Ahead of Rutland County Council's meeting this Tuesday evening focusing on local government reorganisation. Rob Persani of Rutland and Stamford Sound interview the Leader of Rutland County Council.
Rob started by saying: Councillors will have their say, possibly members of the public as well. And speaking this morning ahead of that meeting to the leader of Rutland County Council, Councillor Gail Waller, who's been involved in the, well, I suppose, negotiations, discussions so far. It could well mean Rutland becoming an authority of the past by the end of this year.
Rob then asked Gale Waller, First of all, could you explain where you think we are and is there a kind of sense of relief that Leicestershire's elections in May as county council elections are postponed, which in theory buys us a bit more time?
Gale Waller replied, Well, first of all, I'm not sure it does buy us any more time in reality. I think a bit of history is worthwhile here.
The white paper on devolution that came out on the 16th of December last was a bit of a shock to us.
We obviously know about devolution. Both my predecessors on Rutland County Council have been involved in discussions with Leicestershire and Leicester City about forming a combined authority, mayoral or otherwise, over a number of years.
And I, after becoming leader, had been in a meeting with the previous minister and my counterparts from the city and the county about progressing it.
But there were a number of barriers that stopped us going forward at that time and we were not surprised that the current government picked it up and pushed it a bit harder and the pushing is around the mayoral element which the previous government hadn't been so clear on.
More significantly for us in Rutland is that the new requirements that the combined authority encompasses the health economy, the police, and fire and rescue. And all of those, we are partnered with Leicestershire and Leicester City.
And part of the discussions we had been having in Rutland was, should we be looking north-south, east, or west to form a combined authority or join an existing one?
You know, what would be the best outcome given the combined authorities' primary responsibilities are around economic development and growth, and not around police, fire, or health. So this new development was a bit of shock for us.
And as I say, this came out on the 16th of December. And then at the very beginning of January, the leader of Leicestershire, leader of Leicester City, and I were summoned to a meeting with the now minister. Jim McMahon.
And we were told quite clearly that he was expecting us to look at working together for a combined authority, that if we didn't want to, that was fine. He would allocate us to one. And he mentioned the East Midlands combined authority in that discussion.
And he was also, and this was the other thing that was a shock to us, It was in the white paper, but prior to that, we knew nothing about it, that he was going to abolish the county and district councils and small authorities.
And I made the case that we were financially sound as a local authority, and our services were all judged good or better. And that then meant we fell outside his primary criteria for enlarging, as described in the white paper.
He acknowledged that. and then said, but nevertheless, we're still going to get rid of small authorities before the end of this parliament. And that was on the 9th of January. And by the 12th of January, he expected a letter from us to say we were going to work out how we were going to be a combined authority and look at new unitaries. Or if we didn't, he would just simply do something to us.
At this point Rob Persani asked, When you say that, they'll just basically make the decision for you?
Gale Waller responded, Yes, that was the implication, certainly, yes.
Rob Persani asked, So you don't feel as though there's any kind of way of exploring any other options because it seems to make perfect sense to join with South Kesteven, with Melton, even with Harborough, geographically, service-wise, you know, all sorts of different reasons, you know, and if you say economic partnership as well with Lincolnshire, it would all make sense. But do you think all those doors are closed and there's no point even exploring them?
Gale Waller replied, I don't know is the honest answer. Prior to all this happening, we had been having discussions with others or discussions is probably taking a bit far.
We had had a very quick chat, more than one I have to say, with various leaders around and about.
We are still part of a local enterprise partnership for Greater Lincolnshire. That is folding because they are having a mayoral combined authority. And we weren't included in that, though South Kesteven clearly is, because they're in Lincolnshire.
Prior to being part of this LEP with Greater Lincolnshire, we were part of the LEP with Greater Cambridgeshire. And that was quite successful for us.
But when they became a mayoral combined authority some years ago, and we weren't part of that, we had to leave the arrangement. So we have had a history of looking east for our economic development, but any change would mean going into an existing mayoral combined authority area, and it would mean leaving behind health, police and fire and rescue.
But there are no plans in government to change the borders of the police, fire and rescue or health. And so it makes it very complicated. And I've not got a straight answer from anybody that says, yes, we could do that.
Rob Persani moved onto to a question about Tuesdays Special Council meeting to be held this Tuesday Evening, What would you like the outcome to be, or at least what would you like to hear at Tuesday's public meeting when you'll hear from your fellow councillors and maybe even members of the public?
Gale responded with, I don't want to hear people saying, we've got to fight to stay as Rutland.
Because quite frankly, if we do that, we will be told what we're doing. What I want to hear, certainly from the councillors, is we want to look at the evidence as to where we should go within the very constrained parameters that government have given us.
Because you could split Leicestershire more than one way.
The county council wants a one Leicestershire model. And I certainly don't want Rutland to be part of a one Leicestershire unitary authority.
And I haven't found anyone in Rutland who does want that.
And certainly the group leaders within Rutland County Council don't want it because I did set up a working group with them as soon as the white paper came out. to sound them out and get their advice and the one thing we're all adamant about is that we don't want to go into a one Leicestershire but what the configuration is at this stage I don't know it depends what the evidence is saying.
Rob Persani asked, And do you see immediately after Tuesday's meeting you making a decision on this because certainly in the papers for next Tuesday's meeting that have been published on the council website it's mentioned that the decision for the future of Rutland County Council and whoever it joins with is the decision for the executive, which presumably is yourself and the chief executive?
It is, but the final plan, the only difference really that's happened with Leicestershire's elections going ahead is that we now know the date of when the final plans have to be in, which we didn't know before and it's November. But we do by March the 24th have to say in outline what we want. Now, if we as Rutland write to the minister and say we want X, whatever it is, the minister isn't going to take any notice at all. If we, with Leicestershire districts, write and say we want X in broad principles, then he's got something to work with. Because he said very clearly in the letter that he wrote last week, which has been made public, that he's looking for consensus across an area, not an arbitrary unitary decision.
So what I'm hoping for on Tuesday is from the members is the acceptance that we've basically got very little choice. that we don't want to go into one Leicestershire. It would be nice to have that confirmed, and that we need to use evidence to determine what configuration it should be. The minister also talks about consultation, and as part of that, we will clearly have another council debate over it at some point when we know what the preferred option might be. And from my point of view, the preferred option is the one that makes most sense looking at the evidence.
Rob Persani asked, And you've mentioned about the economic soundness, you know, and the reasons behind this and the fact that Rutland County Council has done an incredible job in actually holding its head above water through all the tests that it's had over the years. People, as you know, are very passionate about Rutland. Do you think there's any way, not necessarily of Rutland... still going alone, but is Rutland still being represented so people will refer to this new authority with Rutland in the name or being able to save any part of our ceremonial status?
Gale Waller responded, I think they're separate things. I'm not an expert on the ceremonial elements of it at all. So I don't know what would happen on that.
All I do know for absolutely certain, because I've researched it, is that when we became a district council within Leicestershire, we lost our High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant because Leicestershire had a High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant.
I don't know if we become a unitary with other district councils who don't have these ceremonial roles, whether our High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant would simply become that for the bigger authority.
I genuinely don't know the answer.
As far as the name is concerned, I will be fighting very hard to keep the name in any new authority.
Very hard indeed. So it's a Rutland and X. But in all these things, we are but one. And we would have to have the agreement of the other councils that we would be working with, because they are all going to be having the same debate.
And we will be the smallest, because all the districts in Leicestershire are larger than we are in terms of population now.
So they are not going to want to do exactly what we say on every point, are they? Inevitably. So I or somebody's got to compromise. on something.
So for me, the biggest compromise is having to join with anybody under these circumstances.
Because I would much prefer if we were going to grow Rutland, that I grew it organically, that we had partnerships grow because they made sense at the time, not because somebody in Whitehall has decided these things have got to happen to us.
Rob Persani asked, But do you think that there's any, not necessarily that we can't put up resistance, but is there any path we can follow that makes us compliant, you know, with Whitehall's vision and still actually retain what we have?
Gale Waller responded with a question, As a 40,000 unitary, 41,000 people unitary?
Rob Persani responded with, Yes.
Gale Waller responded with, No, I don't think that is possible.
I've heard what the Minister has said. I have read what the minister has said. If we go into a combined authority, which is the government's priority at this moment, that's all they're interested in, really.
And beyond that, we are fighting to keep something. If we go in, as we are at the moment, they will get rid of Leicestershire, they will get rid of the Leicestershire districts. and create an unitary because that's priority.
And they will say during the course of that, oh, well, you're only 40,000 people. You can go in as well. And we won't get a choice.
And we'll be in a one Leicestershire model. And that's the one thing I'm fighting against, which is why we need to get our configuration now before we are forced into that.
And it will happen. They will force us. They've made it quite clear. All of that's been published has been clear.
And in fact, if you read the letter that came out last week, they're clearly saying districts and neighbouring small unitaries, so they will be expecting to see it all happen at once.
Only bargaining we've got at the moment is we are a unitary, so we have to agree to this combined authority.
So we want to agree in a configuration that is least disadvantageous and possibly advantageous to our population. because although we are financially sound, it becomes increasingly more difficult year on year as our government grant diminishes.
Rob Persani asked, And do you think from a representation point of view, people are still just finding out about all this? We know obviously there have been meetings that Alicia Kearns has organised and there has been local coverage of it. But how do you think best can you actually, I suppose, take the residents with you on this on such a short timescale?
Gale Waller, It's very difficult. I mean, we put out a press release just after the white paper came out.
And when Alicia Kearns organised her meetings, I had a number of messages saying, We didn't know anything about this. Why didn't you tell us? And I said, Well, we did. And I pointed them to our press release.
We can't do more than we can do in terms of advertising what's going on. Clearly, if we get to the point-- well, we will get to a point, I hope, that there is a proposal.
Otherwise, to quote the character in Dad's Army, we're doomed. that if we get to a point where there's a proposal, we will consult on it in the normal way.
But there will be people who ignore our communications and then get the wrong end of the stick and say, why didn't you tell us and why didn't you do this and why didn't you do that?
That always happens. That's reality and we know that.
Rob Persani finished the interview, Leader of Rutland's County Council, Councillor Gail Wallace, thank you very much for joining us here on Rutland and Stamford Sound. And tomorrow night, 7pm, anyone can watch and actually see what the debate is tomorrow evening.
.JPG)
..jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)