My article in the Spring 2008 edition of the Newsletter addressed the proposal by Buckinghamshire County Council (County) to establish 19 Local Area Forums (LAF) throughout the County. The proposal purported to be getting closer to communities. South Bucks District Council (District) and the South Bucks Association of Local Councils (Local Councils) expressed strong opposition to the proposal declaring
the exact opposite would be the result.
The proposal is in contravention of the provisions of Local Government Act, 1972, and Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, 2007, and contrary to good governance and democracy. It goes against all principles for effective public administration. In particular it combines accountable (elected) and non-accountable (nominated) people as decision-makers.
The proposed structure would be disadvantageous to both the District and its Local Councils.
- The additional bureaucratic structure would incur unnecessary costs.
- It would add another tier to local government.
- Access by Parish Councils to executive departments of District and County would tend to be obscured.
- Decision-making on parish issues would be sieved through a body the majority of members of which would be not elected to represent parish communities on parish matters.
- It would depart from the principle that a body capable of representing a community’s aims and aspirations must be accountable, independent and capable of raising finance.
For South Bucks the present arrangement works very well. District and Parish Councils have an effective and harmonious relationship with good access for the latter to District departments. Access by Parish Councils to most County Departments, with the exception of Highways on local policy, is also good. Neither needs the intervention of an additional tier of decision-making. The South Bucks Partnership, with representatives from each level, is capable of dealing with any additional roles which might be assigned to LAFs and at no extra cost.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
A reliable source has expressed the view that County intends to go ahead with the reorganisation in decision-making and the formation of LAFs irrespective of the concerns expressed. Nevertheless both District and Local Councils made their opposition to the proposals known. At a meeting of the County and Parishes Liaison Committee the Local Councils' representative expressed firm opposition to the formation of LAFs and was supported by other parishes. This was followed by a meeting of Local Council representatives and the County officer responsible for introducing the new system at which the former stated their conviction of the effectiveness in South Bucks of the present system, their wish for it to continue and their opposition to the proposals. The County representative appeared to recognise that in the case of reorganisation 'one size does not fit all'.
Despite acknowledging that varying situations may need to be accommodated, the County has persisted in stating that Local Area Forums must be set up as proposed. At a number of meetings opponents to the concept appear to have been subjected to a bullying, patronising or insulting response. All the records show that the County simply does not recognise that there is any opposition. It is clear that neither Councillors nor Officers are willing to address the concerns expressed and to discuss the situation with a view to exploring possible compromise solutions leading to a consensus. Buckinghamshire County Council has had a poor record in public participation for some time. Nevertheless it is difficult to understand their uncompromising attitude.
It does not auger well for future relationships.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, 2007, has revisited the introduction of Unitary Authorities which the people of Buckinghamshire rejected.
Investigations have revealed that a significant number of local authorities have put in a bid to the department for Local Government and Communities for unitary status in which Counties have been prominent. These bids have not necessarily been welcomed within the local government structure or by the local press. In several cases opposition to a county’s proposal by districts has not persuaded the government to reject the proposal. In many cases the rationale for reorganisation is not apparent. In one case, four elected councils were abolished to be replaced by three partially elected 'area committees'. In another case 'committees' have been established, comprising seven councillors, seven appointed members and representatives of the police, fire service, etc. Hazel Blears attended and welcomed the inauguration of this Unitary Authority. Parish representatives do not appear to feature in this or other cases.
It is difficult to reconcile this with the rhetoric by government regarding 'power to the people', 'communities in control' and the assertion that parishes are the 'bedrock of democracy'. Is it possible that the present posturing by the Buckinghamshire County Council represents preparation for putting in a bid for unitary status? In the light of the Council’s disregard for meaningful public participation, a status that would give it overall control without effective checks and balances as exist under the present system, would be most unwelcome.
Local government in Britain has tended to be weaker than in other comparable European countries and the past two decades has seen the erosion of democracy in both central and local government. What is needed is a root-and-branch approach to local government by a Royal Commission or similar structure, rather than an ad hoc 'fix' that appears to be based on a lack of either any rigorous analysis by knowledgeable people or an understanding of the principles of a representative democracy.
It is said that the British love democracy as long as they do not have to do anything about it. Charles Arnold-Baker dedicated his book entitled
Local Government Administration to 'The knowledgeable amateurs without whom democracy is impossible'. GK Chesterton wrote in his poem,
The Secret People, 'But we are the people of England and we have not spoken yet'.
Isn’t it about time we did?
Bernard Trevallion
