OF COURSE we need to reduce the tiers of local government.

This was recommended after extensive (and as far as I know, non-political) research many years ago by a Royal Commission.

In 1972 their blueprint for England was of unitary authorities based (for most of the country) largely on city regions. What is now Oxfordshire, was proposed as one.

The government of the day response in 1974 was a fudge, and retained two-tiers of various sorts. Subsequently, unitaries were established in the metropolitan areas, but a confusing, misunderstood – and costly – system remained in place in many county areas, including Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Gloucestershire.

However, the recent proposal by local district council leaders for four unitary authorities is not the best solution.

Two of the proposed councils include large chunks of Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire – which would surely be made unviable. What happens to the rest of those counties? How will essential inter-agency work be helped, given there are three police authorities, three Local Economic Partnerships (which central government is keen to delegate powers and resources to), and multiple health agencies?

Critically, it leaves unresolved, all the challenges of strategic planning, transport housing and economic growth which beset Oxford and the surrounding city region we live in. The district council leaders suggest a ‘combined authority’ for transport and major roads; this would be an additional layer – in effect a quango.

And is anyone really suggesting that the complex needs of elderly people, challenged families, or young people is better solved by four separate authorities rather than one? We hear every day that recruitment of social and care workers is fraught, and a difficult situation would be made far worse.

Finally, where is the financial analysis to support the proposals – a vital factor at a time of enforced austerity? A unitary Oxfordshire has to be the simplest and most cost-effective response. Several county areas (Wiltshire, Cornwall, Durham, for instance) have managed to gain countywide unitary status in the last decade, and are coping well, whereas the smaller unitaries are struggling.

I see that the district council leaders suggest that a decision on reorganisation will lie with local people. I hope that residents, businesses, and wider organisations will press for a wider debate and insist that the advantages of a unitary county are properly researched and considered.

DAVID YOUNG
Sunderland Avenue
Oxford