District councils are the form of government closest to our communities. Over the years, consistent rounds of tinkering with the structure of local government have seen a confusing patchwork of authorities evolve across the country - from Combined Mayoral Authorities, directly elected and metro mayors, to new unitary councils, metropolitan boroughs, and two-tier county and district areas.
Governments of all colours have toyed with the idea of creating a homogenous approach to local government. The problem with this approach is, of course, that no two communities are alike. What works for London doesn't necessarily work for Manchester. A single unitary authority might serve the needs of Somerset and North Yorkshire, but two unitary authorities are a more effective governance structure for Cumbria. The 'County Deals' offered by Michael Gove didn't deliver the promised enhanced powers, and some places, like Hertfordshire, were unsuccessful in securing deals, despite jumping through all the hoops set by Whitehall (and incurring costs). As for the 'levelling up' agenda, we're yet to see the outcomes and benefits.
Those who have worked on devolution policy have always struggled with a consistent definition and interpretation of the concept. What is the aim and objective of devolution? Ideologically, it should mean putting local decisions closer to the hands of local people. Of all the layers of government in Britain, it's district councils that best represent this. The difficulty is that multiple layers of governance confuse residents - how many district councillors have patiently explained that they aren't responsible for potholes or education matters, and tried to refer those issues to county council colleagues for resolution?
District councils are able to focus on tackling the hyperlocal issues - from regenerating town and village centres to building better homes and health interventions - that help drive our economy and save other parts of the public sector money. There's a benefit to removing the pressure of larger strategic responsibilities like social care and education in order to focus on designing homes and community spaces that promote positive health outcomes through quality build materials, active travel routes, good community infrastructure and services focused on local need. With an ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in local government, the centralisation of decision-making in places like Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Essex and would lose the sense of place and connection to the community needed to support places as different as rural farming communities in North Hertfordshire, costal communities like Tendring and London fringe communities in Watford.
There's no question that local government needs reform. There isn't a single council in Britain that isn't facing serious financial challenges and having to make tough choices about the services they deliver. But the solution to the problem isn't to completely centralise decision-making, moving it further away from the people. Rather, any government serious about reforming and supporting local government should start by looking at our communities across the country, all of the ways those communities can be served, and working with councils as equal partners, recognising we know our communities best, to design localised solutions and funding mechanisms that will deliver for the people we serve.
On funding, the system needs root and branch reform. Council tax is not a fair metric for tax payers, and it's districts who lose out receiving the smallest cut of funding from revenue raised - North Herts retains just 12p in every £1 of council tax paid by residents. The funding formula is set late in council budgeting processes, with an outline of certainty coming in December, just before Christmas. One year settlements make it impossible to plan for the medium and long term. With councils facing budget deficits and increasingly relying on reserves to bridge the gap we need a better deal from central government if we are to continue delivering for communities. s.114 notices have become more politicised in recent years, but they are the canary in the coal mine - s.151 officers are nervous about the future sustainability of councils and their voices continue to be ignored by Whitehall.
And of course, without a doubt, all councils want to see an end to the wasteful and unfair beauty parade of competitive funding bids. There may be a case to be made for some centralised funds to support strategic council projects at a lower cost than loans from the Public Works Board, but these should be cost-efficient and easier for councils to access - after all, it's council taxpayers who fund consultancy fees for competitive bids.