The reality of local government reorganisation (LGR) is coming into sharp focus as district and county councils prepare to merge into single-tier unitary councils over the next two years. At the same time, the Government is pushing ahead with a new phase of devolution in many of the same places. While the short- and long-term financial, economic and operational benefits of LGR and devolution have been widely debated, cyber security implications have, comparatively, received limited attention.

With the sharp rise in state actor cyber-attacks against public and private sector organisations alike, such as the string of attacks that significantly impacted retail giants like Marks & Spencer last year, the Cyber Centre of Excellence (CCoE) has collaborated with the District Council Network (DCN) on a survey and qualitative research. The aim was to better understand local councils’ views about the evolving cyber threat landscape and the challenges of maintaining cyber resilience amid local government reorganisation and other structural changes to the local public sector.

Findings

62 digital leaders from 58 district councils responded to the survey.

When asked to rate the confidence they have in their organisation’s cyber security on a scale between 1 (very concerned) and 8 (very confident), the mean average response was 5.86, indicating overall confidence. When asked whether high profile cyber-attacks on private companies, such as M&S, increased their concerns about their own organisation’s cyber security position on a scale from 1 (increased concern significantly) and 8 (no impact), a mean moderate to neutral impact on concern was reported (4.76).

However, the vast majority of respondents (90.3%) believed that the LGR transition would increase cyber risk for councils, either modestly or significantly. A thematic analysis of the survey data further revealed the following concerns:

Increased number of collaborative partners

The most common concern shared by digital leaders was that reorganisation could increase the number of collaborative partners involved in managing data and securing systems as organisations merge. As a result, access to sensitive systems and datasets may need to be extended across authorities and teams, creating additional entry points and reducing the exclusivity of administrative privileges. This expansion of access within emerging unitary councils carries great risk of increasing attack surface if not co-ordinated meticulously.

Different approaches to policy and cyber security hygiene

Furthermore, differing approaches to cyber security hygiene between councils were highlighted as a potential risk factor in the formation of unitary councils. As councils reform, coordinating alignment and agreement between existing security policies, standards, and practices – and ensuring they’re complied with – will be challenging. Disparities in cyber security maturity and operational procedures will likely complicate the enforcement of consistent security controls across newly formed organisations, thus negatively impacting cyber risk.

Merging non-validated systems

Concerns were also raised about integrating systems that may not have been fully tested or validated prior to merging. Respondents noted that tight transition timeframes could require the temporary adoption of interim systems, limiting the opportunity for comprehensive security testing and risk mitigation. In some cases, legacy systems may be retained or prioritised over more secure alternatives to maintain operational continuity during the transitions. It was also noted that the transition period could lead to the loss of key personnel that may have context, legacy and specialist knowledge and could have a knock-on impact to decision making and implementation. The short implementation period also increases the risk that vulnerabilities remain unidentified prior to integration. There were also mentions that latent malware or previously undetected compromises within legacy systems could be carried into the newly merged infrastructure, potentially exposing the wider unitary organisation to cyber threats.

Conclusion
Periods of organisational change can present heightened cyber security risks, as attention is often directed towards structural and operational priorities. During local government reorganisation, the integration of systems, expansion of access across partners, and alignment of differing security practices may create vulnerabilities that threat actors could seek to exploit. While respondent digital leaders expressed general confidence in their existing cyber security position, the overwhelming expectation that reorganisation will increase cyber risk highlights the need for cyber resilience to remain a central consideration throughout the transition. Ensuring robust governance, consistent security controls, and thorough system validation will be critical to safeguarding local authority infrastructure during this period of change.

About the Cyber Centre of Excellence (CCoE)

The Cyber Centre of Excellence is a not-for-profit organisation founded by iESE CIC for the benefit of public sector bodies, local authorities, and their communities. CCoE continually tests emerging technologies to make a meaningful difference to real world protection beyond tick box compliance and offers a suite of validated premier products at an affordable price.

If you are interested in their products or services, visit www.ccoe.org.uk or email enquiries@ccoe.org.uk.

DCN is pleased to publish this important new report in partnership with IMPOWER. It offers new analysis and evidence about what makes successful adult social care (ASC) services, how to identify the best model to deliver these services, and how to do this in the specific context of Local Government Reorganisation, especially where this involves disaggregating existing service footprints.

The report shows convincingly that disaggregating adult social care services can be done effectively with early planning, strong leadership and realism required to make it work. The prize disaggregation offers is a “chance to reset” services. “Done well, it may allow systems to better reflect the geographies of communities and care markets.”

The report counters the view that size is the most decisive factor in driving successful ASC services and that smaller social care footprints are bound to be less effective. IMPOWER’s analysis shows “there is no clear link between scale and overall quality of adult social care”. It notes that there are “no economies of scale in delivering personal care”, while larger systems sometimes “introduce diseconomies”.

It offers an optimistic vision for seizing LGR as an opportunity to redesign ASC services, drawing on the strengths that districts and smaller councils bring through their proximity to place and focus on prevention.

In response to the report, Cllr Hannah Dalton, health spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said:

“This report highlights that district councils have much to bring to the table in designing the future of adult social care – in particular, our unrivalled links our communities and our unwavering focus on prevention.

“District councils are specialists in adapting housing to ensure older people can remain independent for longer, running planning systems that encourage development to boost physical activity and overseeing wellbeing programmes to tackle obesity or mental illness. Following reorganisation, this work should be enhanced to complement and support more traditional social care work.

“Reorganisation should inject a strong sense of place into adult social care services – tailoring them to the unique needs of communities – and it must bring about a greater focus on prevention, which is the only way we can hope to tackle rising demand.

“This is where smaller councils have a natural advantage – with a localised focus on communities and close knowledge of their people and places. These attributes should be essential ingredients of redesigned and reimagined social care services.

“IMPOWER’s report confirms district councils should be confident to use their unique attributes to devise new approaches for adult social care. Services cannot go on as they are, with demand rising faster than budgets, unmet needs and low wages. It would be a mistake to simply carry forward the existing failing model at a wider scale, when a shift in approach towards prevention is desperately required.”

You can read the full report here.

You can read the DCN press release here.

In a written statement to MPs, Jim McMahon MP summarised the Government’s feedback on reorganisation proposals submitted by councils which will have a huge bearing on vital local services and the lives of 20 million people.

This will be the biggest shake-up of local government in the past 50 years, with 21 county councils merging with 164 district councils to create new unitary authorities.

In his statement, Mr McMahon said urged the adoption of a “simplified and standardised system of local area-working and governance”, involving the creation of “neighbourhood area committees”

The Government has also announced allocations of the £7.6m capacity fund to help councils prepare final LGR bids. Each of the 21 areas will receive a flat rate of £135,000, plus an additional 20p per person based on the latest ONS population estimates

In response, Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chairman of the District Councils’ Network, said:

“District councils are working flat-out to devise creative proposals to build a new system of local government that serves the needs of local communities in the decades to come whilst continuing to deliver day-to-day services.

“DCN supports local government reorganisation if it’s a bottom-up approach, puts residents front and centre, improves services, is backed by communities and ensures that local government remains local. However, it’s still far from clear that these conditions will be met.

“The danger is we’ll see the imposition of mega councils with populations bigger than 500k. We welcome the Government’s acceptance that 500k should be a guideline rather than a strict minimum threshold. But it’s vital that the Government gives a fair hearing to LGR proposals for smaller unitary councils that are closer to their local places. There is no evidence that bigger unitary councils guarantee better outcomes. On the contrary, smaller councils can – and often do – outperform bigger ones.

“The Government appears to recognise the need for strong neighbourhood governance in new unitary areas. But we think its preference for creating neighbourhood area committees is insufficient and inferior to the clear democratic ethos of a smaller, locally based unitary council. We remain concerned that mega councils would be remote from communities, undermine local decision making and weaken local democracy.

“We urge ministers to clarify how the views of everyone in the local community will be fairly considered when decisions are taken about which proposal is approved for each area. They shouldn’t be seduced by claims of vast savings from imposing bigger councils on communities when there’s no evidence from previous reorganisation to back them up.”

Cllr Chapman-Allen also noted that the Government has fallen behind with the process. Each local area was expecting feedback by the start of May – and the last areas have only received it at the beginning of June.

“The Government has imposed a breakneck timetable for reorganisation and has fallen behind at the first hurdle. This must raise questions about its capacity to adjudicate on so many proposals simultaneously and to implement LGR on the ambitious timescale it has set out,” he said.

“Future generations will not thank us if we botch reorganisation now. It’s far more important that we get it right, using this as an opportunity to empower communities, remove barriers between local public services and build a more dynamic and efficient local public sector, rather than rushing and getting substandard results.”

This is a fast-moving situation; the response to the Covid-19 illness has profound implications for the health system, for residents, businesses, the economy and district councils themselves. While the Government coordinates the national response, the Prime Minister is clear that councils will lead the local effort to beat the illness and safeguard local economies.

The DCN has a role to advocate for District Councils and to help support the sector in ways that are focused and has added value. Up to now the DCN has been involved in discussions with the Government, councils, and the LGA to put districts at the forefront of support for residents (i.e. Hardship Fund) and businesses (i.e. SME grants), while seeking to protect the continuity of council services.

This page signposts districts onto useful sites, promotes some useful documents/templates emerging from some places, begins to capture and present what districts are doing, and also poses some questions for districts on the key issues right now.

Sources of essential information and advice

• MHCLG summary of all COVID-19 guidance for local government
• Local Government Association summary of COVID-19 information to councils
• The Government’s wider advice on the coronavirus can be found here
• A link to new guidance from the Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) Forum on a range of issues faced by waste collection services, including social distancing in cabins
• The homelessness charity Crisis has developed a collaborative COVID-19 Toolkit for Statutory Homelessness Services to help councils considering how to support rough sleepers and the homeless during this time

Key issues DCN has been advocating for districts on issues such as:

Governance and partnership

For instance the role in Local Resilience Forum and local leads, collaboration with counties, housing partners and landlords, the community sector.

Support for residents

Helping the vulnerable not in hospital through ‘hub’ models; the shape of the Hardship Fund for those at risk from income/job loss; administration of revenue and benefits; childcare support for key workers; galvanising and safeguarding the community response; adapting use of assets; homelessness/rough sleeper support; support for social and private renters and vulnerable in supported housing; bereavement support and assisted funerals; overall communication.

Support for businesses

Business rate reductions and reliefs; SME grants via councils; insurance for local business; supporting business adaptation; communication and reassurance.

Continuing council services

Staff sickness; ‘key worker’ status; redeployment; management capacity; equipping for remote working; deferring local elections; loss of returns from income generating services; administration pressures in key services.

Calling all district council equality/community lead officers: a Knowledge Hub forum has been set up to collate information about how the pandemic is impacting on different groups. You’ll just need to sign up for a Knowledge Hub account first.

Example templates and strategies

Districts around the country are thinking through how to arrange services to respond to the current illness. Some template examples from some councils are given below:

• Template for the design and operation of the Hardship Fund
• Template for planning and managing the overall Organisational Response

 District communication in action

Districts are establishing a range of means for communicating with residents and businesses. Some examples given below:

• Warwick District Council
• Arun District Council
• South Norfolk District Council
• Stroud District Council
• Chichester District Council
• Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council
• Crawley Borough Council
• Colchester Borough Council
• Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

Keep talking! We welcome your feedback, ideas and questions. Please see the questions below:

About DCN

The District Councils’ Network is a member led network of 200 district councils. We are a Special Interest Group of the Local Government Association (LGA), and provide a single voice for district councils within the LGA and to Central Government.

• The District Councils’ Network was established in 2009 and works on behalf of all district councils nationwide.
• 200 district councils are represented on the Network’s Assembly by council leaders nationwide.
• An elected group of leaders represent the district councils nationwide on a 22-strong Member Board.
• A corresponding group of Chief Executives represent councils on the Chief Executives Group.

https://districtcouncils.info/  Twitter: @districtcouncil

About DCN

The District Councils’ Network is a member led network of 200 district councils. We are a Special Interest Group of the Local Government Association (LGA), and provide a single voice for district councils within the LGA and to Central Government.

• The District Councils’ Network was established in 2009 and works on behalf of all district councils nationwide.
• 200 district councils are represented on the Network’s Assembly by council leaders nationwide.
• An elected group of leaders represent the district councils nationwide on a 22-strong Member Board.
• A corresponding group of Chief Executives represent councils on the Chief Executives Group. https://districtcouncils.info/  Twitter: @districtcouncil