Changes to local authorities of fewer than 500,000 people could result in Rutland being sent right back to 1974, and losing its status as a ceremonial county. But not if MP Alicia Kearns has anything to do with it. Her petition has one simple aim… to #SaveRutland amid the Labour Party\u2019s reorganisation of councils<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ufeffSix weeks to save Rutland. That was the rather shocking prospect locals faced in February as Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Stamford, launched a petition aimed at protecting our status as a ceremonial county.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Published on 16th December, the English Devolution White Paper set out Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner\u2019s plans to devolve power from Westminster into larger regional authorities. In Rutland\u2019s case, this means the creation of a single unitary authority for Leicestershire which will swallow up Rutland, potentially ending its status as a ceremonial county. \u201cPeople are upset about it, quite understandably,\u201d she points out. \u201cHaven\u2019t we been here before, from 1974 to 1997?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What alarms Rutlanders most, though, is a lack of a referendum or a period of consultation. The Labour party\u2019s manifesto had already promised the creation of regional mayors but completely out of nowhere the government also announced that it was also embarking upon a reorganisation of local governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMore worrying than the lack of opportunity afforded for referendums or at least public consultation was the deadline of 10th January that the government set for their response, and Rutland\u2019s reply, in a letter sent by the County Council, was that there was unanimous agreement to local government reorganisation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere certainly isn\u2019t unanimous agreement and I\u2019m pretty disappointed by the proposals, given that the justification for this given by Labour is to get rid of underperforming unitary authorities. Rutland is nothing of the sort.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe\u2019re the number one performing county in respect of adult social care, for example.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe government has said that if councils do not proactively agree to reorganisation they can force the changes through with legislation. But I don\u2019t consider that resistance is futile, and with a deadline of 21st March approaching for a response from the councils concerned, we have to demonstrate that we\u2019re a proud county and that we will go into negotiations in a position of clarity and strength.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the next month\u2019s Alicia and her husband will welcome their third child into the world, and in theory the MP is on light duties due to severe complications, she spent a week in hospital recently\u2026 although even the well-coordinated pincer-movement of Alicia\u2019s husband and her team (\u201cThey ganged up on me, but I\u2019ve brokered a deal whereby I can leave the house for two or three meetings a week!\u201d) couldn\u2019t prevent her from holding a couple of public meetings where about 400 people expressed their objection to the proposed loss of Rutland\u2019s status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI held two public meetings as I felt very strongly that the public didn\u2019t know what was happening, or understand the process going on around them, which is undemocratic. I published the letter from the County Council that expressed agreement just before the second of those meetings and a lot of people were more aware of what was happening and angry as a result.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHardly anyone wanted to join a giant unitary authority, and if forced, they were pragmatic about joining one of two slightly smaller unitary authorities \u2013 East Leicestershire and West Leicestershire, for example.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere was very low support for the creation of a mayor, and above all people felt they had been blindsided. I took away from the meetings a very clear mandate that we needed to fight for Rutland\u2019s status as a separate ceremonial county, and that mandate was underwritten by hundreds of emails I\u2019ve received since.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alicia created a petition available to sign in advance of the next deadline of 21st March, a week after this edition of Pride is published. The MP will present the petition in Parliament w\/c 24th March.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe deadline is for local councils to put forward proposals for how the reorganisation should take place.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe know that Leicestershire County Council will propose a single unitary authority of which Rutland is not a part. However, we also know that Rutland could be forced into such an authority by Government. Because these changes are council-led, MPs are not part of the negotiations and can\u2019t halt the changes, which is really frustrating for me and for residents.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAt a special meeting of Rutland County Council recently, Conservatives and Independents presented a motion ensuring that every councillor has a vote on any proposed changes, at full council, ensuring that at least that there\u2019s now a democratic mandate rather than one person deciding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAdditionally, by ensuring I can go to Parliament and present a petition with wet (i.e.: physical, as opposed to online) signatures I have the opportunity to have control of the Chamber for about six minutes to express that Rutland wants to ensure its status as a ceremonial county.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe last petition I founded was against the Mallard Pass Solar Farm, and it was one of the biggest that Parliament had received in recent times, so my goal is to surpass that with signatures from Rutlanders to ensure that Angela Rayner will have to formally respond to our concerns in the House.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI\u2019d love to get 20,000 signatures, but it\u2019s difficult in this day and age to get wet signatures and many petitions are conducted online, but physical signatures have more credibility. So, together with The Rutland Blogger Charlie Pallett and Ralph Offer, landlord of the George & Dragon in Seaton, we\u2019ve put the petition in tens of local pubs, shops, cafes, village halls and we\u2019re setting up stalls in Uppingham and Oakham\u2019s Market Places to allow people to sign in person.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve also put the petition online so it can be printed out and posted or dropped into the constituency office where it can also be signed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alicia has also set out six tests to take into the negotiation of Rutland\u2019s future including protection of its ceremonial status, equalisation of council tax and fair allocation of future funding across a larger authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe do indeed have six weeks to \u2018Save Rutland,\u2019 and I\u2019m grateful to everyone who has helped by signing the petition already, and to those who have shapes our six tests by attending my public meetings, emailing, writing or stopping to chat with me while out and about.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alicia\u2019s baby is due in May, and though the couple are uncertain whether they\u2019re expecting a boy or a girl, one thing they are certain about is that they want them to grow up in a Rutland that\u2019s as close to the one that we know right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cRutlanders will not accept having our identity stripped from us and given the serious repercussions of this re-organisation for our communities, the Council must go into negotiations fighting our corner, being clear of what we expect and what would be best for Rutland. We may be a small county, but we are a strong county.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ufeffSix Tests to Protect Rutland<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Ceremonial County Protected: Rutland must continue as a ceremonial county. The Government must provide legislative or legal assurances to protect Rutland\u2019s ceremonial county status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. No Single Leicestershire Unitary: If Rutland\u2019s unitary council is scrapped by Government, or the Council continues to request re-organisation, Rutland must not join one supra-unitary covering the whole of Leicestershire. There should be at least two unitary councils covering Leicestershire and Rutland, i.e. Leicestershire East and Rutland or North Leicestershire and Rutland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Council Tax Equalisation: Rutland\u2019s Council Tax must be reduced down, and therefore equalised, to the same as all residents within any new County Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Fair Share: A mandate should be created in the constitution of any new County Council, or a formally agreed convention and mechanism, which calculates a fair allocation for Rutland of Government funds to ensure Rutland gets its fair share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Smaller Council Wards: Rutland currently has 27 County Councillors. Proposals for a single Leicestershire Unitary Council would reduce this number to just three. A two-unitary model (e.g Rutland and East Leicestershire or Rutland and North Leicestershire) would still see Rutland represented by only six Councillors. Any council re-organisation or devolution must ensure smaller council wards to ensure democratic accountability and keep democracy closer to communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. Rutland in the Name of the Council: As a Ceremonial County, and given our distinct identity, Rutland must be in the name of any new Council serving Rutlanders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n