Oh dear, it is almost the end of January and I haven't posted this year until now. So rather belatedly I wish you "A Happy New year!"
Politics is much in the news at the moment and will continue to be until the elections in May. We have heard much over the years from our politicians about making savings (i.e. making cuts) by cutting out waste in the National Health, Education, Police Force, Armed Forces, local government services etc., etc. Some of these have been so trimmed down over the years that there is no more "fat" to cut away without causing a deterioration in service. What we almost never hear are politicians urging the cutting out waste among themselves.
Do we really need 650 MPs in the House of Commons (11 of them representing Surrey)? Are the 845 members of the House of Lords good value for money? Do we need that number? But I will confine myself here to thinking about Surrey.
The Local Government Act 1972 swept aside previous forms of local government in England and Wales and replaced them with a two-tier system of counties (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) and districts. I was living in Wales at the time and well remember confusion as the county borough, where I lived, was transmogrified into a district in a newly created county. I recall also the arguments over where different responsibilities lay. Doubtless there are those here who recall the disappearance of the Leatherhead Urban District Council and its absorption into the Mole Valley District of the County of Surrey.
Do we really need two tiers of local government? Any attempt to get a comprehensive and coherent parking policy for Leatherhead (something I have advocated for the past two decades) is frustrated by having Surrey CC responsible for on-street parking and Mole Valley for public car parks? Is that sensible?
The 1973 Local Government (Scotland) Act similarly set up a two-tier system in Scotland of regions and districts. It is noteworthy, in my opinion, that both Wales and Scotland abolished their two-tier systems in the 1990s: Scotland replacing it by 32 unitary authorities in 1994, and Wales replacing it by 22 unitary authorities in 1996. What about England? Metropolitan counties were abolished in 1986 and during the 1990s some counties and districts were replaced by unitary authorities. But the greater part of England still has the two-tier system; Surrey is one such area.
Our County is divided into eleven districts: they are:
2 Runnymede
3 Surrey Heath
4 Woking
5 Elmbridge
6 Guildford
7 Waverley
8 Mole Valley
9 Epsom and Ewell
10 Reigate and Banstead
11 Tandridge.
Of these all, except Mole Valley and Trandridge, have Borough status.
Do we really need eleven different sets of council officers all doing parallel jobs? Between them these districts support 492 district councillors, all no doubt drawing their allowances. Do we really need that number? Is this good value for money for the people of Surrey? On top of this, of course, we have the upper tier of Surrey County Council with all its paid officers and its 81 councillors. I know some SCC councils are also district councillors, but very many are not. We have well in excess of 500 councillors in Surrey? Are they and our 11 MPs good value for money?
In my view the two-tier system is not only inefficient, it is downright wasteful. The sooner England follows Scotland and Wales and we have unitary authorities throught Great Britain the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment