I’m one of the editors of Local Government Studies journal. In a widely read and cited piece,
Peter John in 2014(£)
highlighted how English local government has remained resilient in the face of successive
waves of reform. Looking at the issue from a Scottish perspective, there seems
to be recently a lot of changes in the air that have led me to spend the
weekend thinking about the question posed in the title of this post: could we
get rid of local government?
As someone with a background in history, this question seems
fair to ask – in the grand scheme of things, British local government is fairly
new – the 1833 Burgh Corporations Act and 1835 Municipal Corporations Act set
up the institutions that, eventually, became the local authorities we know and
love/hate today. To remove an institution that is nearly 200 years old is not
beyond imagination. I’m led to believe that the only statutory duties a local
authority has to fulfil are to have a Chief Executive, Chief Social Worker and
Chief Planner; all other duties can be fulfilled how the local authority wishes,
from delegated authority from those individuals.
The easiest way to do it would be to do what seems to be
happening in England: make local authorities contract out all their services,
and cut their budgets so much that they eventually go bankrupt; stories like this
are becoming regular.
In Scotland, something different seems to be happening. I
thought I’d go through the key services in turn to play with my thought
experiment.
Education: the SNP
government went into the 2016 elections with a pledge to manage schools on a
regional basis. Further, at their recent conference, a fudge was agreed that
instead of removing charitable status from private schools, state schools would
have it extended to them. In this
excellent post, James McEnaney pulls apart what this would actually mean –
separate charitable trusts receiving funding to runs schools. Just like
academies in England, it would be very easy for this funding to come direct
from the Scottish Government. Schools could then set their own admissions
criteria, within national guidelines and a nation tribunal service could
replace local council’s role in placing requests.
Children’s social work:
all you would need to do is make those schools become “Children and Families
Trusts”. The Head Teacher as the named person would coordinate social work
services for vulnerable children. No need for local authorities to employ
social workers. If the much-trailed review of the child care system finds that
councils are failing, and parents are given vouchers to access childcare from
other providers, then local authorities will have yet more services taken away
from them.
Adult social care:
the new Integrated Health and Social Care boards are moving adult social care
away from direct council control anyway, to a shared, partnership form of
governance. This
piece by ITV news flags that the Scottish Government “is also looking at
the number of health boards in Scotland and how they relate to local councils”.
If the Scottish Government create 32 Health Boards to shadow the local
councils, I’ll be gob-smacked. Cynically, I cannot help but think the tide
might be in the other direction. If adult social care was given to Health
Boards, then councils would lose another service. Probation services could be
delivered by an extended Scottish Prisons Service.
Town planning:
local authorities have three jobs in planning: write plans; decide on planning
applications; and enforcement. Successive waves of reform to the planning
system since 2006 have focused on increasing efficiency around making planning
decisions. Feasibly, and by stealth, I could see Scotland moving towards a far
less regulatory system. Basically, the Scottish Government, along with Historic
Environment Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, would designate protected
areas and create policies that dictate the quality of development and where
development cannot take place for environmental or safety reasons. They would
also have the National Planning Framework guiding major developments. You would
then have deemed planning consent unless one of these policies applied. A
version of the Community Infrastructure Levy would be payable to make up for
minor environmental damage done and provide infrastructure. If a housebuilder
then built a load of homes near no schools, poor roads, and no health services,
then the market would be left to decide whether the development would be
successful. Such a tick-box exercise could easily be run by a government
Executive Agency with the Environmental Appeals body being there as a
safeguard. If you look in detail at the hierarchy of planning in Scotland, we
are not that far from this situation now. And local councils would lose another
service.
Waste collection and
street sweeping: in this age of community empowerment, I could easily
foresee us being expected to clean the streets ourselves. In Germany you’re
expected to sweep the pavement outside your house. Many new private housing
estates in Scotland are privately factored, rather than relying on local
council services. An expansion of this type of contracting, or the development
of Housing Improvement Districts, akin to Business Improvement Districts, would
provide a way to deliver services where owners do not sweep their own streets,
or where they cannot agree on a factor. Participatory
budgeting would also make this a lot easier. Business Improvement Districts
could just take on more responsibilities to take over local council functions.
Waste collection could easily be managed on regional
contracts, delivered by the Scottish Government. Many local authorities are now
in regional partnerships anyway.
Roads and street
lighting maintenance: local roads could easily be managed by Housing and
Business Improvement Districts, or Community Councils managing budgets. Larger
strategic roads could be included in the larger trunk road contracts Transport
Scotland deliver.
Housing: of the
local councils left that have their own housing stock, a few bad annual charter
reports from the Scottish Housing Regulator, and just as with poorly performing
housing associations and coops, then pressure could be put on councils to give
their stock to larger housing associations to manage.
Parks, leisure,
museums, galleries and libraries: Glasgow Council provides the model here,
where Glasgow Life owns and manages these on behalf of the local council.
Remove the board of councillors with a board of the local great-and-good, then
individual trusts could then bid for funding from Creative Scotland, or come up
with entrepreneurial ways to generate income locally, or cross-subsidise from
services that may be able to be run at a profit (leisure centres) to those that
cannot.
And hey-presto, your local council will not have any
services to run anymore. It will be a shell of elected members with incredibly
limited taxation powers, and employing very few staff directly. Part of this
could be down to the longer-term centralisation of powers in the UK and Scotland,
written about widely in academic circles. The erosion of local democracy in
Scotland due to the reorganisation of local government in 1995 does not help
here as well, with very little link between over-worked councillors and their
electors. It also seems to be a trend picked up on by Alan Cochrane in his recent
revisit of local government in England – that the spatiality of the local
government is changing. He highlights that in England this is the “local” – so local
government is being eroded by centralisation on the one hand, and the “devolution”
of powers to “the local” through things like neighbourhood planning.
Back in 2007 the Scottish Government and COSLA celebrated
their “concordat” and a new relationship between local government and the
Scottish Government based on mutual respect. Almost a decade later, and it
looks like this is being replaced by the same “hollowing-out” of local
government as seen in England. Local authorities are portrayed as a wasteful
middle – communities should be empowered to deliver their own services, using
their own budgets, and we can achieve national outcomes, national consistency,
and efficiencies by delivering other services at a national level. You could
take the view that this is fine – local councils have had their day. I have to
be more critical. Local councils are elected. Representative democracy is not
ideal, but it’s the best system we have for managing conflicting interests
between groups and areas. My real fear from an “empowered Scotland” emerging
from the end of local councils would be that all communities would be equally
empowered, but some communities would be more empowered than others.
If Local Government is no longer important, what is the point of Constitutional Change?
ReplyDeleteI thought your heart might not be in this devils advocate argument when I got to the bit about stuffing boards with the great and good! One problem is that democracy and huge bureaucracies don't work well together. It's all a bit Yes, Minister - any change that truly serves local people is really hard to achieve. But given the need to get these local people keener on funding good quality local services I can't help but feel we need a new effort to ensure people do feel they can trust the organisations taking their money and turning it into the services upon which we all depend.
ReplyDeleteI agree (in fact I wrote a paper with this argument in it for Local Government Studies). I also think local councils are best placed to do this, but need the resources to support deliberative and representative democracy properly.
ReplyDelete