5. Local government

Changing system

Regrettably for the student, local government in Britain is complex, inconsistent and in a long phase of restructuring. Two basic issues lie behind recent changes: the search for improved efficiency, and the ideological conflict between those, usually belonging to the political Left, who believe local government is a vital component of democracy and those, mainly of the Right, who argue that people are more interested in efficient service than local democracy. Thus the Conservative period of office, 1979-97 was characterised by the drive for efficient and low-cost services, while Labour since 1997 has sought to recover a degree of local democracy.

It may be helpful to provide a short history before looking more closely at the system. Although the county system of local administration dates back 1,000 years to Saxon times, the first systematic framework of local councils was established in the late nineteenth century. Broadly speaking, a three-tier system was introduced, consisting of county, borough or district and parish councils. These councils and their achievements were a source of great civic pride, wittily described by Sidney Webb, an early socialist: The town councillor will walk along the municipal pavement, lit by municipal gas and cleansed by,., municipal brooms with municipal water and, seeing by the municipal clock in the municipal market, that he is too early to meet his children coming from the municipal school... will use the national telegraph system to tell them not to walk through the municipal park, but ...to meet him in the municipal reading room.

It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that major restructuring of the system took place, the result of major changes in population size and distribution and of the growth of conurbations (the growth of one town to reach a neighbouring one). In the 1970s six 'metropolitan' counties (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire) were created in an attempt to rationalise and reduce costs, A two-tier system of administration was introduced in England, Wales, and most of Scotland, whereas in Northern Ireland a single-tier system was adopted. London is a special case. It was the first city to have its own elected authority, established in 1215. London, also, was the first city anywhere to establish a complex civic administration to coordinate modern urban services: transport, housing, clean water and sewage systems, and education. Local government in London was reorganised in 1965 with the establishment of the Greater London Council (CLC), and 32 subsidiary borough councils and the Corporation of the City of London (see p.70), a much smaller number of administrative bodies than hitherto. In 1986, however, the Conservative government abolished the GLC (discussed below) and the other six metropolitan county councils, transferring most functions to the lower tier of borough or metropolitan district councils. A handful of unelected coordinating bodies was left in place.

By the early 1990s England (with the exception of Greater London) and Wales were divided into 53 counties, within which there were approximately 370 districts. In mainland Scotland there were nine regions, divided into 53 districts, and the three authorities for the groups of islands (Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles). In Northern Ireland a two-tier system had been reintroduced.

In 1992, however, a Local Government Commission was established to review the existing structures, boundaries, and electoral arrangements. In particular it was asked to review the two-tier system. Although it recommended that most remain undisturbed, it proposed the introduction of single-tier, or unitary, councils in certain cities. By the beginning of 1997 14 unitary councils had been established in England, with the possibility of more. In Scotland 29 unitary councils replaced the previous system of nine regions and 53 district councils. As for Wales, 22 unitary authorities replaced the previous eight county councils and 37 district councils. In Northern Ireland a single-tier system was tried once again, but with certain bodies directly responsible to central government.

As a result of this confusing history virtually no one, apart from the government officers concerned and a handful of academics, has much idea how local government is organised across the United Kingdom. Frankly, most people have only a vague idea of how their own local authority works.

County (or unitary), district and borough councils provide the range of services necessary for everyday life. The county councils usually look after the wider and larger responsibilities like planning, transport, highways, traffic regulation, health, education, and fire services. In principle, the local authorities have control over the local police, but in practice their control is extremely limited since the police may argue that they are directly answerable to the Crown (see p.62). District councils are usually responsible for local taxation, leisure and recreation, environmental health, housing, and refuse collection. The borough councils in London are responsible for most of the services provided by county and district councils. The Metropolitan Police is responsible for all London (except for the City of London) and there is a single fire service for London. London Regional Transport, which is outside local authority control, provides transport in London.

Each county or borough department negotiates with the appropriate central government ministry concerning its affairs, for example, education, or highways and transport. The introduction of local regulations, 'bylaws', may only be done with government approval. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have a minister who is responsible not only for that country, but also for adapting the function of government to the conditions of each particular country, thus coming between other government ministries and the local authorities of these three countries. The establishment of parliamentary assemblies in Scotland and Wales (see p.133-135) will variously affect these arrangements.

It is a basic principle of local government that local people can devise a better system for the local context than can central government. As a result there is no standard system, since in each county the local authorities have the freedom to organise and administer services as they think will best suit the area. Closely related to this efficiency principle is the democratic one - the right of people to organise community affairs as they think best.

Each authority is composed of elected councillors, who form the governing body, and permanent local government officers, the local equivalent of the civil service. Elected councillors, unlike MPs, remain unpaid, although they can receive an allowance for performing council business and also allowances for necessary expenses. Most of those who stand for election, predominantly men, are local business or professional people, but a growing number of women seek a political career in local rather than national politics. Some work for purely idealistic reasons, while others may be politically ambitious or believe that their position as councillor will help advance their own business or professional standing. On average, councillors spend at least 30 hours weekly on council business, but it is perhaps noteworthy that women councillors tend to spend 22 per cent more time on council business than men, while Labour councillors spend 30 per cent and Liberal councillors 20 per cent more time than Conservative ones.

Each council elects a chairman, or in boroughs a 'mayor', and in Scotland a 'provost', almost invariably from the majority party represented on the council. Councillors are elected for four years in England and Wales and three years in Scotland. All councils, except at parish level, delegate committees, usually composed of certain councillors and some appropriate officers employed by the council, to consider policy, problems and expenditure in particular areas of council activity, for example education. Generally, the public may attend any council or committee meetings. Local government employs 1.4 million salaried officers. All senior local government officers are appointed only with approval from the appropriate government ministry.

Expenditure by local authorities is about one-quarter of total public expenditure, and one-third of this local government expenditure is on education (see p. 149). Almost 80 per cent of local government expenditure is financed from central government. The balance is raised locally, by local taxation and by the collection of rents, fees and payments on property or services provided by the council. The system of both central and local finance for local government is complicated and controversial, and is discussed more fully below. Central government is expected to ensure the funds necessary to provide adequate services, and to offset the differences in wealth and service requirements between different areas. These differences are particularly great between, for example, a densely populated but wealthy area in the south east of England, and a remote, thinly populated part of highland Scotland.

The tension between central government and local democracy

There has always been a tension between local and central government, between civic freedoms expressed locally and intervention by central government. This tension, which has been growing since 1945, raises important questions about local freedoms and the power of central government. The political party in power tends to insist on the importance of central government intervention, while the opposition party strongly defends the right to local democracy. In 1 976, for example, a Labour government told all local authorities to arrange secondary education on non-selective lines, forcing them to combine the traditionally separate schools for children deemed to be of higher and lower ability at the early age of 11. A few local authorities successfully defied the government.

The long-cherished independence of local government, however, has been slowly eroded over the years by a variety of processes. In the nineteenth century the majority of candidates were independent citizens, concerned solely with the well-being of their town or county. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, national political parties began to sponsor candidates in local elections. In this way political loyalties at a national level began to displace local considerations and determine how people voted. Today there are virtually no independent candidates left, except in one or two remote rural areas.

Consequently, today people usually dismiss the qualities of each individual candidate in favour of party loyalty, an unfortunate fact since local issues are often quite different from national ones. It

makes local government unnecessarily adversarial. Sometimes a conflict of loyalty arises for councillors who wish, in spite of their party loyalties and the contradictory directions received from party headquarters, to pursue a policy in the local interest. Some councillors risk expulsion from their party for disobedience.

National parties all use local government as a 'nursery' for those ambitious to enter Parliament. Between 1945 and 1979 45 per cent of Labour and 25 per cent of Conservative MPs entered Parliament after service as a councillor in local government. As with the constituency system, the tendency to vote for a party rather than an individual undermines the chief advantage of a localised political process, and it is hardly surprising that most local council elections usually attract barely 40 per cent of the electorate, roughly half that of national elections, and substantially lower than those in other Western European countries. People either feel local government is unimportant or that it is too remote and party-based to respond effectively to their needs.

People also often use local elections as a way of protesting against the government of the day. Many local authorities are often 'captured' by the

party of opposition, and this characteristic is interpreted as a register of the government's unpopularity. This was most dramatically demonstrated during the period 1979-97, when Conservative-controlled councils were virtually eliminated. They were not particularly strong in 1979 and although they were much stronger in the county councils outside the cities, they did control 188 borough, city and district councils, out of a total then of roughly 400 such bodies in England. By 1996 they still controlled only 12, and had also lost control of 35 out of 36 county councils.

How large should local authority areas be? There is a natural tension between the demands of democracy and efficiency. Compared with other European countries Britain has chosen decisively in favour of administrative efficiency. In other parts of Europe there is one council member for every 250-450 people. In Britain there is a councillor for every 1,800 people. For this reason also local government in Britain is far less effective as a democratic forum than it could be. It seriously reduces the chances of effective consultation and participation, not to mention well-informed voting, and that raises questions about how far efficiency can be achieved if the local population are not fully consulted.

Since 1979 local government has been severely weakened by conflict with central government. Technically Parliament is sovereign and may grant or limit the powers of the local authorities which administer Britain at the local level. However, there has always been a bargaining relationship between central government and local authorities. Throughout the 1970s both Labour and Conservative governments accepted a consensual approach through consultation, and this process allowed central government to incorporate local government more closely into its policies.

This relationship changed dramatically after 1979. The new Thatcher government was driven by two considerations. One was the ideological belief that government by definition was inefficient, wasteful and sapped individual initiative, and should therefore be minimised. It also believed that the public was not interested in local democracy but in the delivery of efficient and low-cost services. This was undeniable, until things went wrong, and then those affected became very interested indeed in their democratic rights. The other consideration was a political one. A majority of local authorities were Labour-controlled and they were seen, along with trade unions, as bastions of resistance to the revolution Margaret Thatcher was determined to achieve. The government was therefore determined that the local authorities should submit to central authority. So it ceased to consult them and issued directives instead. Of these the most significant was the imposition of spending limits. It did this in two ways. It scrutinised local authority budgets and limited, or 'capped', the funds they were allowed to raise through 'rates', the old local property tax. From 1983 those authorities which tried to defy the government soon experienced its second means of securing obedience. They simply received reduced central government funding until they agreed to comply. By 1985 there was an atmosphere of open defiance by many local authorities, led by the Greater London Council and some of the metropolitan counties, all of which were Labour controlled. Thatcher took the simple expedient of passing an act through Parliament to abolish them, transferring their functions to the local boroughs, and establishing a handful of residual bodies to oversee such matters as transport, fire services, etc. Greater London was left as the only capital in the Western world without its own elected body.

Indeed, the GLC was replaced by services provided by five government departments, 32 boroughs and 27 quangos. The message to other local authorities was simple: if they would not do as they were told, they would be replaced or ignored. In taking these steps, Margaret Thatcher directly contradicted the verdict of her great nineteenth-century Conservative predecessor, Benjamin Disraeli: 'Centralisation is the death-blow of public freedom.'

Having successfully brought the local authorities to heel, the Thatcher government decided to bring market forces further into local government. It decided to convert local authorities from 'providers' into 'enablers', by requiring them to contract out council services to the most competitive bidder. For example, councils were encouraged to contract private care companies to take care of the elderly, and to use housing associations for the provision of homes. The council remained the 'gatekeeper' but paid others to be the 'provider'. It was possible to reduce costs substantially, but in the process it was felt that democratic accountability was lost. One area in which this was felt very strongly was housing. In 1980 local authorities still owned about 30 per cent of the nation's housing stock. They controlled this housing, making it available to those in need of housing. Most tenants became permanent but some moved out to buy property of their own, thus making a small amount of housing available each year for homeless people. The government ruled that local authorities had to sell their housing stock to the tenants if the latter wished to buy. This was particularly offensive to Labour councils, which had always viewed the provision of proper housing for all residents, regardless of wealth, to be the first responsibility of local government. In order to curb spending, councils were forbidden to sell land or property in order to benefit financially. Most of the proceeds of all such sales had to be handed to central government. This prevented local authorities from using the funds received by the sale of council housing to build more publicly-owned homes.

The Thatcher government's next move was to scrap the old 'rates' property tax, and replace it with what it called a Community Charge, in effect a poll, or capitation, tax. It wanted every single person within a local authority area to pay an equal sum for the services to which everyone had access. Rates had been based upon the size of each dwelling, and therefore tended to apply a graded charge according to wealth. The poll tax, as virtually everyone called it, was considered extremely unfair even by many Conservative supporters. It was also highly inefficient. Rates had to be collected from 1 7 million people. The new charge had to be collected from 35 million people, a much harder task. It was introduced into Scotland in 1989 and into England and Wales in 1990. It provoked riots and a widespread refusal to pay. It was also a factor in Margaret Thatcher's downfall later that year. John Major's administration quietly dropped the poll tax and replaced it with a Council Tax, essentially a graded property tax, with rebates for the poorest and for people living alone.

By the early 1990s local authorities felt battered by the constant stream of measures enforced by central government. No fewer than 124 Acts of Parliament which affected them had been passed during the 1980s. There was also resentment and a widespread suspicion in many local authorities that they were penalised for not being Conservative-controlled. In 1990 for example, 21 local authorities were capped because they planned to spend on average 12.5 per cent more than the Standard Spending Assessment allowed. Not a single Conservative-controlled council was capped. Conservative Berkshire increased its spending by 20.6 per cent but remained untouched, while Brent, a Labour-controlled London Borough, was capped when its spending rose by only 1.4 per cent.

Yet of all the local authorities it was Westminster which attracted most adverse attention. As one of only two Conservative-controlled councils left in London, it received so many different kinds of grant and relief in 1995-6, that a local authority in the Midlands reckoned that had it enjoyed a similar level of government help it would not have needed to ask anyone to pay the Council Tax and would have been rich enough to meet its budget commitments and also pay Ј1,000 to each household! In 1996 also, as a result of seven years' research into Westminster Council's housing sales, the District Auditor found six senior councillors guilty of gerrymandering.

On coming to power. Labour announced that local authorities should be less constrained by central government and more accountable to local people. Labour proposes abandoning capping, but retaining powers to curb what it calls 'excessive' rises. It will also allow councils to choose whether

or not to put services out to tender. Each council will be required to produce a performance plan. London will again have an elected authority, and an elected mayor. Labour also promised to introduce regional assemblies for England if there is a clear desire and also popular consent.

There is, however, no guarantee that Labour councils will not display corrupt practices as Conservative ones have done. Corruption flourishes where one party enjoys absolute control. One or two Labour councils in the Glasgow area have a reputation for corruption. Rooting out corrupt practices remains a constant task. Nor is there any guarantee that the Labour government will not be tempted to limit real local democracy if it finds local authorities unwilling to comply with its policies. It was possibly with these issues in mind that Tony Blair promised a tough code and independent investigations into alleged corruption, and promised to revitalise local elections, arrange the direct election of mayors and overhaul local government committee structures. With a Labour administration in control of the state, the public will punish it when it is unpopular by voting Conservative councillors back into the town hall.