An old problem of local government is how to marry function to area. The technical requirements of the function are apt to exceed either the size of population within a given local authority or its extent in terms of square miles, or both. When the marriage is convenienced by enlarging the local authority or by singling out the larger local authorities to perform the function in question then it is true the marriage is consummated, but it is often divorced from local government in any acceptable meaning of the term.
I was faced by this difficulty when framing the National Health Service (NHS). Not even the larger local authorities provided a gathering ground extensive enough for certain medical specialities.
The principle of national financial responsibility also conflicted with local government responsibility for the service. Uniformity of treatment could not be achieved by making the nation the unit of the service nor, indeed, should it be attempted. But, equality should be the aim and this could not be guaranteed if facilities varied with local finances.
Then again there was the old problem of passing patients from the care of one health authority to another, a transference often necessary for clinical reasons, but one fraught with financial complexities for the authorities concerned.
All these considerations had to be kept in mind when shaping the service and any modification of the existing structure should be able to accommodate them, otherwise we shall not retain the enjoyment of a truly free NHS.
Nevertheless, it remains a defect that the principle of election had to give way to that of selection, by the minister, in the administrative agencies of the service. I found this hard because I am by experience and conviction a local government man. In my book, In Place of Fear, written in 1952, I wrote the following on this subject:
‘…Although it is essential to retain Parliamentary accountability for the service, the appointment of members of the various administrative bodies should not involve the minister of health. No danger of nepotism arises, as no salaries are attached to the appointments, but election is a better principle than selection. No minister can feel satisfied that he is making the right selection over so wide a field. The difficulty of applying the principle of election rather than selection arises from the fact that no electoral constituency corresponds with the functional requirements of the service.
‘A solution might be found if the reorganisation of local government is sufficiently fundamental to allow the administration of the hospitals to be entrusted to the revised units of local government. But no local finances should be levied, for this would once more give rise to frontier problems, and the essential unity of the service would be destroyed.’
The idea is for the local authority to act for the minister on an agency basis, on financial terms which should not present too much difficulty in working out. All staff appointments should be in the control of the local authority, with the exception of the specialists. These could be appointed on the recommendation of a regional advisory body, with adequate representation from the medical and other allied professions. By this means a considerable measure of local responsibility would be restored.
But one qualification must be made. The local authorities should avail themselves of the immense reservoir of voluntary workers in this field; otherwise there would be a danger of merely making a transfer of power from the officials in Whitehall to those in the town hall.
In my opinion, success is dependent on a radical reorganisation of the structure of local government. As we all know this is long overdue. Ardent supporters of local government have no answer if they continue to resist changes which are necessary to meet the requirements of a changing society.
In the proposals which I outline from now on, I must make it clear that I am speaking for myself alone and not for any particular section of political opinion. Arguments about the reform of local government cut across political parties, because it cannot be said that any one party would stand to gain by a change. It is this fact, as much as anything else, which has postponed action where, for so long, it has been so badly needed.
In reforming local government what should be our general aim? We should wish to revive and maintain local government as a form of government which is truly local, and which is so near to the people as to ignite and keep their interest.
This interest by the public is important as a spur and refreshment to the governing bodies themselves and for the creation of an intelligent and educated democracy inspired with civic spirit. Quite apart from its value to the wellbeing of society and to the individual citizen, it is of incalculable value to the community in any kind of crisis. Because of all these central objectives we must have local bodies which are near enough to the electorate to command interest, which have functions of sufficient importance to attract the best type of councillor and which are strong enough to carry the services they administer.
How do we apply these principles to the actual facts of the present complex of local government? There are two extremes operating in the district councils and the county councils. Within each group there are considerable variations in size, but taking the average unit in each, there seems little doubt that the present boroughs and district councils are too small for efficiency, whereas the administrative counties are too large for democratic principles to flourish; in my view county administration is a practical example of the way excess of size can turn the administration of an elected body into largely a bureaucratic form. There is little or no spiritual identification by the citizen with the administrative county. The latter is a machine with no organic thrust from the accretions of community living. Its disappearance would involve the dispersal of sometimes highly efficient teams of officials but no emotional disturbance among the electorate embraced by it.
Machines are important but democracy is a way of life as well as a means of living. Efficient machinery can guarantee the performance of material functions but it cannot by this means alone provide the full life; for if efficiency were to be accepted as the sole test the mechanised feeder would replace the domestic table.
This is not to say that I award the palm, even for efficiency, to the majority of county councils. Far from it. But it must be admitted that the abolition of the county as an administrative unit, for local government purposes, would involve the dissolution of a number of devoted and efficient teams.
The second aim we set for our reform was that it must ensure functions important enough to attract the best kind of councillor. This points directly at the all-purpose authority. No one acquainted with local government would seriously contest the proposition that a two tier local authority system leaves neither with enough functions to achieve viability. The delegation of powers from county to district causes endless friction between the two.
The problems of overspill, boundary extensions and the promotion of non-county borough to county borough status; all these, which sorely vex and perplex us at present, would either disappear, be easier of settlement or partly resolved by the change.
In particular, except for the great conurbations, most local government units would embrace both rural and urban areas to their mutual advantage.
There can be no doubt that one unit of local government, discharging all the functions now shared between county and district, would attract and keep the very best type of councillor, and give local government in Britain a much-needed fillip.
The third aim we mentioned was the necessity for strong administration. The all-purpose authority, enjoying diversity of function and based on a large enough population, would be able to command efficient teams of officials, provide them with status and pay them rates of remuneration which would serve to protect them from constant erosion by other forms of employment.
Obviously it is not possible to deal with the details of these proposals in one article, nor to answer all the objections that might be brought against them. There are exceptional circumstances, like Greater London, for example, where special provision would have to be made in any scheme for the reorganisation of local government.
Where so many deeply rooted vested interests are concerned it is hopeless to expect the argument to be conducted without prejudice and even passion. Nor are there subjects too extraneous to be mobilised in the service of the controversy. I have been told, for instance, that the end of the county as an administrative unit of local government would mean the end of the county cricket team. What possible connection there is between the two passes comprehension. The county, as an historical entity, existed before the creation of county administration and it would continue to exist after the latter ceased. Yorkshire would still enjoy its centuries-old friendly rivalry with Lancashire.
The issue here is the restoration and preservation of local government as a vital part of our constitutional apparatus and as an Indispensable element In the British way of life.
Those of us who have had experience of county and district administration can be in no doubt as to which is local government in all the essential meanings we attach to the term.
(Article reprinted from MJ, March 1954)
