Donna Edmunds On The Democracy Deficit.

Radical local government reform long overdue in UK, writes UKIP's Donna Edmunds.

Say the words 'democratic deficit' and most likely the European Union springs to mind. Countless scholarly articles have been written on whether or not the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, with proponents of the thesis pointing to low voter turnout and engagement as evidence of the deficit, writes Donna Edmunds.

Yet very little work has been done on why there is a similar lack of voter engagement at the other end of the scale, when it comes to our local councils. Indeed, the lack of engagement at either end shows some striking similarities. Voter turnout for both the last European and last county council elections was almost identical at 35 per cent on average and the electorate seems to know neither what MEPs nor councillors actually do.

But while UKIP are happy to call vociferously for the EU institutions to be cut back, few are willing to argue for cuts to local government - mainly because it is our councils that deliver key front line services such as education and housing allocation. This is a shame because structural reorganisation of our British local government system to make it streamlined, transparent and cheaper is long overdue.

The two-tier system currently found in 27 of our counties in which county councils, districts or boroughs and town or parish authorities all operate within one geographical area is a hangover from the municipal reforms that took place in the early 1970s. It was decided at that time to sweep away a 500+ year old system of boroughs, parishes and various other structures - and to enact a uniform two-tier system across the entirety of England.

However, in order to do this some modern geographical constructs such as the new county of Avon had to be formed. These were unpopular and in addition many urban districts did not like losing control of key services such as schools. So in 1986, unitary authorities were brought in in some places to replace the two tier system. This process was ongoing throughout the next three decades, with new unitary authorities being formed as recently as 2009; creating the piecemeal system we have today.

Calls for new unitary authorities continue to be made. In 2010, the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles brought an end to bids by Exeter and Norwich councils to become unitary authorities - disappointing many citizens in those cities. Pickles claimed that the move would cost £40m over a six-year period. However, an impact assessment by his department showed that £39.4m would be saved in the same period and that a further £6.5m would be saved year on year in these two cities alone.

This week, councillors in Buckinghamshire created a petition calling for unitary authorities to be set up across their county. They estimate that £35m would be saved year on year if the district and county councils were to be merged into one or more unitary authorities. Claims that money would be saved are borne out by Cornwall Council, which, in 2009, was one of the last unitary authorities to be created. Councillors there report that in the first four years, £160m of savings were found thanks to the reorganised structure.

There is, though, a reason even more compelling than hard finance to look at unitary authorities. The confusion that the two-tier system creates, with citizens not knowing which of their councils has responsibility for what, creates a form of democratic deficit. This in turn makes it easy to deny true localism to communities, or even worse, to pass off as localism policies that in fact further centralise power.

Put simply, a more transparent, easily understood system makes it more likely that voters will understand what their council is up to and can more easily hold councillors to account on election day if needs be. That in turn gives greater incentive to our councillors to truly represent the views of local people.

A move to a unified structure also creates the perfect opportunity to push competencies down towards parish councils, which do tend to be truly representative of their communities and towards community groups, businesses and individuals. As budgets are squeezed, more and more local authorities are selling community assets to balance the books. The British people are getting quite a short sharp lesson in public ownership. They thought it meant an asset that was owned by the public. In fact, it means an asset that is owned by the government.

There is no reason why the reorganisation process could not be managed so that ownership of community assets and localised services was passed to parish councils and local groups as a matter of course. In short then, a move to a system of unitary authorities has much to recommend it. It saves money by eliminating unnecessary duplication in the system, increases transparency and in doing so aids the drive towards localism. What is not to like?

Donna Edmunds is director of Campaign for Unitary Authorities and a councillor on Lewes District Council, in the United Kingdom.

Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/3903/radical-local-government-reform-long-overdue-in-uk#ixzz2apDTAzUO