'Districts are dead in the water'

County council chief execs have had their say in LGC's exclusive survey on the future of two-tier government.

"Two-tier areas should be eradicated — the government should compel, not invite, bids", "the current elephant in the room cannot continue" and "size matters" are just some of their comments.

LGC sent a list of questions to the top men and women in all 24 counties where district councils still exist and no reorganisation is planned. We received responses from 18 of them.

The results reveal that at least half of the county chiefs would be in favour of bidding for unitary status and 14 state they would prefer unitary government in their area. The vast majority want the government to at least clarify its intentions.

With 14 saying they expect a further round of reorganisation — nine saying within the next five years — the results clearly show this is an issue at the forefront of chief executives' minds.

So why is it still an issue? Given the pain caused by the current round of restructuring — the Boundary Committee for England's review of Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk has prompted a fresh round of judicial reviews — one might have thought the Department for Communities & Local Government would have issued a clear statement of its intentions.

The official line from the DCLG is that it has "no plans" for a further round of reorganisation. But even the official line contains plenty of wiggle room. In answer to a parliamentary question tabled in March, local government minister John Healey said: "We recognise that in some specific cases in the future there might be areas where circumstances are such as to warrant a focused and targeted invitation to the councils concerned."

If one is looking for an overall description of the government's feelings about two-tier government, the Strong & Prosperous Communities white paper of 2006 provides it.

On the prospect of two-tier county areas moving to unitary structures, the paper said: "Such a move would improve accountability and leadership, increase efficiency, and
improve outcomes for local people."

Despite the round of reorganisation prompted by the white paper leading to the abolition of the two-tier system in just 12 areas, one senior county source believes it sounded a death-knell for district councils. "I think the reality is the districts are dead in the water," he said. "These new unitary councils will demonstrate how much money can be saved by having unitary councils. I don't think any of us are naïve enough to think this debate is over."

Furthermore, the impression that the potential cost savings of moving from two tiers to unitaries will be too great a temptation for the government to resist was reinforced by comments from junior local government minister Parmjit Dhanda last month (LGC, 17 July).

Speaking to a local radio interviewer in his constituency seat in Gloucester, he insisted that £16m could be saved each year by replacing Gloucestershire's six districts and county council with two unitaries. He said the government was "talking about changing the structure of local government".

A DCLG spokeswoman passed the comments off as being "for illustrative purposes only". But when even government ministers are making such bold comments, it is easy to see why county chief executives refer to an elephant being in the room.

Those councils not going ahead with restructuring are being required to work closer together on things such as waste collection, sharing back-office services and front-office, customer-facing services to make the distinction between the two less obvious.

But county chief executives are clearly keen to go further. Writing in LGC in May, Chris Trinick, the departing chief executive of Lancashire CC, called for counties to become "multi-functional authorities", managing all public services in the area including health and police services.

Many of the survey's respondents shared that ambition to play a much bigger role.

"The really interesting issue is not local government reorganisation, it is the opportunity for making more sense of the whole public sector in a geographic area," one chief wrote.

Another claimed the current round of local area agreements would be crucial in determining what structure they adopt in the future. If two-tier areas struggle to make a success of their LAAs, that could prove decisive.

So what do local government's public sector partners make of the county/district divide? Jo Webber, deputy policy director at the NHS Confederation, has no doubts about the benefits of dealing with unitary councils.

"It certainly is easier if you are working with a single-tier authority," she told LGC. "These things aren't insurmountable, but most primary care trusts [PCTs] would want to have a proactive relationship with one portfolio holder and one overview and scrutiny chair."

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) refused to comment. But speaking at a conference in May, Steve Green, chief constable of Nottinghamshire, said: "Trying to get county councils and district councils to work together is like trying to get pandas to mate."

Hampshire offers an example of the kind of contortion councils are putting themselves through in the name of closer working.

The counties and districts have come together to create 'the Hampshire Senate' — a voluntary partnership of the 11 district councils, the county council, the PCT, police and fire authorities and an assortment of other local partners — in an attempt to deliver efficiencies and more integrated working, without the need to go through a "costly and disruptive exercise of local government reorganisation".

It is an admirable goal but the senate, which is due to meet for the first time on 10 September, has already come in for fierce criticism in the local press, while district council leaders have pulled out of early meetings organised at expensive hotels after objecting to the cost.

Meanwhile, a consultation paper published by the DCLG earlier this month on improving the accountability of local services highlights another problem.

Councils' partners are in future likely to be required to co-operate with county council scrutiny committees and joint scrutiny committees formed by counties and districts. At the same time, districts will be able to set up scrutiny committees whose reports counties will be required to respond to and which partner authorities will be required to "have regard of".

It could almost be enough to elicit sympathy for councils' LAA partners.

Despite the strong opinion from the county chief executives, Alan Goodrum, chief executive of Chiltern DC and chair of the District Councils Chief Executives Sounding Board, was bullish about the survey's results.

"I think some people are engaging in a spot of wishful thinking," he said. "We are heading for a general election, the Conservatives are leading in the opinion polls. David Cameron is making positive noises about the existing system and the role of district councils within it.

"I don't think there is time left in the current term. The government is a bit of a busted flush."

Mr Cameron certainly seemed to nail his colours to the wall at the Local Government Association's annual conference last month.

LGC lead story

"Localism does not mean that in order to trust local government more we have to have another round of local government reorganisation," he said. "I don't think that giving
councils more power and devolving power means that somehow small councils will be unable to cope.

"District councils' response to the floods proves they can cut it; they can do it and we should keep them."

If ministers do have any lingering plans to finish the job on reorganisation, it may be a case of now or never. If the answer is never, then the results of this survey show county chief executives want the government to come right out and say so.

Chief executives' views

"A county unitary model would be more efficient while freeing town and parish councils to play more of a part in local community engagement."

"The last round feels like unfinished business and it would be better to grab the whole nettle now."

"The sub-division of the county is damaging in terms of economic identity. A county unitary would bring economies of scale and cause less public confusion."