Local parties air differing views on the devolution offer

The principle of devolving power from the centre seems generally welcome to Hastings’ political parties but reactions to what is on offer differ widely. In particular, what is seen as the undue haste of the Labour government in pushing for a response from local government and limiting that response to the upper-tier authorities has come in for criticism. Nick Terdre provides a brief guide to what the local parties are saying.

Liberal Democrats  

The Liberal Democrats are not represented on Hastings Borough Council but they are clearly a force in East Sussex. Ahead of HBC’s Cabinet meeting on 6 January, Martin Griffiths, chair of Hastings and Rye Liberal Democrats, told HOT, “While the Hastings & Rye Liberal Democrats agree with the principle of devolution and the proposals to devolve power from central government  down to strategic authorities, these proposals are being progressed with too much haste and without proper public consultation.”

While pointing out that the local party’s views were not necessarily those of the Lib Dem groups on HBC and Rother District Council, he also expressed concerns about the future of the lower tier authorities, which according to the Devolution White Paper, are eventually due to be abolished: “…if HBC and RDC  disappear, how will people have their say? There are no details in the White Paper as to how local issues such as planning will be dealt with under a revised structure – time is needed to properly build a structure from the bottom up.”

Griffiths added that the local party was strongly against the postponement of May’s elections to East Sussex County Council – precisely what ESCC’s Conservative Cabinet has requested. “People need to be able to have their say on the council’s performance over the last four years and decide the make-up of the future ESCC if it is to have a genuine mandate to implement reorganisation.”

If a Sussex strategic authority were to become a mayoral authority, then “elections should be based on proportional representation and not first-past-the-post.”

Hastings Independents
In the immediate aftermath of the publication of the white paper on 16 December, the Hastings Independents were quick to publish a statement panning the proposals: “If Labour’s controversial plans to abolish Hastings Borough Council go unchallenged, the fallout could be devastating for the town.”

Their leader, Cllr Paul Barnett, said: “It’s a scam! A Labour Government pretending this will provide more local powers, but it’s the exact opposite.”

He was scathing about the prospect of East Sussex County Council and/or a Sussex wide mayoral system as the remote sole authority, saying, “We all know the poor service Hastings gets from the County Council. Just look at the state of our roads, youth services, and adult social care. Now, they expect us to believe this distant mega-authority will suddenly deliver for Hastings?

“…They can’t even fill potholes properly, let alone provide housing support for our most vulnerable. If this plan goes through, services will be cut, the town will be forgotten, and residents will be left stranded.”

Barnett also called for a more forceful response from the council leadership. ““Where is the fight from the Green Party’s Cllr Julia Hilton or her new Chief Executive? Hastings needs champions who will fight to retain our local democracy. Instead, they’re acting like this is inevitable.”

At the Cabinet meeting on 6 January his colleague Cllr Mike Turner also doubted that a Sussex unitary authority would improve matters for Hastings, and would probably not uphold HBC’s assistance to the worst-off such as providing council tax exemption.

Conservatives

The leader of HBC’s Conservative group, Cllr Mike Edwards, is unconvinced by the government’s devolution proposals which, he told HOT, “…is written in a party political tone and I suspect that party political motives lie behind it.”

“There has been no huge clamour from the people of Sussex for a switch to a single strategic authority and the current system of district or borough councils has historically been successful and accepted by the general population.”

Something should be done about the severe financial pressure exerted on local authorities, but it was “by no means certain that the Labour Government proposals are the solution, the overriding factor is adequate funding and this is where the White Paper falls short. The promise of multi-year funding does not cut the mustard and anyway the Chancellor will continue to direct funding to the government’s politically favoured areas.”

Divisions or wards, whatever they might be called, would be so large geographically and numerically that elected representatives would inevitably be far removed from the voters who have elected them, probably resulting in lower voter turnout at elections than at present.

In Hastings and Rye we have “long suspected that we receive less favourable treatment than those in the west of the county,” he said. “If a new strategic authority is established to include Chichester, Worthing and Arun this sense of detachment would only grow and resentment with it.”

Edwards was also concerned at the proposed creation of mayors wielding huge executive powers: “This will potentially provoke serious clashes with the elected members of the authority depending on the political make up of them all. I worry that a divisive character such as the current London Mayor could cause huge damage to our local vox populi.”

At the Cabinet meeting Edwards said he didn’t see any point in holding May’s elections if ESCC was going to disappear.

Greens

The leader of the Green group, and council leader, Cllr Julia Hilton said in a column in Hastings Observer just after Christmas that after reading all 118 pages of the white paper, “My overall impression is of the serious undermining of local democracy. If these plans go ahead, by 2028 at the latest, the Hastings council, which has been in place since medieval times will cease to exist, and the whole of East Sussex will be served by a single council.”

It seemed bizarre, she said, “to remove the layer of government whose representatives actually live among the people they serve.” While for deputy prime minister Angela Rayner the devolution proposals meant fewer politicians, for Hilton “district councillors are first and foremost community activists, and work hard to help people solve their everyday problems.”

At the ESCC extraordinary council meeting which came about at the instigation of Green members, Hilton, also a county councillor, said, “The way the government has managed this process is frankly outrageous, imposing the biggest reorganisation of local government in decades on a crazy timescale,” and explicitly excluded district and borough councils from playing any role.

She told the Cabinet meeting that she had had exploratory talks about an alternative unitary with lower-tier authorities Rother, Folkestone and Hythe.

Labour

HOT asked MP Helena Dollimore for her views on devolution but received no reply. However, the letter she wrote together with Hilton to Jim McMahon, the minister of state for Local Government and English Devolution, expressed “strong opposition” to ESCC’s request to join the priority group “as more time is needed to build consensus on a devolution approach that works fairly for the community we represent…we believe East Sussex County Council’s approach lacks a mandate.”

The letter welcomed the “intentions to devolve power away from central government,” but pointed out that there had been “absolutely no consultation with any of the leaders of the five East Sussex boroughs and districts on the decision to apply for the priority stream.”

At the HBC Cabinet meeting Labour Cllr Judy Rogers said it had to be accepted that the higher tier was failing us, which was why devolution was being brought in. But if Brighton was included in a Sussex-wide authority, it would get all the benefits. “I want to see us working with other similar places,” she said, referring to the coastal towns all around Sussex and Kent which have the same issues as Hastings.

 

Also in: Local Government

ESCC requests postponement of May’s elections »