Title

For all the talk of greater efficiency, Phil Watson asks why the two-tier system is strangely absent from the debate. There is no doubt that Total Place, in some form or other, will play a significant role in the early years of the next government, of whatever complexion. But there is a significant, little mentioned ‘elephant in the room'. While the local authority family might, rightly, complain about ‘silos' and the political, professional and managerial self-interest in other parts of the public sector, it has been particularly timid in relation to one of the greatest inefficiencies in its own area, namely, the two-tier system. This is all the more surprising given local authorities' overall record of efficiency savings outstripping the rest of the public sector. While there is a discussion to be had about the best configuration of unitary authorities, it is a ‘no brainer' which unitary status is best, in terms of accountability, efficiency, neighbourhood working, cost and residents' outcomes. The present financial climate, and the fillip this has given to the Total Place philosophy – which should have happened anyway – means that a new government has the opportunity to tackle this issue boldly and comprehensively, at the beginning of the next parliament. In the early 1970s, a comprehensive plan for unitary local government was proposed – the Redcliffe Maud report. It was not implemented in relation to two-tier arrangements in the shire county areas, largely because at that time, the counties were controlled mostly by the party of the government of the day. They would have been abolished under the proposals. Notwithstanding the efforts that have recently been made in enhanced two- tier working in some areas, we have a really messy situation. In relation to unitary status, there was the abortive Banham review and several false dawns, although some new unitaries have been created with largely successful outcomes. Efforts at better two-tier working miss the point. It is making the best of a bad job, and we now need clear, decisive leadership from the Government and the sector as a whole. The time is right. Not only are authorities working closer together, in some cases, merging management teams to reduce costs and dealing with scarcity of expertise, but also political parties are finding it difficult to attract members of sufficient calibre in sufficient numbers. Both these issues would be addressed by a smaller number of single-tier authorities. Recent unitaries established, and being considered, have been a mixture of county-based and district-based authorities. However, there clearly needs to be much discussion about the process to be adopted for proposals, scrutiny, timescales and implementation of the eventual solutions. But, what must be made clear is that there will be a complete unitary solution for England – non negotiable – but with wide consultation on the best configuration. The alternative is the drift that we have had for the last few decades – lost opportunities, a disservice to the public, and inefficiencies which we can no longer afford in protecting individual fiefdoms. Now is the time to be bold. If we are really ‘all in this together', let's put aside short-term political, professional and managerial self interests, and put service to the public and outcomes, not structures, first. Otherwise, as in the 1970s – forgive the pun – it will all end in tiers. Phil Watson is a public sector consultant and former chief executive of Blackburn with Darwen Council

Title

WHITEHALL

Will it all end in tiers?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING