Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk - the three Unitary solution has it...

The Conservatives at the County Council having thrown a large chunk of public money at trying to persuade us that what Suffolk really needed was a Unitary County, the Secretary of State, Steve Reed, has concluded that the three Unitary solution proposed by the Districts and Ipswich Borough Council was his preferred choice.

I have to admit that I'd rather have seen a rebirth of East and West Suffolk, as I was of the view that two councils, each serving around 400,000 residents, was probably more faithful to the criteria laid down by the Government and would offer two vaguely sensible and coherent geographical areas.

But Ipswich Labour wanted something that they might have an outside chance of winning and so, here we are. The proposals read as follows:

• Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).

• Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).

• Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, 8 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).

Admittedly, the Written Statement made to the two Houses of Parliament gets the constituent parts of Western and Central and Eastern mixed up - oh how we laughed when we read the Statement - but it does look like the decision is pretty much what the District/Ipswich bid proposed.

I would say that Western Suffolk, centred on Bury St Edmunds, and Ipswich and South Suffolk, centred on Ipswich, are broadly sensible, but Central and Eastern Suffolk, whose only significant town is Lowestoft at its north-eastern corner, stretches all the way across to Rattlesden, whose residents may well never have been to Lowestoft. And Creeting St Peter will be joining them, despite the fact that we're about ten miles from Ipswich, eighteen miles from Bury St Edmunds and forty-five from Lowestoft.

I'd argue that, if you really want to make local government feel remote from the citizens it serves, an arrangement like that will achieve exactly that, and a Unitary authority that includes the deprivation that Lowestoft suffers from, with the Notting Hill on Sea that is Aldeburgh, the "bow and arrow" county that is Eye and its surrounds and Stowmarket, with its sea of new housing estates, is going to suffer from a split personality pretty quickly.

And given that the new Unitary is highly likely to be "no overall control" from the outset, it could be a trying few years for those trying to make it all work.

The only consolation is how badly the Conservatives have taken the whole thing. Our prospective new County Councillor, Matthew Hicks, is apparently astounded, which given that the evidence is that Suffolk residents were opposed to a single Unitary by a margin of 2:1, merely reminds me how difficult Suffolk Conservatives find the whole "democracy thing".

But unless something is done to secure local government finances going forward, this may be only delaying the inevitable. Suffolk County Council was creaking under the costs of SEND and social care, and neither of those is going to improve any time soon, so this may be just a first step towards a Unitary County or even a Region. Only time will tell...

Unitary Suffolk incoming?…

I was, I admit, somewhat surprised when Creeting St Peter’s county councillor, Keith Welham, noted last Monday at our Parish Council meeting (which reminds me…) that the prospect of a unitary authority or authorities for Suffolk had reared its head again.

It shouldn’t come as a complete surprise, I guess, because the argument that multiple tiers of government are less financially efficient than one has been around for a long time. But it’s a brave government that commits itself to a major reorganisation of local government, especially this early in its mandate.

And, having read the article in The Times yesterday (and no, I’m not linking to it), it strongly suggests that there will be a single Suffolk unitary authority, based on the suggestion that Jim McMahon, the Minister for Local Government, has concluded that an authority serving no less than 500,000 or so is the minimum likely to succeed.

This is not my first rodeo, nor is it Suffolk’s though. Plans to replace six District, one Borough and one County Council at the tail-end of the Brown administration fell in part due to the fact that there was no agreement on what represented a viable size for an authority, that the Minister, Hazel Blears, seemed to have no consistent policy on that point and that both opposition parties were clear that they’d reject any such proposal. It did not end well, with much effort and some resource wasted in the process.

What I didn’t really appreciate then, but do now, is the impact on the relationship between a Parish Council such as mine, and the principal authorities that we have to interact with. We become increasingly remote from the levers of power, and a lot of effort will be required to establish an effective working arrangement with a larger, further away, County Unitary. And, if they withdraw from discretionary service provision, whilst a town or large village might be willing to step in, how does my community, with an annual budget of less than £6,500, do the same?

But, if the Government are serious about (effectively) imposing such a solution on Suffolk, they will inevitably find a way of doing so. My fear is that, instead of one financially struggling County and five junior Districts/Borough doing alright, we’ll end up with a Unitary authority that, as has been the case in places like Somerset, increasingly withdraws from all but mandatory services for lack of funds. And that is not an outcome I look forward to with anything but dread…

Suffolk Local Government reform - it’s like deja vu all over again…

The news that an incoming government has decided to cancel the proposed devolution deal for Suffolk is not entirely a surprise. After all, we’ve been here before…

In 2009, a rather rushed attempt at creating Unitary Authorities ran hopelessly into the sand, partly because Hazel Blears, the then Minister, couldn’t stick to a consistent line on what the requirements for a coherent Unitary authority might be, and partly because the then mostly Conservative-led Districts were loathe to give up their positions and powers. Having tossed the whole mess back to local politicians, the incoming Coalition government shot the whole thing down in one of its earlier decisions.

And, in a rather fine example of history repeating itself, the Conservative-proposed Devolution Plan for Suffolk has been snuffed out within weeks of the new Labour government being formed.

Now don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mourn either decision. The Unitary proposals were designed to protect Labour’s position in Ipswich, knowing that any Unitary that took in the surrounding (Conservative voting) rural hinterland made it less likely that Labour would retain control, and cynically overlooked the guidance on the optimal size of a Unitary.

But, at the time (and even then local government finances were beginning to be squeezed), a two-Unitary arrangement for Suffolk offered some genuine opportunities to reduce spending in such a way as to protect frontline services. Alas, it was not to be.

The devolution deal which emerged last year was, unsurprisingly given the people responsible for it, astonishingly low on detail and appeared to be the Suffolk equivalent of the plans for a hyperspace bypass as referred to in Douglas Adams’s “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”. Whenever I asked my District and County Councillors what they knew of it, there was a fair bit of head shaking - which might have reflected the fact that Creeting St Peter had carelessly elected opposition councillors - but no real information.

Eventually, the County Council deigned to offer a briefing to Town and Parish councillors, presented by the Deputy Chief Executive, Stephen Meah-Sims. Had he not evidently decided to basically read the Council website to us (and yes, I checked in real time that he was doing so), it might even have been useful. As it was, there was a great deal of “the Council could do this or that” but no detail of any value. And besides, whilst the headline numbers looked significant, when you realised that they were intended to cover a thirty year period, the value of the proposals made it look as though the local Conservatives were only to happy to sell themselves cheaply.

In terms of governance, the proposed directly-elected leader appeared designed to create gridlock, especially in the light of the then political picture. The idea of directly electing someone to lead the County Council but to have a County Council that might have a majority of opposition councillors appeared absurd and there never was an answer to the question when put.

And now it’s dead, and whilst it won’t be mourned by many - the local Conservatives are obviously outraged - there is still a challenge ahead for all concerned. The County Council is being rapidly drained of its reserves - the free reserves are currently expected to run out by the end of 2026-27 - and with adult and children’s social care costs spiralling (the Council Leader’s words, not mine) and SEND provision becoming an increasing worry, any consolidation which allows the redirecting of funds to frontline services will be welcome.

Meanwhile, the District Councils have rather healthier finances. Mid Suffolk, my old stomping ground, is financially comfortable, ironically due to a successful investment in commercial property by the previous Conservative administration. That might suggest that any enthusiasm to use the healthier District finances to bail out the services currently run by the County might not be there to be exploited.

However this story ends though, with County Council elections due next year, and the outcome, at least in Suffolk, hard to predict, whoever forms the next administration is going to have some difficult questions to answer...

Ros in the Lords: Levelling Up Bill (Second Reading)

As has been noted by many, this Bill has been so gutted that the Conservatives are being told not to refer to "levelling up" any more. What that's going to do for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is anyone's guess. However, it does offer an opportunity to make some gains for the Town and Parish Council sector, ably represented in the Lords by the Honorary President of the National Association of Local Councils, one (checks notes) Baroness Scott of Needham Market...

My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on what I regard as the crucial role played by parish and town councils throughout England—one which, I suggest, is essential if the aspirations of the White Paper and this Bill are to be met. I declare my interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils, which supports England’s 10,000 local councils, covering everything from my own tiny parish and its precept of a few thousand pounds to some of our largest towns with budgets of many millions.

Local councils represent an existing, sustainable and accountable model of community leadership and service delivery. Crucially, they help to create that spirit of place which is so essential in building well-being and a strong civic society. They provide parks and open spaces, facilitate street markets, support high streets and organise community events. Part of their strength is that they are close to the people, but they are also part of the important fabric of the local area, alongside community groups, faith groups and voluntary organisations. Working alongside those partners, they are increasingly innovating in areas such as local climate change action, tackling loneliness and dealing with the cost-of-living crisis.

It is in the area of housing—neighbourhood plans led by local councils, with the full involvement of residents—that local councils have proved themselves more than capable of adding to the stock, rather than diminishing it. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stunell for introducing this. There were people who said, “Well, they’ll all just say no to everything”, but they do not. When local people have buy-in, we end up with more housing rather than less. In the last decade, 3,000 neighbourhood plans have been made; 1,300 referenda came about as part of that, and 88% of people voted yes. However, neighbourhood plans are not available in unparished areas, and it is fair to say that the attitude of the principal authorities is not always supportive. This Bill could contain measures to help deal with some of that, but it also contains some measures—we will return to this in Committee—which could adversely impact on the way neighbourhood plans are currently running.

True devolution is not just about passing a bit of power down one level. The framework set out in the Bill says nothing about onward devolution; therefore, there is very little in it about devolution to local and community councils. The White Paper contained a commitment to carry out a review of neighbourhood governance. It is a shame that we have not yet had that, because the measures needed could have been part of this Bill. Can the Minister say when this review might take place? I ask her, please, not to say, “in due course”, because I have been told that about four times in Written Questions. The UK Social Fabric Index shows that areas with full coverage of local councils score higher in measures of community strength than those without.

There are significant and sometimes ridiculous limitations on the financial powers of local councils, which are excluded from a whole raft of government funding streams. The result is either that a local area does not bid at all, or that it has to set up a whole new organisation and paraphernalia in order to bid and then run it. Reform is needed on this and in other areas, including extending the power of general competence, rights over community assets, clarity on funding for church halls, and parity with the rest of local government in order to be able to pay a carer’s allowance.

The sector made good use of remote meetings, which were forced on all of us during the pandemic. There is lots of evidence to show how engagement—both people joining the council and people joining in with council meetings—increased during that time, so we would like to see that brought back.

The Bill provides a really good opportunity for local councils to build on what is already an impressive record and to play their part in rebuilding and regenerating the social, as well as the economic, fabric of their areas. They do so with very little support and training. They do the best they can with what they have, but it would be good to see local councils have parity with principal councils when it comes to government funding. I know that the Minister has a good track record of working with the town and parish council sector, so I hope she will use the passage of the Bill to make some improvements and enable it to motor.

Creeting St Peter: it's time to bring the professionals in...

Last November, our long-serving Clerk resigned somewhat unexpectedly. Naturally, as Chair, I sought to find a replacement but, in the absence of anyone else, I ended up acting as Clerk, Responsible Finance Officer and Chair simultaneously. It wasn't sustainable in the long-term, and I fully understood that but, if there wasn't anyone else...

Luckily, our affairs are quite simple, I'm enthusiastic about transparency and, of course, I'm a professional bureaucrat. That still doesn't mean that the option of such power in the hands of one person is a good idea.

But, as winter turned to spring and then summer, there was no sign of an applicant to fill our vacancy. And then, in the course of a conversation that I was only part of because I'm married to the person they really wanted to talk to (and I was invited), another option was uncovered - to appoint someone to act as Clerk, and someone else to be Responsible Finance Officer.

To cut a long story short, they've started work, effective from 1 September and I've been answering questions, supplied information and documents and updating our website so that they can hit the ground running. It is, I confess, a weight off of my mind, especially as, despite my sworn intention to transfer power to someone else, it didn't work - I'm back as Acting Chair after less than three months with an understanding that I will be re-elected as Chair formally on 19 September. It would be fair to say that my remaining colleagues weren't terribly keen on taking the reins of "power".

It is also reassuring that my new professional team are highly experienced, extremely knowledgeable and competent. I do fret about breaking rules, especially given that we are, for all my light-hearted commentary, a tier of local government with a slew of legal responsibilities. And the conflict of interest that arises from holding a multitude of roles made me extremely uncomfortable - it's not necessarily a fear of wrongdoing as much as the risk of perception of possible wrongdoing from residents.

In truth, there isn't enough money in the kitty for me to disappear with, but that isn't really the point - those responsible for public funds must demonstrate the right attitude towards accountability and transparency as far as is possible, and certainly as far as the law requires.

But I'm also an officer of the County Association of Local Councils, and therefore have a responsibility to set a good example, even if that's more an aspiration than something actually expressed by any of my fellow Parish Council Chairs.

In the meantime, I've developed a far better understanding of what goes on "under the bonnet" of local government, especially the hyper-local operation that is a micro-Parish. As a Chair, the temptation is to leave all of that "organisational stuff" to your Clerk. After all, they're trained, and you aren't. But, and I think this is important, the Chair, and preferably other councillors, should have a sense of what is happening in their name, as they are ultimately responsible to the electorate.

So, despite the stress of the past nine months, I think that I have gained something useful from the experience, something I can pass on to other Parish Council Chairs undergoing similar difficulties.

Let's just hope that I don't have to do it again any time soon...

Creeting St Peter - a village can dream?...

I'm still trying to work out how we can hold our Annual Parish Meeting without breaking the law given the problems I outlined a month ago.

And so, I turned to my copy of the Nineteenth Edition of "The Parish Councillor's Guide" by Paul Clayden (what do you mean, you don't have one?) and promptly allowed myself to be distracted. You know how it is, you look up one thing, and then see something quirky and interesting and before you know it...

Well, what I found was a reference to Town Councils. Now, if you want to become a City, you need to get the reigning monarch to grant you city status. You don't need a cathedral, although it does offer a certain historical cachet. And, in truth, no matter how ambitious I might be, bidding for Creeting St Peter to be a city, when the likes of Croydon, Doncaster and Dudley have done so unsuccessfully, might be a step too far.

But to become a town is actually quite easy. According to Section 245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972, all that we have to do is pass a resolution;

The council of a parish which is not grouped with any other parish may resolve that the parish shall have the status of a town and thereupon -

(a) the council of the parish shall bear the name of the council of the town;

(b) the chairman and vice-chairman of the council shall be respectively entitled to the style of town mayor and deputy town mayor;

(c) the parish meeting shall have the style of town meeting.

Well, that all seems rather easy and surprisingly painless and, best of all, nobody can stop us.

That leaves the question of mayoral regalia...

Creeting St Peter - a hint of illegality?

I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, not a huge fan of Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Setting aside the suggestions that his integrity might not be wholly unsullied, my problem is that he doesn't necessarily understand how local government works.

As a small (but perfectly formed) Parish Council, we have been permitted to hold our meetings online, and it has gone fairly well so far. I am, admittedly, somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that online meetings effectively exclude those who either don't have, or don't want, the required technology. But, if you can't meet anyone from outside of your household, there is little option other than to abandon having the Parish Council meet at all. And, given that we've had three controversial planning applications in the past year, that really wouldn't be appropriate.

Our year revolves around two things, the setting of an annual precept, which we do in January, and the Annual Parish and Annual Parish Council Meetings, which generally take place in May.

The Annual Parish Meeting must take place between 1 March and 1 June and has a general power to discuss parish affairs and pass resolutions, although any such resolution shall not bind the Parish Council. In Creeting St Peter, it tends to be an opportunity for our representatives, including myself as Chair, to submit reports to the residents.

The Annual Parish Council Meeting must take place in May, unless it's an election year, in which case it must take place four days after the election or within fourteen days thereafter. Not unreasonably, for convenience, we tend to combine the two, running them consecutively. We elect our Chair then, although here, there doesn't tend to be a contest.

They're not generally very exciting affairs, which is kind of consistent with the fact that we don't do that much, but the whole village is invited and can attend if they see fit.

We're due to meet on 17 May, which complies with the legislative framework under normal circumstances. That is, if you ignore the small detail of a global pandemic, something that Robert Jenrick appears inclined to do. You see, I was going to get round to him eventually.

So, here's my problem. I must, by law, convene a meeting. The legislation allowing me to do it remotely expires on 7 May, so I could move the meeting forward by two weeks to allow it to take place virtually. Unfortunately, that means that our Parish Clerk would need to be available, and she isn't.

There is only one possible venue for any physical meeting, the Church Room which, conveniently, is in the village, rather than at the church, half a mile away. Unfortunately, the Church Room isn't that large, has only one narrow entrance, and would barely hold the Parish Council if the two metre rule is to be applied, which it must be until at least 21 June. I have to say that a risk assessment offers all sorts of unhelpful challenges.

It is suggested that we offer remote access to the public, but given that any technology would have to run off of the available mobile signal, and we'd need to have access to sufficient technology to make it work (and we don't), it does make rather a farce of the thing.

Thus I am left with the insidious choice of breaking the law either by delaying the meeting until after 21 June, by effectively excluding the public or by abandoning the two metre rule.

And all because the Government can't find the time to pass a simple enabling piece of legislation which would be utterly uncontroversial. It looks like we'll be seeing you in court, Mr Jenrick...

NALC - virtually the 2020 Annual General Meeting...

So, my first meeting at national level, and very interesting it was too. Yes, it does seem that there are still some people who haven't really got the hang of Zoom (check the picture of you to make sure that you're both facing the camera and that the camera is facing you...), and the age profile is a bit like that of the House of Lords (which makes me comparatively young), but it's clear that the third tier of local government has adapted pretty well to the technology of virtual meetings.

And, as a gentle introduction to the upper echelons of the National Association of Local Councils, the Annual General Meeting is a pretty good place to start.

The Chair, Sue Baxter from Worcestershire, manages meetings briskly, which suits me fine, and the reports were succinct and to the point. NALC is in pretty good financial shape, which is reassuring, and there's evidently a wide range of knowledge and experience, which helps.

We cast a few votes, to adopt the annual report, to agree the increase in membership fees and to adopt the budget, and there weren't any evident signs of dissent, with all the votes being won overwhelmingly.

The centrepiece of the event, however, was a brief speech from a junior Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Luke Hall. His portfolio is regional growth and local government, and he delivered a speech which rather skirted our "asks" as a sector - we'd like direct access to funding rather than having to go cap in hand to principal authorities - and appeared to face issues of Districts, Counties and Unitaries at times.

He did refer to the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill which, whilst it has little relevance to Creeting St Peter, is of real importance to Towns and larger Parishes, who have taken on responsibility for public conveniences and have to shoulder the additional burden of business rates for public lavatories. 100% relief will be doubly guaranteed when it completes its various stages in the Lords.

The rest of the speech was somewhat weighted down with platitudes, but those gathered were particularly exercised by talk of further reorganisation of local government, with the proposals for North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Somerset raising issues about the relationship between Towns and Parishes and new Unitary authorities. It was clear that there are limits to the creativity of local people, in that it will ultimately be the decision of Ministers as to what proposals will or will not be accepted.

From a personal perspective, there are questions about devolution of power and adoption of services. If towns and larger villages take on service provision, what happens to small parishes like mine? Will we be forced to combine with other villages or nearby towns in order to achieve economies of scale, or will we simply be left to our own devices?

He didn't stay too long - about twenty minutes or so - and it would have been nice to explore more than the three issues that could be fitted in before he left, but one can only assume that his schedule didn't permit it.

Other than that, one thing that slightly puzzled me was that, in most of the organisations I've been involved with, the Annual General Meeting sees the election of Officers and the like, and it doesn't seem that NALC's AGM does that, although it does elect the President and Vice-Presidents. So far, I haven't been able to locate the Constitution, but it's only a matter of time...

We finished nearly half an hour ahead of schedule, which allowed me to get an early lunch, and I do wonder if virtual meetings tend to discourage the sort of meandering interventions which slow business. I guess that we'll find out when this wretched pandemic is over...

That’s a nice County Council you’ve got there... pity if something happened to it...

It’s been a decade since the demise of the last attempt to restructure local government in Suffolk, when some of the dying breath of the Labour Government was wasted on a futile attempt to persuade the local political leadership to agree on a new structure. It was, in truth, doomed to failure, with the Labour leadership in Ipswich never likely to quietly accept any settlement that minimised their prospects of power, plus a whole bunch of Conservative District Councillors unwilling to abolish themselves. One of the first decisions of the Coalition was to kick the idea as far into the long grass as possible.

Ironically, as Ros noted at the time, with District Councils increasingly coming under financial pressure, the resulting mergers and pooling of back office functions acted as a gradual but inevitable driver towards larger councils - St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath combined to form West Suffolk, whilst Suffolk Coastal and Waveney came together to form East Suffolk. And yes, you still had three tiers, but the outline of possible new unitary authorities was, and is, emerging.

But financial pressures continue to mount, and the pandemic has driven all local authorities closer to crisis. The lurking attraction of creating unitaries becomes ever more alluring - a former Finance portfolio holder at County level, Richard Smith, estimated the financial benefit at £80 million - and harder to resist.

I do get the arguments against it - the loss of local representation, the difficulty in campaigning for insurgent candidates, the challenge to councillors in getting around their larger patches and to grasp the issues across multiple parishes, to name but some. But, ultimately, you have to ask the question, “do you want any locally supplied services beyond the statutory ones?”. And, regardless of what some might wish, the public do want buses, libraries and much else besides.

The challenge for towns and parishes is how to stay relevant when more remote from the principal authority. What opportunities will there be to take on service provision and can they be accessed in an á la carte fashion, depending on the size and ambition of the Town/Parish? Lowestoft, or Stowmarket, will be much more activist than, say, Creeting St Peter or Darmsden.

My sense is that, given the Government’s suggestion that authorities covering a population of 300-400 thousand people work best, Suffolk’s future is, ironically, its past - the recreation of East Suffolk and West Suffolk, based in Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds respectively. Dividing the county into Greater Ipswich and “Rural Suffolk” risks creating one authority lacking in cohesion and another made up of an inner urban area in conflict with a more rural doughnut surrounding it.

So, we’ll see how this goes. I suspect that the political leadership in the county haven’t really progressed in their thinking on the subject, but that they’ll end up being driven, either by a centralising Government that firmly believes in centralising things, or by financial necessity, into restructuring. It might not be pretty for any of us...

Local Government reorganisation - we couldn’t have Gipping Rural District back, could we?

 

Call me a hopeless romantic if you will, but I have to admit that I’ve grown fond of local government in a way that, had you asked me two decades ago, I would have snorted with derision. Perhaps that’s the difference that being a councillor at the very lowest tier of local government makes, even though my ambitions at any higher level are, at best, dormant these days.

Suffolk currently has three tiers of local government - County, Borough/District and  Town/Parish. Not so long ago, we had seven local authorities forming the second tier - Babergh (think South Suffolk), Forest Heath (Newmarket and Mildenhall), Ipswich, Mid Suffolk (Stowmarket and the hinterland), St Edmundsbury (Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill), Suffolk Coastal (Aldeburgh and Felixstowe) and Waveney (Lowestoft). All just a bit too small to be effective, not entirely well run and drifting towards obsolescence.

As the squeeze on local government finance began to hurt, it became clear that amalgamation was an easy way to cut costs, with Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury eventually merging to form West Suffolk, and Suffolk Coastal and Waveney merging to form East Suffolk. That left Ipswich, whose Labour leadership had no desire to be subsumed into a larger, likely Conservative leaning authority, and Babergh and Mid Suffolk who, having gone down the road of merging back office functions, were unable to persuade the voters of Babergh that full merger was acceptable. And that’s where we are now.

The Government, having indicated a desire to create new, larger authorities, covering a population of 300,000 to 400,000, imply a future of two unitary authorities, East Suffolk and West Suffolk, as the alternative - Greater Ipswich and Rural Suffolk - is likely to please nobody much. And, in truth, given the likely financial savings, it seems like a logical, possibly inevitable, outcome.

There is an irony there, in that, until 1974, we had... East Suffolk and West Suffolk. Below that, as the map indicates, we had a curious miscellany of County Boroughs, Municipal Boroughs, Urban Districts and Rural Districts, with Creeting St Peter falling within the Gipping Rural District. Prior to that, the 1934 local government reorganisation saw the merger of the East Stow (including Creeting St Peter) and Bosmere and Claydon Rural Districts. East Stow wasn’t big, with a population of about 7,000. Heavens, I could have been a councillor there...

In truth, I probably tend towards the view that a coming together of smaller authorities is likely to free up resources for public services rather than administration, although that view might not be wholly shared by local Liberal Democrats. On the one hand, larger wards take local councillors further away from those that they represent, whilst on the other, how many people can identify their local councillor(s) anyway? The romantic in me appreciates the personal touch, the pragmatist the financial benefits that economies of scale bring.

We’d probably end up with two Conservative-led authorities but, given that all but Ipswich are currently Conservative-led, what is there to lose? And, if our ultimate goal is to protect existing services and, one day, provide new ones, then the financial savings matter - the Golden Age of local government finance is receding into the rear view mirror (if it ever existed).

The trick will be to find ways of including the Towns and Parishes in a new structure where powers are devolved to those Councils that have the scope and/or wish to take responsibility, probably the Towns at first with larger Parishes following thereafter. Here in Creeting St Peter, I suspect that little will change - how much responsibility could a village of 275 souls realistically take on? - but even here, there might be things we would want to assume control over one day.

Unfortunately, regardless of how you organise local government, you need competent councillors to set the strategy, monitor delivery and assume responsibility, and the evidence is that it’s getting harder to attract good people. In Mid Suffolk, Liberal Democrats have been fortunate in that those who have sought election and been successful have generally been solidly committed to the communities they represent, and of enough talent to hold administrations to account. But it gets harder every year to attract fresh blood - a lot of work is required to win an election, and even the local Conservatives find it difficult to find enough candidates, despite the expectation that they will get elected on the basis of their blue rosette.

So, less councillors might make things easier for a while, and buy time sufficient to make the life of a local councillor that little bit more attractive, a little bit more accessible.

We’ll see though. An attempted reorganisation just before the 2010 General Election ran into the sand when Labour threw their hands in the air and suggested that it was all too difficult. Persuading a bunch of Conservative councillors that they should accept abolition quietly may be equally problematic...

Suffolk - where self-help means doing something you’ve paid someone else to do...

I’d be the first to accept that, when money is tight, a steadfast reliance on local government to do things for you is probably unwise, unless, of course, you have little choice. However, it is a step beyond that to ask lower tiers of government to take on duties that you’re levying a tax for, but keeping the money.

And that’s the case with what is charmingly called Suffolk's Community Self-Help Scheme.

Suffolk County Council, like so many other local authorities, is seeking to make savings, and apparently, has a mere £120,000 per annum available for highways work other than basic maintenance. So, they’re seeking support from Town and Parish Councils to fill the void. The Community Self-Help Scheme is described as a response by the County Council to requests to empower and support town and parish councils across Suffolk to carry out small local maintenance tasks in their communities.

Now set aside the fact that, as a Parish Council, we’d really rather not do that, but they explain that;

The limitations on local authority budgets means that Suffolk County Council prioritises its funding and its focus on maintaining a safe network for all users. As a result, we are not able to undertake the extra works which town and parish councils would like to see being done to maintain and improve the look of their areas.

Now, you’re probably thinking what I’m thinking, that would be things like traffic calming, or something vaguely infrastructure related. But no, they go on to provide a handy list of the range of works that Town and Parish Councils might like to take on;

• Sign cleaning
• Fingerpost cleaning/painting/repair
• Tree pruning/branch removal
• Hedge cutting/pruning
• Siding out of footways, or paths (removing encroaching grass and weeds)
• Grass verge cutting
• Weed killing/weed removal
• Developing verge reserves

It is my understanding that Suffolk County Council will retain legal responsibility for maintaining the road network to a satisfactory standard, a point they emphasise;

Suffolk County Council, as the highway authority, has a duty to uphold and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy all highways for which it is responsible. 

Suffolk County Council, as the highway authority, remains bound by statute (Highways Act 1980) to maintain the highway network in a safe condition. The County Council sets out in its policies the level of service it will provide to discharge its duty to maintain.

So, why should I, or my fellow parish councillors, seek to take up their generous offer? After all, if anything were to go wrong, and volunteers found to have carried out the work in a manner considered inappropriate by Suffolk County Council (who have every incentive to pass the buck), we become liable - Suffolk County Council require the signing of an indemnity should we seek to do any work.

I’m not sure that I see the benefits outweighing the risks to the Parish Council.

Funnily enough, I did once clean a road sign in the Parish, as it was annoying me, but if I had had to fill in a bunch of paperwork, and ensure that the Parish Council had £5,000,000 worth of public liability insurance, I’m not sure I’d have bothered. In truth, I have no idea how much that level of public liability insurance costs, but it’s an additional cost, and duplicates the insurance that Suffolk County Council already hold.

And does anyone really expect that a Parish Council, run by volunteers, can achieve the same economies of scale as a County Council, with its trained professionals and lawyers? Consider me a sceptic.

So, I may sneak out and clean the odd road sign in future. But it may be in the guise of a concerned citizen, rather than as a parish councillor. You can’t be too careful, after all...

Ros in the Lords: East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

It’s not all Brexit glamour in the House of Lords, and whilst most attention is on the series of defeats inflicted on the Government with regard to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the business of government limps along otherwise.

Here in Suffolk, the various District and Borough Councils have been pairing off in an attempt to staunch the financial bleeding, merging back office functions, creating joint teams covering planning, council tax collection, and all of the various things done at sub-County level. Waveney and Suffolk Coastal have sought to merge into East Suffolk, whilst St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath aim to merge into a new West Suffolk District. To do so requires authority from Parliament, and thus the appropriate Orders, allowing them to proceed, came to the Lords recently.

Usually, these go through without much comment, but there were questions about the quality of the consultation, and thus then Secondary Legislation Select Committee raised some concerns. And, to be honest, the consultation did look a bit lopsided, with many of the voices in favour coming from other (Conservative) Leaders of neighbouring, or in the case of Suffolk County Council, overlapping authorities. Parish and Town Councils didn’t seem to be quite so keen, and in that context, Ros spoke in her capacity as a resident of Suffolk...

My Lords, I also speak as a Suffolk resident of almost 40 years, although not of either of the areas covered today. I am a former district and county councillor in Suffolk so I have a keen interest in this. 

I have always advocated unitary government for Suffolk, perhaps going back to the old, two-council days before 1974, or possibly 1973, with serious devolution to the towns and parishes which want it. I felt that way because I truly believe that service delivery would be better if we brought together planning and transport, for example, under one council. Local people would not have to sort out which council does what. As a councillor, I know that that is a significant issue. The financial savings that can be made from creating unitary councils have been well established across the country where this has been done. 

Opposition to my view has always been on the grounds of saying, “Well, district councils are important because they’re small and they’re local and the wards are small. Everybody knows everyone and they’re close to the people”. I buy that; I can see that argument. However, it seems that in merging these councils—I am talking about councils as opposed to their back-office functions—big wards will be created and the council offices will, in many cases, be moved away from the area they represent. The advantages of districts are lost without the benefits of unitary government. Bins will still be emptied by one council and the waste disposed of by another, for example. 

I remain concerned about that. I accept the point that Suffolk councils have been in the process of merging their back-office functions to save costs for some years now. That is entirely sensible. However, my council in mid-Suffolk, having done that with the neighbouring authority of Babergh, has now gone completely mad and moved its joint offices to the middle of Ipswich. There is no local connection there. If you are going to defend three-tier local government on the grounds of local connection, you have to show local connection. 

I am worried that all this is being driven by the parlous state of local government finance in this country, rather than some sort of rational, thought-out plan. It feels as though people who live in Suffolk are somehow not being properly engaged with—I will come back to ​that—or brought along in the process. It was interesting that the Secondary Legislation Committee shared some of those concerns. I appreciate the trouble that the Minister has gone to to allay those. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to do—to be charitable—to convince people in Suffolk and in town and parish councils that the proposals will work. 

To give what I think is an important piece of context, the report that went to Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils on 14 March 2016 stated: 

“The potential benefits and pitfalls of unitary local government have been well rehearsed previously”— 

through LGR—and, 

“have not been reproduced here. It is uncertain whether the new Secretary of State will be open to such discussions … Similarly, this could not be done in any format without … an impact upon Suffolk County Council. It is assumed at this stage (and without any discussion with the County Council) that this would be strongly resisted”, 

by the county council. In other words, in East Suffolk at least, this was kicked off in 2016 without really knowing what the Secretary of State or the county council thought. 

With regard to the support to which the Minister referred, the problem was that nobody ever had a say about the benefits of unitary councils—which I think, had it been put as an option, would have been more significant—but that did not take place because a unitary authority had been ruled out. 

This continues to be a model. On 21 March this year, the leader of Suffolk County Council announced that he had commissioned a report from ResPublica to look at options for local government in Suffolk over the coming years. This afternoon, the local press are reporting that he has suspended this work, saying that it is because his opponent in a leadership bid is opposed to it. I have no idea whether the second part is true but it shows, given the importance of local government to Suffolk and the services that it delivers, that it deserves better than this.

Merging Suffolk Councils - a glitch emerges...

I must thank Ros for bringing this to my attention, and the noble Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope for bringing it to hers.

Times are tough in local government, and Suffolk is no exception to that. In the absence of any agreement on forming unitary authorities for the county, the District Councils have paired off to combine services, Waveney with Suffolk Coastal, St Edmundsbury with Forest Heath, and Babergh with Mid Suffolk. Inevitably, I guess, that has led to proposals to form merged authorities, West Suffolk to cover St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath, East Suffolk to cover Waveney and Suffolk Coastal. Consultations have taken place, and the Parliamentary Orders have reached the House of Lords.

There, they have been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has concerns... Here’s the summary of what they have to say...

These instruments provide, respectively, for the abolition of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts and their district councils, and for the creation of a new East Suffolk district and council which covers the same geographic area; and for the abolition of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury districts and their district councils, and for the creation of a new West Suffolk district and council which covers the same geographic area. 

The Government’s own criteria for council merger proposals include the demonstration that any such proposal commands local support. There is no doubt that the merger proposals for East and West Suffolk are seen favourably by a number of local stakeholders. At the same time, however, significant numbers of residents and, it seems, parish councils have voiced concern about, and opposition to, the proposals; and it may be questioned whether the opportunities provided for such views to be expressed have allowed enough scope to opponents to voice their concerns and have them properly recognised.

It is, naturally, a decision for the full House to consider, but it would be unusual for the Committee’s advice to be disregarded.

I have been unimpressed by the consultation by Mid Suffolk and Babergh thus far, which as reported, has generated a favourable reaction from those surveyed. Of course, what information has been given to respondents is an interesting question, and one that somebody might like to pursue. And it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if the quality of the consultation in East Suffolk and West Suffolk hasn’t been equally sketchy.

It’s worth reading the Committee’s report in full though, and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s briefing, which forms an Appendix.

Personally, I think that moving to unitaries is inevitable - provision of services is probably more important to voters than the intangible benefits of having local authorities closer to the level of residents. But if you are going to consult, and you should, you should do it properly. It is, after all, our choice as to how our money might be spent.

Mid Suffolk: the Local Government Boundary Commission for England tries again...

Readers might recall that, three weeks ago, I noted that the proposed new ward boundaries for Mid Suffolk had been delayed. It now transpires that they weren’t wildly convinced by the population predictions offered to them by the District Council and, as it turned out, they indeed contained some anomalies, as pointed out by some of the Parish Councils. And so, it was back to the drawing board in the light of some revised data.

For Creeting St Peter, there is no change from the original proposals, in that we are included in the expanded Needham Market ward, a notional Liberal Democrat seat, I would guess, given that it mostly comprises of the town itself, held at District Council level since 1991, and four outlying parishes which have all returned a Liberal Democrat councillor at County or District level in the past decade... except one. Yes, that’s right, Creeting St Peter. I did try in 2011, honest, but we did win the vote in the Parish in that election if my box count was even halfway accurate.

There are some interesting adjustments, with Stowupland being combined with Old Newton, Haughley and Wetherden to form a two member ward which must be an excellent prospect for the local Greens, given that they hold both Haughley and Wetherden and Stowupland wards currently.

Barking and Somersham, the scene of a Green upset in 2016, gets torn apart, with Somersham going into the proposed new Blakenham ward, and the remainder going into Ringshall and Battisford, a potential three way contest between the Greens, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Much there will depend on how the Conservative vote holds up and who is seen as the most credible alternative.

Despite the loss of six councillors overall (from forty to thirty-four), Stowmarket keeps its seven councillors, but instead of being divided into three wards (North, Central and South), there will now be three two-member wards (Chilton, based on the northern estate of the same name, Combs Ford, broadly equivalent to the old South ward and Stow Thorney, which is everything east of the railway line). The central part of the town will become St Peter’s, and have one councillor.

And, whilst these are all provisional, it would be helpful if they weren’t changed again, as Election Day is less than fourteen months away...

Mid Suffolk: will I be in a different District ward for 2019?

I have suspected for some time that, with Stowmarket growing like Topsy, the distribution of Mid Suffolk District Council's forty council seats was becoming increasing distorted. And today, there is news that someone who matters agrees with me, as I see that there will indeed be boundary proposals to take effect for the 2019 elections.

It turns out that Stowmarket North has about 31% more voters than it should (might building the Cedars Park estate have something to do with that?), and so a redistribution is needed.

Assuming that Stowmarket gets an extra councillor, which I think is likely, a ripple effect will mean shuffling the host of small villages across the District (and some of us are pretty small) to form viable units. And, as Creeting St Peter is one of the smaller parishes, and currently forms a small fraction of the Stowupland ward, I would guess that we're vulnerable in that sense. Indeed, we were part of The Stonhams ward until 2007, with Creeting St Mary, Earl Stonham and Stonham Aspal - held by Tony Fowler for the Liberal Democrats.

What I've learned is that, to get elected, it helps to live in the ward around here. It also helps to either live in the dominant village by population in that ward, or to live in a ward made up of a number of villages so that you have a reasonable shot at building support across them all.

In 2011, I lost my campaign in Stowupland ward for a number of reasons. Having the election on the same day as the AV referendum wasn't helpful, as a high vote against favoured the Conservatives. Being a Liberal Democrat didn't help, as we were about as popular as anthrax amongst some Labour and Green voters and I needed their support. And, whilst I did very well in my own village, where people knew me, I had a bit of a hill to climb in Stowupland.

I might have had a better chance in The Stonhams, as I'm a small village sort of person, and it requires commitment, organisation and discipline to run a campaign across a number of locations. Luckily, I have Ros to supply the organisation and discipline. And, once engaged, I have a surprising amount of enthusiasm.

As a Liberal Democrat with a sense of geography, I will doubtless offer some thoughts on how best the new boundaries might be drawn. And we do need to engage with the process, as we have seats to defend in 2019 and should be seeking to add to that number from a relatively low base.

So, watch this space. It could be unexpectedly interesting...

@BaronessRos responds to the consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16...

It gives me great pleasure to publish here Ros's thoughts on local government finance and, more generally, on the Conservative Party's view on localism and accountability...

I am writing in response to consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16 and the statement from the Local Government Minister Kris Hopkins MP on council tax and parishes.

The Minister has invited views on “whether the highest spending parishes should be subject to the same referendum principle as the rest of local government” and “whether town and parish councils whose failings have been highlighted in a Public Interest Report should be included”.

As a Liberal Democrat it is my strong belief that far too much power remains concentrated in Westminster; ours is one of the most centralised countries in the Western world and that has to change. Only by returning power to the communities, villages, towns, cities and regions of England can we drive growth, improve public services and give people the freedom to run their own lives.

To this end parish and town councils are an important part of our local democracy and I was heartened to see the Minister reiterate this in his statement. Much has been done by the Coalition Government over the course of this Parliament to empower communities and parishes and I want to see this continue.

However I simply do not believe any parish or town council, irrespective of size, location, budget or activity should be required to hold a referendum on increases to their precept.

This is unnecessary interference by Government and only serves to convey a lack of faith and trust in those people elected to serve on parish councils to improve their area and make locally accountable decisions. From my own experience parishes are closer to local issues than anyone, and work hard to engage with local people about how they can improve their area using the precept, communicating and justifying any (usually small and modest) increases accordingly. Indeed I remain supportive of removing the requirement to hold local referenda for council tax changes completely.

I also cannot support the notion of applying referenda principles to parishes with a Public Interest Report. I would much rather see a system whereby the parish sector takes the lead in helping parishes who have experienced difficulties, with action by Government as an absolute last resort. I would urge you to explore how this might be achieved with bodies such as the National Association of Local Councils, who I know are committed to high standards of governance and financial accountability and sector-led improvement.

I also wanted to comment on the situation regarding council tax support funding, which I know is causing real problems for parish councils up and down the country.

It simply cannot be acceptable that funding being provided by Government to parishes, via billing authorities, is not passed on to them. I would strongly urge the Minister to step up his efforts to resolve this issue as I know the number of councils not passing on funding to parishes is increasing.

This is likely to have an inevitable knock-on effect on local services and the parish precept, which I am sure the Minister does not want to see happen. I am also concerned about the overall impact such funding shortfalls will have on localism and community empowerment, especially at a time when Government and principal councils are encouraging more partnership working within local government, as well as devolution of services to the local level and parishes.

In conclusion I do not support the extension of referenda principles to parishes and urge more action to ensure council tax support funding is passed on to parishes.

Ros ScottBaroness Scott of Needham Market

West Suffolk Independents: interesting, but perhaps a bit misleading

The news that one of Forest Heath's Independent councillors has formed a group called the West Suffolk Independents, with the intention of supporting independent candidates in this year's District Council elections, is interesting indeed.

Simon Cole, who represents Exning, has said;

The aim of WSI is to bring more common sense – and less party politics – to our district, town and parish councils and act in the best interests of the whole community. There is no party whip so members are truly independent and can act as they consider fit and proper for the benefit of residents.

Frankly, I object to his assumption that independents bring more common sense to the role that those who fly a political flag - they may do, but there's no inherent reason why they should. Many district councillors want to serve their community, and their political affiliation gives the average voter an indication of their likely approach if elected. Independents, on the other hand, offer you no steer as to the philosophy they will apply in office unless they decide to tell you.

Besides, what common sense may tell you, and it will tell different people different things, may not be what the law permits, or what central government deems necessary. Common sense tells some people to close libraries to protect social care, and others that they are a key element of a civilised society and must be retained. Both arguments may be right, even if they are contradictory. Common sense will tell you to balance the budget, but Eric Pickles tells you that any rise in council tax at or above 2% will trigger a referendum, which you can't afford.

And, Mr Cole, what sort of independents will you be supporting? Any kind, or just the type you approve of?

We'll see what this actually means in due course, although the prospects for independents in a General Election year are not great. In the meantime, one can only welcome a new player in the local politics of West Suffolk, and may the best candidates win!

The campaign for Mid Suffolk 2015: vote for me, and I'll abolish myself?

Yes, District (and Parish) Council elections are rapidly approaching, and it's time to start thinking about ideas for the manifesto.

I'm not really convinced that such a thing has to be too detailed - centrally imposed restrictions mean that differences between the approaches of the different political parties are often limited to style, nuance and basic competence - so you're effectively talking about a few big things that will resonate.

Local government finance (yes, I know, but bear with me here...) is one of those things that very few of the public pay attention to, even though it determines so much in terms of local services delivered. And, here in Suffolk, we still have three tiers of local government - county, district and town/parish - an arrangement which comes with a degree of cost.

That cost, according to John Denham, was £26 million in the five years to 2014/15, plus £21 million per year in the following five years - money that could have been spent on protecting services if one was so minded. Of course, those figures were estimates, and the Government might have taken the opportunity to cut the central grant even further, but the implications are clear. I am told that, in Shropshire, the financial savings that accrued from moving to a unitary county were bigger than the original estimate, and Suffolk is not wholly dissimilar.

So, moving to a unitary Suffolk seems like a sensible, fiscally sound move - it's just that neither Labour or the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice power to achieve it...

Editorial: think not what local government can do for you, but what you can do without...

This is a cross-posting from the Creeting St Peter Journal...

Recent announcements by both Mid Suffolk District Council and Suffolk County Council to the effect that they are both going to need to make hefty cuts in their expenditure to deal with reduced income from Whitehall can only mean one of three things. Either they will need to cut waste, raise Council Tax levels in real terms, or cut services.

Raising Council Tax levels isn't that easy. The insistence that any increase above a certain, arbitrary, centrally-defined amount triggers a referendum of voters means that local councillors are loathe to even try - running a campaign against an increase in your tax bill is pretty easy, and most local politicians would rather tell you what they think you would like to hear, i.e. you can have services and someone else will pay for them.

Naturally, if the media are to be believed, there are huge levels of waste in government which could be attacked to protect front line services. Sadly, whilst there is waste, it isn't necessarily caused by bad management, but by the fact that people want services supplied that, were they to have to pay for them directly, they might think twice about keeping.

And as for cutting services, well, most councillors would rather cut their own throats than tell you that's what is necessary. Even were they to be that honest, a political opponent will campaign against them promising to save whatever it is.

As an example, people like libraries. If perceived to be under threat, hundreds will demand that they be saved yet how many of them actually use them regularly? How many of those thousands of books are actually read by anyone? And in an era of Kindles and other e-readers, are library user figures likely to go up, or down? At what point do you accept that the cost of providing a service is too great for the benefits gleaned?

We have grown used, as a society, to the idea that someone else, usually government, will do things for us. Government will keep the streets tidy, so that we don't have to, it will maintain parts of our countryside for public use, build roads to make it easier for us to get places. Littering increases because, it doesn't matter, someone will come and clean the street, we take less care about our surroundings as someone else will, we grow used to having a direct route to places and worry less about the economic viability of having three routes out of a village.

And yet, we complain about the size of government, about its cost, about its remoteness from our communities.

Eventually, we will be forced to accept that, in order to maintain the services that really matter - health, education, social welfare, to name but three - peripheral services might have to go. The prize then goes to politicians who are willing to be honest with their electorate and engage them in the debate about what is core and what isn't. Here at the Creeting St Peter Journal, we're not holding our breath...