The greater devolution of powers to local authorities planned by the government poses challenges, particularly the ability to fund vital services which are at breaking point in many places. The resetting of relationships and better alignment of the constituent parts are also important if it is to succeed.
The current structure of local government
Local government in England usually comprises three levels each with responsibility for local services split or shared between them. These traditional levels are:
- County councils who provide services that cover the whole county including education, waste disposal, social care, fire and public safety, library services and transport.
- District councils (sometimes called borough or city councils) whose responsibilities can include refuse collection, environmental health, council tax collection, housing and planning applications.
- Town/Parish councils maintain local services which can include recreational areas, footpaths, allotments, bus shelters play areas and cemeteries. The Parish council is consulted on highway and planning applications although they have no decision-making responsibility within the planning system.
A councillor may serve on more than one tier of local government – so a county councillor may also be a district councillor and/or a parish/town councillor.
Successive reorganisations have caused confusion
Over the last two or three decades, successive reorganisations of this local government structure have created various arrangements across the England which have left many residents uncertain as to which level of local government is responsible for which service. Furthermore, these reorganisations have included the creation of unitary authorities which usually combine the district and county level organisations into a single body.
The latest plan for unitary authorities – lessons to be learned
Following the publication of its English Devolution White Paper, the government intends to increase the number of unitary authorities in the UK. Presenting the plan in Parliament, Angela Rayner said, that it represented “a permanent shift of power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best.”
However lessons should be learnt from the unitary authorities which have already been created as in many cases there are aspects which do not function as promised.
Firstly, it should be noted that there are four organisations involved in this process: town/parish councils, district councils (usually to be removed as a result of the process), county councils and the civil service working in the “County Hall”. It is usually the latter, which is overlooked and which, when the new organisation is introduced, gives rise to many challenges in making the newly formed authority function effectively.
When implementing unitary authorities, mention is often made of a “charter” between the new unitary authority and the town/parish councils, a charter which seeks to outline the principles of engagement between the parties, However the county hall is usually omitted from this agreement and unless the culture, usually deeply embedded within county halls, is drastically changed, the principles in the charter will never be realised.
Day-to-day engagement between uunitary and town/parish councils is via the county hall staff and without their buy-in to the new ways of working, nothing will change. As is too often the case, the signed charter is waved around to display the democratic credentials of the new unitary authority but there is nothing tangible behind it.
Cost efficiencies
The main reason for the creation of unitary authorities is the desire to make savings, usually identified by merging district and county functions and by reducing staff ,and combining third party contracts. Furthermore, it is usually suggested that economies of scale can create further savings by having greater negotiating power via a single authority. However, the cost of staff reductions, usually in the form of redundancies, is often greatly underestimated, which in turn undermines the original business case, calling the entire merger into question. This is despite evidence that government organisations historically make the same mistake.
In addition to immediate savings, costs at county level are then further reduced by the devolution of services to town and parish councils. Yet, services are devolved without the accompanying budgets. In order to deliver the now unfunded services, town/parish councils need to increase their precepts which results in voters facing increased local taxes to fund the services which county no longer deliver. Although the service is no longer provided by the unitary authority, the Community Charge is not reduced which means in effect residents are having to pay twice.
If the town/parish council do not have the money for a devolved service and the service ceases, the parish/town council are held responsible for “deciding that the service is not required”.
Local Community Networks – A Talking Shop?
Local Community Networks (LCN) have been created as the interface between local community representatives and the unitary authority. LCNs include not only parish and town councillors, but representatives from other organisations with an interest in the local community including police, NHS, fire services and so on. The role of the LCN is to identify local issues and priorities but with no allocated budget. Funding must be requested from the unitary authority and without this agreement, solutions are not forthcoming. This results in the LCN becoming a ‘talking shop’ and representatives not attending due to inability to deliver solutions. Many unitary authorities created over the last decade have struggled with LCN structures, many going through various iterations over many years. However, these lessons are not passed on to newly created unitary authorities. It appears that LCNs are the token gesture towards local democracy with no real structure or power to promote their success.
Role of town and parish councils
There is also the ongoing view that town/parish councillors are part-time amateurs and are not taken seriously. Local government officials and councillors overlook the fact that town/parish ccouncillors usually have decades of experience across multiple industries and, by the fact they are ccouncillors, have proven a willingness to give time to their local community. If county ccouncils, unitary or otherwise, were to engage with this large pool of untapped resource and experience, they might find new solutions to their ongoing issues. Of course, attention would need to be paid to the question of professional liability but using these resources for ideas and suggestions might provide innovative solutions to persistent problems.
Sufficient funding is the key issue
Merely shuffling around the structures and governance will not solve the fact that there is not enough funding for these new authorities to provide the quality of services that are needed. What must be remembered is the rationale for creating unitary authorities is the need to manage budgets and cut costs due for the most part to the ever-increasing social care budget. If the social care question is not resolved by central government, unitary authorities are doomed to failure and local democracy is paying the price.
Better alignment needed
In addition, there should be a review of local government structure to better align constituencies, wards, parishes and LCNs. At present there is no coherence between them and a more clear and rational structure would remove overlap and provide a clearer governance structure with improved communications between the various parties involved in providing services to the community especially if there is to be a devolution of responsibility from Westminster.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
