Political blog, August 13: Ending in tiers?
Comments |
Is a
battle about to start over whether Kent should be split into
unitary authorities, ending the historic "two-tier" set up of
counties and districts?
According to
reports of a Government discussion paper shared with council
chiefs at a meeting recently, the Department for
Communities and Local Government apparently suggested that
it was unhappy at the progress being achieved in a pilot
project aimed at encouraging closer partnerships in two-tier areas.
(Kent is not in this pilot)
The DCLG apparently challenged councils to show that they could
save money through closer working "without the need for structural
change" - taken by some as an implied threat that unless they did,
the unitary option might be back on the agenda.
Plenty of Kent's districts - notably in the east of the
county - would be very interested if it was, notwithstanding the
agreement they signed up to with KCC in 2007 pledging to "build on
the current arrangements" to give Kent "the best local government
in the UK."
Some believe the
Kent Commitment they signed up to has yet to deliver
anything meaningful, while efforts by districts to join forces to
save money by providing some services jointly - like rubbish
collection and council housing- have been frustrated by logistical
problems.
I don't imagine County Hall is quaking in its boots at this
latest intervention by the DCLG. With a general election
looming, there is little time to crowbar another consultation on
local government re-organisation into the legislative timetable and
the Conservative party has already made clear that it won't be
meddling with the existing county set up - at least for the
moment.
Not surprising, given that most are now Conservative run.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kent County Council's has
struck an increasingly optimistic tone in recent months over its
prospects for the recovery of the £50million it has tied up with
three Icelandic banks.
It recently got
£3million back from the Heritable bank and seems confident that
the rest will, in time, be returned.
Inevitably, there are some caveats. It has ensured there are
some qualifications to its estimate that it stands to
get 80 to 90 per cent back, the primary one being
that it retains its status as a preferential creditor with Glitnir
and Landsbanki.
But what if it doesn't? I should stress that the
chances are that it will but if not, then the outlook is not
quite as good. In the case of Glitnir, KCC states failure to secure
preferential creditor status, would mean that "the recoverable
amount may only be 40pence in the £" while in the case of
Landsbanki, "the recoverable amount may only be 33 pence in the
£".
You can read a full assessment by KCC of the situation
here. It is on pages 161 and 162.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I blogged earlier
this week about
the outcome of the inquiry by Ashford's standards committee
into the conduct of independent councillor Jack Woodford,
suggesting that it had been rather timid in its findings after he
got caught up in a race row.
It's been suggested I might have been too harsh on the committee
after it met and decided that it could not take much action as Cllr
Woodford's conduct was outside his role as a councillor.
I've re-read the minutes from the private meeting at which
the issue was discussed and do accept the committee went about
as far as it could in censuring Cllr Woodford, given that it had
concluded it had no jurisdiction in the matter.
But I stand by the view that for a standards watchdog, it lacks
teeth - the two key recommendations are "requests" rather than
requirements.
The request for all members to receive training on diversity and
internet usage still looks to me as if it was agreed because the
committee was keen to be seen to be doing something.
And, of course, there's nothing to compel Ashford councillors to
agree to any such training so far as I can see.
Thursday, August 13 2009
The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.