After weeks of speculation, we now have the English Devolution White Paper. And it's more ambitious and far reaching than any of us could have anticipated.
Not only has the Government set out its desire to see mayoral devolution in every part of England, it has called time on two-tier local government: requiring every remaining area, alongside small unitary authorities, to put forward proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR).
For those of us who have lived through the trials and tribulations of devolution discussions and incremental LGR in non-metropolitan England over the past 10 years, the absolute clarity on the direction of travel by ministers is necessary.
County Council Network (CCN) members have historically been lukewarm about Directly Elected Mayors. For very good reasons, upper-tier councils have been eager to maintain good working relationship with district and neighbouring authorities and avoid creating yet another tier of local government.
For too long, most county, district and small unitary authorities have recognised that the current system of local government was no longer viable. Financial pressures, coupled with the structural weaknesses and confusion of the multi-tier system in the age of combined authorities has become impossible to justify.
Moreover, while previous governments maintained a mayoral premium, a purely ‘bottom up' approach on Whitehall's stance on devolution models was never going to break-through the competing proposals and opinions without government providing an unambiguous view on the end destination, alongside flexibility about how fast you reach it.
The Government is therefore right to continue to provide non-mayoral strategic authority options. But with the advent of the first Mayoral Combined County Authorities (CCAs) and building on the experience of North Yorkshire, most county and rural unitary authority members now want to embrace the opportunities of faster, and deeper, devolution.
It was also clear that in many county areas local government reorganisation would be necessary to unlock the barriers to more ambitious devolution settlements, whilst creating simpler council structures that are more financially sustainable and recognisable to the public.
For too long, most county, district and small unitary authorities have recognised that the current system of local government was no longer viable. Financial pressures, coupled with the structural weaknesses and confusion of the multi-tier system in the age of combined authorities has become impossible to justify.
In taking forward this agenda, CCN will be a willing partner of central government. With almost half our members now unitary authorities, we recognise that new councils of the necessary scale can deliver significant financial benefits while enabling greater devolution.
But we are not naïve enough to believe this process will be easy, nor that there won't be intense debate on how it plays out in practice.
The Government has made a good start in their efforts to set out the rules of engagement, including the requirement for new councils to have a population of 500,000 or more.
Those that warn of ‘mega-councils' ignore the overwhelming success of large councils such as Cornwall, North Yorkshire Council and Wiltshire, which maintain a strong, local identity, while delivering better local services across large rural areas.
Nonetheless, the good faith of CCN and its member councils to support the agenda could be easily lost if this figure unravels to be an optimum, rather than what it should be – an absolute minimum in all but the most exceptional circumstances of small unitary authorities merging together.
Ministers have been eager over recent days to cite previous research by CCN and PwC that showed unitarisation can save almost £3bn over a five-year period. While reorganisation in and of itself is not a solution to the financial challenges facing county areas – particularly in the short-term – they are right to highlight the substantial savings that could be better spent on front line services, from libraries to waste collection.
But they cannot ignore on the other hand that the very same research showed that two unitary authorities in the average sized county area reduces potential savings by two-thirds, while three unitary authorities could result in a net-cost rather than saving over a five-year period.
The government needs to fully understand that disaggregating county councils social care services into multiple unitary authorities comes with risks and additional costs, while splitting council tax bases – particularly at the time of a ‘fair funding review' – will have an enormous bearing on the sustainability of proposals.
That doesn't mean CCN and its member councils will be dogmatic over its position both locally and nationally over whether an area reforms into one or more unitary authority. Ultimately, it will be up to local areas to decide which formation to pursue, and any decisions must be based on evidence, not political expediency.
Importantly, while our member councils recognise the potential opportunities presented by the creation of new strategic authorities and more powers for mayors, the role of local authorities should be enhanced not diminished; with a clear separation between mayors in spearheading an area's strategic growth and constituent councils in delivering day-to-day essential local services such as social care.
It is only through empowering local government and a clear delineation of respective roles that this government can garner support for areas to move forward on the mayoral model.
If the government gets its approach right, CCN are committed to working closely with ministers and sector stakeholders to support local areas achieve the biggest reforms in a generation.
Cllr Tim Oliver is chair of the County Councils' Network
