DCN responds to the English Devolution White Paper

The English Devolution White Paper, published today, proposes extending combined authorities to cover the whole country, as well as local government reorganisation.

DCN welcomes the Government’s ambition to devolve power to local areas across England. We agree it is a priority to put a new regional strategic layer in place to drive growth and to give local places the opportunity to come together in combined authorities. It will be vital for combined authorities to harness the power of district and place-based services to deliver on the ambition of driving jobs and growth, so it is disappointing that the White Paper proposes preventing district councils from playing an active role in devolution discussions.

The White Paper also proposes replacing England’s 164 district councils – the tier of principal local government closest to communities – with large new unitary councils with populations over half a million.

DCN accepts there is a case for structural reform below the combined authority level. But it is critical this is done in a way that creates strong localised delivery units with a clear focus on place-making as the building blocks of combined authorities.

We fear the Government’s proposals for local government reorganisation put too much emphasis on creating large unitary councils with populations above 500,000. It will lead to geographically vast councils that are remote from local communities. All but a handful of existing unitary councils in England are smaller than this. This level of population may be suitable in large cities. But in most places we do not think it is workable, especially in rural communities which risk losing access to services and viable local democracy. The proposed reforms will make it far more difficult to deliver the place-based services that create jobs to drive growth and improve public health to reduce pressure on the NHS.

Evidence also shows that creating larger councils erodes local democracy with a negative impact on trust in councillors, public engagement and voter turnout. As the White Paper notes, “people value the role of governance at the community scale and that can be a concern when local government is reorganised”.

The White Paper suggests a crude 500,000-population minimum size for new unitary councils, in all but exceptional circumstances. It is essential that local places have genuine flexibility to come forward with proposals that reflect their local geography, and economy. If that means smaller unitary councils, the Government should take such proposals seriously. This should be the rule rather than the exception.

While the White Paper suggests that new unitary councils will not be imposed on areas, the Government has indicated it wants all areas to reorganise. Reorganisation should not be a precondition for the creation of a combined authority. It is also essential that the Government considers the extent of local buy-in to any reorganisation proposal. It should consider the views of all local councils, including district councils, as well as local businesses and, of course, local citizens.

All areas must be given the time and space to come up with proposals that reflect local circumstances and will demonstrably make life better for their residents. DCN understands the Government’s ambition to move quickly. But rushing into reorganisation and the creation unsuitably large councils will do nothing to make local government more efficient or effective.

Evidence that previous reorganisation has saved money or improved delivery is patchy at best (see the Bennett Institute research cited below). The crisis in adult and children’s social care makes it even harder now. Without the reform and proper funding social care so desperately needs, the risk is that new councils would have to deprioritise district-level, place-based services such as housing, economic development, employment support, homelessness prevention, community outreach, and social prescribing, to temporarily ease social care deficits. That would make it far harder to deliver new homes, jobs and growth.

We are also concerned about the potential for reorganisation to be disruptive, hitting the delivery of local services, as has been the case in the past. It is likely to make it much harder for councils to focus on investing in and delivering the Government’s missions. That would be in nobody’s interests.

DCN is keen to work with the Government and our members to develop local proposals that are ambitious and effective. That means new unitary councils must be small enough to be genuinely local, democratically accountable and focused on delivery. That is the best way to make devolution a success everywhere and deliver on the promise of jobs, homes, growth and better health that is in everyone’s interests.

In response to the white paper, Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chair of the District Councils’ Network, said:

[On devolution] “Communities in district council areas are crying out as much for devolution every bit as much of those in other parts of the country so we passionately support the ambition shown by the Government in seeking to make every area part of a combined authority.

“It is essential that district councils – or a new form of highly localised unitary council – are the building blocks of combined authorities, with voting rights within them. Localised delivery expertise and understanding of local communities is the perfect counterbalance to the wide scale of the strategic bodies.”

[On reorganisation] “District councils are close to communities, which makes us responsive, approachable, trusted and understanding of local needs. The danger is that all of this is lost in the top-down imposition of mega councils – regional, rather than local government covering many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Bigger isn’t intrinsically better.

“While we welcome the Government’s commitment to extend devolution England-wide, the imposition of mega councils with a minimum population of 500,000 is the opposite of devolution, taking powers away from local communities.

“Councillors should be the leaders of neighbourhoods to best be able to respond to local needs so it’s vital that they continue to cover localised wards and are familiar with all areas within their council’s boundaries. If reorganisation results in vast mega councils, the danger is that the powerful link between councillor and citizen will be lost and local democracy is diminished.”

[On the threat to local services] “Services including parks, leisure centres, street cleaning and waste collection are hugely valued by our local communities and bring about local pride and prosperity – but the danger is that new unitary councils have no option but to cut them to withstand growing social care costs.

“Social care’s funding crisis must be resolved urgently but not at the expense of services such as housing and planning, which are integral to the Government’s house-building goals, and work to build local economies, which contributes to the Government’s aim to grow the national economy. The danger is that local work to prevent ill-health and homelessness, which saves the rest of the public sector millions of pounds, also has to be scaled back.

“Finding a solution to social care funding is a prerequisite to reorganisation taking place without damaging both local economies and the Government’s national work.”

[On saving money] “Let’s not kid ourselves that reorganisation is a panacea to making local government financially sustainable. There are huge upfront costs and many unitary councils created in recent years have experienced crippling financial problems.”