I have always favoured unitary authorities – provided they are the right unitaries, of course. It is disheartening, though unsurprising, to see Labour reforming English local government in a way that undermines a structure I think should be embraced. Equally disheartening, for me, is the response from some Liberal Democrats.
Alongside the call for unitary authorities, the government’s devolution proposals also include Mayoral Strategic Authorities (or Combined Authorities), ultimately encompassing all of England, which I will cover in more detail in part two of this article.
Replacing two-tier local government with unitaries streamlines governance. Why anyone would want Highways and Planning separated across tiers of local government to begin with? Of course, whilst some powers will move downwards from abolished county councils, others shift upwards from the former districts to the unitaries, which may be larger in order to function with increased powers. This is a trade-off, but one upside to larger unitaries is to allow room for greater power at the lowest level – the Parish Councils – and aligns with Liberal Democrat policy on localism.
When the government’s White Paper declared that unitaries should in most case serve at least 500,000 people, there was a collective intake of breath from many.
Here in South Cambs, opinion is divided. Some who favour unitaries support a combined South Cambs District plus City of Cambridge (population c.300,000), balancing rural and urban interests, whereas others would add East Cambs (pop. 90,000) to that too. For me, it is important any solution works within the context of the wider area: no cherry-picking of geography or first-come-first-served libertarianism. Either way, I have yet to encounter anyone who wants only a single authority for the whole of Cambridgeshire.
With that in mind, I was saddened to read that, recently, five Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat MPs wrote to Angela Rayner, asking for a single unitary council for Oxfordshire and for a Combined Authority for Bucks, Oxon and Berks:
.@LibDemsOxon MPs wrote to @AngelaRayner backing a ‘one Oxfordshire approach’ with a Combined Authority including Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Buckinghamshire and an all-Oxfordshire Unitary.
We should build on long-standing structures, not tear up existing boundaries. pic.twitter.com/pNEid4PuEZ
— Layla Moran 🔶🕊️ (@LaylaMoran) January 30, 2025
Leaving the Combined Authority question for later, we see a wholehearted embracing of centralisation for Oxfordshire (population approaching 750,000) in proposing a single council. Do Oxfordshire residents really want to consolidate five councils into one, eliminating the local tier? The MPs’ letter does not mention constituents’ views in connection to the proposed unitary, instead focusing on “not tearing up boundaries” and “not carving up the county” while proclaiming Oxfordshire a “great” county.
I also uncovered a letter from Oxford City Council (Labour) to the Minister of State, written earlier in January, which includes:
…as yet there have not been any discussions [on the Mayoral Strategic Authority] within Oxfordshire or with other partner councils regarding options for Local Government Reorganisation. We are keen to participate in the interests of the residents that we represent in Oxford. The public has a right to expect that proper consideration is given to this and that any reorganisation taking place is done in a way that enhances local services and local democracy. It should be designed in close collaboration with all of Oxfordshire’s authorities together with MSA partners once established.
The Oxford letter goes on to suggest:
One option we will want to consider is the creation of a city-based unitary on expanded geography that will enable us to meet our unique potential, while enabling viable neighbouring unitaries to our north and south.
Oxford City Council calls for discussions, collaboration, democracy, and stating that a “Greater Oxford” should not prejudice the viability of neighbouring councils, mirroring my view for my local area. So, why such loaded language from proponents of a Greater Oxfordshire, when the city did not feel the need to proclaim itself “great”? The Vale of White Horse was historically in Berkshire, so why this misplaced fixation on county identity? Surely is it better for boundary changes to reflect the needs of 21st-century work/life patterns?
The Labour government is forcing centralisation on local government. How many English counties have a population greater than 500,000 but lower than one million? Was it by design that the criteria will skew the outcome towards county-wide unitaries? Are existing unitaries such as Peterborough, Derby and Cumberland now somehow unacceptably small? If so, why?
Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, are ambitious champions of localism. We should not lose sight of our policies and principles in the face of the centralising tendencies of Labour or Conservative governments, nor be outdone by Labour city councils in the quality of our responses to them.
Our policies also call for significant decentralisation at the national level, a policy I am partly responsible for, with powerful English regions taking powers from Westminster and responsible for their own local government structures without external interference. In the second part of this article, I will look at this regional question, the government’s intentions for Mayoral Strategic Authorities, and the Liberal Democrat response.
* Michael has had a role in forming party policy on the UK constitution and regional government, and has been an English Council representative for the East of England
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
Tristan Ward
15 Comments
One question that I have is why “at least 500,000 people”? Is this a figure just picked out of the air by the Minister? From my own experience on a unitary authority (a London Borough) a size in the range of 200-300,000 people is quite large enough. Going to 500,000 or more would be like merging Boroughs to align with existing London Assembly constituencies. Of all the services my Borough provides the only one that requires collaboration between existing Boroughs is waste disposal, where the West London Waste Authority (run jointly by six Boroughs) controls it. Also London like many other areas is unparished, so we have no level of democracy below the Borough Council.
@Laurence Cox – in my London Borough (Kingston) we invented a form of parishes which we call Neighbourhoods. They have been running for nearly 30 years.
The members consist of the councillors from the three to five wards that make up the Neighbourhood, and decision making is devolved down to their committees whenever possible. Meetings are fully part of the Council cycle, and because they are held in local venues it is easy for the public to attend, ask questions and join in discussions.
Laurence, it does seem wholly arbitray, doesn’t it? But then, as I ask in the article, was it designed to seem arbitrary but in fact chosen because it would actually result in many authorities much larger than 500,000 by virtue of the number of English counties with a population greater than that but lower than one million?
I haven’t studied London in much detail but I did briefly check the other day and observed the typical population as you say, and easily confirmed by dividing nine million by thirty-two! Is the government going to force London Boroughs to change size? I don’t recall seeing that in the White Paper but could check again. Is it one rule for them and another for the rest of us?
P.S. It’s probably time I submitted a new photograph for my presence here on LDV. It’s only so long a chap can pretend it’s still 2008.
I have never understood the passion for unitaries or elected mayors. We had a perfectly logical local government reform in 1974, based on the recommendations of the non-partisan Redcliffe-Maude commission. Ever since, beginning with Margaret Thatcher, both Tory and Labour governments have been tearing it up piecemeal. Explain to me how, for example, it is more democratic or more local to have a single Suffolk or even Suffolk-Norfolk council (a monstrosity) with a “Mayor” than to have a county council and district councils, where every councillor represents no more than approx. 5,000 electors.
@Mary Reid,
We had that in Harrow in 1998 under the Labour administration that introduced the Leader and Cabinet model. The Area Committees as they were called lasted for precisely one meeting each before Labour abolished them. If you don’t have something that has a statutory basis, like Parishes, then the Unitary authority can simply get rid of them by fiat. You are fortunate that you have had a Lib-Dem run Unitary authority for so long.
@Laurence Cox – yes that is indeed a risk. We made sure that the Tories were invested in the system, and they usually had a majority on one or two Neighbourhoods. We had a principle that decisions taken by the Neighbourhood Committee were not overturned by Full Council, so it gave them real power while in opposition. So when the Tories took control from 2014 to 2018 they did not abolish Neighbourhoods, though they did water them down a bit. But it meant they were intact when we took control again.
The discussion of local authority boundaries and structures should come at the end of the debate which begins with “The Theory and Practice of Community Politics”. There then needs to be an understanding of the difference between subsidiarity, when for example Councils organise their administration through neighbourhood committees and devolution where there is a genuine surrender of power and control FROM the centre.
The failure of devolution in Scotland and Wales is caused not by the transfer of power from London to Edinburgh or Cardiff but the failure of Cardiff and Edinburgh to devolve power to local community based councils and authorities.
Zigurds, the passion for unitaries and Mayors are two entirely different things. In my view, one is good, the other is bad. Local authorities should be small enough to warrant being labelled as “local” but should also have coherent sets of powers. The two-tier system of authorities is, in my view, a bit bonkers. Planning and Highways go together, for example. I don’t think we need twoi tiers if the tiers are *right* geographically. What matters more are the size of the authority and its accountability. Having a Mayor or not has no bearing – or rather, should have no bearing – on whether we have unitary authorities or not. All our tiers of government from the top to the bottom should be on the basis of pluralistic, directly elected chambers with some form of cabinet-based government. Not singular elected officials.
It is certainly not good to have a single authority for the whole of Suffolk. I’m pretty sure most people don’t consider that “local” government. But that does not mean we have to have two tiers with a County and several Districts. We can have the Districts without the County.
Of course, Lib Dem policy is for regions. Regions would be multi-county and would handle larger scale affairs – how about a decent freight rail route from the East Coast ports to the centre of England, for example? Districts and Counties can’t do that, but Regions can. And if we have Regions, why would we *also* need two tiers rather than one below the regional tier? We don’t need more politicians. We need better placed politicians.
In London of course we do have a region. It could do with cabinet government, a lot more powers from government and possibly waste disposal from the boroughs. Laurence Cox is right that 500k would be way too big for London Boroughs. If anything, since local democratic control was removed from education, they are too big.
@Peter Davies
Is it viable to compare a compact densely populated London borough with a sprawling rural area?
It might take you in a London borough a few minutes to get between council offices and, say, a local resident. And there is good public transport.
In a rural area that might take hours and all too frequently involves car travel due to little or no public transport.
And for what it’s worth, while there needs to be overall control of education standards, actual provision of education – primary and secondary needs to be managed locally.
Presumably for the reasons given, a sprawling rural area should presumably have smaller (by population) councils.
Hi Michael,
While there is an argument for unitaries, which you consider favourably, it is not one that I find at all convincing, even in terms of the specific points you raise here.
My view is founded on the need to find a balance between two usually conflicting principles
1) Specifying fair provision of key personal and community services sufficiently close to service users to reflect local needs and enabling users to access them at only minor personal cost (in terms of time, money, convenience etc).
2) Providing services in general (personal, community and strategic) in an efficient and effective way that reflects local need but also supports wider strategic requirements.
and two sadly almost intractable financial/political truths
a) the cost of providing services in rural areas to a broadly consistent level with suburban and urban areas is much higher, and local sources of funding are less plentiful. These rural areas are mainly small-c conservative/old school liberal. Urban areas are broadly Labour voting usually with social LibDem opposition while suburbs are Tory/LibDem battlegrounds.
b) It is easier to identify urban poverty/deprivation than rural so Westminster ignores the latter for grant funding and only district councillors can provide adequate local representation needed to counteract this.
Overall, the only party that can be trusted to be fair is LibDems councils and Lib Dem governments and we all know Lib Dems work better closer to their communities. Large unitary councils with less councillors are the antithesis of local democracy.
“b) It is easier to identify urban poverty/deprivation than rural so Westminster ignores the latter for grant funding”
And an individual who is deprived/poor in a rural area could be relatively worse off than an equivalent person in an urban area – resulting from lack of affordable public transport (if any at all) , cost of services (if any)….
Indeed Nonconformist, you are absolutely right. In addition, those informal mechanisms within the community that enable those in poverty in urban areas to get by (bring and buy sales, church meal days etc etc) are not available due to distance. Finally, throw in personal isolation and loneliness and those in urban areas may just begin to see what is going on. A Lib Dem councillor knocking on the door or delivering a leaflet may be the only externally triggered interaction a person may get in months.