A council leader says she will fight for the 'best possible' deal for the county, despite neighbouring councils refusing to sit round the table. 

At the special council meeting about local government reorganisation held at Rutland County Council last night (Tuesday) the authority's Liberal Democrat leader Gale Waller laid out what has been happening so far in discussions between herself and other councils as they politically speed date to try and come up with mergers. 

In December, the Labour government ordered that all councils across the country must be reorganised into large unitary councils. Larger strategic authorities across regions will also be formed with powers and cash devolved down. 

All is still up in the air and at the meeting Cllr Waller said there had been issues with Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council not wanting to talk or share data. The councils in Rutland and Leicestershire have been told by the government to come up with some suggestions. 

Currently there are disputed proposals on the table including a three council solution favoured by Rutland and Leicestershire districts, while Leicestershire county council wants one large Leicestershire unitary without Rutland. 

The bids have to be put forward by March 21, with final bids by November. 

Cllr Waller said last night: "It is not an easy process, particularly with some of our partners not wanting to sit round a table with us, but nevertheless we have come up with something that we can put as a marker for what we are interested into government, at the end of March.  

"And the north south split of Leicestershire, I know is counter intuitive – if we are to go into Leicestershire, surely it should be east, west but that is not where the data is pushing us. I said right from the beginning of all of this, that any decisions that we collectively make has to be evidence led and the evidence has to push what is right for all of us.  

"We don't yet have all the evidence and that is what is going to be worked up post the March submission. The government is well aware of that and it understands that things could well change, but nevertheless we have something to go forward in March and that's what is before you today." 

At a previous meeting there had been agreement to have a full council vote on the submission, but at the meeting, Cllr Waller said the council had no power to take a vote because of the way the legislation is laid out. This was criticised by some. 

The Special Meeting on Tuesday 11th March continued the discussion of Rutland's future (Photo: LDRS)

Leader of the Conservative Group Lucy Stephenson said the council should be resisting the government's order to merge. 

She said: "We have been here before and actually we have resisted – it worries me that we are simply rolling over and capitulating to the dictat.  

"We are rural, we are unique and I would like to see us fight for that. 

"I would urge the leader – I don't think we do need reorganisation, we work very well. We need it because we have been told to do it. I don't know at what point this county was born not to resist things. I am here to resist. I am here to challenge." 

Former council leader Oliver Hemsley, who is now an independent, also said the government's dictations on who Rutland should merge with, should be challenged. 

He said the issue had been 'trussed up like a Christmas turkey' with the rules declaring only one option for Rutland. He said: "How I have read the white paper, I believe there is real opportunity for exploring other options and it actually encourages us to put forward alternatives. 

"Maybe we could look at talking to the lead civil servants and then putting up an alternative, with say South Holland, South Kesteven, East Lindsey, West Lindsey and Market Harborough. That would bring us to about 600,000. We have a rural connection and it would be an effective unitary council. 

"Can we at least explore a wider number of options so we can genuinely go to our electorate and say we tried, because all I am hearing from them at the moment is 'it's a done deal'. I do not think we are doing our job properly if we do not go and ask and make it clear we would like a say in our long term future. 

"I can hear the response well, Lincolnshire has already agreed the way forward, yes, but there is a year of shadow and until the ink is completely dry it is not set. We need to be brave and challenge the assumptions and if we lose, we can say at least we tried." 

Cllr Giles Clifton (Con) said the current proposal would see Rutland dominated by Charnwood and questioned why Market Harborough was not in the mix. 

Cllr Kiloran Heckels (Con) said the authority should be considering more than one option. 

She said: "I would not chose a carpet when I would not have had at least two quotes so I don't think it is acceptable to have only one option on the table for Rutland." 

Councillor Rosemary Powell criticised the lack of information that had been provided by the council on the options and said the authority should make clear in its messages to residents that it was going forward with reorganisation as a 'reluctant step'. 

But Labour's Councillor Steve McRobb said the county needed to merge to move forward economically. 

He said: "I believe our residents here in the county need more than a beautiful countryside to live in. They also need a functioning economy, they need jobs, they need to be able to travel to find the things they need. They need opportunities. They also need not to be punished by an economic situation that is against us. Low wages in the county. Many people are working as commuters because they drive out of Rutland in order to get a better paid job. An ageing population with a demographic that is against us."  

He said he did not believe a merger would lose the special character of Rutland. 

Cabinet member  Andrew Johnson (Lib Dem) echoed this and said: "I love Rutland, but there has been a lot of wistful comments that we can resist and it is really important that we have our feet on the ground as a council – we really should not be misleading our residents. 

"Rutland has been progressively starved of funds. We have been made to shed alot of the services we would still like to provide. Our money is being withdrawn from us hand over foot by governments of all kinds. It is really important to recognise that we are rapidly moving to a point as Rutland, that although we are well run, in order to do that we sacrifice an awful lot." He said leader Waller was the person 'you want in the negotiations' as she is 'very capable of getting her point across' He said she could be pugnacious to the point of awkward, which is really important. 

He said: "We do need to focus in on solutions that will work and the last thing we want is Rutland to be left on the table so that Jim McMahon (secretary of state) makes all the decisions for us."