Freedom of Information responses show no assessment undertaken to support 500k population floor for unitary councils
The Government has admitted it has undertaken no analysis to publicly justify its decision to require the creation of new unitary councils with a minimum population of half a million.
A series of Freedom of Information Act responses obtained by the District Councils’ Network (DCN) is likely to raise questions about the financial and service delivery risks attached to the biggest reorganisation of local government in half a century.
Under the English Devolution White Paper, published in December, the 164 district councils and 21 county councils – with a combined population of 20 million and an annual budget of £32bn – will be merged to create mega councils each covering at least 500,000 people.
Most DCN member councils would support some sort of reorganisation. However, they overwhelmingly believe new councils should be closer to communities than the mega councils proposed by the Government. 72% of DCN members believe that councils bigger than 500k population would be unsuitable for their areas.
There is a widespread belief that smaller, more localised councils are more responsive to the unique needs of communities and businesses in each city, town and village. This makes it much easier to boost growth, build the homes local people desperately need and deliver tailored preventative services that improve health and reduce pressure on the NHS.
DCN asked the Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) several questions about what evidence it holds to support the 500k figure.
MHCLG cited a PWC report from 2020, commissioned by the County Councils Network, as its only source of evidence.
This report is out of date. Many councils in two-tier areas have already delivered significant efficiency savings since 2020, for example by creating shared services or shared management teams. The report does not reflect the potential for councils to deliver further efficiency savings within existing structures. And it predates much of the surge in demand for adult social care, children’s services, SEND and temporary accommodation, which is expensive for councils to meet and reduces the scope for efficiency savings overall.
The Government has not commissioned independent research to support its preference for large unitary councils and has done no analysis of its own.
The only other sources of information MHCLG could offer are the White Paper itself, which contains only two references to the figure and no financial analysis in support of it, and an unnamed document which is being withheld from public scrutiny to preserve a “safe space” in which ministers and officials can develop policy.
These sources were cited both in response to DCN’s requests for information on how the ministry calculated the 500k figure and for assessments of the impact of local government reorganisation on council performance, efficiency, financial sustainability and resident satisfaction.
MHCLG said it had undertaken no post-implementation assessment of the actual upfront costs to central and local government from creating new unitary councils in Somerset, Cumbria and North Yorkshire in 2023.
MHCLG also revealed that it never commissioned a report proposed last year – and was the subject of a pre-market tender exercise – which would have evaluated optimal scale and the impact of population size and geography for unitary councils.
In response, Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chairman of the District Councils’ Network, said:
“It is alarming that there is so little evidence to justify the Government’s requirement for all county areas to reorganise into mega councils with more than half a million people.
“The Government has done no analysis of its own and has commissioned no independent assessment. It is relying on evidence that is not remotely up to date. Local government reorganisation is not without risk and is difficult to get right. The danger is that, without robust assessment of the optimal scale of new unitary councils, we will get sub-optimal results.
“District councils would overwhelmingly support reorganisation which leads to better outcomes for their local community. But the danger is that by making decisions which aren’t supported by evidence we’ll get poor value for money for taxpayers.
“The lack of evidence is all the more reason for the Government to give all local areas the time, flexibility and support to develop reorganisation proposals that will cater for local circumstances, reflect local identity and preserve the close link to place that is essential for driving growth.
“We strongly believe this means that councils bigger than 500k will not be suitable or deliverable in many places. The Government should be prepared to accept proposals for new unitary councils of 350k population or smaller that reflect the full range of local circumstances.
“Local residents have been sidelined in the debate so far. Let’s ask them what structures and scale make sense to them. History suggests that mega councils imposed with no regard to local identity haven’t stood the test of time and have had to be replaced at huge cost to the public purse. Let’s build something great rather than a new Avon or Humberside.
“Current council structures have been in place in our areas for 50 years. Rather than rushing reorganisation, let’s work collaboratively to devise a system which is best equipped to face the challenges of the next half century and reforms public services to better meet the needs and aspirations of local people in an era of rapid change. That is the real prize.
Notes
- The results from a DCN member council survey showing views on the optimal size of unitary councils can be read here.
- The combined expenditure of county and district councils in two-tier areas is £31.8bn. Of this, £28.7bn is by counties and £3.1bn is by districts.
Photo attribution: Canley at the English-language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons