Remaining awake to implications of unitary council

I REFER to the Echo, September 12 report (page 4), and to the piece in the current issue of ‘Leicestershire Matters’.

Residents and employers in the council areas will all be affected by any move to a unitary structure.

I recognise that there may be significant savings from economies of scale and removing potential duplication of effort between county and boroughs/ districts, but these savings need to be quantified and we should not regard the conjectural sum of “at least £30m a year” as a promise, particularly as any gross annual saving will be balanced by the overall costs of reform.

The principal driver for this ‘conversation’ is a shortfall in funding from Central Government, so if that were addressed the justification for change may no longer apply. But adequacy of funding should not be our sole concern.

A unitary authority would have a centralising effect, when our democracy is charged with the delegation of powers to local communities.

Unitary Local Government for the whole shire county would mean that electors would lose a whole class of representation, as borough councillors become redundant, county representatives more powerful and decisions made further away from the communities concerned.

I recognise that the county council has reduced its staff numbers, which would no doubt increase again at the expense of lost jobs in the districts. So one concern is a potential for ‘empire building’ and career enhancement at county with redundancy and reduced career prospects in the districts.

Most of us will continue to be both contributors to the public purse through council taxes, and users of council services to a greater or lesser degree.

It is too early for me to reach a firm personal opinion on this matter but I shall try to remain awake to the financial, political and local employment implications of this ‘discussion’ initiated by Nick Rushton, the county council Leader.

Paul Miskin Hardwick Drive Loughborough