The meaning of the Maud report

The present local government areas were set up by the Local Government Act of 1888.

The bodies then set up have become responsible for planning, transport, all education outside the universities, social and community services, housing and a large part of health services. They have come to spend very large sums of money.

In 1967 they spent £5,033 millions, raised locally from rates, provided out of taxes by the central government, and for a large. part of capital spending raised as private loans at high interest rates.

Some of this spending—on transport, for example—-is essential to the profits of big business. Most of it, however, represents gains made by the labour movement and is now seen by the ruling class as an unjustifiable extravagance.

It currently forms over 15 per cent of the national income * Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, 1966-1969 (HMSO June 1969, Cmnd. 4040).

For over 20"years, Since the Palestine people were made By Adam Westoby and has been rising at over per cent per year.

Under the guise of seeking greater efficiency through creating larger local authorities, the Royal Commission lays the groundwork for a wholesale attack on these gains.

It estimates the proper size for 'exploiting economies of scale' (para. 523) to be a local authority population of at least 250,000.

It therefore proposes to reorganize the present 124 coun ties and county boroughs of England, together with the 1,086 smaller authorities, of widely differing sizes and characters, into 58 'unitary areas.

In addition it proposes to create very large 'metropolitan areas' for the three biggest urban areas outside London— Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool.

The Labour Party's Committee backs the essence of these plans, only sugesting a slightly larger number of unitary areas and about eight instead three metropolitan authorities.

The authors of the report do not disguise its essential purposes:

If recent trends continue, local government services are likely to claim an increasing proportion of the gross national product.

'If this tendency is to be held in check, local authorities will come under increasing pressure to economize in men and materials, and to increase efficiency; and there will be increased competition among the services for available resources' (para. 510.)

'Enquiries into the future of local government services', they complain invariably bring demands for expansion and improvement of facilities' (para. 509.)

These demands are to be fought.

Only by massive reorganization can the demands of the Tories for cut-backs in government spending be met.

'One of the major gains of reorganization ... will be the much more efficient use of local authority staff.' (para. 561)

But this productivity deal will have no wage rises attached:

'Steps should be taken to discourage late increases by existing authorities in the status and salaries of their staff, with the object of assuring more favourable positions for them in the employment of the new authorities' (para. 562.)

Even the most distinguished heads may have to roll:

'At the higher levels, some redundancy is inevitable; there will not be chief officer posts for all who hold them now.' But never shall it be said that a Royal Commission has failed to look after its own:

'We have no doubt that generous compensation for loss of office is much better, both for the individuals concerned and for local government, than the creation of unnecessary posts.' (para. 564.)

The reorganization of local government is first and foremost an attack on the reforms won through the state.

As part of this process it reflects the increasing ascendancy of the biggest business interests.

The present local government bodies are closely tied to small and local business interests.

Government policy, however, is now increasingly dominated by the interests of the very biggest monopolies, whose interests are regional, national and international in scope.

They have no concern to preserve the ties of local government-only in establishing central controls to cut spending.

It is these interests which lie behind the report's cant about making it 'easier for local government to speak with a united voice' (para. 574.) and giving 'communities in city and town new kinds of opportunity to speak and take action for themselves'. (para. 575.) of Yasser Arafat, pictured above.

Birmingham, Manchester and the Merseyside are to contain a present population of over 8ł millions, together with enormous concentrations of manufacturing industry.

In each area the overall authority would take charge of planning, transport and development, water, police and ambulances, while housing, the personal social services, education, libraries, parks and so on would be left to the smaller metropolitan district councils —the local councils within the metropolitan areas.

Since 'the cost of whatever a local council decides to do should be borne by that council' and 'What a local council does not do because it is not prepared to meet the cost, may therefore, not be done at all' (para. 393.) the way is open, under the cover of 'self-sufficiency', for working-class districts in the big cities to be separated off and progressively impoverished, while the interests of the bosses are fully protected.