On the edge

Last month we had local democracy week.

Events were held in local community centres by local authorities across the country to help engage people, especially young people, with local democracy.

Local democracy has always been a winner.

I attended a conference recently hosted by the Economic and Social Research Council; a think tank which does much of the fine detail for many government policies.

The conference was entitled "Democracy and Participation: what works?".

For me the clear message that came from that conference was that local government works.

Local people trust local councillors.

Local people trust the local MP.

Local people feel that local politicians are the ones who will fight foremost for their interests.

I doubt this comes as a surprise.

Just consider the list of benefits of having government local:

• People tend to trust their local council, including local council officials, more than any other tier of government.
• Local councillors almost always are people who have lived in their area for some considerable time; are rightly seen as easily accessible "just down the road"; and have become councillors to serve their community whilst working within their community without looking to move into national politics.
• Likewise local MPs always get a high trust rating when it comes to local issues within the constituency.
• The inference therefore is that people like their politics as close to home as possible. It is closer to their needs; it is more likely to identify local problems quickly and come up with a satisfactory solution that addresses the needs of those most closely affected. Local minds are put to local matters.

That begs the question of why such a level of trust is generated.

I would suggest the answer lies in simply looking at what local authorities do for us every day.

• Local councils implement policies from high; they traditionally allocate housing and planning and, for all the criticism they sometimes get, local councillors are far more likely to know the optimum place to build new houses;
• They liaise with the local NHS on health and social services matters for the most vulnerable in the community. So, for example, it is sensible that local councils who work with local care homes take the lead in finding places for the elderly who need a care home bed when leaving a hospital bed;
• They work closely with the police on community policing, such as Anti-Social Behaviour; they implement environmental policies and help develop local economic prosperity.
• Local councillors help to ensure that local people get a fair deal from the government. From my work with local councillors I know what help they have been on the scrutinising development on the future of services at the Horton Hospital in Banbury; helping to collect a 10,000 signature parliamentary petition for a new Bicester Community Hospital; and by advocating against, and now taking to judicial review, the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Bicester. Our local authorities, Cherwell District and Oxfordshire County Council, works well. North Oxfordshire people understand the relationship between local councillor and local MP bringing local accountability from the Whitehall.

Yet local government is being increasingly undermined by central government.

Central government Ministers are looking to strip that system and circumcise local democracy.

Only this week the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, was touring the North East spelling out what changes he was planning to undertake to local democracy to bring in a Regional Assembly.

That is a mistake.

Despite the candyfloss appearance, Regional Assemblies will not improve local democracy.

They will remove local democracy.

Minister's need to learn that in Oxfordshire there is no alternative to local democracy.

Any alternative will leave Oxfordshire on the edge.

Oxfordshire is being incrementally marginalised by the government.

Cherwell District Council is being slowly isolated from key decisions that matter to people locally.

Let us go through what the government is doing; why it is doing it; and what it wants to happen in the future.

Consider first the allocation of housing for key public services, like police officers, school teachers, and NHS staff.

In February 2003, the government abolished with only seven days notice a grant which would have been worth over £1.3 billion for affordable homes in rural areas. That decision was taken in spite of the objections of the National Housing Federation and Local Government Association.

It was myopic of the government to scrap a grant which will hit public sector workers, and therefore public services themselves, hardest in counties like Oxfordshire. Since 1996 this grant has produced a quarter of affordable homes built locally.

However, in the same month, the Deputy Prime Minister said there would be £22 billion worth of new housing, some of which will be allocated to affordable housing to specifically help South East public sector workers. Yet the building of affordable homes will stop at Milton Keynes, which means it will only help key workers who want to work in London. I understand there has been a last ditch concession to give Bicester some affordable homes but I don't think it is cynical to observe that Bicester is more commutable for London than Banbury, and Banbury is still left with nothing.

Oxfordshire also needs key workers to help prevent staff shortages at the Horton and officer retention problems in the Thames Valley police but it want get any incentives, like affordable housing, it help recruitment. Within the last three years Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals have at some point had nurse shortages of up to one-third and Thames Valley Police Force has had retention at the lowest point for 10 years. 160 police officers lost last year; 180 police officers lost this year.

House prices in North Oxfordshire rose nearly 30 per cent faster than London's during the last quarter of last year and yet the government excludes the county from affordable housing projects in the South East.

This comes at a time when Cherwell District Council's housing budget is already being cut by over £1 million by Whitehall. That is completely unhelpful for local key workers locally and for those who use local public services alike. It also makes the further grant cut on rural housing announced a double bind for North Oxfordshire.

Oxfordshire County Council is now concerned that its local plans are being undermined by central government. The Commons cross-party Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee has raised concerns that,

"the provision of affordable housing has up to now fallen far short of the target in Regional Planning Guidance. The new funds allocated by the Communities Plan will help. The extra funds should be concentrated in areas where needs and demand are greatest. There are many places in the South East outside the Growth Areas in need of regeneration."

Oxfordshire has no idea how much investment will be diverted to "Growth Areas" and away from other parts of the South East, including Oxfordshire.

The County Council made clear in a paper earlier this month how it believes that,

"In the absence of any clear indication as to the overall allocation of resources on a regional basis, there is considerable concern that the investments required to achieve the Government's Objectives in relation to the growth areas will be at the expense of local allocations, including across North Oxfordshire."

It is far from satisfactory that "Growth Areas", such as Milton Keynes and the Thames Gateway, are likely to receive additional funding above areas like Oxfordshire.

There seems to be some sort of two tier system being put in place.

The result means that unless the location of the extra housing allows it to provide London with additional public sector workers then there is no guarantee that local authorities, like Oxfordshire County Council, will receive the required funding for infrastructure. Subsequently there is no guarantee that North Oxfordshire will not simply get more housing without more amenities simply because Oxfordshire's elected officials are being isolated from the decision making process.

That Ministers are avoiding publishing details on funding also has a negative impact on local services. So far the only reviews that have been undertaken on local public services do not point towards a significant improvement in services and infrastructure.

Bicester's Community Hospital is looking far less likely to expand. It is therefore implausible to suggest the local population could be 40 per cent higher under the proposed Structure Plan for the Oxfordshire.

Thames Valley Police Force is having to set lower targets on combating crime, particularly burglary, compared to those recommended by the Home Office; thus an additional 5,000 houses in Bicester alone would clearly require an expanded local police force. This is looking unlikely.

It is absurd therefore that this month Whitehall published a map of where the affordable housing would be allocated that had arrows pointing to where key workers could commute.

The house building stopped at the border to Banbury.

The arrows for key workers employment did not point towards the north of Oxfordshire.

Yet on the map in Dover there were both affordable housing allocations that had arrows pointing towards France suggesting key workers could travel there.

The government is more interested in France than Oxfordshire.

Oxfordshire is being left on the edge.

So whilst I may get glossy leaflets across my desk which say that regional quangos like the South East Regional Assembly will be consulting "... to focus on the longer term vision for our region, how we engage the stakeholders and the public effectively, and how to ensure that the Strategy gives spatial expression to the full breadth of regional policies" this is complete clap trap.

Regional quangos seemingly hear without listening.

They talk about our region but it is our Oxfordshire which is treated like the rump of the region.

The story is much the same when it comes to planning matters in Oxfordshire.

Planning decisions in the county are increasingly being put into the hands of an unnamed, unelected and unaccountable regional quango, based in Guilford.

The Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Keith Mitchell, is a member of the South East England Regional Assembly, or SEEDA, and chair's the sub-committee on planning.

That committee is a consultative committee with a misleading name; and that committee also finds its influence on planning and other matters in the South East being ignored by Whitehall.

It is worth pondering another recent action by SEEDA.

On quarrying SEEDA is suggesting that there should be a twelve per cent rise in amount of sand, gravel and crushed stone extracted from Oxfordshire.

That twelve per cent rise in Oxfordshire contrasts considerable to the overall drop of 18 per cent across the rest of the South East.

Oxfordshire having to absurd such a high rise spells bad news environmentally, including a considerable rise in the amount of heavy goods vehicles on our roads.

I think it is pretty crazy that Oxfordshire people will see a dramatic rise in quarrying across the county simply to provide for the building of housing in Kent and Essex.

That is what regional quangos are offering us and that brings us back to planning matters.

So what are the plans for planning?

The plans on the table will mean that local people will be left with no right to consultation, no right to challenge, and no right to appeal.

The new system will not only gag local residents but also County Councils.

It is a disgrace that diligent county councils like Oxfordshire will be disregarded.

Surely the point of county councils is to comment on county matters.

Such announcements are bad news for public sector workers, bad news for poorer people and bad news for the countryside.

It is revealing how much noise the Deputy Prime Minister made about regional development agencies, another unelected quango, throughout his statement.

It is evidently part of the Government's plan to dismantle local authorities by stealth so that they can bring forward their big idea of regional assemblies in which no one living south of Birmingham has shown the slightest bit of interest.

The County Council has expressed concern at how

"... the centralisation of decision making and resources on a regional basis has a considerable impact on the confidence with which local government and other agencies in Oxfordshire can plan confidently for meeting the needs of vulnerable groups. The social and indirect costs to the public purse in the county will be significant if the supply of affordable and social rented housing is not maintained".

I think it is worth us remembering how in the 1960's Banbury came within one vote of being designated a 'new town', like Milton Keynes, Swindon or Telford.

The idea was defeated because local Councillors were given a say.

That freedom has now been taken away from local people.

Under the government's proposed system I would wager that by now Banbury would have become a new town.

Local minds should be put to these local matters if Oxfordshire is not to be left on the edge.

The alternative is quite simply not an option.

The alternative is Regional Assemblies.

Regional Assemblies that I am quite convinced will not improve local democracy.

Instead Regional Assemblies will remove local democracy.

That clear incremental undermining of Oxfordshire's local authorities on planning matters and public services is happening because the government wants to scrap the local government structures people have come to trust and replace them with an extension of central government, Regional Assemblies.

The government's Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has already received Royal Assent.

On 16 June this year the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that referendums will be held in three regions in the North of England, and has already instructed the Boundary Commission to review the structure of local government in those regions.

Many people living in the South East will conclude that Regional Assemblies will be unique to the North of England; that there is no demand for them South of Birmingham.

They would be right to conclude that there is no demand; but they would be wrong to think it can't happen here.

There was quite plainly no demand in the North of England. Prescott has called for referendums to be held in three regions where only 8,000 people responded one way or another to the idea.

That is 8,000 people after three attempts of asking them whether they want a Regional Assembly from a population of 42 million.

Quite simply at the very least this is a pathetic turn-out on which to base such a vital constitutional decision.

Nor did those 8,000 people necessarily say they wanted a referendum on a Regional Assembly.

In Yorkshire and Humberside only 833 people out of a population of 5 million wanted a referendum and they have got it.

It therefore could easily happen in the South East.

It could easily like the Welsh Assembly where eon a miserably low turn-out the country was given another tier of government on less than a 1% majority.

Any Regional Assembly in the South East would leave Oxfordshire isolated. Left on the edge by another remote tier of central, not local, government.

The government's White Paper has said that the Regional Assembly would draw its powers from central government, not local government. Rubbish: such tiers of government has already left Oxfordshire on the edge. Oxfordshire received no affordable housing because local government was ignored. Oxfordshire will now have its planning allocated decided in Guilford because Oxfordshire is being ignored. Banbury and Bicester have little in common with Guilford and Dover. No Regional Assembly based in Surrey will bring people living in Deddington closer to democracy.

Any Regional Assembly will have control over planning and housing and influence on business support, transport and health.

Planning should be returning to local authorities' not removing further responsibilities; Oxfordshire has clearly lost out on regional policy already and it is difficult to see it getting a fair deal from a Regional Assembly 300 miles away.

Any Regional Assembly in the South East will mean the end of the relationship between Cherwell District Council and the local NHS, local schools and the local Thames Valley Police.

If there were no Cherwell District Council it would mean, for example, no Judicial Review on the Bicester Asylum Accommodation Centre. It means no Action Committee to keep services at the Horton Hospital. It has also been suggested that Regional Assemblies should even see Parish Councils abolished.

Any Regional Assembly will have to meet targets set by central government and will have the opportunity to raise Council Tax.

Experience already suggest that some targets, like those in the NHS, leads to clinical priorities being ignored to meet the priorities of government targets. Oxfordshire could conceivable be left without urgent transport issues being addressed because a government target is not being met in Milton Keynes. Resources could be diverted away from Oxfordshire and even Council Tax rises in Oxfordshire to meet targets elsewhere in the South East. Under-funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in local government grants and the removal of control over business rates from local authorities has already led to an almost 13 per cent Council Tax rise in Oxfordshire. It would not be a fair deal for Oxfordshire if Council Tax had to be raised further to meet refuse collection targets outside the county.

That is not just me who believe this.

Consider the letter I recently received from the leader of Oxfordshire County Council. Keith Mitchell said:

"County Councils have real worries about the way this agenda is being driven. Regional officers are telling us that our Strategic Planning Staff will be required to take part in the planning studies but the way in which this will be done and the element if democratic input is far from clear ... add to that the Strategic Health Authority and the complete collapse of financial control in this Region and we look set for potential meltdown of Health services and I particularly fear for the future of the Horton."

Local minds should be put to local matters wherever possible.

That is what works best.

Even the Maastricht Treaty's idea of "subsidiarity" is supposed to mean EU decision making is not to stop at national governments but at to local government.

Local democracy week successfully demonstrated that local democracy is a winner and should remain the winner that it is already.

Otherwise decisions that affect Oxfordshire being taken in Surrey, Sussex or Kent will leave local people feeling less in control of their lives.

I believe it will leave Oxfordshire on the edge.