flexibility to reflect local needs. Although councils can adopt local performance indicators, they are not permitted to reject national performance indicators as irrelevant to local needs.

  5. We would also note that the Boundary Committee will be operating before and during the inaugural CPA inspection for District Councils. Unless careful thought is given to the contribution of CPA results to the decisionmaking process, this circumstance of timing will place District Councils at a disadvantage to County Councils which have already been inspected.

  6. The draft Guidance establishes population is a constraint on the size of unitary authorities. However local authorities with less population and greater powers exist in many places on the continent. We are very concerned, for example, about the possibility of unitary authorities covering large sections of East Kent, with
    individual cabinet members or committees making decisions for areas they
    know nothing about. We are not optimistic about increased elected member dependence on officers in unitaries especially under in cabinet systems as officer
    knowledge is also often geographically limited well, and may not take account of public opinion - where this is known. In consequence, we believe areas with urban settlements no larger than about 50,000 people and large rural communities should not be forced into unitaries with large geographical areas. In general we favour unitaries made from existing district councils, reflecting the manifestly different interests and histories of existing district areas.

  7. The draft Guidance implicitly sets up a ‘trade off’ between scale and resources for efficient service delivery on the one hand and effective democracy and responsiveness to local communities on the other. We would argue that the Boundary Committee should take into account the fact that changing from a two-tier to a unitary system will lead to a sharp reduction in the number of councillors representing communities, and so should err in favour of promoting democratic responsiveness. The Guidance does after all speak of "devolving and decentralising" and "reinvigorating democracy" but the first impression the public will get are fewer, more distant, local councillors. The small numbers of Assembly members elected will be not be an effective substitute for lost councillors either in terms of function, constituency or numbers.

  8. We would also strongly advocate that the Boundary Committee be required to develop "democratic differential" models for options proposed to be considered alongside the "cost differential" models.

  9. Much of the discussion of community leadership centres on the effectiveness of partnership working and the development of Community Strategies. We note that already, the shadow of local government re-organisation is blighting partnership working between local authorities in some regions. Decisions about partnership working are being made not with community interests at heart but with glance of the shoulder are possible implications for the Boundary Committee’s deliberations.

  10. In most areas under two-tier local authorities, the development of Community Strategies has normally been complementary, with the County Council taking a strategic view and the Districts involving more direct community participation. We believe that clearer Guidance is needed for the Boundary Committee to balance these two perspectives.

  11. We note that nearly all District Councils have established Local Strategic Partnerships to assist in the development of Community Strategies. We feel that clearer Guidance is needed on the fate of these LSPs if local authority boundaries are changed. The Guidance quite properly emphasises the importance of coterminous boundaries for agencies working in partnership. This is significant for larger agencies partners eg Health Authorities, Police Authorities, Environment Agency, DEFRA, Forestry Commission and various faith communities. However it is also of critical importance if smaller community groups are to remain involved, groups which have only recent struggled or re-structured to meet the patterns of LSPs. Reference to "partnership fatigue" in the Guidance should be balanced by a reference to the need to involve many community partners to "spread the load" and enhance participatory democracy.

  12. We note that often participation by "representative" groups on LSPs is more about advocacy on behalf of a community of interest or facilitating a range of views from a multifaceted sector rather than representing the views of a single-minded sector. We will be looking for the "new politics" of Regional Assemblies to be able to cope with this sort of thing through their civic engagement arrangements, but it is also important that unitary local authorities and subregional partnerships are able to adapt in a similar fashion. We believe that the new political structures brought in on the modernising agenda run counter to this requirement.

  13. We note too that the concept of LSPs originated from the Urban White Paper, and whilst many rural authorities have adopted them, it is not clear that the model is suited to rural communities. For example, Neighbourhood Renewal Funding is predicated on ward-based deprivation indices which works well for compact urban wards. However, rural wards are generally larger and pockets of real rural deprivation are too fine-grained to show up on ward-based data. Rural unitary authorities are likely to have larger wards than existing District Councils, so this problem is likely to be exacerbated.

  14. Funding streams developed from the Rural White Paper, administered through the Countryside Agency, are largely being delivered through parish councils. We welcome the enhanced role being offered parish councils under the new arrangements. However we remain concerned that the Quality Parish scheme (see GPEW Submission on Quality Parish Council consultation) is heavy on consultation and light on powers and enhanced resources. The Rural White Paper clearly identifies parish councils as the voice of local rural communities, but we do not believe that this has been adequately followed through. We would recommend that the Boundary Committee be required to consult parish councils in the early phases of their work and take into account the various joint working and clustering currently being undertaken by parish councils.

  15. The probable increased importance of parish councils under new rural unitary authorities in particular is of such significance that we recommend that the Boundary Committee be additionally tasked with creating new parishes in unparished areas where unitary authorities are to be introduced.

  16. We welcome the Guidance’s recognition the importance of varying kinds of community. We would also highlight the importance and relevance of eco-boundaries such as those used by the Environment Agency. A test of sustainable development is the extent to which economic communities grow to reflect eco-boundaries.

  17. We also note the recognition of the popular and cultural attachment to the traditional counties. We would note that many traditional county boundaries
    were changed in 1965 and 1974, and that perhaps the Boundary Committee
    should into consideration both pre- and post-change boundaries. In our view, this is partly why there is such antipathy to the proposals for areas around London,
    and there is therefore particular need of reviewing these boundaries.