As featured in the Oxford Clarion: In what is set to be Oxfordshire’s greatest political upheaval in a generation, the organisational map of the country is set to be redrawn. We wrote about the challenges of doing this in in December. The change is so significant it deserves both open and wide debate. Today we open up the pages of the Clarion for Matthew Barber, Conservative former Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council and current Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner, for his view on the debate.

“We already have the worst option for local government”

Since the Government published its English Devolution White Paper just before Christmas last year, the public debate on the potential changes has been relatively muted in Oxfordshire, despite frantic work going on behind the scenes by local politicians and council officers.

In some parts of the country the proposals were so fast-moving that local elections this year were cancelled. Largely due to a complete lack of consensus in Oxfordshire (more on that later), it looks like changes in our county will move at a much slower pace. Nevertheless it is still interesting that the subject was barely mentioned by anyone in May’s County Council elections, despite there being a distinct possibility that these will be the last ever elections to that body.

In a former life, as Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, I sat on both sides of the unitary debate in Oxfordshire. I have long called for the establishment of unitary councils: the only question has been the geography. I originally backed three small unitaries, but was later convinced of the need for a larger council covering the whole county. I hope to convince others to see the light as I did.

Currently as Police & Crime Commissioner I work with a total of 14 different councils across Thames Valley. I see how they operate in partnership with one another, and the difference that size, demographics and strategic direction makes to their effectiveness. Councils have an important role to play in crime prevention, and so any changes that may take place can have a direct impact on policing.

None of this makes me an expert with the authority to arbitrate on these issues. But my experiences do give me a detailed understanding of the decisions facing us, and perhaps an insight into how the Government might respond when they come to finally make the decision.

I should be clear at the outset that I am not discussing the issue of directly elected mayors. That was the real subject of devolution in most parts of the country. It is something that will need to be addressed here, and from what I have read all parties seem to accept – with various levels of enthusiasm or reluctance – that there will be some kind of combined authority and a mayor.

As mentioned above, though, we are behind many parts of the county. Before we get as far as combined authorities (a formal partnership between councils) and mayors, we need to fix the archaic set up of our local councils. This is Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in the jargon.

The rubbish issue

I am adamant on this point: the worst case scenario would be the status quo.

Whatever you think of the various options on the table, I have never met anyone who seriously thinks the current system that has evolved organically over decades is desirable. If starting from scratch, who in their right mind would design a two-tier system of local government (three, counting town and parish councils)? A situation in which one council is responsible for collecting your rubbish, but another council is responsible for disposing of it. The decision of the upper tier (county) council to charge for access to recycling centres is widely accepted to contribute to fly-tipping, which is the responsibility of the lower tier (district) authority to clear up.

One council determines where housing is located, but it is the other council responsible for the roads, schools and libraries to service those new communities. The authority responsible for public health has no control over leisure facilities that can contribute to keeping people fit and healthy. One council operates car parks, but the other is responsible for on-street parking. It is no wonder the public are confused about who is responsible for what – I have met many councillors who don’t actually fully understand what is or is not within their remit!

The competing proposals

There are three proposals on the table (no doubt with a hundred and one other permutations alongside): a single unitary council on the current geography of Oxfordshire County Council; a three unitary option which would see Oxford city grow into what it calls “Greater Oxford”, almost perfectly matching the land currently defined as the Oxford Green Belt (perhaps a relevant point), with rural councils around the outside; and finally a two unitary version that would see a North/South split – Cherwell, West Oxfordshire and Oxford City coming together into one council in the North, and Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire merging with West Berkshire in the South.

My perspective is undeniably biased slightly towards the South. I have lived and grown up in the area that is currently the Vale of White Horse (formerly Berkshire) all of my life. My parents and grandparents lived and worked here and it is the proposal that has perhaps made the most running in the debate so far, but I have tried to look beyond these local considerations; if nothing else it is the knock on effects that have often been overlooked.

So let’s look at the unintended consequences of these options for other areas. The single Oxfordshire scenario does not make any change to the existing boundaries, and so outside of its own geography there is no impact. Of course the debate then moves on to mayors, but as mentioned that’s a discussion for another day.

The Greater Oxford option is widely, and in my view correctly, seen as a land grab by a fiercely independent city. Politically it feels isolated in many ways, and has fought hard for over a decade to expand outwards, through the Greenbelt into the rural districts. I would never say that the Greenbelt should be sacrosanct, it is an artificial barrier that although held in great affection by many, is a purely political construct. Nevertheless it not only creates the potential for a sprawling city, but also creates councils that are responsible for the rural county without controlling the economic hub.

The Ridgeway Council (as the Vale, South Oxon and West Berks option is known) has certainly won the prize for the most catchy name; especially when compared with what it leaves behind, known as “Oxford and Shires”. Yet it is exactly this slightly disjointed approach that is one of its greatest weaknesses. It leaves Oxford City uncomfortably tacked on the edge of a vast rural area, with only one physical point of access – at Peartree, where the A40, A44 and A34 come together – that would actually link the city with the rest of the council area. To the South, the current six unitary councils that currently make up Berkshire are also having to consider their future, and no thought is given in the debate to what the impact is in our neighbouring county to removing the largest geographical council from that occasion.

This is a debate where size matters. Not simply from a “bigger is better” perspective – there are perfectly reasonable concerns about councils becoming too remote from the public they service. But put quite simply, the Government have set a minimum population of 500,000 for any new unitary councils. Everything short of a single county unitary falls short of this number. Even the Ridgeway option, which gets the closest, is only 449,400 on current figures. Now for each scenario that falls short their supporters point to future population growth, but there is no indication that the Government will be that flexible. Neither is there any appetite to use anything other than the existing building blocks of the current councils, which would kill off the Greater Oxford idea at a stroke.

So all options, other than a single Oxfordshire unitary simply fall down on the basis of the Government criteria. Simple! So why go further? Whilst I think that the numbers game adds some inevitability, it is of course not the only argument, and if there is going to be a change it is important to try to convince people and take them with you on the journey.

Size is not just a factor because the Government says it is; there are real world factors at play. Across the country councils are struggling under the crippling finance pressure of adult social care and providing for children with newly diagnosed special educational needs. Of course, we can point to central government funding as a cause, but small councils are simply financially unviable, and we see authorities very close by who have either been declared bankrupt (having been served a Section 114 notice) or appear to be on the brink.

When providing strategic services, whether social care or highways, there is a critical mass that is needed. It seems highly unlikely that any government would allow the creation of tiny unitaries, such as a Greater Oxford, at a time when existing councils are struggling to survive.

Now there are plenty of problems that exist with our existing county council, and while I will endeavour to remain non-partisan here about particular issues, we should not confuse political failures for structural ones. There are any number of policies of Oxfordshire County Council that I strongly disagree with; but I cannot say those policies exist because of the size of the council, rather because of the politics of those in control. There are some who look at the different options and will have their judgement swayed by what they consider to be the potential outcome for their favoured party in future elections. This is incredibly short-sighted. In making the biggest change to local government in a generation, we should not consider who might win the next four-year term. It is also incredibly naive. In the 51 years since the last boundary changes, Oxfordshire has technically been under No Overall Control for 32 of them. Structures do not necessarily dictate election results.

Where do you draw the lines?

Arguments are made in favour of a Ridgeway Council on the basis of demographics. People in South Oxfordshire have more in common with people in West Berkshire than they do with the good folk of Banbury. This is a pretty marginal point, which points more to urban versus rural. Certainly the natural geography of the Ridgeway Council (as the name suggests) has a strong commonality, but is that really a good basis for local government administration? For more than half a century our local economies and local communities have edged in slightly different directions. The life sciences and satellite technology that is so strong in Southern Oxfordshire tends to look toward the academic and medical institutions of Oxford.

Even prior to the 1974 local government changes, Dr Richard Beeching was already carving out a different future for our communities. Southern Oxfordshire is littered with abandoned railway lines. I often enjoy walking them with my dog on a Sunday morning, often discovering previously unknown (to me) bridges or embankments. By contrast West Berkshire still benefits from a surprising array of small village and town stations. This comparison may not be an argument against a merger, but the surplus of stations in Berkshire will not help in the long running campaign to reopen Grove Station; there are no direct links; and to travel from the North to the South you need to go via Reading.

The road links are not much better. When the A34 is working well there is a central spine to the Ridgeway area, but unlike Oxfordshire which is a clear hub and spoke, there are few other decent links. In the (not uncommon) event the A34 is closed, there are few suitable alternatives linking places like Wallingford with the likes of Hungerford. I believe there is now a bus between Didcot and Newbury, but that itself relies on the A34, doesn’t operate Sundays and doesn’t connect the other major towns.

Although perhaps not explicit, some seem to favour the rural unitary version as a protection against expansionist housing growth. South Oxfordshire has fought for years against the southern expansion of Oxford, and West Berkshire already extends into the urban sprawl that many would identify as being part of Reading. In reality, rather than retrenching as an isolationist rural council cut off from the unwanted pressures of housing growth, a new Ridgeway council is much more likely to find itself being squeezed from both directions at the same time.

*Henley: Oxfordshire or Berkshire? Henley on Thames from the Margrave Road, Jan Siberechts, 1627-1703.* *(public domain image*)

Bring back Berkshire?

Many will point to the historic boundaries of the Royal County of Berkshire. I can empathise with that at an emotional level. My grandfather was a councillor in 1974 when the existing districts came into effect. I am a lover of history and can understand the genuine tie that it has for some people. Despite feeling it a little myself having grown up in the knowledge of the change, it was 50 years ago. I wasn’t even born, let alone my children. We should recognise and accept our history, but without being bound by it.

The Lord Lieutenancy covers Oxfordshire, as does the High Sheriff. It is what most people now know and understand. In addition, many parts of South Oxfordshire were never part of Berkshire. If you think it important to reunite a part of historic Berkshire, surely it is relevant that you would be doing so by forcibly extracting Henley-on-Thames from Oxfordshire where it has comfortably sat since the 10th Century.

A parliament of crows, all facing different directions. (Image Jax Berry CC BY 4.0)

Who decides?

I believe that it is important to inform people about the options, listen to views and seek to persuade, but we must also remember that ultimately, it is the Government who will get to decide. Some of the posturing on the subject sounds rather grand; yet later this year the current councils will simply be submitting their own proposals, with their own skewed consultations, for Angela Rayner to decide.

In many ways the array of options on the table exemplifies the problem Oxfordshire has had for so long, and one that is symptomatic of two-tier local government. No-one can agree. They can’t agree on where new homes can go, they can’t agree on a reasonable transport policy, and even when faced with an existential threat, they cannot agree on what the future should look like. All of the options being proposed are based on self-preservation of those behind them. This indecision is why Oxfordshire was not in the first tranche of reform, and why I doubt that it will even be included in the second tranche. The difficult child, sent to the back of the class.

As I have set out, I favour a single Oxfordshire unitary. It would be a big council. It would need to have safeguards to allow some localised decision making. None of this is new, however, and many of the problems were ironed out back in 2017 when three councils came together for the Better Oxfordshire scheme. At the time I was delighted and surprised in equal measure as Leader to effectively get unanimous cross party support by councillors in the Vale of White Horse to abolish themselves. Sadly we see more self-interest on the table now.

Most people do not care about their council. Neither should they. Councils and governments are there to serve the public, not the other way around. So the question has to be, which option will best serve local residents. I am firmly convinced that only a single Oxfordshire option will recognise the existing economic and social links that have been developed over more than 50 years, whilst being of a scale that can deliver effective local services. Smaller unitaries are likely to be ineffective and inefficient. We need good political decision-making that respects the views of local residents and puts their interests first. I would be the first to argue we don’t always get that in Oxfordshire at the moment, but that is a matter of politics, not structure. If we don’t like the policy we need to vote for change; if we get the wrong structure we just risk ending up with a council in crisis by design.

This whole debate reiterates the inability of local politicians to come together and agree on a plan with a common interest. That is a pretty sad state of affairs. The one positive is that there does seem to be a single point of agreement these days. Doing nothing is not an option – maintaining the two-tier system is the worst of all worlds!

There’s only one Oxfordshire – on council reorganisation