Irrespective of the possibility that the Local Government Bill may be altered, the DCLG's decision letters to those councils which applied for unitary status make interesting reading.

Twelve months ago, five criteria were announced ‘with which any proposal must conform' – emphasis added. This strong test has now been modified to the much weaker ‘in the secretary of state's judgment, there is – is not – a reasonable likelihood that, if implemented, the proposals would meet the outcomes specified by each of the criteria'.

Relevant in the context of support for the proposals, the DCLG does not refer to the proposals as proposals but to the future outcomes if the unitary structures come into existence. The goalposts have been relocated in two ways.

The county unitary bids have all been assessed as having a ‘reasonable likelihood' of being affordable and of providing value for money, whether or not the bid has been accepted, but with virtually no comment on the contested nature of the submissions. If these decisions are compared with the sub-county bids, striking inconsistencies emerge.

The proposals for two unitary authorities in Northumberland has been rejected, despite being affordable, an affordability assessment that is at odds with other comments.

Under the value for money heading, the two authorities would ‘suffer from capacity and resource constraints that would threaten the delivery of specialist services, including county services. Concern is also expressed about the costs for fire, police and health services.

An additional reason for rejection is given under the leadership criterion: ‘There are significant interactions and commuter flows between the two (authorities) which mean that a high degree of strategic co-ordination and coherence in needed.'

If these observations are relevant for Northumberland, they ought to apply to other sub-county proposals, but not necessarily according to the DCLG. In the case of Cheshire, there is no hint that any of these issues might be relevant, and it is even stated that the two councils ‘would have a broad degree of coterminosity' when there is no coterminosity with the fire, police and health authorities.

Matters become even odder with respect to the proposed unitary cities – Bedford, Exeter, Ipswich and Norwich. The smallness of their populations is explicitly recognised in the case of Exeter and Norwich, but not otherwise. Bedford is the largest – about 150,000 residents – and Exeter, the smallest – about 115,000.
Diseconomies of scale are recognised for Bedford, Exeter and Ipswich, and also that there would be a ‘dilution of coterminosity' with a unitary Exeter and similar problems with Bedford, but apparently, not elsewhere.

Nevertheless Bedford, Exeter and Ipswich are said to have reasonable likelihoods of achieving value of money, but not Norwich. All four cities have been asked to do more work to show that their proposals would be affordable, subject to which, all but Norwich would proceed directly to unitary status. The affordability and value for money criteria are evidently in conflict in three out of four cases.

Concerns about unitary cities are brushed aside with observations such as:

‘A council can enhance its capacity and take measures to overcome any skills shortage' (Ipswich).

‘Joint strategic planning/commissioning with a number of other public sector bodies – including the county council – where appropriate, will mean effective and efficient public services… for Exeter's citizens' (Exeter).

Despite Bedford's interdependence with the surrounding area, the DCLG considers it would provide strategic leadership because the council has already successfully ‘implemented a directly-elected mayoral model…. and there is alignment between the cabinet portfolios and the corporate directorates'. Concerns about disaggregating county services are dismissed with the observation ‘that Bedford borough is planning to work with Central Bedfordshire in the area of children's services and, more generally, that the borough council has a very strong record of delivery and exceptionally high CPA ratings for ‘use of resources'.

This is special pleading, not consistent analysis.

Successful proposals should enjoy a broad cross-section of support from ‘key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens'.

The way in which this criterion has been judged is clearly shown by the DCLG's attitude to public opinion, to which nine of the 16 decision letters refer.

There are six cases in which public opposition is downplayed because of the ‘climate in which the polls took place', so that the results should ‘be viewed with caution'.

This caution is not applied in the case of Bedford, where almost 30,000 people are reported to support a unitary city. No information is given regarding the scale of opposition, nothing is said about attitudes in the county outside Bedford, and there is no comment about the ‘climate' in which the responses were elicited.
Caution is equally absent in the case of the successful bid for a unitary Northumberland.

The DCLG refers to the 2004 referendum, in which more than 40% of respondents opted for a unitary county. However, this referendum did not offer the option of retaining the present two-tier arrangements, asking people to choose between two unitary structures. The results are not relevant.

North Yorkshire throws all the above into sharp relief. According to the DCLG, ‘the polling commissioned by district councils did not show a clear outcome of informed opinion' – emphasis added.

We are left to conclude either that public opinion was informed in Bedford and Northumberland, but not in the other six county areas, or that the DCLG has put its own gloss on the evidence.

Reading the decision letters and using our personal knowledge, the second interpretation appears to be much the more plausible.

This conclusion is supported by a leaked report that the five bids from district councils, which have been given the go ahead were largely opposed by the police and health trusts.

The DCLG has been selective and inconsistent in its appraisal of the bids. The goalposts have differed from one case to another.

The lack of intellectual rigour, and the willingness to ignore evidence which runs counter to apparently preconceived outcomes, are deeply troubling.

The process is so flawed that it corrupts the body politic. 

Professor Michael Chisholm is emeritus professor of geography at Cambridge University, and Steve Leach is professor of local government in the local governance research unit at De Montfort University