Letter: Local Government Reorganisation Consultations Are Too Little, Too Late

Published on: 1 Jul, 2025
Updated on: 1 Jul, 2025

From Bernard Quoroll

former local authority chief executive

In response to: Online Event Will ‘Help Residents Have Their Say On Local Government Reorganisation’

I see now that there are three consultations running on future local government structure in Surrey, one by the Government, one by the County Council and one by Guildford and Waverley combined.

I wrote previously about how such consultations should be undertaken. None of the three gets close even to “first base”.

Firstly, all three are in effect, passive surveys – instead of an independent, scientific, representative sampling of opinion via say, YouGov or Ipsos, they invite busy people to try to navigate to them on-line, something  which the average citizen would simply not bother to do.

The outcomes cannot be reflective of public opinion because they will only record the opinions of those self-motivated people who come forward, assuming of course, that they even know that such surveys are happening.

They are also, in pollster parlance, “cold” surveys rather than being properly informed. To get information on which to form a view, you have to find the reports and do a lot of reading – much of which sadly cannot even be trusted, as the analysis was conducted at breakneck speed and does not provide a reliable fact base.

I notice that Guildford and Waverley have only allocated an hour online to explain all this, much of which will, I suspect, be taken up by political leaders pleading their cases. And at the end we will have three inadequate, unrepresentative outcomes which cannot meaningfully be reconciled.

Secondly, the Government and county council survey outcomes will weight the opinions of other public bodies against summarised general public opinion. Organisations like the police, NHS etc which have most daily dealings with counties, are by their nature, predisposed toward big councils. It is more convenient for them, because it represents least change and reduces the cost of cross border interactions, so saves them money which is arguably their highest priority.

Such organisations also, have only a modest or no fix on communities and local democratic responsiveness. They do not think like local councils. Nor should they.

The outcome is likely to be a list of public bodies agreeing with the county council’s pitch for their own convenience, alongside a modest tally of unrepresentative public opinion.

Presentationally, that may look balanced but what should matter is the sampled opinion of Surrey’s 1.2 million population. To understand that opinion, you have to find ways to go to them and put the facts before them. Not just advertise in the media or go online!

SCC has around 26,000 staff, many of whom who can respond to the survey as residents. Boroughs and districts of course employ far fewer people.  You can be confident that all tge different councils will be encouraging their staff to take their approved line.

When I was engaged in a proper consultation process in Bucks in the 80s, I know that senior county people were sent out across the patch with a script seeking to demonise districts and put jobs fear into the minds of their own staff, something which reduced people to tears in libraries and care homes,  although in Bucks I am pleased to say, that tactic backfired on them.  I do hope nothing like that happens here.

Information sessions should be done jointly not partially and opinions should be garnered “hot” and independently.

In current circumstances, these too little, too late charm offensives amount to no more than gaming the system. They are all also taking place during high summer when most people’s focus is elsewhere.

Hopefully things will not get too bloody in civilised Surrey but it will inevitably take councils’ minds off their day jobs. Residents deserve better than this charade.  Remember that unitary councils deliver over 450 discrete services, are among the largest employers in the area and have huge budgets and debts.

Its residents deserve better than this ongoing car crash. Needless to say, I suspect that there will never be an independent analysis of whether the chosen outcome reduces cost and improves responsiveness after the event.

And finally nothing meaningful is being said about £billions of debt.  The county (and I suspect the Government) will use that in favour of “big” solutions which spread debt repayment obligation more widely, which was always the Government’s predetermined position.

In short, this kind of approach lets the powers that be, weight the issues any way they like and pick whichever option suits politically but t’was always thus. It will of course be presented as “the people have spoken.” But if this was an election, I would be marking my paper: “None of the above”.

Share This Post