Title

John Denham's recent announcement that new unitaries should be created in Norwich and Exeter has provoked a storm of protest from counties. In the first of our articles on the unitary proposals, John Hart, leader of Conservative-controlled Devon, and Daniel Cox, leader of also Tory-controlled Norfolk, argue that the decision was politically-motivated. Earlier this month, the Government controversially announced its desire to create two new unitary city councils. But the plans to break up two high-performing shire counties and create small new city unitary authorities in Exeter and Norwich, are bitterly contested in both areas. "The Government decided to ignore this advice and forge ahead with discredited plans for the two new small and deeply-flawed city unitaries. " The decision to force them through in the midst of a major public spending crisis, and just weeks before a general election may have come as something of a surprise to many. But not to those at the heart of this long-running and divisive process, which began in 2006, when the Government first called for expressions of interest from councils which wished to be part of a new wave of unitary councils. With this decision has come the stark realisation that the process is no longer about reasoned argument, value for money or what is in the best interests of local people. In late 2007, while accepting unitary bids from Wiltshire, Cornwall and others, the-then CLG secretary, Hazel Blears, ruled out unitary bids from Exeter, Norwich, and Ipswich as ‘unaffordable' and not meeting the Government's strict financial criteria. In Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk, the independent Boundary Committee was asked to look again to see if there were alternative models of unitary government which could work in these shire counties. After two long and controversial years of detailed investigation, punctuated by legal action, the Boundary Committee finally made its recommendations just before Christmas. The case for a separate Exeter and Norwich was once more roundly rejected on financial grounds. In Norwich's case, the proposal also failed to meet value-for-money criteria. Clearly, this was the ‘wrong' answer. The Government decided to ignore this advice and forge ahead with discredited plans for the two new small and deeply-flawed city unitaries. Announcing the decision in Parliament, local government minister, Rosie Winterton, admitted the bids did not actually meet the Government's own financial criteria – criteria which it had previously laid before the House and promised to follow vigorously. It is worth reminding ourselves what these ‘strict' financial rules were. Simply put, any unitary proposal had to deliver real value-for-money savings, and meet the cost of any transition from its own resources, in a five-year period. And according to the Government's own financial advisers and the independent Boundary Committee, neither was true in the case of Exeter and Norwich. Mrs Winterton spoke of how the two new city unitaries might instead benefit economic recovery. How exactly this would be achieved was unclear – especially since both cities are so small they require development outside their current boundaries in order to expand. In short, to get the result the Government wanted, it simply moved the goalposts. Arguably, this relaxation of the financial criteria and invention of a new economic imperative now opens the door to legal challenge from others, such as Oxford and Preston, whose unitary aspirations were originally denied in 2007. Senior civil servants in Whitehall are so concerned at this deviation from process that they took the unprecedented step of seeking a written indemnity from the secretary of state against any possible future legal action. In a letter to communities secretary John Denham, Peter Housden, the permanent secretary responsible for effective use of resources in the department of communities and local government, wrote: ‘My main concern about your proposed course has to be value for money to the public purse. It would impact adversely on the financial position of the public sector as compared with the alternative courses of action open to you.' He went on to advise Mr Denham: ‘I am concerned that the approach you are currently proposing makes it difficult for me to meet the standards expected of me as accounting officer.' He also suggested that: ‘The risk of decisions for a unitary Exeter and Norwich being successfully legally challenged in judicial review is very high.' Why lay such contentious draft orders, which are obviously highly political and divisive, so close to a general election? In the absence of good reason, one can only assume the Government believes it has something else to gain from granting ‘home rule' to these cities now. This has led to charges of gerrymandering, with the Government simply seeking to shore up dwindling party support in Exeter and Norwich. It now stands accused of cynically putting party interests before those of the taxpayer, and pitting cities against their surrounding rural communities. For the proud and historic counties of Devon and Norfolk, the only option is to fight these proposals. Together, we are determined that Norfolk and Devon residents should not have to bear the brunt of this decision. We are seeking to have the Draft Orders stopped in Parliament, and the decision is also now subject to joint legal proceedings. Obviously, this is an unwelcome and expensive distraction. But we believe any costs will be a fraction of the price local people will have to pay for years to come, should the plans actually go ahead. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of unitary councils, these particular decisions are fundamentally flawed and are not financially viable. As the elected representatives of the council taxpayers of Devon and Norfolk, we are duty bound to fight for the interests of local people, and that means fighting the creation of Exeter and Norwich all the way.

Title

WHITEHALL

Why we believe the unitary decision 'is seriously flawed'

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING