2024 saw two significant anniversaries reflecting the importance of district councils: The formation of two-tier local government in 1974 as a result of the 1972 Act; and, the 130th anniversary of the 1894 Local Government Act, which created elected urban and rural district councils within existing counties; the latter weren't democratised until the 1888 Act which also formed a two-tier system of Government in London.
The 1894 Act, sometimes known as the Parish Councils Act, also established elected parish councils. Indeed, the Act embedded a three-tier system of local government (not unusual today across much of the globe) although not one that covered the whole of England but which continued until1974.
The centre's obsession with large unitary councils, which this government seems to have embraced with indecent and unnecessary enthusiasm, does not reflect the findings of over 50 years of independent international academic research: that bigger is not guaranteed to be cheaper, more efficient or more effective; it is only guaranteed to be bigger, more anonymous and out of touch with communities
Early local government legislation in England recognised the flexibility, sophistication and strengths of a tiered system, allowing local government to operate on a different size and scale depending on responsibilities: the current government should take note. A tiered system also allows for local government to operate at what is considered to be a strategic level, while keeping it close to communities for a range of services; and, for ensuring local democracy operates locally rather than focused in one large anonymous unit which fails to recognise the realities of community life. Moreover, a tired structure embeds subsidiarity into the system with services, governance and political decisions operating at the most appropriate level.
But, since 1972, when the Conservative government rejected the recommendation of the Redcliffe-Maud committee for 58 single tier councils across England, the centre has been determined to pursue unitary local government. 58 unitary councils today would mean an average council population of well over 900,000, not far short of the 500,000 council populations currently bandied about. The search for an optimum size of local government has been shown, through countless independent research projects, to be akin to the search for the philosopher's stone. But, when we get to population figures of this nature we have lost any understanding of what local government is and how it relates to communities of place. Rather, we have a system designed to meet a centralising technocratic whim.
District councils provide services to over 21 million people – 37% of England's population covering over half the country. They link communities to local government at the level that understands local community issues, reflects local loyalties and affinities (ignored in technocratically driven reorganisations) and are best placed to understand and provide for community needs. Districts (and parish councils) refresh local democracy and stop local centralism where services and decision-making is concentrated in a large and anonymous entity.
The centre's obsession with large unitary councils, which this government seems to have embraced with indecent and unnecessary enthusiasm, does not reflect the findings of over 50 years of independent international academic research: that bigger is not guaranteed to be cheaper, more efficient or more effective; it is only guaranteed to be bigger, more anonymous and out of touch with communities. Indeed, we conclude – rightly or wrongly (hopefully the latter) - that the battle between localisers and centralisers in the Labour Government has been won, at least on local government structure, by centralisers. The government as a consequence, sees local government as an agent not a partner, despite meetings and getting ‘round the table'. It also sees bigger local government as a way of exerting central power (fewer units and fewer councillors are easier for the centre to control); ‘saving money' is a smoke screen to hide a centralising agenda – despite so much talk of devolution - and saving money is simply not guaranteed by making local government bigger.
Meanwhile, district councils continue to serve residents, provide high quality services, link local government to real communities of place, are best placed to develop the social capital so favoured by the levelling-up white paper; and, keep local government local: the latter being vitally important (and aided admirably by parish and town councils) in a structure where England already has some of the largest units of local government across the globe.
We hope the white paper is not a blueprint to finally destroy the ‘local' in local government, but one that recognises the value of tiers and district councils. If devolution is to mean anything it matters that districts have been formally excluded from the process and should be reinstated to their rightful place at the devolution-table. If local government is to mean anything, there must be an end to the centre's obsession with large, remote and anonymous unitary councils; the white paper needs to recognise and promote the value of district councils.
Devolution does not need wasteful, time consuming and expensive reorganisation, we do not need bigger local government but free and autonomous councils spared from the obsessive centralism of our system. That is what will save money (if that is all it is about), not making local government less local.
Colin Copus is emeritus professor of local politics, De Montfort University (visiting professor Ghent University), and Steve Leach is emeritus professor of local government, De Montfort University
