Occasional Paper 1
WHEATLEY AT FIFTY – Plus ca change?
The first sentence of the Wheatley Report (1), published September 1969, stated;
“Something is seriously wrong with local government in Scotland. It is not that local authorities have broken down or that services have stopped functioning. The trouble is not as obvious as that. It is rather that the local government system as a whole is not working properly – it is not doing the job that it ought to be doing.”
If you think this still resonates 50 years, two reorganisations and a Scottish Parliament later, then consider this further quote;
“Looked at as part of the machinery for running the country, local government is less significant than it ought to be. It lacks the ability to speak with a strong and united voice. Local authorities have come to accept, and even rely on, a large measure of direction and control from the central Government. The electorate is aware of this. They are increasingly sceptical about whether local government really means government. The question is being asked – and it is a serious question- whether, as an institution, local government is worthwhile maintaining at all.”
This article sets out the context of Wheatley, its main points, and suggests lessons we can learn.
The Context
Wheatley’s opening statements were unchallenged because there was a consensus that local government needed reform, and the structure was wrong. The Commission therefore had;
– Cross-party support
– Membership reflecting civic society
– A Senior Judge as chair
– Time and Resources to gather evidence and reach conclusions
– A consensual approach recognising there was no ‘single solution’
Annex 1 outlines Wheatley’s views of the essential objectives of local government and lists the key points from its approach.
Wheatley was widely applauded and remains the only comprehensive, rigorous review of Scottish Local Government. We consider it an exemplar of evidence-based policy making and worth revisiting for its approach and basic principles.
Despite wide acknowledgement of its rigorous analysis, Wheatley’s recommendations were not implemented in full. They were mangled in the complex process of turning the concepts into legislation. Reference (2) provides a concise review of what happened when principles met politics.
Wheatley’s Approach
We do not advocate a re-run of Wheatley. We argue that the basic approach outlined in Annex 1 is worth reviewing as a starting point for a ‘national debate’ about delivering and accounting for public services at the ‘local’ level. We also have to consider the European Charter on Local Self-Government and the many changes since Wheatley. We should seek to establish a consensus in Scottish civic society that the current systems for delivering and accounting for public services should be reviewed against an updated set of principles.
Wheatley’s approach involved;
– examining functions and areas separately
– seeking to match them and then
– testing the matched structures and functions against a ‘variety of local government structures’
The approach is easily replicated but depends on a broad consensus on the principles and cross-party willingness to act on the recommendations. That is the first lesson we can learn from Wheatley.
Lessons and Relevance 50 Years on
Wheatley did not offer a comprehensive solution to the challenges it identified. It was careful to acknowledge the complexity of the challenges.
It was also a product of its time and context. 50 years have seen massive changes in every aspect of our lives – the economy, changing nature of the workforce, technology, social media, social mores…the list is endless. More importantly, our governance structures have changed dramatically. We have a Scottish Parliament sucking in powers and responsibilities from Westminster and Local Government, as we will outline in later articles. Local Government has been reformed twice and seen its powers, responsibilities and financial independence eroded as new Scottish quangos have been established and functions and resources have been transferred or significantly reduced. The UK has left the EU, and constitutional issues continue to deflect Parliamentarians from the ‘wicked issues’ facing our communities.
Wheatley’s opening sentence remains chillingly relevant.
Perhaps the most important changes are around attitudes to public services. In a world of instant communication, gratification, and ‘false news’ (to name but three factors), there will be little sympathy and less patience for the considered, rigorous and near-philosophical approach of Wheatley. Moreover, concepts of ‘local’, ‘community’ and ‘public service’ have changed. Fewer people now care how they get the service they want. They simply want it as quickly and cheaply as possible. The political/ ideological boundaries have shifted considerably and especially since constitutional issues became the dominant issue in the UK from the mid-1990s.
Yet Wheatley offers some important lessons, including;
– The need for a broad consensus in Civic Scotland on the need for a ‘root and branch’ review of our Public Services – a ‘settled Political Will’.
– Acceptance that ‘one size does not fit all’
– Willingness to compromise where there is clear evidence
– The need to cover all public services – not just those currently allocated to councils
– Avoid discussing structures until there is a settled will on the principles
– Flexibility in time and space for allocating roles and responsibilities
I offer a final, personal thought that we may have to establish a continuing process for delivering public services at a local level – constant evolution – rather than a new structure.
Wheatley remains the only comprehensive review of Local Government in Scotland. It set a benchmark in terms of the philosophical basis for local government in Scotland, and established reference points for the allocation of functions and powers between Central and Local Government.
Above all, it had a degree of intellectual rigour that stands in stark contrast to the 1996 Reform of Local Government that will be covered in our next article.
Annex 1 – Wheatley’s Approach
Wheatley stated local government has ‘a two-fold purpose’;
“..it exists to supply public services. These may be national services which have to be administered locally, or they may be services of a purely local character. The distinction is rarely clear-cut, and we would prefer to put it that local government exists to provide services locally, on such a scale and of such character as the nature of each service requires.
Secondly, it exists to provide local government. This means that services are in a real sense locally controlled. There must be an element of choice exercisable locally. More than that, it is implicit that local authorities should, in some degree, provide a means for self-expression of local communities.”
Wheatley outlined the essential constitutional features of local government as;
· “local as distinct from central
· neither sovereign nor legislative
· elective in character
· has the power to raise taxes
· discharges a variety of functions
Wheatley argued the above constitutional basis was ‘sound and should not be disturbed’.
Wheatley set ‘Basic Objectives’ – on which a reformed local government system should be based, that “..reorganisation should seek to secure for local government the following advantages;
Power. Local government should be enabled to play a more important, responsible and positive part in the running of the country – to bring the reality of government nearer to the people.
Effectiveness. Local government should be equipped to provide services in the most satisfactory manner, particularly from the point of view of the people receiving the services.
Local democracy. Local government should constitute a system in which power is exercised through the elected representatives of the people, and in which those representatives are locally accountable for its exercise.
Local involvement. Local government should bring the people into the process of reaching decisions as much as possible, and enable those decisions to be made intelligible to the people.”
Wheatley recognised the significance of the recommendations;
“What we have in mind here is nothing less than a shift in the balance of power and responsibility between central and local government.
If local government is to be stronger, its working relationship with the central Government cannot remain as it is now.
But if Government and Parliament are to entrust more power and responsibility to local government, local government itself must justify that trust.”
Plus ca Change?
References
1. Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland1966-69 Command 4150
2. The Government of Scotland; Keating and Midwinter – Mainstream Publishing 1983. See esp. Chap 5
Bill Howat
5/12/19