Devolution plans are a distraction from real issues, say council leaders in Cambridgeshire

The government’s reorganisation of our councils is a “massive distraction”, according to one leader – while another claimed devolution was less about democracy and more about putting “puppets” in each region.

Two district council leaders have shared their concerns about the proposals to shelve the existing local authorities in Cambridgeshire and replace them with a large unitary authority or two.

Councils have been given a deadline of 21 March to work together and submit an initial plan for reorganisation, with unitary councils covering an area of around 500,000 people, although there may be exceptions to ensure structures “make sense for an area”.

Cambridgeshire currently has a two-tier structure, with some services provided by Cambridgeshire County Council – such as highways maintenance, social care and education – and other services are provided by the district councils, including Cambridge City Council – such as bin collections, planning and licensing. Peterborough City Council is already a unitary council, meaning it provides all of the services.

Cllr Bridget Smith, the Liberal Democrat leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, said she could not understand why when there was a “crisis in social care and health” that the government was focusing more on “moving the deckchairs of local government around”.

“Local government is not broken, social care is broken,” she said. “This seems like an enormous distraction.”

Cllr Smith said councils had “no choice other than to follow the government’s wishes to create a unitary council”.

All of the councils are working together to try and “identify what will work best” for people in the area, she confirmed, but she did not know what the proposals could look like at this stage and whether they will propose “one massive unitary council”, or a series of smaller unitary councils.

Cllr Smith said she believed the government was being “unrealistic” about the savings it hoped to see, as local government reorganisation “costs a lot of money”.

She warned the changes may make local government “less local”, with fewer councillors responsible for more services and covering a larger area.

The “vast majority” of councillors were “community champions” first, she argued, adding that is a risk that having fewer councillors could “leave a deficit in communities”.

Greater workloads for councillors could also have a “negative impact on the diversity of councillors”, as they might be “forced into being professional politicians”, making it harder for some people to be a councillor, she predicted.

“How can we attract people who have a job, have caring responsibilities, possibly have their own health challenges?” she asked. “The risk is that the demands are such and the remuneration so poor that councils become populated by mostly older and fairly wealthy people, as they are the only people with the time or money to allow them to do it. I do not think this is good for democracy.”

Cllr Anna Bailey, the Conservative leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council, shared some of these concerns, agreeing the move could “professionalise the role”, with fewer people able to stand for election – leading to a “dilution of local democracy”.

Cllr Bailey said the “basic premise” of a unitary council that is responsible for all services was “much more convenient” for people to understand. However, she said the geography and size of what could be created in the county was a “massive issue”.

Cllr Bailey said: “East Cambridgeshire has just under 90,000 residents and will be expected to move to a geography of at least half a million. This will make services more remote and less accessible.”

She also had “very serious concerns” that people in her area could end up having to pay towards the debts of other councils if areas are joined together and she “feared” that policies promoted by the existing district council’s administration, such as freezing its share of council tax for 11 years, will “disappear”.

Cllr Bailey would rather see the existing district councils made into unitary authorities, taking on some of the services provided by the county council, such as maintaining roads, which they could “do a better job of”.

Other bigger services that need large-scale commissioning, such as adult social care and overseeing education, could be passed to the Combined Authority, she suggested.

However, Cllr Bailey did not believe such a suggestion would “ever get a hearing” and raised concerns about the intentions behind the reorganisation.

She said: “I have concerns about democracy. This is all part of a government plan for devolution, but I believe it is less about devolution and about the government having puppets in the region it can talk to.”

A letter to councils from Jim McMahon, the minister of state for local government and English devolution, said: “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.”

Feedback on initial ideas from councils will be provided, with a final full proposal expected to be submitted by 28 November, the letter said.