The recent announcement of a unitary authority for both Norwich and Exeter is another twist in a long story of indecision and failure by government to provide national leadership in the structure of local government in England.
The first English unitaries were created in 1996 and now there are just over 30 of them. Unlike Scotland and Wales (where a unitary footprint was imposed as the new Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were formed) England continues with a patchwork quilt of counties, shire districts, metropolitan councils, London boroughs, unitaries and parishes.
The vision was for English regional authorities (remember them?) and a footprint of single-tier authorities. When that was generally rejected, the government became increasingly reluctant to drive change in the structure of local government in England. This latest announcement adds to the confused picture and demonstrates the absence of a clear view for local authorities in Whitehall.
Yet here was a real opportunity to demonstrate clear leadership and direction. With the Conservatives still entangled in shire counties and the Liberal Democrats preferring locally-sourced solutions, Labour had the chance to show clear water between its own approach and that of the other major parties.
Compounding these failures, the government persists in experimental ideas, such as elected mayors, that have uncertain support except for in London. Every month there seems to be an initiative for changing the representational model or countering low turnout at elections by tinkering with institutions. But it is hard to see a pattern and harder still to see a vision.
Even the scale of new unitaries is appearing to change. After establishing a precedent of unitary authorities with a population of between 150,000 and 250,000, the new fashion appeared to be for unitary counties or much larger units. Unitary Cornwall, Northumberland, Shropshire, Durham and the split Cheshire authorities all seem to come from different notions of scale and community than the original unitary decisions. But the decision to press the unitary button for Norwich and Exeter looks motivated by a different set of criteria again.
A cynic might observe that these decisions needed to be made before the general election but even conspiracy theories about gerrymandering don’t really explain the government’s motivations. Norwich and Exeter seem more consistent with earlier decisions in terms of size and scale and community than later ones. One thing is for certain, lawyers from Devon and Norfolk County Councils will be poring over the decision. It would be remarkable if a strong legal challenge did not emerge from both quarters.
My memory is that both Norwich and Exeter made strong cases to become unitary councils previously but were rejected. Norwich, in particular, seemed to have its arguments in favour of unitary status played back as reasons for rejection. At that stage, there seemed to be a reluctance to create ‘doughnut’ authorities where the large conurbation formed a unitary authority leaving a more rural remainder encircling it. But this now appears the favoured way forward, at least in Norfolk, where the other local authorities are both large and populous.
It would be a pity if government turned its eyes to council structures in the same way as it has applied itself to the institutions in the health service, with constant chopping and changing in the approach to both governance and management.
It isn’t for observers and non-combatants like me to make sweeping generalisations about the specific solutions for structural change. But the episodic and inconsistent approach we seem to have at present can’t be good for stability or planning. Shire districts are undergoing a torrid time, being strangled by lack of resources and lack of capacity. The so-called radical solutions look increasingly driven by the need to reduce expenditure rather than quests for novel and innovative solutions for the future. This simply isn’t fair on councillors and public employees working hard for their local communities.
The final shame seems to be that these decisions go against the professional advice to ministers at Whitehall and even against the proposed decisions of junior ministers. This looks like a long way from the approach communities secretary John Denham was taking last autumn when a more structured take on innovation and institutions was being urged. The only consistency seems to be the reluctance to pay local authority chief executives the market rate for their services. I’m not convinced that one way to justify the salaries currently being earned is to pay it to shire district chief executives who are looking after two councils rather than one.
Jim Brooks is executive director of Sector
