BRITISH LIBRARY 
OF POLITICAL AND 
ECONOMIC SCIENCE 


LONDON SCHOOL OF 
ECONOMICS AND 
POLITICAL SCIENCE 



, F I 1:< L • 
6 7 8 
f 1 t5" I I 
( 7 
~L K -
ETER SELF 
FABIAN SOCIETY TRACT No. 279 
ONE SHILLING 
, F I 1:< L • 
6 7 8 
f 1 t5" I I 
( 7 
~L K -
ETER SELF 
FABIAN SOCIETY TRACT No. 279 
ONE SHILLING 

PETER SELF 

is Lecturer in Public Administration at the London 
School of Economics, writes for "The Economist." 
He wrote a number of articles on local government 
for "Fabian Quarterly," and is the author of a recent 
Fabian booklet " Regionalism." (3;6) 


WHITHER 
LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT? 

by PETER SELF 

FABIAN SOCIETY 

TRACT No. 279 

LONDON: 

FABIAN PUBLICATIONS, LTD., 
11, DARTMOUTH STREET, S.W.l, 
and 
VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD., 
14, HENRIETTA STREET, W.C.2. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

PREFACE 3 

I. WHAT IS WRONG WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT? 6 
Il . REFORMING LOCAL GOVERNMENT -14 

Ill. THE NEW SYSTEM 22 

CONCLUSION 26 

r<c~ 

bl~tl (?/~) 

N oTE.-This pamphlet like all publications 
of the Fabian Society, represents not the 
collective view of the Society, but only the 
view of the individual who prepared it. 
The responsibility of the Fabian Society is 
limited to approving the publications which 
it issues as embodying facts and opinions 
worthy of consideration within the Labour 
Movement. 

January, 1950. 


PREFACE 


The exit of the Local Government Boundary Commission 
does not mean another indefinite postponement of the reform of 
our local government system. The Minister of Health has 
announced that the Government is working on major proposals for 
the overhaul '?f the system, and presumably legislation-can be 
expected early m the life of the New Parliament. Meanwhile, the 
wartime moratorium on changes of boundaries and statutes has 
been further extended-another reason why reform must come 
soon. 

There is no need to emphasise the importance of the subject. 
Local self-government is an essential part of a live democracy; 
upon its efficiency hangs the success of our expanding social 
~ervi~es, upon its vigour depends the reality of popular participatiOn 
m the everyday tasks of government. It is a vital mechanism 
for ascertaining the needs of the people as citizens, and for redressing 
their grievances as consumers. It is not for nothing that the 
early Fabians laid stress on the great potentialities of local government. 
Their beliefs have been amply fulfilled by the enormous 
expansion of locally-controlled services. But the system itself has 
not moved with the burdens which it has assumed. It is this fact 
which-now that a further era of expanding public services has 
begun-makes reform so crucial and so urgent. 

It is also fatal to conceive local government in static terms. 
What is wanted is a system which will not only perform its allotted 
tasks with due competence, but which will have within it the 
seeds of further improvements and innovations. It is a mistake to 
let all progress wait on Parliament. Enlightened councils have 
often in the past led the way in social reform and in the introduction 
of new forms of public enterprise. Today there is an equally 
great need for initiative and experiment in the field of public 
administration. It is important that this point should be recognised, 
and that local government should be encouraged to make 
the great contribution in this field of which it is capable. 

What is wanted, then, is a reform of the local government 
system which will not only raise its general standard of efficiency, 
but will do so in a way that liberates new social energies. This is 
no easy task, but it is capable of achievement. It is sad to observe 
that the various local authority associations have been quiteunable to agree on the general lines of reform. It is natural for 
each type of local authority to be conscious of its own achievements 
and advantages. But the spirit of democratic self-government 
does not depend upon any particular form of institution, 
however venerable, but reaches its best and fullest expansionthrough continuous adaptation to changing needs. 'The needs and 
conditions of today are far removed from those of s1xty years ago, 
when our system was set up. Our local institutions have to face 

I 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

a corresponding adaptation-otherwise they will slowly perish in 
favour of more centralised and less democratic arrangements. 

It is unfortunate that there is no body to speak for the cause 
of local self-government as a whole. Almost the nearest approach 
to one is N.A.L.G.O., whose attention is naturally concentrated on 
administrative efficiency. But if we are to have a satisfactory new 
system it must not just be imposed from above-it must be based 
on the practical needs and desires of the citizens who will work it 
and live under it. Someone must speak for them. Now that time 
is short, I hope that the present local councils will desist from 
sectional warfare and self -protective forays and join together to 
refashion the system in the general interest. But whether they will 
or no, it is essential to get the maximum amount of constructive 
ideas and suggestions from the local level. 

My own proposals owe a great deal to two reports. The 
Labour Party's plan for local government, issued during the war 
before it came to office, is still, I believe, fundamentally sound. It 
can be improved and amplified by adopting some of the recommendations 
of the Local Government Boundary Commission made 
in its 1947 report-in particular, its idea of the 'most-purpose'authority which would embody many traditional advantages of 
county borough government in a new setting. In addition, I 
believe that greater attention is necessary than is given in either 
report to the special problems of our densely-populated industrial 
conurbations, and to securing the revival of the lower tier of local 
authorities. 

One subject which neeus more investigation is the relative 

advantages of local authorities of different sizes. The drawbacks 

of the small local government unit of a few thousand population 

are today obvious enough. These small bodies have not the money, 

or the range of consumers, to meet the needs of modern administra


tion. They cannot afford to employ expert or specialised staff 

wholetime. Even a basic requirement like the supply of pure water 

i~ beyond the capacity of many small rural district councils, 

valiantly as they have striven to meet it. On the other hand, the 

drawbacks attached to some of the largest units of local govern


ment are less well known. The accusation that these large authori


ties are" run by their officials" is sometimes (by no means always) 

justified. The big authorities are often heavy spenders. As towns 

increase in size beyond a certain point, the expenditure of the local 

authority per head of the population tends to rise also. How far 

these rising costs reflect the inevitable diseconomies of large-scale 

urbanism, how far they are compensated for by improved standards 

of service, or how far they are caused by inefficiencies of large-scale 

administration, it is not easy to tell. There is evidence that some 

large authorities suffer from unduly large overheads. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

It is dangerous to jump to conclusions on this matter. A great 
deal depends upon what services the authority in question is to 
perform. There are some services which can be done cheaply and 
efficiently only by a really large authority; and there are other 
services again for which the tiny local authority still has advantages. 
Again a distinction needs to be drawn in some services 
between planning, which can only be carried out efficiently over 
a wide area, and detailed administration which needs a more intimate 
and local touch. However, a sound general principle to apply 
in the case of any service is to operate it at the most local level 
that is compatible with reasonably efficient administration. However, 
the vast forward development of the public services has made 
unavoidable a steady increase in the size of the basic unit of 
administration. In most services today, the right basic unit is not 
very large or remote, it may still fairly be described as local in 
character, but it is undeniably different from and larger than many 
traditional units of local government. 

Our local government system today is like a wood which has 
faced a westerly gale for some sixty years. The smaller trees in 
the front facing the full force of the gale have lost their branches 
and become bent and bowed; some of the larger trees behind have 
also lost topmost branches which have been blown off them. The 
simile is, I think, a fair one. The changing needs of the public 
services cannot be gainsaid. They have therefore been met, in the 
first instance by the removal of functions from minor to major 
local authorities and in the second phase (which is now occurring) 
by the transfer of functions from local government as a whole to 
new agencies. It is worth repeating again that all this has happened 
(and will go on happening) because our local government structure 
has been more or less static, inflexible and unresponsive to the 
great developments in the services for which it is responsible. 

This pamphlet is in no way a eulogy of large-scale administration 
or of the big authority. In some respects, on the contrary, it 
seeks· to make local government more local than it is at present.
What it does insist is that a proper system of local government 
must be attuned to the functions which it is to carry out; and that 
Burke (who was anything but a radical) was after all right in saying 
that a state without the means of change is without the means 
of its own conservation. Local self-government in this country 
has long been the State's handyman or jack-of-all-trades. Will it 
continue to be so? 

* * * 

Nomenclature causes some difficulties. The word 'regional',
for instance, has unfortunate associations with the wartime system 
of Civil Defence, and is usually associated with the devolution of 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

central administration. I do not use it in this sense. Tht', 
regional ' councils I propose would be directly elected and cover 
smaller areas than the Government's regions; they would be the 
major authorities of a reformed local government system.
Similarly, a careful distinction has to be drawn between the 
present county boroughs and non-county boroughs and the new sort 
of ' borough ' which I (following the Boundary Commission) 
propose. 

Any scheme of local government reform must necessarily pay 
attention to administrative requirements. Our present system has 
grave defects in this direction, and the new needs of public services 
cannot be overlooked. But I am aware that changes in its population 
and rateable value do not necessarily make a local council 
more efficient-let alone more popular. No scheme of reform can 
be successful which fails to pay the closest attention to local needs, 
local conditions and local sentiments. All that follows is subjectto this proviso. It is one thing to lay down general principles of 
local government reform-it is quite another thing to work out tbis 
application to particular localities, a task which can only be done 
satisfactorily after careful and detailed investigation on the spot. 
Some part of the work of local investigation has already been 
carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission; but 
still more is needed, and only by eliciting the prompt co-operation 
of councillors and citizens can the task succeed. 

I have set out my own views at greater length in a Fabian 
booklet, " Regionalism " (price 3/6), wbich was published only 
recently and wbich contains a more detailed analysis than is possible 
here. If my proposals are sometimes dogmatically stated, myhope is that they will at least provoke discussion on an important 
and pressing subject. 

I-WHAT IS WRONG WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT? 

In this section I shall set out the main weaknesses which at 
present afflict local government. I do not think there will be much 
disagreement with my diagnosis-it is the nature of the right cure 
which causes controversy. 

(a) Decay of the Minor Authorities 
The minor local authorities consist of the three types of county 
district-non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts-
and the parish councils in rural areas. 

These minor authorities-there are as many as 1,384 county 
districts and 11,100 parish councils and meetings-constitute the 
vast majority of all local councils and in many respects the core 
of the whole system. They represent local government at its truly 


" WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

local level, and their sickness is undermining the health of the 
whole system. Parish councils and meetings perform valuable 
work as a focus of village life, as upholders of village rights and 
advocates of village needs. They perform important educational 
and advisory duties. But necessarily, because of their size they 
~ave for a long time had few executive functions. It is, accordmgly, 
the county districts with which I am chiefly concerned 
in this section. 

For a long time the county districts have been losing functions 
to the counties. But the process has been enormously accelerated 
during the last five years. They have yielded up their fire services 
under the Fire Act (1947); they have ceased to be planningauthorities under the Town and Country Planning Act (1947); and 
most non-county boroughs have lost their police forces under the 
Police Act (1946). These three transfers were probably unavoidable. 
What is more disturbing is the elimination of the minor 
authorities from the new educational system and the national 
health scheme. Apart from 44 'Excepted Districts' (mainly in 
outer London), the boroughs and urban districts, which were 
Part Ill authorities for elementary education, have lost their 
powers (Education Act, 1944). All county district councils have 
had to surrender their powers over maternity and child welfare, 
midwifery and the other preventive health services under the 
National Health Act (1946). 

The main functions now left to county district councils are 
housing, water supply (scheduled for nationalisation), main drainage 
and sewage disposal, street lighting and paving and minor 
roads in urban areas, baths and washhouses, small parks, museums, 
allotments, and a host of regulatory powers. There are all important 
duties-and a valuable new function (when funds permit 
its exercise) is the provision of theatres, concerts and entertainments. 
But (apart from housing) is there much on the list to 
inspire the enthusiasm of the local residents? Are the responsibilities 
wide enough (especially in view of tightening central control) 
to retain the services of really competent officers and specialists? 
Is there a big enough job to inspire the other citizens to stand for 
the council? 

I think that in each case the answer is in the negative. Already 
many of the minor authorities are having difficulty in findin~ or 
keeping good officials, who do not after all want to work m a 
complete backwater. The root mistake, to my mind, is that those 
services which intimately concern the citizen as consumer-such 
as health, education and old peoples' welfare-have been wholly 
transferred to a higher level. Until the minor local councils are 
given some sort of participation in the social services (what sort 
will be discussed later) they will go on decaying. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

The position bears especially hardly on a fairly large non-
county borough or urban district, which in the last few years may 
have lost its powers for health, elementary education, town planning 
and fire services, its police force 'and (under nationalisation 
schemes) its gas, electricity and transport undertakings. This is a 
formidable list indeed. Yet many such authorities are as populous 
and as rich as the average county borough. In the London region, 
for example, the average metropolitan borough has 120,000 
citizens, and the average urban district or non-county borough 
over 75,000. Cambridge has 80,000 residents and Luton 109,000. 
Yet these are all minor authorities, with small and dwindlingpowers, while county boroughs-many of which are smaller-run 
all their own services. It is an illogical arrangement. 

I do not mean to suggest that this transfer of functions from 
county districts-sad as it is-has not (for the most part anyhow)
been unavoidable-given the system as it now is. Our great social 
services cannot be entrusted to units which are administratively 
inefficient. Even the average urban or rural district has too small 
a population (about 15,000) to run the services in question with 
proper efficiency (although it does not follow that they could not 
be associated with some aspects of the work). But in any case 
it is not the average authority which counts. The Government 
cannot be blamed for refusing to entrust important services, 
requiring highly specialised staff, expensive equipment and an 
adequate range of consumers, to tiny county district councils with 
populations of a few thousands. It has had to• use the existing 
system, and this has left it with little real choice. The result-
reversing the usual law of nature-is that the stronger county districts 
have had to suffer for the defects of their weaker brethren. 

The Tories, who prattle a great deal about keeping local 
government local, completely overlook this point. They do not 
explain how they would restore vigour and strength to the local 
councils whose decay they lament. They know perfectly well that 
it is impossible to hand back powers to the minor authorities as 
they are at present constituted. But they have not the honesty 
to say so. 

It is important that the Labour Movement should show more 
courage. It is no good having a second tier of local authorities 
that have been stripped of most of those duties for which local 
contact is especially important. It is no good letting boroughs 
keep their ancient pomp and panoply if behind it is an emptyshell. It is no good bowing to tradition and custom at the expense 
of democratic reality. 

It is obvious that an effective system of minor authorities 
cannot be produced without changes in the resources, the population 
and the status of most of the existing units. But it does not 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

follow that such changes need make local government ' more 
remote' or 'less democratic'. On the contrary, many services which 
~t present are carried out at county level could then be administered, 
or partly administered, by elected councils operating at a 
much more local and intimate level. This would be a distinct 
advance in making local government ' convenient ' as well as 
'effective'. Such a reform would also, of course, involve some loss 
of local roots and traditions. This must be frankly faced. But 
which is preferable--to die in quiescence, or to face the pangs of a 
new birth? 

(b) Conflict Between Counties and County Boroughs 
The major local authorities consist of the counties and 
county boroughs. These bodies were set up in 1888. The 61 
administrative counties were based on the ancient judicial shires, 
and even at their inception differed enormously in population and 
resources-e.g., in 1891 Lancashire had 1,768,100 and Rutland 
21,000 citizens. These differences are even greater today. A 
special defect of the counties is that, dating back to the preindustrial 
age, their areas have no relation to the great economic 
and social concentrations brought into being by the Industrial 
Revolution-for instance, the Birmingham conurbation sprawlsacross corners of Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire. 

The 1888 Act which created the counties allowed the larger 
towns-those with populations of over 50,000 and a few under-
to become completely autonomous authorities for local government 
purposes. They were to be 'counties unto themselves'. Towns of 
their size were-to some extent, still are-good units for running 
most services. They are a convenient size and have solid local 
roots, Unfortunately, the effect of this arrangement on the counties 
has been unsatisfactory. It has been the aim of every fair-sized 
town to achieve the cherish~d county borough status, and, in fact, 
the number of county boroughs has increased from 61 in 1888 
to 83 today-and would have increased further had the status not 
been illogically refused to many suitable aspirants. At the same 
time, as England's towns have spread outwards, often in a sprawling 
and chaotic manner, the county boroughs have made repeated 
claims for extensions of their boundaries, which have usually been 
granted-though often tardily and reluctantly. 

The effect on the counties has been to deprive them of some 
of their richest urban and suburban areas, and gravely to impair 
their efficiency. For instance, if Luton and Cambridge were given 
the county borough status which they deserve as much as m?st of 
those now holding it, the administration of the present counues of 
Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire would be completely wrecked. 
To protect the counties, Parliament tightened the procedure for 
becoming or extending a county borough as long ago as 1926. 
The war has brought a further moratorium on changes. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

However, the problem was only postponed. At the present 
time at lea t half the county boroughs need additional land for 
purposes of housing and proper planning. If it is denied them it 
will not be possible to overcome the overcrowding, traffic congestion 
and lack of playing-fields and amenities which afflict so many 
of our cities. The winding-up of the Local Government Boundary 
Commission, which was dealing with the more urgent aspects of 
this situation by way of provisional orders, is a severe blow to such 
town as Plymouth and Sunderland. Also there are a number of 
towns of over 75,000 population seeking county borough status. 
These claims cannot, under the present system, be logically denied. 
But their concession would upset the fabric of county government. 

The conflict between county and county boroughs has two 
root causes. The system set up in 1888 assured a rigid and narrow 
distinction between town and countryside which is no longerapplicable. In the second place, that system has proved completely 
rigid as far as the major authorities are concerned. Our 
present counties are the same as sixty years ago; our presentcounty boroughs are also the same with three deletions and 25 additions. 
There are more major local authorities today than sixty 
years ago. Over this period, however, the scale and extent of 
public administration has become enormously broader and more 
specialised. Many authorities which had the population and 
rateable value to operate their services efficiently in 1888 can no 
longer do so today. The result is a kind of Balkan struggle for 
lebenstraum between the counties and county boroughs, each 
trying to get an adequate area and resources. It is obvious that 
in this struggle neither side can be the winner-so long as the 
status of each and every county or county borough which now 
exists i regarded as sacrosanct. 

(c) The Loss of Powers to Local Government 
It ha been found necessary, over the la t few years, to take 
a number of important services which traditionally belong there 
right out of the sphere of local government. Public assistance-so 
far as cash payment and relief in the home i concerned-has 
gone to the National A sistance Board; hospital have been tran ferred 
from the counties and county borough to the Regional 
Ho pital Board ; municipal gas and electricity concerns have been 
handed over to the new Area Boards, and municipal transport 
undertaking arc liable to be ' regionali ed ' under national control. 
Other tran fer include the los of civil airfield and of many mile 
of road which have become trunk road under the Mini try of 
Tran port. Tre li t is not yet complete. Water, an importantlocal government ervice, is cheduled for ome brand of ' regionalisation 
'; other ervice may follow. Moreover, where powernominally remain with local authoritie , their effective respon i



"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

bility has been sometimes diminished. For instance, control over 
town and country planning is carried out to a considerable extent 
by_ the regional offices of the Departments-thus bringing into 
beu:g an ela~orate and expensive five-tiered hierarchy covering the 
natwnal, regwnal, county, sub-county and county district levels. 
On all sides central control has tightened. 

Not all of these changes need necessarily be regretted. Even 
when local government has been reformed, some of these services 
might be better run outside it. But, taken together, this formidable 
list of lost and truncated powers-with others yet to come-does 
reveal the damaging weakness of our local government system. 
We cannot answer this argument by saying-as is certainly true-that 
important new duties have also been handed to local authorities. 
After all, local elected councils should be more democratic 
and more accessible bodies than appointed regional boards. In the 
former case the chain of responsibility goes straight back to the 
local electorate; in the latter case it proceeds via devious and loose 
links to the Minister concerned, the Cabinet, Parliament and the 
national electorate. 

The control of Parliament over the regional boards is shadowy 
in the extreme; the protection given to consumers is dependent on 
nominated (not elected) consultative councils. In terms of public 
accountability, this compares very poorly with the well-tried 
machinery of local self-government. It is in the social services-
hospitals, for instance--that a proper and immediate democratic 
control (the best way of remedying consumers' grievances) is 
especially desirable. 

It is sometimes said that the best results are obtained if each 
service is organised in the manner most appropriate to its own 
technical requirements. This is the pattern which is being followed 
(at present experimentally) in the cast of new nationalised and 
regionalised services. It has obvious advantages, and is certainly 
appropriate in some cases. The trouble is that if this theory is 
pushed too far it may mean the end of effective democratic control. 
For what citizen could find his way amidst a mass of special 
authorities for different purposes, even if he were (which he is not 
at present) to be given some part in electing them? He is somewhat 
lost already in the mazes of the health service. Moreover, 
the growth of numerous special authorities has administrative 
drawbacks as well as advantages. It means, for instance, considerable 
duplication of legal and accounting staff. It puts up the 
total cost of government-for each board or agency is anxious to 
push rapidly ahead and develop its service in an expert manner, 
and there is nobody (short of Parliament itself) to count and coordinate 
the total cost. Ultimate Parliamentary control of public 
expenditure is no remedy. Parliamet?-t has not time, knowledge ~r 
effective authority to compare and brmg together the local expendt



' 


12 "WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

tures of numerous special authorities. The scrutiny of a local 
council, responsible to the ratepayers, is far more effective. The 
transfer of services out of local government has already put upthe costs of public administration. 

The basic trouble is, of course, the incapacity of some of our 
major local authorities-the counties and county boroughs-to run 
services which traditionally and properly belong to local government. 
The great range in their size and resources needs to be 
remembered. While there are 3 county boroughs with over half a 
million inhabitants, there are 20 with less than 75,000; while 7 
counties contain over a million residents there are 13 (largely in 
Wales, it is true) with under 100,000. Do not think that I am anyworshipper of size as such; in the contrary, my aim is to keep local 
government as local as is administratively possible, and the aim 
of this pamphlet is to show how that can be done. But no local 
authority can be left to administer services which exceed its 
capacity and resources. As with the county districts, the stronger 
members among the counties and county boroughs have to suffer 
for the defects of their weaker brethren. There are many individually 
efficient local authorities; but the system is not collectively 
efficient. 

A multitude of evidence is available to support this statement. 
Here one point must suffice. The Local Government Boundary 
Commission came to the conclusion that no local authority with a 
population under 200,000 can run all the major services with full 
efficiency. This figure disbars a third of the present counties and 
four-fifths of the present county boroughs. Possibly it is put too 
high. Even if the much lower criterion of 100,000 population is 
substituted, over a third of the present major local authorities fail 
to satisfy the test. Attention should be paid to the word all. 
The smaller county boroughs, for instance, are mostly capable of 

administering the majority of their powers in a satisfactory manner. 
But there are some services, or parts of services, for which a wider 
conception is essential-and the lack of it is making local government 
as a whole the loser. 

(d) Financial Problems 
I have space only to allude briefly to two financial problems 
of local government. 

In the first place, it is sometimes said that the new Exchequer 
Equalisation Grant has cured the problems of the poorer local 
authorities. In one sense, it has done so. It has brought the 
rateable value per head of these authorities up to the average for 
authorities of the same class. But the need for an adequate total 
revenue still remains vital. To administer any services efficiently 
an authority must have a large enough population to raise the 
necessary finance. The true effect of the Equalisation Grant i to 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

make the financial resources of an authority roughly correspond to 
the size of its population (which, so far as it goes, is a change for 
the better). 

In the second place, there is the problem of rates. Rates, 
being to some extent regressive in their incidence, are an unsatisfactory 
form of taxation. Unfortunately, there is no suitable alternative 
available. It is essential to prevent the burden of rates from 
becoming too heavy. This means that most of the increased expenditure 
of local authorities has to be derived from other sources. 
It is not desirable-from any angle-that all this additional finance 
should take the form of Government grants. Therefore, it is necessary 
for the local authorities to find new sources of revenue. This 
should be done in two ways. Local authorities should be permitted, 
and encouraged, to develop trading concerns which may 
yield a profit. We are still tied too closely to the tradition that it 
is only the non-commercial, unprofitable activities that are a fit 
subject for municipal enterprise.* In the second place, the proceeds 
of certain taxes at present collected on a national basis-
such as entertainments duty and motor vehicle licences-might be 
earmarked for the use of local authorities. 

CONCLUSION 

The unsatisfactory condition of the present system of local 
government can be judged by three symptoms:


(a) 
The decay of the minor local authorities (the county district 
councils). Here is local government at its most local 
going to seed. 
(b) 
The continuation of the profitless controversy between 
counties and county boroughs. 
(c) 
The transfer of powers and responsibilities away from 
local government as a whole. 
These symptoms are indicative of an underlying weakness. 
Our system of local government was set up sixty years ago, and 
the system was not wholly satisfactory then. Public administration 
has been revolutionised since that date; its needs have 
changed vastly-so has the physical face of Britain, and its 
economic and social patterns; but our system of local government 
remains virtually unchanged. 

* Incidentally, it is a pity that the public management of licensed 
premises has been treated as a matter of central, instead of local, control. 
From the social viewpoint, local councils should be more responsive to 
public opinion than the system of State management; from the financial 
viewpoint, the ratepayer is a more suitable beneficiary than the Exchequer. 
It may be said that, since the system applies to only a few areas, the 
benefit would accrue to a small group of ratepayers arbitrarily selected. 
But this objection would not apply if municipalities everywhere were permitted 
to run hotels or public houses in competition with private enterprise. 
There is more to be had from a wide dissemination of municipal enterprise 
than from the construction of a Government monopoly in one or two 
localities. 

" WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

•

11-REFORMING LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

1.-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 

In this section I want to set out briefly two general considerations 
that should be taken note of by any scheme of reform. Theyare additional to the points that have already been made. 

(a) Simplicity of Structure 
We must beware of too complex a system of local government. 
There are two main reasons for this. To create too many kinds of 
local authorities, or offshoots thereof, is to build up an elaborate 
and expensive machine, which the country cannot afford, especially 
under present conditions. In the second place, an elaborate system 
confuses the electorate and divides or frustrates the energies of 
councillors. 

The ordinary citizen already finds it difficult to take an interest 
in the doings of both a local council and a county council. He is 
inclined to vote for the council nearest home and to forget about 
the larger authority. This helps to explain why county council 
elections have so far attracted such low polls, although there are 
signs that the position is slowly improving, as the public become 
aware of the great powers which county councils now possess. 

To have too many types of local authority is to blunt the edge 
of public responsibility. Nobody knows who is really responsible 
for what. By the same token, it is always less satisfactory for an 
authority to administer delegated powers than for it to perform 
the same service in its own right. The delegation of powers from 
a major to a minor local authority is sometimes the only way of 
enlisting the participation of the smaller body. In suitable cases 
it is a useful device, which needs to be used more widely and 
imaginatively. (I will return to this point later). But it must be 
recognised that, in principle, delegation is a less satisfactoryarrangement than direct responsibility. Especially is this so where 
the body exercising the delegated function is not itself an elected 
authority. Our present system of divisional executives in education 
gets the worst of both worlds. 

Therefore, the new system of local government should be 

reasonably simple. I believe that some sort of two-tier system 

over most, or all, of the country is now completely unavoidable* 

unless indeed more functions are to be removed altogether from 

local democratic control. But I do not think we should allow 

these to be more than two tiers. There are certain political 

advantages in keeping all the present types of local authority in 

being, and adding a new tier of regional authorities at the top-

but it would make the system too cumbersome and muddling. 

* It is worth noting that the most widely-quoted scheme in favour of 
all-purpose government (that drawn up by N.A.L.G.O.) involves, in effect, 
three tiers. 

"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

For the same reasons, the number of joint or special bodies 
formed out of the local authorities should be kept to a minimum. 
There must be some such bodies for services like main drainage 
and water supply, which no local government pattern can fit 
exactly; but a proliferation of ad hoc agencies is undesirable. It 
is still more important to try and avoid a system in which special 
agencies have to be inserted in between the upper and lower tiers 
of local authorities. 

(b) Varying Needs 
We need an efficient system of local government which is 
reasonably simple and self-contained. But it does not follow that 
the same system will do for all parts of the country. At present,
the pattern of regional and local adminisration over Englandand Wales is becoming exceedingly complex. But the same types 
of local authority do service for all parts of the country. An 
urban district, for instance, may consist of a large, compact community 
living within five miles of Charing Cross or of a small, 
scattered population dwelling up a mining valley. A countyborough may be a small planet attached to some great sun, or it 
may be the sun itself. Even a rural district is sometimes so-called 
only in name. 

I am not suggesting that each part of the country needs a 
separate sy~tem of local government. However desirable in theory, 
such an arrangement would be administrably unthinkable. What 
I am pointing out is that our present distinctions assume that an 
area is either a compact town (in which case it is, or hopes to be, a 
county borough) or else is mainly rural (in which case it is administered 
on the two-tier system). But this is now very far from 
being the case. 

There have grown up enormous industrial concentrations 

which have completely swamped our traditional local government 

distinctions. Take, for instance, the more or less continuous 

conurbation consisting of Birmingham and the Black Country, 

which covers only 200 square miles, but has a population of two 

million persons packed closely together. What, under our present 

system, is the appropriate form of government for this region? It 

is much too populous and differentiated to be merged in a single 

county borough. In point of fact, it contains five county boroughs 

of very different types. There is the giant Birmingham, which has 

over one million residents; Wolverhampton and Walsall, medium-

sized industrial centres; Smethwick and West Bromwich, largely 

suburbs of Birmingham; and Dudley, an ancient but small county 

borough. The urban areas which lie between these five county

boroughs are ruled over by 8 municipal boroughs and 10 urban 

districts, whilst over these are set no fewer than three co~nty 

councils, whose areas happen to converge on the conurbatiOn. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

T.hus the government of this industrial region is shared among four 
different types of local authority, is split between the all-purpose 
and the two-tier systems, is partly carried on from three different 
centres that are thirty or more miles distant, and presents such 
spectacles as the co-existence side by side of two authorities (both 
of them urban) with populations of 1,052,900 and 2,836 respectively. 


A similar story can be told of the other great industrial concentrations. 
The two banks of the Tyne are administered by four 
county boroughs of varying sizes, two county councils and a large 
number of non-county boroughs and urban districts. Manchester 
itself is a single large county borough of three-quarters of a million 
persons; but within seven to eight miles of its centre live a further 
two million persons who are ruled over by six county boroughs, 
three counties, nineteen non-county boroughs, thirty-nine urban 
districts and several rural districts. The local government problems 
of the metropolis itself are so complex as to beggar quick description. 
Suffice it to point out that five county councils are concerned 
in the administration of the Metropolitan Police District, together 
with three county boroughs, twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs, 
twenty-seven non-county boroughs and twenty-four urban districts. 

The point I am making is basically quite simple. Almost half 
of the nation's population live today in a half-do~en regions(Greater London, Tyneside, Merseyside, the Manchester area, the 
Birmingham area, the industrial West Riding), each of which 
covers a comparatively small land surface but contains several 
millions of closely-packed inhabitants. Our local government 
system is incapable of coping with this situation. Its general conceptions 
predate the Industrial Revolution. It is assumed, for 
instance, that a fair-sized town (one of over 50,000 or 75,000 inhabitants) 
is entitled to an independent form of administration. 
But what is to be done when populations mount up which are 20, 
50 or 100 times the size of the typical county borough? Our presentsystem provides no answer; and the result is a welter of local 
authorities of different types and sizes, striving manfully to cope 
with the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution and bringing with 
them the kind of feuds and ambitions which were appropriate to 
early nineteenth-century England. 

I am suggesting that the important distinction in local government 
needs to be, not that between town and countryside, but a 
new distinction between the few really big industrial concentrations 
and the rest of the country. I believe that the same system 
of local government-the same types of authority and divisions of 
functions-will not serve in both instances. In saying this, I am 
not departing from the general aim of simplicity which was laid 
down earlier. Our new system needs to be reasonably simple and 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

straightforward, both inside and outside the conurbations; but the 
local authorities need to be built along differeht lines and allocated 
functions on a different basis in the one case than in the other. The 
result will be no more confusing to the electorate, or awkward to 
the Government, than the arrangements into which we are now 
drifting; and I shall try to demonstrate that the distinction which 
I propose is essential to both good and democratic government. 

2-TOWN AND COUNTRYSIDE 

Outside the large industrial conurbations (that is, over most 
of the country) the problems of local government revolve around 
the relationship of town and country. It is a sociological fact, 
needing little description, that urban and rural interests are bound 
up much more closely today than was the case sixty years ago. 
The ambit of daily travelling, for instance, has expanded enormously-
fantastically so, in the case of centres like London.* 
Many urban workers have their homes in country districts, or 
escape thither at weekends, whilst the rural population visits the 
town for shopping and amusement with increasing frequency. 
Industry and housing has spread outwards from the city centres, 
here has invaded the countryside, there has created a kind of 
no-man's land betwixt town and country. Community links have 
become much wider and vaguer. 

This process has been accompanied by much social and 
economic waste. It is to reduce this waste, to ensure a wiser use 
of our limited resources of land, and to rebuild-if possible-the 
sense of community that a new conception of town and country 
planning has recently grown up. Planning, in this new sense, 
involves a general control of all types of physical development. It 
needs to be positive as well as negative-to bring about desirable 
types of development, as well as preventing undesirable ones. 
Major schemes of redevelopment, the building of new or satellite 
towns and large housing schemes, the construction of main roads, 
the enhancement of scenic beauty, the provision of major open 
spaces, the co-ordination of water supply, main drainage, and other 
public utilities-all these services are essential aspects of satisfactory 
planning. 

Town and country planning, in this new sense of generalphysical planning for the social good, can show little practical 
achievement to date. There are many reasons for this-amongthe foremost being its belated recognition and the cramping effect 
of current economic exigencies. But a further reason is that our 
present local government areas do not correspond with the neeas 
of this important new service and its associated functions. Town 
and country planning-almost by definition, certainly by observation--
cannot be carried out by authorities which are narrowly 
urban or mainly rural. 

* A large number of workers in the city travel the equivalent of round 
the world every year to and from work. 

"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

. The recent Local Government Boundary Commission argued 
with good reason that there ought to be an integration between 
county and county borough for certain important services. The 
~ervice~ which it specified included town and country planning (in 
Its mam features, but not in its detailed execution), police, fire 
services, and the finance of main highways. These are all services 
which require a fairly large area of operations and which are best 
spread over a mixed urban and rural unit. The Commission's 
proposal is a sound one. It should be made clear that the planning 
functions to be exercised over this wider area would not stop at the 
making of a plan, but would include as well the actual execution 
of major schemes of development. Otherwise, there would be no 
appropriate local authority to carry out such schemes, their 
finance would not be equitably shared, and there would be a 
dangerous gap between theory and practice. 

There is therefore a strong case for a greater integration of 
town and countryside at the level of the upper tier of local government. 
But the need for such integration is equally-or more-
urgent as regards the lower tier. In this case, indeed, the driving 
motive is a stronger one, since the minor authorities cannot survive 
effectively-may not be able to survive at all-in their present 
shape.

The need is to give the minor local councils more worthwhile 
powers than they possess at present, and in particular to give them 
some participation in the great scheme of social services from 
which they are at present excluded. Otherwise, they will sink 
further into obscurity and dudgeon. How can this aim be realised? 
Clearly, it must involve the amalgamation of many of the weaker 
minor authorities, and the creation of a higher administrative 
minimum. There is only one practical way of doing this-the 
union of rural districts with urban districts or non-county boroughs. 
A very little reflection will show that no other method is workable. 


This proposal will, of course, be opposed on the grounds that 

it will make our minor authorities "remote." But will it really?

Admittedly, many rural districts already cover a large and scat


tered area, which should not be further enlarged. But it would not 

need to be. The new units would, on the average, be no larger

than our present rural districts. Only in place of the existence side 

by side of two separate councils, occupying two separate offices-

one for a small town and the other for surrounding countryside, 

there would be a single council and offices for the whole unit. 

Not only would there be a clear advantage in administrative con


venience, but new links would be forged between town and country 

from which both should gain. 

Practical objections will also be alleged. For instance, town 

councils commonly meet in the evenings, rural councils in the day


time. Some subjects (e.g. housing) produce different problems and 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

nee~ different treatment in the country from in the town. Again,
the mter~sts of urban and rural ratepayers might frequently differ 
-there IS a danger of the country sponging on the town, and of 
the town denying proper services to the countryside. I am at pains 
to_ state these practical problems. But, without doubt, given goodwill, 
t~ey can be overcome. On some matters, for instance (Housmg 
might be an example) separate committees should be set up for 
urban and rural areas, which could meet at the times most convenient 
to their members. 

In any case, it is necessary to remember the alternative. Many 
of our present minor authorities have done excellent work in the 
past; and some of these are capable of carrying on, with enhanced 
powers, after comparatively small alterations. But the majority 
require regeneration. It is a sham adulation of local democracy to 
keep these in being, shorn of their powers, sooner than face the 
difficulties of reorganisation. 

The new town and country councils, on the other hand, could 
be given some worthwhile duties. The larger among them would 
be capable, for instance, of operating primary and secondaryeducation, either (and preferably) in their own right, or else as the 
agents of the major authority*; they would also be capable ot 
undertaking the welfare of old people and of children, and of 
playing a part in the National Health Service. The smaller among 
them, besides discharging their present powers more efficiently,
would be better placed to act as agents for a number of other 
services. The general principles of delegation ought to be laid 
down centrally and approved by Parliament; actual schemes of 
delegation should be worked out locally. The new minor 
authorities, as responsible elected bodies, should be given a genuine 
discretion in the exercise of their powers. Finally, the new mixed 
authorities would be much better able to finance and support 
museums, art galleries, theatres, swimming-baths and other cultural 
and recreational activities, which will become of increasing 
importance; and also to undertake new trading ventures, such as 
local authority laundries, and to extend social facilities, such as 
baths and wash-houses. 

3-THE INDUSTRIAL CONURBATIONS 

In this section, I shall indicate a solution for the special probleCYts 
of the large industrial conurbations. There are three reasons 
for giving special attention to these areas: (a) they contain over 
40% of England's population, (b) our present system of local 
government was not designed to cope with them, and is working 

*In the latter case it is essential that they should be allowed more 
discretion than the pre;ent divisional executives. ~ady Simon of Wyth~nshawe 
recently maintained, however, that an authonty of 40,~00 _POJ?ulatwn 
is quite capable of running primary .a.nd secondar):' educ~tJO~ m. 1ts own 
right. Many of the new minor authonlies would satisfy thts cntenon. 


" WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

badly in the~J!, (c) because of their concentrated population, they 
present special difficulties and also special opportunities. 

The best approach is to consider the proper organisation of 
services in a concentrated industrial region. There are, to start 
with, a number of services which need to be provided and financed 
for the region as a whole. They include town and country planning, 
major development projects, main roads, the principal public 
utilities (including water supply, main drainage, sewage disposal 
and refuse destruction), and the protective services (fire, police, 
civil defence). 

The case for integrating many of these services over wider 
areas was argued in the previous section. But the case is especially 
strong-indeed, overwhelming-where a large industrial conurbation 
is concerned, for land is extremely scarce, and close co-ordination 
of physical development and public utilities is essential. Moreover, 
all our big industrial centres suffer from serious congestion 
and overcrowding. Their physical condition is sometimes appalling, 
their living conditions often disgraceful. 

Slums must be cleared, roads must be widened, derelict land 
must be restored to productive use, city centres must be rebuilt 
and surplus population must" be settled in new or satellite towns. 

Great projects such as these concern and benefit each indus· 
trial region as a whole. But there is at present no appropriate bodv 
to finance and execute them. Responsibility for carrying these out 
is divided amongst a medley of major and minor local authorities, 
whose interest is sometimes ~oo narrow (as. with the smaller county 
boroughs) or too dispersed (as with many counties). The lack of 
an appropriate elected local authority is causing more and more 
of the work to be carried out by the Government or specialagencies. But to rely on Government intervention is a poor solution--
even if it worked, which it does not at the present. It means 
doing without the driving force and the skill and knowledge which 
can only spring from a genuine local (or rather regional) 
patriotism. 

In the case of the principal social services, our system of local 

government in the conurbations is equally unsatisfactory and 

illogical. But here the trouble is of an opposite kind-the present

system is too remote and is n?t local enough. Fo~ instance, t~e 

bodies responsible for educatwn, health and soc1al welfare m 

Greater London include the London County Council (population 

3! million), Middlesex (over 2 million), Kent, Essex and Surrey 

(all over a million); in Greater Manchester they include Man


chester County Borough (750,000), Lancashire County Council 

(2 million); and so on. Many of the counties concerned have re


sponsibilities which stretch far beyond the conurbation in questioi?-·

1 do not mean to question the efficiency with which these authon



"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

~ies carry out their work, which is often very great. But why is 
1t necessary to carry on these services, in which local contacts are 
especi.ally . i~portant, over such enormous units of population?
Ce:tamly ~t IS ~ecessary (as I have stressed earlier) to have a populatiOn 
which IS adequate to the technical requirements of the 
services in question. But even the most stringent technical requirements 
do not necessitate populations of more than half a million; 
and in the view of the Local Government Boundary Commission, 
an authority of 60,000 or over is competent to run most local 
social services efficiently. 

There is no need to discuss technical requirements in detail. 
The point is that where population is fairly concentrated, it is 
possible to form local authorities of at least 60,000 population (in 
some areas 100,000 or 200,000) which are reasonably small and 
compact yet which are strong enough to run important services in 
their own right-in other words, to get a system which is genuinelylocal (where being local is of most account) and properly efficient. 
This could be done in all the main industrial conurbations. 

A far more rational system would result than the present 
medley of major and minor authorities of all kinds and sizes. 
Those services which concern the whole conurbation would be 
planned and partly executed by a single major authority. The 
main social services would be entrusted to a uniform layer of 
lesser authorities, of much greater power and independence than 
those which now exist. At present in a conurbation the major 
authorities are inadequate for some purposes and too big for 
others, whilst the minor authorities are weak and underprivileged. 
Both these defects would be removed, and a much sounder system 
-regional where it should be regional and local where it should 
be local-would be substituted. 

CONCLUSION 

A reformed system of local government should be reasonably 
simple and comprehensive, and should not contain more than two 
tiers. 

On the other hand, local government arrangements for the large 
industrial conurbations need to be rather different from those introduced 
elsewhere. 

Outside the conurbations, certain major services need to be 
operated over wider areas embracing both towns and countryside. 
The minor authorities can only be put back on their feet by means 
of the union of urban and rural districts. 

Inside each conurbation local government should be reorganised 
along rational lines. A single major authority should 
have general charge of physical planning and development, but. t?e 
social services should be mainly administered by smaller authonttes 
having local roots. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

ID-THE NEW SYSTEM 


Loc.al government is a complicated subject. The aim of this 
~hapter IS to try and make clearer the general conception outlined 
m the last chapter, and to tackle some outstanding issues. 

The general pattern of local government which I envisage is 
as follows:REGIONAL 
COUNCIL 

I 
IBOROUGH COUNCILS 
ITOWN & COUNTRY COUNCILS 
Regional Councils 

I use the word ' regional ' to mark the difference from the 
present two types of major local authority. But I do not mean to 
imply that the regions in question would be as large as the Civil 
Defence regions. There would be considerable continuity between 
the new regional authorities and some at least of the present 
counties. 

I cannot describe the exact areas which these regional councils 
would cover. But I can indicate their minimum size. In the first 
place, each distinctive industrial· region should fall wholly within 
the area of a single regional council. For example, the regional 
council administering Greater Manchester should cover at the least 
a radius of 12 to 15 miles from the city's centre. It might cover 
a considerably wider area. (The Boundary Commission built its 
proposal for a 'Manchester County' on an almost parochial scale.) 

Outside the main conurbations, the new regions should be 
based as far as possible on the present counties. They would 
include (for certain purposes only) the towns which are at presentcounty boroughs, with a few possible exceptions. A few verylarge towns, which stand more or less in isolation and which can 
run all their services with full efficiency without detriment to the 
surrounding area, might continue to be wholly or almost wholly 
autonomous for purposes of local government. Examples are large 
ports, such as Bristol, Plymouth, Southampton and Hull.* 

A number, at any rate, of the present counties would be 
amalgamated to form the new regions. How far this process ought 
to go is an interesting point. Many geographical counties (e.g., 
the present counties inclusive of their county boroughs) would 
form-after minor changes-moderately satisfactory administrative 
units for the purposes in hand. To keep a majority of the present 
counties in being would also help to appease sentiment and tradition. 
On the other band, by ignoring county boundaries, more 
rational regions--conforming better to economic and so::ial areas


'"' * The Boundary Commission distinguished 18 large towns in this 
position. 


.. WHlTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

could . be produced. Again, by taking wider areas, the regional 
councils could undertake a wider range of services, including a 
number of services now carried out by nominated boards or 
departments. 

I will risk taking two examples. In South-East England there 
would be a regional council for Greater London, which should 
cover ~n area not far short of the Greater London plan (perhaps 
excludmg N.E. Herts and S. Surrey). To the West of it, a new 
region might be formed out of the three small counties of Oxford-
shire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire (excluding those parts in 
Greater London). To the South, Sussex, South Surrey and Kent 
might form a new region. On the other hand, Essex, outside 
Greater London, together with a corner of Hertfordshire, might 
stand on its own. So might Hampshire. 

The North of England presents different problems. Here, 
were we to build our regions on the wider of several possible 
scales, there would be much to be said for creating five regions


(i) the whole of Yorkshire, (ii) Northumberland, Durham, (iii) 
Cumberland, Westmorland and N. Lancashire, (iv) Merseyside, 
(v) Greater Manchester. Tyneside would form a sixth regionwithin the framework of region (ii). Teeside might be wholly 
included in (ii). The West Riding industrial conurbation might 
either be merged in region (i) or given a separate regional 
authority. 
I only throw these suggestions out by way of illustration. 
Whether they are acceptable or not (and they are inevitably controversial) 
does not affect my general argument. The number of 
local government regions in England and Wales would be more 
than the Civil Defence regions, and less than the present counties. 
Tnere might be anywhere from 20 to 40 regions, depending on 
which of several possible plans is adopted. 

The functions of a regional council would vary for the 
different parts of its area. Over the whole of its area, it would 
be responsible for the main lines of town and country planning, 
major development projects and new towns, main roads, the coordination 
of water supply and main drainage, river conservation, 
fire services, police (except in a few large boroughs), civil defence, 
and the more specialised social services-for example, further and 
technical education. This list is not, of course, exhaustive. The 
regional ·council would also have supervisory powers in manyfields (e.g., libraries, street lighting standards). 

Inside the conurbations (as we have seen) the regional council 
would need to exercise a much stronger control than elsewhere 
over many of these services. It would itself undertake manyimportant housing and redevelopment projects, and would operate 
(and not merely supervise) the main public utilities. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

Ov~r part of its area a regional council would be generally 
responstble. for the general system of social services (education, 
health, soctal welfare) as well as the more specialised aspects. This 
responsibility would not extend to the boroughs (see below), or to 
the conurbations which would be subdivided into boroughs. Elsewhere, 
there would be a partnership between the regional council 
and the town-and-country councils for the administration of these 
services. The stronger town-and-country councils should be able 
(like the boroughs) to administer most or all of these services in 
their own right; the weaker ones would be given a share in their 
administration-which would be varied according to their capacity 
-through schemes of delegation. Since conditions vary so much 
in different parts of the country, it might be best to draw up a 
separate scheme of administration for each region. 

One of the great advantages of this system of regional councils 
is that it would make unnecessary any further removal of powers 
from local government. For instance, the regional councils would 
be suitable bodies to operate a nationalised water service. The 
new system would enable local government to measure up to its 
enormous tasks in the field of plarming and housing where it is at 
present badly slipping. But it could do even more. Some lost 
powers could be restored. For instance, the regional councils 
would be perfectly competent to run the hospitals, and thus reintegrate 
the Health Service into local government in place of its 
present divided control. 

Borough Councils 

A borough council would possess a large measure of authority 
and independence. It would be wholly responsible, within its 
area, for a majority of local government services, including primary 
and secondary education, maternity and child welfare and other 
preventive health services, and welfare of the aged; it would plan 
its town and house its inhabitants within the framework of the 
plan laid down by the regional council; and it would discharge 
(with a few exceptions) the various powers which all boroughs 
at present possess. 

I describe it simply as a 'borough' in order to distinguish it 
from both the county borough and the non-county borough as at 
present existing. It would, in fact, possess less powers than the 
former type of authority, but considerably more than the latter 
type. It would be akin to the new conception of a.' ~ost-purpose' 
urban authority invented by the Boundary Commtsston. But myconception differs from the Commission's in at least one important 
respect. This is that I want ~ wide exte.nsion of the idea ~o. the 
large conurbations. Each mam conurbatiOn would be subdiVIded 
into a number of boroughs. To some extent, these boroughswould consi t of existing local councils under a new name and 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

with new (and usually enhanced) powers. For instance, in the 
Greater London region there are a great number of authorities of 
all sorts (metrop?lit~n boroughs, county boroughs, non-county 
~oroughs, urban d1stncts) mostly capable of becoming new authorities 
of the sort I am describing, with the uniform appellation of 
· borough '; although, for certain special reasons, a good deal of reorganisation 
(e.g., of the metropolitan boroughs) may well be 
desirable. In each of the other main conurbations there is at 
present a medley of great and small county boroughs, non-county 
boroughs and urban districts. To form a complete and satisfactory 
system of new ' boroughs ' it would be necessary to amalgamate 
many of the smaller authorities and it might be desirable to subdivide 
the larger county boroughs (although this latter step need 
not be taken where it is repugnant to established convenience and 
sentiment). 

The application of the Commission's general idea to the 
conurbations would make administration not only more efficient, 
but more genuinely local. The division of functions, however, 
would be rather different in a conurbation, because it would be 
essential to give the regional council responsibility for such matters 
as sewage disposal, refuse destruction and street lighting. 

It is essential that each borough has an adequate population. 
The Commission suggested that towns of over 60,000 residents are 
capable of running most services efficiently. The minimum 
standard should not be put any lower. If this figure is taken 
there would be outside the conurbations about 50 towns entitled to 
borough status. The number of boroughs inside the conurbations 
cannot be precisely stated. Greater London, for instance, might 
comprise anything from 35 to 100 boroughs, depending on the 
basis adopted. 

This new conception of a borough embodies and extends the 

traditional advantages of municipal self-government in a form 

appropriate to modem conditions. It is no longer possible or 

desirable to give complete independence to the compact urban 

authority, since certain key services have a wider spread. What 

is possible is to give a special status and a large measure of 

autonomy to every fair-sized town, and to extend these advantages 

across areas which have suffered the evils of urbanisation without 

getting the advantages of municipal self-rule. 

Town and Country Councils 

I have already described these bodies in the section on town 

and countryside, and it is only necessary to summarise. 

Each council would cover a mixed urban and rural area, cor


responding in many cases to the uniOn of two or more exis!ing

authorities. In some cases, the new authority would be mainly 

urban or largely rural. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

So far as possible, each town and country authority should 
have a reasonable minimum population-say 20,000. Some would 
be considerably larger. This arrangement would enable the whole 
class o_f _authorities t~ possess wider powers than the existing minor 
authonttes. In particular, they would be given important duties 
in the main social services (see above). 

Some minor matters r.emain to be cleared up:-

Eiections 

All three types of council (regional, borough and town and 
country) would be directly elected (preferably annually). There 
have been suggestions that the council of the major authority 
should be chosen indirectly from the members of the minor 
authorities. I do not regard this as being satisfactory. It would 
tend, in practice, to diminish the authority and independence of 
the regional councils, cause regional issues to be looked at from 
a narrow standpoint, and prevent the growth of a regionalpatriotism. At the outside, a third of the members might be chosen 
in this way. But the majority, if not all, of the regional council 
should be directly elected. 

Finance 

The lesser authorities would remain the rating authorities, as 
at present. The regional council would raise its finance partly byprecept on the borough and the town and country councils, partly 
by way of Government grants; preferably it should also have a 
new source of finance of its own, such as the proceeds of entertainments 
duties and motor licence revenues secured within the 
region. The cost of all regional services should be spread equitably 
over the whole region. The cost of certain other services might be 
spread (or partly spread) in the same manner. 

CONCLUSION 

Any system of local government is bound to be very far from 
perfect. There are too many conflicting considerations to be taken 
into account. The most I claim for my system (which, of course, 
owes a great deal to other sources) is that it is better than the 
present system while being reasonably simple and understandable. 
I believe that it would produce more satisfactory major authorities 
and more active minor authorities, and secure a better division of 
functions between them. I also think that it would enable the 
local authorities to exercise their present powers with greater competence, 
and that it should stop-and indeed reverse-~he drift _of 
powers and responsibilities to new and less democrattc agenctes 
than our local councils. I also believe that it would make for 
administrative simplification both inside and outside the !peal 

government system. 


"WHITHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT?" 

I imagine the main objection will be that I have not paidenough attention to local and traditional roots. This is not, however, 
true. The proposed regional councils would not be ' remote' 
and ' inaccessible ' bodies-certainly no more so than many existing 
county councils. It is true that their population would, on 
the average, be greater than that of a present county, but, equally, 
their areas would frequently be more rational. In the case of some 
of the conurbations their population might be very large. But this 
arrangement is imposed on us by the facts. Several million 
persons, living in close proximity, have inevitably many interests 
in common which require a common administration. Surely the 
best way is to ascertain what services ought to be provided in 
common over th~ whole area, and to foster around them a new 
sense of ' regional ' patriotism-a sentiment which would certainly 
grow if it were allowed to do so. 

Throughout I have laid great emphasis on the proper division 
of services. In particular, I am anxious that -those services which 
intimately affect the citizen as a consumer should be administered 
from as near his door as is possible. To this end I propose the 
creation of a new type of ' borough ' government and the reorganisation 
of the minor authorities. This is my contribution to 
making local government more truly local where it should be so-
as also more truly regional where that course is necessary. 


FABIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
PAMPHLETS 


PARISH AND DISTRICT COUNCILS by M. Pease 6d. 
CouNTY CouNCILS by H. Samuels (Revised) 9d. 
BoROUGH AND URBAN DISTRICT CouNCILS by C. R. Attlee 9d. 

(Revised by A. E. Lauder) 
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS by J. E. MacColl 6d. 

A REPORT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 

REGIONALISM 


by Peter Selr 

3/6 

from 

THE FABIAN SOCIETY 
11, DARTMOUTH STREET, S.W.l. 


Great~r~tu~ 
l'rcpc.s'-'tS 
Local Gove•nrnent Bou'ldary 
• •••• ••• Corrm1.s1on's proposed 'lew 
COUr'lty----Sub-C'"oT'mlttee of loca 
Authont e<' projlosed ~ew 
county 
South L 1ncs. ,nd North 
Che,hl re Adv1sory PlaNnng 
Cornm' ttc.;e's area. 
Couni:y Bo•oug'1 of Ma'lchester. 
Otre• Cot.l'ty Boroug'1s 
Mu'l Clp I BoroL ghs 
urba'l DIStriCtS 
Printed by JORDAN & SO S. LTD . LONDON, W.C.2. 
a t BISHOP PRESS LTD.. LONDON. E.C.I. 
l Great~r~tu~ 
l'rcpc.s'-'tS 
Local Gove•nrnent Bou'ldary 
• •••• ••• Corrm1.s1on's proposed 'lew 
COUr'lty----Sub-C'"oT'mlttee of loca 
Authont e<' projlosed ~ew 
county 
South L 1ncs. ,nd North 
Che,hl re Adv1sory PlaNnng 
Cornm' ttc.;e's area. 
Couni:y Bo•oug'1 of Ma'lchester. 
Otre• Cot.l'ty Boroug'1s 
Mu'l Clp I BoroL ghs 
urba'l DIStriCtS 
Printed by JORDAN & SO S. LTD . LONDON, W.C.2. 
a t BISHOP PRESS LTD.. LONDON. E.C.I. 
l