Across large parts of England, including Kent, local government is broken. The Labour government has set out plans to address the problems faced, in a White Paper preceding an “English devolution” bill. That White Paper has provoked concerns about the erosion of local democracy and a potential centralisation of power – both things the White Paper claims to be aiming to improve. So where does the truth lie?
Criticism and concern
It is fair to criticise the 85 pages of the White Paper. It has two prefaces by political leaders (Angela Rayner and James MacMahon) spattered by flailing metaphors like ”the raw ingredients to ignite growth”; “when the rubber hits the road” and “sticking plaster politics”. This is followed by a long executive summary of 2930 words having nine sections, one about mayoral authority having eight sub-headings, each with sub-sections. In short, it is hard to read and understand in a hurry.
To that extent, people interested in local democracy (which should be all of us but sadly isn’t) are right to be concerned. Yet buried within it are positive aims which ought to be supported, and clear statements about the purpose of change which belie the critics’ concerns. To an extent, if you feel relatively positive or negative about the proposed changes might be a question of whether you trust the intentions of this Government or not.
Local government has had messy reorganisations
Local government in England today is a mess. Not only was the last coherent reorganisation 50 years ago, but piecemeal change has been happening for 15 years. There have been abolitions, creations, consolidations and amendments of local authorities as circumstances (and political prejudices) have dictated. Such reorganisations have tended to be reactive, often due to a financial crisis in local government (for example, Northamptonshire). In the case of London, there was a clear political motive for the abolition of the GLC in 1986 and its effective re-establishment as the GLA in 2000.
The result is a patchwork of systems, including 10 metropolitan mayors, the London mayoralty, small city unitaries (Slough, Blackpool and others), counties, districts and combined authorities. The government seems to view the mayoralties as entirely successful in achieving change. That includes better voter identification with local political leadership and rapid and significant benefits in service cohesion, economic growth and coordination of strategic activities like transport and planning. Whether the evidence supports that view is, however, moot.
The geography of the shires is different from northern conurbations
Simply transposing that model onto the whole of England is bound to create concerns. Only a small sample of mayoralties over a relatively short period is being used to support the argument that all of them work well. Every single one covers a large conurbation, where the challenges and opportunities are a world away from the situation in Shire counties where most of the new mayoralties are proposed.
Glib proposals for a one-size-fits-all model might look attractive from Whitehall but may fail on the ground. Practical geography may make a significant difference. For example, a mayor making decisions on improving links between some market towns containing hospitals servicing villages reached by country roads needs a different strategy from a mayor consolidating a northern conurbation.
To that extent, concerns are legitimate and need to be addressed. But having worked in local government, served as a district councillor in a two-tier system with a county council, and as a member of a small parish council, I know first-hand that the current system is unsustainable in terms of costs, quality of service delivery, and local accountability.
Kent as an example
Take Kent as an example: Kent County Council (KCC) is England’s second-largest local authority with 1.54 million residents. Its demographics are sharply divided: affluent by national standards in the west, but much less so to the east and around Medway, although with significant variances within each area.
KCC has been run by the Conservatives for all but four years of its post-1974 incarnation so Kent’s services have inevitably been configured by Conservative policy. But Kent has never been a solely Conservative fiefdom: KCC must work with district councils which are of a different political hue. An inevitable tension arises when KCC imposes its policies on non-Tory districts. In effect, it is structurally impossible for KCC to respond adequately to the democratic wishes of all of its residents.
The size and diversity of Kent’s population have created an insurmountable democratic deficit, especially under a first-past-the-post electoral system. Yet Kent’s 12 district councils are too small to provide many services cost-effectively, and they compete against each other in areas like economic development and tourism. That is a ridiculous position to be in.
Which authority should provide which service?
Residents find it difficult to understand which council provides which services. KCC delegates some services to some district councils in what appears to be quite random ways. Waste collection is done by district councils, which then contract out the services to specialist firms like Biffa. Disposal and recycling are controlled by KCC, which dictates to the districts what can be collected, where it must be delivered for disposal, and how recycling must be segregated. Why not put all that under one authority?
All this is exacerbated by the role of almost 300 parish and town councils covering most, but not all, of the county’s areas, so that there are an inconsistent three tiers of local government. This is a recipe for confusion, duplication, and waste. Such structures are utterly antipathetic to the idea of clear accountability. This must change, and the unitary system proposed in the White Paper is specifically intended to address such shortcomings.
Concerns about finance and democratic remoteness
There are three other key concerns expressed by critics of the White Paper: finance, remoteness, and a reduction in democratic accountability.
The White Paper sets out what the government can do to address 14 years of underfunding, and it dangles the carrot of more flexible future funding for mayoralties. It also states clearly that it will end the practice of councils bidding against each other for funds while specifying that there will be additional funding for deprived areas. As a short-term fix that might do, but it is self-evidently inadequate to achieve all the improvements that the Government says it wants to achieve.
The absence of clarity on that might be explicable from a Civil Servant’s point of view but is clearly, and rightly unconvincing to those who want to see fully funded local government. This illustrates that what is proposed is not devolution in the sense the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish would understand it, but rather a delegation of pre-determined powers. But that is at least better than we have now, even if some would like it to go further.
So far as remoteness goes, anyone living in a large shire county experiences that. KCC has one of the highest ratios of residents-to-councillors in England at over 19,000 people per councillor, but that ratio can be improved if we have unitary authorities. The system should provide properly funded councillors who can do the key work of setting policy and monitoring the implementation of services, rather than becoming an unpaid and untrained social service as so many district councillors currently are.
Enhance the parish and town councils
The other means of addressing the combined issue of remoteness and accountability lies in enhancing parish and town councils, something the White Paper only touches on in passing. Here we can get local control of specifically local services – parks and sports, tourism, culture, street sweeping, parking and small-scale planning. To do that requires a wholesale overhaul of this level of public sector activity.
Overall, this opportunity for change is one that we must seize on. We must try to find ways to maximise the benefits, because within this new world lies the real key to meeting the needs of the people that local government exists to serve.
