Rule by Regions

The Revival of Local Government

By WILLIAM A. ROBSON THE next two or three years are likely to be of decisive importance for local government. It is worth while, therefore, examining its present condition and considering its future prospects.

Local government in this country has been in a state of decline for the past thirty years. A symptom of this decline is the loss of powers and responsibilities by local authorities. These losses include the licensing of road service vehicles; the 8,000"miles of trunk roads taken over by the Ministry of Transport; 1,545 hospitals trans- ferred to the National Health Service; the relief of the needy, now the task of the National Assistance Board; the valuation of property for rating, handed over in 1948 to the Inland Revenue; the municipal gas and electricity under- takings which were embodied in the nationalised industries; and land drainage and river pollution, which has gone to the River Boards.

There have been some gains. The responsibili- ties of county and county borough councils in regard to town and country planning, education, the personal health services, the provision or support of entertaihment, the arts, and both in- door and outdoor recreation have been greatly increased. Some new functions have been con- ferred in relation to deprived and handicapped children. However, looking at the picture as a whole, the losses undoubtedly outweigh the gains.

But that is not all. The position of local authorities even in respect of the matters for which they are responsible is by no means what it was in, say, the 1920s. Dame Evelyn Sharp has stated publicly that local authorities have de- clined in recent years in independence, in in- fluence and in the capacity to show initiative; and no one is in a better position to judge than she is.

The chief danger to local government is that it will become (if it has not already become) a subordinate agent of the central government instead of a free and responsible partner within the sphere of its activities. Local authorities are controlled nowadays to an unprecedented extent by central departments; and they are increasingly dependent on Exchequer grants. In 1962 local authorities in England and Wales received £885 million from government grants compared with £826 million from rates and about £425 million from other sources such as fees, rents, charges, etc. The change from percentage grants related to expenditure on particular services to general grants based on population and other factors, which was introduced in 1957 in regard to a substantial part of the Exchequer subvention, has not led to any marked reduction in the control and influence exerted by central departments. He who pays the piper will always call the tune.

This decline in local government has taken place during a period when there has been a vast expansion in the functions of the State. Several causes have contributed to the trend. One of them is the general drive towards centralisa- tion in the post-war era. Any substantial differ- ence in the educational opportunities available in schools or technical colleges, for example, be- tween different areas is regarded as unfair. This attitude makes local government difficult if not impossible because the level of achievement .of local authorities is bound to vary according to local resources, and the energy, drive, imagina- tion, pride, ambition and political outlook of the local councillors and electors.

Another cause of decline is that the structure of local government is obsolete. Many local authorities of all categories are too small and trio poor to carry out services requiring large-scale administration or planning. This partly explains the removal of electricity, gas and hospitals to regional bodies. Moreover, there has hitherto been no recognition of the special problems of the conurbations.

Conflicts between Authorities A third factor is that during the past thirty years there has been a continuous struggle be- tween the county councils and the county borough councils, both locally and nationally. The county councils have been fighting hard— and successfully—to prevent boroughs from be- coming county boroughs, and to stop county boroughs from enlarging their boundaries in order to take in the ever-growing suburban fringes or to obtain unbuilt land for rehousing their 'citizens at an improved standard. This long-drawn-out conflict has diverted the attention and energies of councillors and officials from other and more important tasks and helped to weaken local government. The existence of strong associations representing each category of local authority, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, has intensified this conflict. The associations disagree strongly about the principles of local government, and after years of fruitless discussion have even now assented to only a bare minimum of reform. , A fourth adverse factor is that local govern- ment is almost excluded from the pages of our national daily papers, on the ground that muni- cipal affairs are of interest only to readers in particular localities. The national dailies seldom notice local government except when local elections are held, or when the rates are raised, or when there is a local row or scandal. So while the New York Times gives continuous and prominent attention to the activities of the New York City Council and Mayor Wagner—and this is typical of what occurs all over the US—the London Times very rarely reports the activities of the LCC or any other municipal body; and it even failed to report the proceedings of the Herbert Commission on London Government. As most people read a national daily, this neglect has certainly had an effect in reducing public interest in local government.

Reform of the structure of local government should have taken place in the years immediately following the end of the Second World War, but unfortunately this did nOt occur. The Coalition Government issued in 1945 a White Paper en- titled Local Government in England and Wales during the Period of Reconstruction, but this was a feeble document which ran away from most of the problems or tried to cover them up. The Labour Government gave no consideration to the role which local authorities could play in the Welfare State; and Mr. Ancurin Bevan abolished the Local Government Boundary Commission after they had outlined a compre- hensive scheme of reform covering both struc- ture and functions, but which they explained would have required. a larger jurisdiction than they possessed.

Nothing further occurred until 1956 when the Conservative Government issued a White Paper on 7'he Areas and Status of Local Authorities. This cautious document was the result of lengthy negotiations between Mr. Duncan Sandys, at that time Minister of Housing and Local Govern- ment, and the associations of local authorities; and it did not go beyond the very slight changes which the associations had agreed might be considered. It declared there is 'no convincing case for radically reshaping the existing form of local government in England and Wales.' It only needs 'overhauling and bringing up to date.' This meant that the basic principle of the division between the county boroughs and the counties was not to be examined, and that only marginal changes could be considered. No criteria were laid down for adjudicating between the rival claims of county councils and county borough councils. The Commission can recommend altering the area of a county or county borough, setting up a new one, abolishing a county or county borough, or demoting a county borough. Administrative counties may be combined only in rare cases, and to deprive a county borough of its independent status was said to be a most serious step to be taken only when plainly neces- sary for efficient administration.

Conurbations The one important innovation was that the conurbations were at last recognised both by the White Paper and by the Local Government Act, 1958, which set up the Local Government Commission to review the municipal structure. The Act defines six 'special review areas' which contain 40 per cent of the population of England and Wales. They are the Tyneside, West York- shire, South-East Lancashire, Merseyside, West Midlands and Greater London. The special problem of the Metropolis was remitted to the Herbert Commission on Local Government in Greater London; but in the other conurbations the Local Government Commission were given additional powers to propose, if they think fit, a continuous county, even in an area in which there are several county boroughs at present; and to recommend a redistribution of functions between the county council and the other local authorities. Unfortunately, with one small excep- tion in Manchester, the conurbations were defined so as to include only the urban areas, so that it is impossible to set up bodies which will embrace both counties and county boroughs; or to provide a densely populated and industrialised conurbation with a rural hinterland, though for planning, rehousing and amenity this is very desirable.

The a'rea entrusted to the Herbert Commission was highly inadequate : it comprised little more than the built-up parts of the Metropolis with a few minor incursions into the Green Belt, most of which were excluded by the recommendations of the Commission or by subsequent decisions of the Government made to .propitiate their back- bench members. It has become abundantly clear in recent months that the problem of Greater London is overshadowed by, or is indeed a part of, the problem of the South-East region; and that the larger problem remains to be dealt with and should have been given to the Herbert Commission in the first instance.

The procedure prescribed for the Local Government Commission is one which provides the maximum opportunity for resistance to change. In making a review the Commission are to consult with all the local authorities in the area before preparing draft proposals. The draft pro- posals are circulated to the local authorities who make their representations on them to the Com- mission at a meeting held for the purpose. The Commission's final proposals are submitted to the Minister, who circulates them once again to the local authorities and if there is any objection he must hold a local inquiry. If the Minister decides that the Commission's proposals should be carried out, either in their original form or in a modified manner, he makes an order which must be laid before Parliament. This cumbersome procedure weights the scales against reform.

Resistance to Change The significance of the procedural obstacle lies in the almost universal objection of all local authorities to any changes except those which will give them a higher status, greater , power or enlarged size. Not only have no bold or imaginative proposals emerged from any of the local authorities so far investigated but there is a general failure on their part to perceive the problems and dangers facing local government.

The task of the Local Government Commission has been made exceptionally difficult by the lack of objective study of .the way in which local government works at the present time. Very little research has been carried out in the universities or elsewhere on the organisation of areas and authorities; and there is hardly any factual analysis or appraisal of how specific services are administered in given areas. It is obvious, how- ever, that many local government areas of all types are much too small to enable the councils concerned to carry out their functions effec- tively. It is all very well for the tspokesman of Rutland to declare that the inhabitants of Rutlandshire do not suffer disadvantages either of efficiency or cost because of its small size. The awkward fact remains that the Rutland County Council is largely dependent on the services provided by other local authorities for all its grammar school places, nearly all further educa- tion, the youth employment service, facilities for handicapped children, all specialist advice in the sphere of health and welfare, nearly the whole of the mental health service, provision for handi- capped persons, the fire service, and a number of other functions. That is a queer notion of local government!

A point to be borne in mind is that there is no basis for the widely held belief that the county boroughs have been gaining ground at the expense of the counties, who therefore need to be safeguarded against 'encroachments' which would cripple them in their efforts to provide services at a tolerable standard in the rural areas. Actually, between 1931 and 1951 the rate of population growth in the counties was six times as fast as that of the county boroughs; and since 1951 the whole increase of net population has occurred in the counties. Thus, the county borough share of the population outside London has declined from 42 per cent in 1921 to 36 per cent today, while the county share has risen from 58 per cent in 1921 to nearly 64 per cent in 1960.

The boldest and best report which the Local Government Commission has so far made is that for the Tyneside, where they propose a Tyneside County embracing the conurbation. Below the new county council there will be four strong Tyneside boroughs formed by amalgamat- ing places like Newcastle upon Tyne with New- burn and Gosforth. The weakest report is that for the West Midlands conurbation. The report analyses .the serious consequences of obsolete boundaries, the shortage of building land, migra- tion from county boroughs to peripheral districts, the decline in the quality of councillors and civic leaders, etc., but its proposals go no further than the division of the Black Country among five county boroughs. It rejects the idea of a com- prehensive authority for the West Midlands conurbation, although one is badly needed, and relies instead on Joint Boards for dealing with overspill and sewage disposal. In the report on the West Yorkshire conurbation there is a similar absence of any comprehensive body over the whole Bradford-Leeds complex. Wakefield is to revert to non-county status, while Dewsbury, at present a county borough of 53,000, is to be amalgamated with a number of neighbouring boroughs and urban districts to make a sizeable new county borough of 165,000. In the York and North Midlands General' Review area and elsewhere a similar policy of strengthening the stronger towns and penalising the weaker ones by either demoting them to non-county borough status or amalgamating them with others is recommended; and this is broadly the right thing to do. In the East Midlands General Review area the Commission originally proposed that Cambridge should become a county borough while the rest of Cambridgeshire should be amalgamated with Huntingdonshire, the Soke of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely to make one substantial county. The outcry was so loud that the Commission withdrew, these proposals and suggested merely that Huntingdon and the Soke should be combined, and Cambridgeshire with the Isle of Ely. Luton is to become a county borough with boundary extensions.

Space does not permit an examination of all the many proposals which the Commission have made, but enough has been said to show' that, outside Greater London and Tyneside, no changes of fundamental importance are contem- plated. The essential , features of the structure will continue as before; the conflict between county and county borough is unresolved; and no attempt is made to deal with the regional problem which extends far beyond the narrowly- defined built-up limits of the conurbations. Moreover, the Commission is an advisory body and we do not know, except in one or two cases, what the Minister's attitude is going to be.

Regional Councils I have already mentioned the need for a regional body to, deal with the mounting prob- lems of the South-East, where population, jobs and all kinds of development are increasing at a much higher rate than in the rest of the country. But there is an urgent need for similar bodies elsewhere. At the very least there should be regional bodies in the North-East, the North- West, Scotland and Wales to deal with the prob- lems of depression, unemployment, planning, development and renewal of the infrastructure. A more far-sighted policy would be to go the whole hog and set up regional bodies for the w hole country. They should be directly elected, V% Rh paid membership, and they could take over many of the functions at present exercised by govern- ment departments as well as being .given new powers. The urgent need to reduce migration from the North which is already producing overwhelming pressure on land, housing, trans- port facilities, etc.., in the metropolis and making planning almost impossible in the South-East has for long been apparent to those who study social trends. The best hope of relieving the pressure on London and the South-East lies in creating countervailing attractions 'in other parts of Britain, such as the North-East and the North- West, which are in need of economic expansion and social development but which have been starved of capital investment for many years. A vigorous policy of building up such counter- vailing regions cannot be carried out successfully unless there is a representative and powerful body, endowed with resources, brains, imagina- tion and drive--at the operating end.

The creation of regional councils, even in a fewareas, might also 'do something to reduce the over-centralisation which has been so detrimental to local government; but the reluctance of White- hall departments to lessen their grip is shown by the way in which the Ministry of Transport has insisted on obtaining for itself in the new London Government Bill a mass of supervisory and concurrent powers relating to highways and • traffic' regulations which duplicates those con- ferred on the Greater London Council. Parlia- ment should ,take a much firmer line with Ministers who pretend that these powers are being asked for only as a matter of form; and that they will be kept in reserve and never be used. Ile proper answer to such disingenuous statements is 'Bosh.' Everyone knows where power ultimately resides in any given situation, and it is quite wrong that Ministers should have the right to override the decisions of local authorities with which they happen to disagree. 'Mother knows best' is a poor maxim for revitalising a system of local government.

We shaft, however, never get central-local relations right until local authorities are given additional sources of local revenue other than the rates. I know of no other country where the local authorities are so narrowly confined to a single subject of taxation. There are many possible alternative sources of local revenue, such as entertainment tax, a retail sales tax (as in New York), a local income tax, a share of the tax on petrol. We must recognise that local authorities are subservient to Whitehall largely because of their excessive dependence on Exchequer grants. The local authorities and other associations are partly to blame for this state of affairs, because they have always demanded larger and more Exchequer grants without seeing what the consequences would be.

The relations of central and local government should in my opinion be regulated by the follow- ing principles. First, it is the task of the central departments to see that the organisation of local government is broadly satisfactory and well adapted to its functions—a task which has been shockingly neglected in the twentieth century. Second, the central government, in conjunction with Parliament, should formulate the broad principles of policy local authorities are to follow in services of general importance.

Third, the major services should be subject to inspection in order to ensure a national mini- mum standard. This would apply to, for example, police, highways, tire services, health, education, housing. Fourth, the central departments should act as centres of information and provide advice concerning the best equipment and latest prac- tices at home and abroad to all local authorities. Fifth, Exchequer grants should be provided for the major services and to assist the poorer local authorities, but the central subvention should not be so large as to overshadow the local revenue, as it does now. Sixth, local authorities should have greater freedom than they now have to strike out in new directions.

Only by a three-pronged attack on thg organis- ation of areas and authorities, on central-local relations, and on finance, can we give local government its proper place in our political system. Only by this means can we preserve and strengthen the qualities of local initiative, civic pride and public spirit from which the political virtues of the nation have sprung. Only thus can we enhance the sense of community on which a genuine democracy must rest.

I believe profoundly in the. virtues of a sound and healthy system of local government. I can- not comprehend a society calling itself a Welfare State unless it does its utmost to secure the widest possible participation in the exercise of political power. Local government is the best instrument to distribute power on democratic and sensible lines. It offers a fairly certain method of avoiding the dangers of a managerial society.