Some thoughts on unitary

…or modernising local government…by any other name…

Stalag Aylesbury: no really, I like brutalism.

These comments may not reflect the views of my employer.

One lump or two?

You may have missed in the news that Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for inter alia local government, has announced that he is “minded” to decide that local government in Buckinghamshire (except Milton Keynes) will be delivered by one authority. That replaces the four districts — Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and (my employer) Wycombe — and the county council. (Worth mentioning that Chiltern and South Bucks are already under a shared services agreement, de facto merger of back offices. Wycombe’s recycling service is already managed by Chiltern.)

This is not new. I’ve now worked at Wycombe for over four years and unitary has been on the cards for all that time. However, Bucks CC ramped up the pressure towards the end of 2016 making a case for a county wide unitary based upon government powers to implement this fairly swiftly.

The districts have, in the recent round, always been on the back foot. Getting four different organisations, each with their own agenda, to agree on a view was always going to be a challenge. Then, many of the district councillors are “twin hatted”, also members for the county.

Nevertheless, an agreement was struck, in the middle of Christmas parties, for a counter-proposal: two unitaries, covering the north (Aylesbury Vale) and the south (the rest).

It’s taken until now for a (minded to) decision. Given the distractions of Brexit, that’s not surprising. Javid has asked for representations by 25 May. We expect a final decision some time after that. (Given the speed of the final decision on Dorset, that could be within a month or so. However, given the lack of consensus amongst councils, this could rumble on for months.)

On the one hand

What to make of it.

I won’t repeat the cases. You can read:

• Future Bucks (Bucks CC’s case)
• Modernising Bucks (the districts’ case)

There is a good case, generally, for moving towards unitary control of local government services. Most people in the street have no idea which tier of government provides which service. We’re forever dealing with social media posts about potholes, which is a county issue. As districts, we collect council tax. And, we’re having to explain the complication of this year’s bills which include two different rises of 3% for county services: one ring-fenced for adult social care. (If you do the maths, it’s much more than a 3% rise for social care; down to the overly complicated formula set by central government.)

On the other hand, I live in a town which has a very active town council (outwith any proposed Oxfordshire unitary construct) that provides quite a lot in services — parks, several civic fairs and markets. My town council tax charge is about the same as the district council charge.

And, what about democracy? Under any unitary proposal, there’s likely to be a smaller overall number of council seats, so fewer councillors per population. How does that improve local representation? (Though I’m not sure this holds water when so many councillors are twin or, god forbid, triple hatted.)

Bucks CC, like many shire counties, is under immense financial pressure. As far as I know, it’s not in as bad a position as Northants. However, there is a funding crisis; and, social care is the main driver — already under special measures.

The districts, meanwhile, are in good financial shape. At Wycombe, we have a solid medium term financial strategy. Our property portfolio has seen us through austerity. There has been pain. Our leisure centres, sports development and woodlands services have been outsourced or otherwise spun-off. As mentioned above, the waste team was moved to Chiltern. And, internally, our IT and customer services are outsourced.

As far as I can make out, the main underlying rationale for the single unitary case is financial. It will produce savings: £45.4 million versus £17.3 million over the first five years.

A key rationale for two unitaries is that the two areas have distinct geographic, demographic and economic similarities: the north is linked to the developing Oxford/Cambridge corridor; the south to London and the Thames Valley.

Reading each case, you can see that there is a split in views not only across the councils, but other local public and business bodies. (I’m skipping a whole train load of political hubris.)

Government has previously looked for consensus when assessing unitary bids. Good luck with Bucks.

“It’s Gonna Rain”

[embed]

But, unitary, in some format, has to happen. The two (or three) tier structure was designed (if it was designed) in a different age.

I’m not convinced that the current structure meets user needs. Residents and business would prefer to deal with one council, not two or three. We’re also replicating our inefficiencies across over 400 separate bodies across the UK. Making the same bad IT and customer service decisions.

Dissolving the current bodies and reconstituting as one, two or umpteen won’t itself address those problems. Government, at every level, needs to adapt fast to the digital age and customer expectations.

Everyone hates the council. They don’t fix the potholes. They never collect my rubbish. They’re in the pockets of developers and look after their own. Of course, you and I know that’s untrue. We work hard. Most of us live within the area (disclaimer: I don’t, but I still want to provide excellent UX). We’re good people and we have great ideas. We can all be part of the solution.

Seconds out

The Bucks districts are fighting the “minded to” decision. There’s a part of me that says — like the Brexiteers — “get on with it”.

But, I don’t want to lose my job. There will be jobs for all, we’re told. But, a unitary won’t need the same workforce. Through personal choice, we’ll lose some. And, probably those with the get up and go.

And, I don’t want to work in Aylesbury: it’s a b*tch to get to by public transport.

Leaving those tough choices aside, I would rather get it over and done with and curtail the uncertainty.

Who wins?

Back in the early noughties, I worked in the civil service when the Labour government went through several iterations of departmental re-organisations, mostly to fit with John Prescott’s ego. When Defra was created out of the Min of Ag and Fish and the bit of government I worked in (the climate change bit which I can’t remember where it fitted), I jumped back to my old Dept for Transport home.

A few year’s later, there was another cough from №10 and the deck chairs where once again re-arranged. At a staff meeting, I asked the new permanent secretary whether Whitehall would sit down after this further upheaval for a “lessons learned” exercise. The answer?

“No.”

The cynic inside me — learning from the “no” — says that there’s no logic in unitary other that finance and politics. The shy optimist that lurks behind the cynic says that unitary is an opportunity to re-invent government, engage with the citizen and build better, digital services.

Who wins?

—

Photo credits:

Bucks CC building by Mark Cox (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjcox/250616130/) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

World Cup by Z Jason (https://www.flickr.com/photos/szjason/186118686/) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Originally published at blog.petermcclymont.co.uk on March 29, 2018.