Alicia Kearns Advocates for County's Ceremonial Status at Rutland County Council Meeting
At a special meeting held at Rutland County Council, MP Alicia Kearns took the floor to address the critical issue of devolution and the protection of the county's ceremonial status. The special meeting attracted attention as Kearns outlined her concerns and the need for greater public involvement in council decisions.
During her address, Kearns articulated the importance of preserving Rutland's unique identity and heritage, a sentiment shared by many local residents. She expressed her concerns about the current approach taken by the council in handling matters related to devolution, indicating that the process could benefit from enhanced transparency and community engagement.
Public participation should be at the forefront of any decision-making process that affects our county, Kearns stated, advocating for more consultations that would allow residents to voice their opinions and contribute to the discussions about their future and the future of Rutland.
Councillor Andrew Johnson raised a pertinent questions, seeking clarification on specific points made by Kearns regarding the consultation process. In response, Kearns reiterated her call for more structured engagement with the community, emphasising that input from residents is crucial for any successful devolution strategy.
The video clip from the meeting captures the exchange, showcasing Kearns’ passionate advocacy for Rutland and her commitment to ensuring that the voices of local constituents are heard.
Alicia Kearns Said:
in disbelief that our self-governance is once again in doubt.
Yes – we all share concerns about our high council tax and the issues of being a
smaller unitary. But these plans won’t solve this problem. Larger councils will not result
in rural equality and fair funding. But they will dilute democracy and see decisions about
us made outside of Rutland. Because the voices of 40,000 are easily lost when
subsumed into Half a million. This is my greatest concern.
We have been put in this position by Government, and now we must determine, as
Rutland, how we wish to respond. This Council is required to put forward proposals and
negotiate in our best interest. This requires consultation. On the Council’s website we
can currently share our views on health care, school travel, nature strategy, housing
association properties, Ryhall Library and the budget. Yet not on the very existence of
the council and the future of our county itself.
This is why I held two public meetings to gauge how we feel about these proposals
Our communities have clear preferences over our future and want a say. Councillors
are not passive participants in this process. I hope the next proposals are genuinely
reflective of what residents want and are best for Rutland. From the start this Council
should have been making clear that Rutland was neither a failing council, nor one that recognises Reform as necessary. We do what is right for Rutland. Which is to engage in the process, But at all times make clear that we will not willingly give up our independence. A reluctant but engaged partner is more likely to have their red lines listened to. They are a reflection of the public meetings I’ve held and the views of the thousands of residents who have attended, written and spoken to me. If the Leader wants to go into these negotiations best representing our county, then she needs the full council and our county behind her. That means all councillors must have a say. I have pushed hard for the government to undertake consultation. Their answer was sadly clear – it is for “councils to decide how best to engage locally.” I’m relieved the Council has now recognised that public consultation is necessary. Can we secure Rutland an opt out of re-organisation? There simply is not unanimous agreement and certainly not that we should be fast-tracked. I’ve made my opposition clear, informed by the views I heard at the public meetings. I have opposed one single unitary for Leicestershire, suspension of elections. And I’ve opposed the extension of Leicester City. I’ve written to ministers, ensured residents are aware and requested meetings.
The Leader’s views are set out in that 10th January letter. We all know the Secretary of
State has the ultimate authority, and will force any decisions she deems necessary,
including if Councils refuse to get on board. But Rutland County Council is the only
actor with agency in this process. I ask on behalf of Rutlanders that you listen to
residents, and make this a truly representative decision for our counts. We are
Rutlanders and should be recognised as such in law and by our King. In negotiations
with Government and other Councils we must be absolute the Government must make
provisions to protect our ceremonial status.
To conclude I wish to summarise the votes at my public meetings.
On the question of fighting for Rutland to remain a unitary authority:
• Two-thirds felt the decision had been pre-determined and so it was not worth
fighting, but if they had their say, the vast majority would remain an independent
unitary
• One-third wanted to fight to save our Rutland Unitary Council
• There was almost unanimous support for two Leicestershire county councils with
Rutland as part of one – and with Rutland in the name – If forced to merge
• Around 5 people wanted one single Leicestershire and Rutland unitary authority,
• Unanimous support for protecting our Ceremonial Status
• Very low support for a mayoralty, be that a LLR Mayor or an East Midlands
Mayor,
• But most residents were clear they wanted to be given a chance to have their say
The next year will determine our collective future.
We need to demonstrate our voice and determination to get what is right for us now.
