The debate over shire local government reform refuses to go away. Recently, local government and communities minister, Ruth Kelly, has given cautious signals in support of more unitary authorities, while leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, says this agenda is a red herring. Into these turbulent waters steps the Commission for Rural Communities, the Government’s rural policy adviser and watchdog. In our view, it is high time significant moves were made towards powerful new unitary authorities in shire England, working closely with empowered town and parish councils. The reasons for structural reform have been rehearsed almost ad nauseam. Arguments about capacities and inefficiencies and public confusion and failures in accountability. There are also issues about the extent to which the present shire structures do reflect meaningful local identities, whether historic affective identities or the practical effective identities reflecting the patterns of people’s lives. Herefordshire’s new unitary status, gained during the 1990s, was a positive move, partly because it did reflect people’s sense of identity in a way, for example, that Avon never did. We believe that recent trends strengthen the case for reform. The experience of partnership working within Local Strategic Partnerships, Local Area Agreements and Local Public Service Agreements suggests that the transactional costs and overall complexity and confusion of shire local governance have increased significantly. The move towards strong governance within city regions calls into question the capacity of shire local government to punch with the right weight on behalf of rural communities in the new governance and resource-allocation challenges which lie ahead. The current two-tier structure is also chronically unstable. Since its creation, in 1974, several reviews have been undertaken, particularly two during the 1990s, when 46 new unitary authorities were established, including some rural unitary authorities. Experience suggests that it will be difficult for shire authorities to come to a collective agreement about the ideal shape of unitary local authorities in their area. This is partly because there is no agreed ideal size of local authority, and partly because of attachments to existing structures. At the same time, central government is, rightly, cautious against being seen to impose solutions from on high. However, this default and institutionalised inertia should not go unchallenged. Surely, with sufficient leadership, central and local government can work together to achieve successful structural changes? Indeed, a great number of local authorities, their councillors and officers, share our views, some publicly and some privately. The MJ has reported that authorities in several shire counties are ready to make the case for unitary reform, including the ‘county boroughs’ of Oxford, Norwich, Exeter and Ipswich. But the potential distancing of local people from any new unitary authorities is a danger. It should be countered by enhancing the role of neighbourhood level structures – for rural areas, parish and town councils. We feel that some of the governance focus and energy that has, over the years, leeched away from many of our smaller and market towns, should be restored through a strengthening of our system of parish councils. In the forthcoming Local Government White Paper, the Government needs to provide a distinctive narrative and reform programme for parish and town councils. This does need to recognise that there is still much scope for the parish sector to improve its performance, its record of competence and delivery, its inclusivity and its image. This could include further strengthening and supporting the Quality Parishes Scheme that has seen more than 300 parish councils successfully raise their game over the last few years. Of course, parish councils are not the be all and end all of neighbourhood level governance. There is a case for promoting strong local action partnerships – ‘mini LSPs’ – to link and combine parish councils with other local players – local businesses, the local school, churches, voluntary and community bodies, and ward councillors. In many communities it is in these voluntary and community bodies where community activism and dynamism thrives and is replenished. Such neighbourhood partnerships could drive forward action plans from Parish and Market Town Plans. We believe, despite easy criticisms that structural reforms seldom achieve anything, and that local government structures do matter. They are part of our local identities as citizens, consumers and taxpayers. They also set the bounds within which public servants work, and through which public services are delivered and local quality of life is managed. We ignore them at our peril. The CRC’s discussion paper Shire local government – time for change? can be downloaded from www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk n Crispin Moore is director of rural expertise at the Commission for Rural Communities
