Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Melton, has launched a scathing critique of Rutland County Council Leader Gail Waller's handling of the ongoing local government reorganisation.

Alicia Kearns MP Slams "Democratic Deficit" in Rutland Devolution Handling

Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Melton, has launched a scathing critique of Rutland County Council Leader Gail Waller's handling of the ongoing local government reorganisation. After last night's council meeting, Kearns accused Waller of a "blatant disregard for democratic process and the voice of the people of Rutland."

Kearns' anger stems from the council's failure to adhere to a motion passed in February, which mandated a full council vote before any initial reorganisation proposals were submitted to the government on March 21st. The motion also called for public engagement events to gather residents' views.

"Tonight, a debate was held, but a vote was refused to Rutland Councillors," Kearns stated. "No public engagement events have been held."

She further alleged that Waller intends to submit proposals for a North Leicestershire and Rutland council configuration without the endorsement of councillors or the public. "This means the public of Rutland have still had no meaningful dialogue with the Council four months into negotiations on Rutland’s future. There’s a two-question survey on their website, and one meeting with Parish Councils, but that’s it," she said.

Kearns was particularly incensed by Waller's assertion that "The Council has no power to take any vote." She countered this by pointing to the amended motion agreed upon by the council, including Waller, at the previous meeting. "The Council could, and should, have been given the opportunity to hold a vote on whether to endorse, and give its support to, the report itself, or for a North Leicestershire and Rutland model to be put forward to Government, even if it had no legal standing," Kearns insisted.

She highlighted the frustration of councillors from various political backgrounds who felt they were being presented with a "done deal," with only one option—the North Leicestershire and Rutland model—being presented. Kearns argued that a simple vote to endorse the proposal, even if non-binding, would have demonstrated democratic principles.

"The vote would not have been binding...but it would have demonstrated either solid support for the proposal, or concerns or rejection of the proposal. Most of all it would have demonstrated that democracy is alive and well in Rutland – but it demonstrated the opposite, a democratic deficit," Kearns declared.

She drew parallels to a previous incident in January when Waller wrote to the government requesting the abolition of Rutland County Council through fast-tracked reorganisation and the imposition of a mayor, again without local consent.

"To breach its own Council motion really is quite extraordinary," Kearns said. "It could have required something as little as one word different from the Council, asking members to endorse the report, not just note it. That would have permitted a vote."

Kearns concluded by expressing her dismay at the council's refusal to engage with the public and councillors before submitting crucial proposals to the government. "To deny the Councillors of Rutland a vote, and refuse to engage in-person with the people of Rutland before submitting proposals to Government on March 21st for how we should be governed in future, is flabbergasting," she said.