Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Two-tiers deserve some credit

  • Comment

As the new unitaries enter their fifth month and the government’s chosen ‘pathfinders’ focus on making two-tier working more efficient and effective, the latest round of local government reorganisation seemed to be bedding in.

The unitaries are reporting back positively and although the anticipated government-sponsored review of pathfinders is expected to be less than positive, some progress has been made.

So, a glowing first-term report for the unitaries and a C+ for the pathfinders as they conclude year two? Not according to the Department for Communities & Local Government.

Its strongly worded paper, seen by LGC and circulated ahead of a secret meeting of selected officers and leaders last month, threatens to reopen the unitary debate.

Heavily referencing the 2006 Strong and Prosperous Communities white paper, it concludes that two-tier government risks confusion, duplication and inefficiency, pathfinders aren’t achieving and “the status quo not an option”.

Despite three pages of criticism, the expected punchline does not materialise. A note in parentheses at point 14 confesses there are “no plans for a future unitary invitation”.

Instead, it appears to be a clumsy attempt to speed progress in two-tier areas using a mix of sibling rivalry (“unitaries are doing so well, why aren’t you?”), divide and rule (districts were only invited after counties intervened) and fear (“failure is not an option”).

It doesn’t acknowledge moves in East Hampshire DC and Havant BC to share a chief executive, similar plans in Dorset, or Powys CC’s planned merger with Powys Teaching Local Health Board. It does moot using “incentives, rewards or reprimands”.

The paper declares DCLG’s wish to “encourage and facilitate” progress.

Open discussion, giving credit where it’s due, accepting that councils (especially district treasurers) know the score would be a start.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.