At the risk of doing Mr Baker an injustice, his remarks, their tone and repetition, strike me as being those of an autocrat, ie "you (the public) must like it (the Alliance and all its works) or lump it".

This impression is strengthened by the fact that as far as I know, until last Thursday only meagre scraps of information had been made public about the Alliance and its aims. Now we seem to be faced with a fait accompli with the levers for change already in place.

As is often the case, improving efficiency, via services provision, is seemingly the main plank of the planned reform programme. But not long ago, the Audit Commission, a much-respected institution, evaluated both authorities as being in the top grade of performance. So how are services to be further improved and not just marginally?

"In terms of the alliance the main priority is to save around a million pounds...."

Doubtless, labour costs will come under very close scrutiny. Even so, I cannot see the number of binmen being reduced, nor should they be. But their supervisory/management structure, like that of other service providers, could be vulnerable to "pruning" via re-organisation, leaving job vacancies unfilled - and the like.

Mr Baker claims, "...we also need to reassure all our employees that leaders of both councils have confirmed their wish for no compulsory redundancies through the alliance." Has Mr Baker himself also "signed up to" this wish? And what possible weight, in terms of employment security, can be possibly attached to such a "wish"?

Have the architects of this alliance accepted the assumption that "bigger is better"? This approach seems to run against the grain of national policy whereby power is being increasingly devolved, eg to Scotland and to Wales.

While admitting the following point to be slightly facetious, it can still be discussed as a serious proposal. To follow the Alliance's and Mr Baker's own logic to have one chief executive where we once had two, why not halve the number of councillors in each of the two authorities?

Would not the savings in expenses make a useful contribution to that million pounds?

Can the public be given some indication of the methodology to be employed when attempts are made to measure "improvements"?

Eric Armstrong OBE
Godward Road
New Mills