Local government reform must find consensus and not lead to a further centralisation of powers

Governance structures need to be reviewed periodically. That which was appropriate in one generation may be at best sub-optimal in the next. Social, economic and demographic changes as well as new opportunities and challenges including developing understandings of policy delivery mean that institutional arrangements cannot be expected to be permanent.

Scotland’s neglected ‘other constitution’, the one closer to the delivering public services, has been reformed piecemeal with occasional radical reforms over the long haul. Looking back over the last century, we see major reforms in the late 1920s, further changes though less radical in the late 1940s, then the major reorganisation in the 1970s before the reorganisation in the 1990s.

The direction of travel tended to be towards larger local authority units while seeking to accommodate local particularities. Each of these significant constitutional moments was preceded by consultation and deliberation, though varying in intensity and duration.

The most extensive deliberation of all these major reorganisations had its roots in growing awareness that small local authorities were inadequate to the tasks of a modern interventionist welfare state. The growth in public responsibilities and expectations led to a consensus that larger units were essential. This spanned the party-political divide though there were differences on specifics.

The Scottish Development Department’s Modernisation of Local Government white paper in June 1963 noted the ‘marked changes in the location of population and in the role which local authorities are called upon to play’.  The white paper proposed to regroup authorities and reallocate functions. Burghs would be merged with landward areas, removing the urban/rural distinction.

That white paper, not the first nor would it be the last before major reform occurred, raised the prospect of regrouping authorities and reallocating functions with a two-tier structure in an attempt to combine functional and democratic needs. Functionally, it was recognised that small authorities meant diseconomies of scale lacking the tax base to provide services adequately.  But large authorities would be distant from the citizen.  Hence a two-tier system became part of the emerging consensus, but it had its objectors.

These deliberations took account of other institutional developments and thinking. This was the era of planning and ‘growth areas’. The Scottish Office itself was undergoing change that ran in parallel with thinking on local and regional governance.

Lord Kilbrandon, who would later took over the chair of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, chaired a Commission on Children and Young Persons that reported in 1964 with major implications for local governance.  His child-centred approach led to a major shake-up in juvenile justice.

The Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 put the establishment of social work departments in local authorities on a statutory basis and expanded prevention in policy making. Such changes pointed towards local government reform to ensure maximum impact.

Harold Wilson’s Labour government included key members with a keen interest and expertise in governance issues who understood well that wholescale reorganisation required very careful consideration and planning. Royal Commissions were established separately for Scotland (under Lord Wheately) and England and Wales (under Lord Redcliffe-Maud).

The Commissions reported in 1969, three years after establishment advocating radical but different changes in their respective jurisdictions. The broad context requiring reform was common throughout Britain, but the form proposed differed reflecting then existing structures, geographies and indeed some different thinking. 

At its launch, Wheatley was no doubt aware of the sentimental defence of the decrepit and dysfunctional structures that were subject to reform in the 1920s, maintained that the recommendations attempted to ‘give local government a chance to be something much bigger in the life of the nation’.  The ‘tendency in some quarters to look back nostalgically to the nineteenth century’ was to be avoided.  Wheatley said the report sought to ‘give local government a chance to be something much bigger in the life of the nation’ and warned against the ‘tendency in some quarters to look back nostalgically to the nineteenth century’

Wheatley was, of course, not the last word on local government reform. The recommendations were widely, extensively and rigorously debated. Opposition came from predictable sources and for predictable reasons – some reasoned, others less so but all had ample opportunity to be articulated.  The translation into policy into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 involved further deliberation and enquiries. Fife would have been split in two had the Wheatley report been implemented in full but Fife successfully fought that proposal and become one of Scotland’s successful regions. The whole of Scotland would have come under a two-tier structure but Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles emerged victorious as single purpose authorities.

Housing would have come under the regions but was instead placed under district councils and many proposed boundaries were adjusted.  In these cases, party political interests were decisive. The Conservatives back in office in 1970 legislated for the reform and excluding wealthier Glasgow suburbs meant that rate payers in these areas would not have to subsidise the rents of Glasgow’s large public sector tenants.

In retrospect, the reforms proved a major improvement on what had gone before.  Strathclyde came in for much criticism as western Europe’s largest local authority but it proved very effective in policy making and delivering. 

People in many remote parts of the region might have felt distant from the region’s Glasgow headquarters but there were marked improvements in the quality of services such as education. Strathclyde was able to use its heft to prioritise poorer communities, shifting resources where needed. 

In 1991, one community council in one of the remotest parts of Strathclyde responded to a consultation on proposals to abolish the regions noted that since the “introduction of the present system of Regional/District responsibilities, we at the ‘outposts’ of the system have faired better for resources”.  The region’s poverty programmes were widely acknowledged to have been well-researched, ambitious and effective despite operating against a backdrop of major economic crisis almost from the moment the new structure came into being.

The regions proved powerful counters to the Scottish Office, institutionally embodying the kind of healthy plurality required in a liberal democracy. Strathclyde’s water privatisation referendum killed off a policy in Scotland that was implemented south of the border. But it also contributed to Strathclyde’s demise. Removing alternative sources of power would make central control much easier. Authorities were able to challenge central government and pursue alternative policy agendas within their competences and powers.

Wheatley had noted that the “financial resources of authorities do not match their responsibilities”. This would be the subject of a separate enquiry in the 1970s under Sir Frank Layfield. Its deliberations and report remain the gold standard in enquiries of central-local financial relations. Its recommendations had been thoroughly examined and tested.  The great pity is that Layfield joined many other enquiries into local finance to gather dust on the policy maker’s shelf.  The need to address Scottish local government finance while embarking on a major overhaul of structures is essential.

The reorganisation of local government in the 1990s was preceded by much less deliberation. Getting rid of the regions may have played to populist claims regarding the remoteness of these large authorities, and there was certainly a case for a review of boundaries and some reform, but the changes were much more influenced by partisan interests than good governance. 

The new single-tier authorities have proved inadequate to many tasks performed under the previous institutional arrangements.  The relentless forward march of centralisation and uniformism lies at the heart of much policy failures.

The reorganisation of local government just prior to devolution had significant implications for the new Scottish Parliament. It was unlikely that a further major overhaul would happen in the short-term. Local government reorganisations are costly, immensely time-consuming and disruptive. Reorganisations need time to bed down and if government gets it wrong, we are stuck with the system for some time.

The claim was often heard prior to devolution that the removal of one tier of government helpfully undermined criticism that devolved government meant over-government. We do not have robust data from the 1970s on attitudes in local government – amongst councillors or officials – about devolution. 

But what evidence exists shows clearly that there was far less support for devolution then than existed in the local government community in the years prior to the Scottish parliament’s establishment. Cosla and local authorities played vital roles in debates not least in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The perception that devolution would improve central-local relations was based on an expectation that there would be more consensus between Scottish central and local government each accountable to the Scottish electorate.

Donald Dewar anticipated building a new consensus when he invited Sir Neil McIntosh, the last chief executive of Strathclyde Region, to chair a Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament. McIntosh reported June 1999 with a series of recommendations.  Some were implemented but not all. It remains a vital document that should be required reading for anyone involved in reorganisation today. Its vision of local government informed the recommendations. Had they been fully implemented then public service reform would be less necessary than it has become.

The passage of time has nonetheless meant that there is a case for another reorganisation of local governance. Such a reform needs to cast a wide net across existing arrangements and would greatly benefit from an historical perspective. Lessons can and should be drawn from elsewhere in the UK but also from the past – on what not to do as well as what might be worth considering. Indeed, some combination of historic and comparative lesson drawing is needed.

Over the course of time much that had previously come under local authorities was centralised. In some cases, this was necessary to improve of policy implementation and outcomes. 

Hospitals that had once been local government responsibility were transferred to the National Health Service. But this does not mean that all aspects of public health should be centralised nor separated from other services. This applies to other areas. 

Local authorities have been denuded of powers to address local economic development.  Any review needs to be more than a quick, though highly disruptive and costly fix.

To avoid calamitous mistakes that will leave Scotland with a dysfunctional system of governance will require time for deliberation, listening and building consensus.