Approving new smaller councils under the Government’s reorganisation plans would jeopardise care for the vulnerable, research has found, as larger authorities warn ministers’ decisions will “make or break” vital services.
A report concluded that millions of people could face a “triple whammy” of worse services, higher social care costs and staff shortages if county councils are broken up and support is delivered by new unitary councils serving fewer people.
The first wave of councils delivered plans to ministers two weeks ago ahead of an overhaul of local government structures, but local disagreements between some upper-tier counties and lower-tier districts have resulted in competing proposals being submitted.
The English devolution white paper last year committed to ending two-tier arrangements, replacing 185 county and district councils with new unitary authorities in 21 areas.
Official guidance on the process stated that the new councils should have a population of 500,000 or more and avoid fragmentation of key care services, supporting adults and children.
However, ministers have since suggested that the population figure is flexible, which has encouraged some district councils to propose dividing up existing county council footprints, along with the delivery of social care, by creating new smaller unitary authorities.
A report commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN) said the Government’s forthcoming decisions on proposals could have “profound, long-lasting impacts on the most vulnerable members of society” and push up costs for local taxpayers.
It argues that evidence strongly suggests larger-scale councils are “essential” to preserve service quality, prevent costs rising, and ensure the financial sustainability of services.
Drawing on data from half a million residents across 146 possible new unitary footprints, the report said new unitary councils with populations substantially below 500,000 would experience an increase in unit costs of between £180 million and £270 million annually due to reductions in purchasing power.
In contrast, new unitary councils with populations above 500,000 could expect to reduce net unit costs by £65 million across England, the report claims.
The analysis concludes that new smaller councils would have to hire between 500 and 1,100 new senior staff to deliver social care and special educational needs support, a challenge described as “impossible” amid existing sector shortages.
The report also warns that the quality of children care services could suffer as larger authorities are more likely to be given higher performance ratings by regulator Ofsted.
There is also concern that smaller unitary councils could be overwhelmed by demand as they are more likely to experience “extreme concentrations” of people requiring care and, as costs are “highly variable” across council borders, some new authorities may exceed budgets.
A survey conducted as part of the research found that just 6% of council chief executives and directors of care services in England are confident that the risks of breaking up provision into smaller councils will be fully considered by ministers.
District councils rejected the report’s findings, saying data for existing unitary councils shows there is no relationship between population size and financial performance and the quality of services.
But the CCN argued that the Government should not deviate from its previous population requirements.
CCN chair Matthew Hicks said: “Put simply, reorganisation plans could make or break care services unless the Government gets these reforms right.
“It is therefore vital that the Government sticks to the criteria it set out earlier this year whereby new councils cover populations of over 500,000 people.
“Considering these are the most important and expensive local authority services, ministers must ensure they rigorously evaluate all proposals and heavily weight their decisions based on the risks to people-based services.”
Richard Wright, incoming chair of the District Councils’ Network, said: “Any reorganisation which results in mega councils with populations of half a million people – leaving England with by far the largest councils in the western world – would lead to services like social care being far from the local communities they’re supposed to serve.
“This has the potential to make services ineffective at responding to local needs and to result in diseconomies of scale, which harm the interests of both service users and local taxpayers.
“A strong local connection to communities helps social care departments to intervene early and offer vulnerable people focused support. This helps to prevent ill health and therefore reduces the burden on the NHS.”
He added there is “no justification to imposing an arbitrary minimum population size on new councils”, and said districts want to work with all other councils and the Government “to devise bold new visions for reform that ensure public services more effectively meet local communities’ needs for decades to come.”
Adult social care directors have raised concerns with ministers about the risks local government reorganisation poses to people who require support.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (Adass) called on the Government to ensure the sector is supported and contributes to efforts to shift care from hospitals to the community.
Adass president Jess McGregor said: “New councils must be financially sustainable from day one and able to meet their legal duties to provide care and support.
“It’s vital that ministers engage adult social care leaders in this process by inviting them to sit on joint committees and help assess all proposals.
“Adass will continue to work with Ministers and civil servants as so many of the people our members serve rely on us getting this right.”
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “We are removing layers of duplication and waste in local authorities by bringing services under one roof, meaning residents will benefit from improved and more preventative public services.
“Local government rorganisation is long overdue and will also save taxpayers’ cash by ending the current ‘two-tier’ system that hinders service development, creates fragmented services and blurred lines of accountability across county and district councils for almost 20 million people in England.”
