Public Management Reform and Administrative Law in Local Public Service in the Uk
| Author | John McEldowney |
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303691006 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
Public management reform and administrative law in
local public service in the UK
John McEldowney
Abstract
Local government has been subject to intensive change and extensive legislation since
the 1970s and the government of Mrs Thatcher intended to reduce public expenditure.
Since the election of the new Labour government in 1997, modernization and reform
continues in the development of public services in local government. Recent reform of
local government has been complicated by the introduction, since 1998, of devolution
to the London Assembly with an elected mayor, assemblies in Northern Ireland, Wales
and the Scottish Parliament. There are complicated financial relations between local
government and the different varieties of devolved government. The United Kingdom
remains a unitary rather than a federal state but devolution delivers a level of decentral-
ization. Central government retains control through legal and economic instruments
and provides local government with limited autonomy. The elected element in local
government contributes to local democracy. Local government provides an important
element in the delivery and management of public services but complicated by the fact
that privatization has changed the way public services are delivered. There are a
plethora of statutes, regulations, guidance and audit systems that provide a compre-
hensive framework for local government in the provision of education, social services,
planning public health and licensing regulation. The courts have exercised an oversight
of local government through judicial review of disputes between local and central
government. As local government must act within its legal powers the legality of its
decisions must be in accordance with the law. Local government is expected to become
more responsive to local needs and citizenship panels exist to provide input from the
local community. Local authorities have contributed to the development of judicial
review through a number of landmark decisions and in common with other public
bodies, local authorities are expected to conform to the Human Rights Act 1998. The
latest Local Government Bill 2002 proposes to identify excellent local authorities who
will be rewarded with freedom to act outside the controls of central government.
Introduction
Local government in England has a long history as part of a decentralized system
of community justice and administration that dates from medieval times.1 During
the 19th century local government became more centralized and performed a
fundamental role in the delivery of municipal socialism. After the Second World
War local government became an important element in the provision of social
John McEldowney is Professor of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. CDU:
352(42)
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200303)69:1]
Copyright © 2003 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol. 69 (2003), 69–82; 032771
02_IRAS69/1 articles 6/3/03 2:35 pm Page 70
70
International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(1)
welfare — the foundation of the welfare state. The modern form of local govern-
ment, as an elected multi-functional tier of government, emerged from the Local
Government Act 1888. A county council was established for London in 1899 and
the 1902 Education Act provided extensive education at the local level. Local
government’s role as the primary deliverer of public goods and services has
evolved with considerable intervention from central government. Managing local
government was reviewed in 1967 with the publication of the Maud report on
local government. The Local Government Act 1972 settled a modern structure of
three-tiered local authorities. At the lowest tier was the parish council system
supervised by County and District local authorities with a special tier introduced
for metropolitan areas. London was given special consideration because of its size
and status. Local government in London consisted of 32 London Borough
Councils and the City of London with an upper tier, the Greater London Council.
Local government throughout the United Kingdom spends approximately 40
percent of the gdp and this fact attracted Mrs Thatcher’s attention in terms of
attempting to achieve reductions in public expenditure. This goal was achieved
through increases in efficiency and tighter controls from central government over
the way local government managed its finances. In 1985 the Local Government
Act abolished the Greater London Council for London and the various Metropoli-
tan County Councils.
Various changes2 in the structure of local government have added to the com-
plexity of its organization and management. The three-tier system of local
government came under review in the 1990s. It was well known that central
government preferred a uniform unitary single-tier system. Under the Local
Government Act 1992 the Local Government Commission for England was
established with the task of undertaking a review of local government areas.
Matters of such party political sensitivity exposed the ground rules of the
Commission, given in the form of guidance, to a great deal of controversy. Under
Section 13(6) of the 1992 Act matters that should guide the Commission included
preference to be given to ‘natural communities’ and that account should be taken
of peoples’ preferences. However, the government insisted in its revised guidance
issued in 1993 that the aim of having a unitary system of local authority should be
considered. In R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Lancashire
County Council,3 the guidance that sought to give undue weight to the
Government’s preference for unitary authorities was held to be unlawful.
The approach taken thereafter was to consider the introduction of unitary
authorities on a consultation basis. This process, begun in 1992, has proved more
time-consuming and complex than was first envisaged. In addition, periodic
electoral review is undertaken to rectify electoral imbalances in a local authority
area. The Commission completed its review in early 1995. In the end, 50 all-
purpose unitary authorities were proposed. Since March 1996 the appropriateness
of over 30 local authorities as unitary authorities has been considered and the
results of these deliberations will be forthcoming in the form of further consulta-
tion papers. The preference for an overwhelming number of unitary local authori-
02_IRAS69/1 articles 6/3/03 2:35 pm Page 71
McEldowney: Public management reform and administrative law
71
ties appears to have been held in check. As a result the current arrangements are as
follows:
England: 46 new unitary authorities, 34 county councils, 238 district councils;
London: 33 London boroughs, one Greater London Authority and one elected
mayor under devolution arrangements;
Wales: 22 unitary authorities,
Scotland: 32 unitary authorities.
Despite the complexity of local government in its relations with central govern-
ment, it is possible to see local government undergoing a renaissance since 1997.
Local government remains subject to the political direction set by central govern-
ment.
The main characteristics of modern local authorities may be identified as fol-
lows: its diversity; the opportunities given for local democracy; the responsive-
ness to local needs through the delivery of services; and finally its contribution to
the national political system through political diversity. The geographical size
and management style in different local authorities adds further diversity. The
size of local authorities varies throughout the country not only in the geographical
areas covered, the size of population, (from as few as 25,000 to over 1.5 million)
but also in the amount of local authority expenditure which varies considerably
from one authority to another. In 1976 the Layfield Report4 on local government
finance identified two opposing views of local authority activities. The ‘central-
ist’ view is that local authorities act as agents for central government. As
custodians of the interests of the local community they mitigate the dangers of
remoteness and bureaucratic organization that would occur if government were
entirely centralized. In this view emphasis is placed not on the elected element in
local authority activities but on the sovereignty of Parliament to direct local
authorities to carry out activities on behalf of central government policy-making.
A ‘centralist’ view holds that local authorities have limited freedom to develop
their own distinctive policies that may conflict with central government’s general
direction and policy-making.
The opposing view is the ‘localist’ view that local authorities are decentralized
and have real political authority and power in respect of the functions that may be
appropriately performed at the local level. In this view emphasis is placed on
the statutory duties local authorities are expected and, in many cases, required to
perform. Local authorities are entitled to develop their own strategies and are free
to promote their own distinctive policies even if they might conflict with the
policy of the government of the day. The balance between these two views varies
with the political disposition of the government of the day.
Strategies for the development and management of local government are
mainly driven by policy decisions decided by central government and vary from
government to government. A number of common strands may be found in the
approach of central...
To continue reading
Request your trial