Two weeks ago, as part of our series on structure, The MJ looked at the lessons of local government reorganisation in the 1990s. Chris Exeter now examines the background to Lord Redcliffe-Maud’s review in the 1960s which led to the huge and much-maligned shake-up of 1974 The rationale for local government, together with all public services, is the consumer. Our mobile, consumer-driven society is increasingly based around flexible, personalised services. And the public sector is not immune. But structures for delivery must change, and reflect the needs of consumers. That, regrettably is not happening. In a few weeks, the long-awaited local government White Paper will be published by the DCLG. Soon after, Sir Michael Lyons will be releasing his report on the function, role and funding of local government. While some months ago there was debate under David Miliband’s tutelage on the involvement of local people in neighbourhood services, in recent weeks, discussion has centred on new ways of financing local government – spies in wheelie bins, tourist taxes and so on. Instead of a BBC licence fee-approach to local government funding – ie, the public have to pay come what may, so let’s progressively increase – a strategy should be adopted which resonates with the 21st century. Before even considering financing – or indeed, the function – of local government, we should first be thinking of appropriate models of structure, focusing on the needs and demands of people today. The underlying theme should be strengthening the link between citizen and council. Regrettably, there has not been a serious and thorough debate on these issues for some time – and in fact, I suggest for a number of decades – and that was with the review conducted by John Redcliffe-Maud in the late-1960s. Lord Redcliffe-Maud was controversially blamed for the unpopular local government reorganisation in 1974. Yet he has been the most influential person on the development of local government in the UK in the 20th century. Many of his recommendations, some dating back almost 70 years, are very much back in vogue. An academic, diplomat, permanent secretary, Royal Commission chair, and master of an Oxford college, Lord Redcliffe-Maud has attracted a mixed assessment, often rounding on the 1974 reform, and his patrician credentials. But these criticisms are unfair. He had a genuine interest in the need to reconnect citizen with state, and in particular, had a special affection for local government. Lord Redcliffe-Maud’s interest in local government dated back to 1932 when he published Local government in modern England. It was at this time that Redcliffe-Maud became concerned with the connectivity between local authority and those to whom it served. Some years later, he commented that friends subtitled his book Sewage without tears and, in that, ‘summed up the sense of boredom that most of my more intelligent friends – including my wife – have felt about [the] subject’. His concern about council and citizen was given further consideration in 1938, following an invitation in 1934 by Johannesburg City Council to write a book celebrating the 50th birthday of the city. The result was City government, an exceptionally well-constructed 500-page account of the problems and solutions of worldwide city government. He suggests: ‘We are, most of us, profoundly uninterested in municipal affairs.’ He continues: ‘People who think about city government at all – and they are, of course, a small minority of any body of citizens – take either a passive or an active interest in it.’ In 1963, Lord Redcliffe-Maud had returned from South Africa, having served as a high commissioner. At the behest of the ‘the most able civil servant… and the most endearing’, Evelyn Sharp, the-then permanent secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, he was invited to chair a committee on local government management. Soon after he started his work, the Labour Government of Harold Wilson swept into power. While the change of government made no difference to Lord Redcliffe-Maud’s review, by 1966 the cross-part consensus which had held for many years, stipulating that the basic structure of local government did not need changing, broke when the leading Labour politician Dick Crossman decided that local government required restructuring, and a Royal Commission would be set up to review it, Early on in the life of the Royal Commission, Lord Redcliffe-Maud mused on what ideally should be the role of local government. He suggested that councils should help society ‘become... more democratic and humane’, and enhance ‘quality of life.’ This was part of his desire to reconnect citizen with institution. The Royal Commission reported in 1969, gaining much support. The review attempted to create a structure of local government which could accommodate a changing society. The review was wide-ranging and examined levels of public acceptability. For example, Lord Redcliffe-Maud considered whether local government should take back responsibility for the NHS, but concluded the costs to the ratepayer would be too high. He recommended that England, outside London, should be divided into 61 local government areas, 58 of which should be unitary, the exceptions being Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, each of which should have a two-tier structure. The Government accepted the report, and in 1970, published a White Paper, which was largely true to the commission’s finding, albeit with some changes. But later that year, Edward Heath’s Conservative Party was elected into power. Although committed to local government reform, the minister now responsible for local government, Peter Walker, published his own White Paper in 1971. The recently-enobled Lord Redcliffe-Maud, thought the Conservative Party’s approach to local government reform was more ‘political’. The-then Government’s proposals were much more limited, and the Tory shires had to remain – at all costs. The result was the 1974 reform, frequently attributed to Lord Redcliffe-Maud’s Commission, but bearing little similarity to his proposals. Lord Redcliffe-Maud was far from happy, and later complained that history had shown that ‘tinkering with national structure’ invariably met with little success. To ensure local government does not fall into the trap of middle-class opt-out, or the level of confusion does not exclude those who need help most, appropriate attention needs to be given to the structures of service provision. Local government isn’t Tesco. If people don’t like the service they receive from their council, there is little they can do about it. They have to pay. In much the same way that Lord Redcliffe-Maud suggested, decades ago, the link between citizen and council must be strengthened. If it isn’t, we are in danger of seeing the two drift further apart, and may end up being irreparable. n Christopher Exeter is currently writing a book on the work and ideas of John Redcliffe-Maud