Title

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Let's think carefully about the best scale for delivering public services

We have seen a lack of sophisticated thinking by Government about the level at which COVID-19 initiatives were delivered, says Abdool Kara - and it looks like this may be a key theme in the NAO's ongoing coronavirus-related work programme.

I expect that readers of The MJ live in some sort of home. That home is likely to be on a street, maybe as part of a block or an estate. It will be in a neighbourhood or perhaps a village or parish. It might be part of a borough or town or city, or maybe a rural county.

Why does this matter? Well, for two main reasons: firstly, nations have to determine the appropriate geographic level for the administration of public services. Sometimes these will be at the individual or household or property level; at other times on a much larger footprint. Much thought has gone into this over the years. We can see clear thinking in some case, such as allotment provision at parish level, while transport is planned at county level or larger. Sometimes there is less obvious logic – why, for example, in two-tier areas are leisure facilities provided by districts but libraries by counties?

In my recent evidence to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee hearing on devolution, I suggested that from the National Audit Office (NAO) perspective, we had seen a lack of sophisticated thinking by Government about the level at which individual COVID-19 initiatives were best delivered – whether from the centre as a default assumption, or from other levels of governance and accountability closer to the public. It looks like this may be a significant theme in our ongoing COVID-19-related work programme.

The second reason is its relationship to the ongoing debates about local government reorganisation and the most appropriate scale for the delivery of different services.

As administrative bureaucracies cannot exist at every layer possible, whatever size local authorities are will inevitably be a compromise between various economies and diseconomies of scale.

Mapping English local authority numbers over time shows a decrease from 1,245 authorities prior to the 1974 reorganisation down to 339 today, with further decreases to come from planned, though delayed, reorganisations in Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire, not to mention the ongoing discussions around further devolution deals and the unitarisation that may accompany them. This is a curve heading in only one direction.

Abdool Kara is executive leader for local services at the NAO

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Making the shift

By Christine Marshall | 30 April 2026

As the sector gears up for a new wave of unitarisation, Christine Marshall reflects on the move from districts to a unitary council as executive director for...

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Fifty years on: Lessons from the Layfield report on local council funding

By Owen Mapley | 29 April 2026

Half a century from the Layfield Report on local government finance, many of the issues it raised remain and have become more complex, says Owen Mapley.

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Kent's political possibilities

By Duncan Flynn | 29 April 2026

While the sector awaits a swathe of government decisions on unitarisation, Duncan Flynn predicts how new unitary options in Kent and Medway could play out po...

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Unitarisation: What comes next?

By Steve Leach | 24 April 2026

Steve Leach and Colin Copus ask if there will be ‘a further influx of smaller unitary authorities based on real places and a socio-economic geography which m...

Abdool Kara

Popular articles by Abdool Kara