Local Political Leaders Respond to Publication of the English Devolution White Paper

Published on: 23 Dec, 2024
Updated on: 24 Dec, 2024

Local Party leaders and representatives were invited to comment on the English Devolution White Paper. This is what they said…

Thom Van Every, Conservative:

As a party that champions efficient and accountable local government, we think a unitary authority could be good for Guildford residents, particularly considering the current failing Lib Dem borough council.

We look forward to the detail of the proposals before commenting further.

Joss Bigmore, Residents for Guildford & Villages (R4GV):

R4GV have long argued the need for consolidation in Local Government, far too much duplication and, frankly, far too many councillors.

Districts and boroughs have been starved of funding, as such they do little more than deliver statutory services, this requires minimal political input.

However there are two things that are of concern.  Firstly, these are dramatic changes, but the timetable is so short, it does not give time for the proper consideration or public consultation on what the best model for Surrey is.

Secondly, there is much of Surrey that is parished, and towns that have town councils, but there are also large swathes that are not, notably Guildford town itself.  If we are to lose all district and borough councillors, it seems undemocratic that some residents will have access to parish or town councillors, but for others, their closest representative will be at county level.

Pat Oven, Guildford Grenbelt Group (GGG):

My understanding of “Devolution” is that it entails the devolving of powers to the lowest level at which they can be effectively carried out.

Whilst some power may be devolved from the centre under this proposal, functions currently carried out by boroughs and districts, will be centralised into the unitary authorities – the precise opposite of devolution. There will be less localism, not more.

Planning in particular, will result in decisions being made essentially on strategic grounds – some will say that is a good thing. I disagree. Local knowledge being at the forefront of the decision-making process is essential in my view.

It seems that two unitary authorities are proposed for Surrey. Given that their populations will already exceed the 500,000 proposed as the ideal size for such authorities, even before the latest proposed housing increases, I think three would be more appropriate.

The western half of the county should be split in two, with a separate authority for North-West Surrey, (Elmbridge, Woking, Spelthorne and Surrey Heath). That would at least maintain some form of local identity.

A Labour party spokesperson said: “For the last three County Council elections Guildford Labour has supported the formation of a unitary authority to replace the current chaotic and wasteful two-tier system. We are therefore absolutely delighted that the government has announced a comprehensive reform of local government, a topic deemed by most commentators as “too difficult”.

“At the last elections we supported splitting Surrey into three unitaries. This would have two major advantages for residents. Firstly a massive saving of money – think about the cost of 11 borough council offices, 11 CEOs, over 600 paid councilors, etc.

“More importantly, however, it will simplify the chain of responsibility. Anyone who has campaigned during an election knows that absolutely nobody knows which bit of the council is responsible for what. And huge amounts of time is wasted by wrangling between councils – county, borough and even parish – trying to decide who is responsible for what.

“So while the devil is in the detail, this announcement is great news for everyone in Surrey.

The Liberal Democrats were also invited to comment.

Share This Post