As a former police officer, here's why I fear local government reform could go horribly wrong – Tom Wood

Judging by the huge reduction in police funding, the planned reform of local authorities could be used as cover for cuts to vital services

Reforming our local government structure – currently 32 councils of all shapes, sizes and capabilities for a population of five million – is essential. But beware, we’ve been here before, and if changes are made only to cut costs, it will go horribly wrong.

Fifty years ago, we went through a process of logical restructuring, only to tinker with it 20 years later to create the botched model we have now. It’s hardly been an example of efficiency and effectiveness.

The last chapter of reforms started in the 1960s when it became clear that the post-war structure of 400 town and burgh councils, 33 county councils and four city corporations was too heavy and dysfunctional.

Wily Wilson passes hot potato on

It was a political hot potato, with change fiercely resisted, not least by politicians set to lose their jobs. The then Tory UK government left proposed reforms in the long grass for Harold Wilson’s Labour government to pick up.

The wily Wilson decided to hand the problematic question to a Royal Commission. It passed the buck, but also gave away power. It would be difficult to resist the recommendations of a weighty and independent body.

Fortunately, the man chosen to lead the commission was Lord John Wheatley, an inspired selection. One of the sharpest legal minds of the 20th century, he quickly got to work. With a small committee, he took evidence from a wide range of interested parties and, within just two years, had produced a seminal report.

Pragmatic and shrewd

Recommending sweeping changes, there were to be seven (later nine) regional and 37 district councils. While the regions would be responsible for major services, like education, social work and policing, the districts would address local needs.

There were some pragmatic decisions. Strathclyde Region was huge, covering half the population, and deliberately, so that the large tax base could support Glasgow and surrounding areas, then in serious post-industrial decline.

It was a shrewd move by the judge but one fraught with difficulties. The powerful left-leaning Strathclyde region clashed continuously with UK Conservative governments, and there were feelings that some regional authorities were remote from those they represented.

Back to the future

In 1996, after just 20 years, the regions were dissolved leaving the present unitary structure. Many of us working in public service at the time believed the wrong tier of government had been abolished. The regions had the financial muscle to make structural changes; many unitary authorities were small and weak.

So it’s back to the future with a suggestion that six-to-ten regions would be responsible for strategic services while between 120 and 140 district authorities would deliver local ones – another tier of government to burden the taxpayer. Is this really what we want? Will this cut costs?

The lessons of history are not encouraging. The only public bodies reformed in Scotland this century have been the police and fire services and, in both cases, this was used as an excuse to strip out funding, with the police losing £1 billion over 13 years.

There are undoubtedly efficiencies to be made, but if cost-cutting is the only reason for these suggested reforms, it won’t work.

The whole process raises fundamental questions. How many tiers of government do we actually need? And, the million dollar question, are we getting anything like value for money?

Tom Wood is a writer and former police officer