Institutional arrangements - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 166

councils in the areas concerned. However most local functions in the transport and
planning fields which remain in the public sector are discharged by local authorities.
Local authorities are much better placed than central government to appreciate
the particular needs of their areas and to be responsive to local public opinion. Even
if it wanted to, central government would rapidly become bogged down in excessive
detail if it tried to control everything that happened locally. On the other hand the
sum of local decisions goes a long way towards determining what conditions are like
across the country as a whole, which is something central government clearly has
an interest in and will be held to account for. In relations between local and central
government there is thus a perennial debate about arrangements which will achieve
the best balance between efficiency and accountability in local decision-making on
the one hand and effectiveness in delivering national policy objectives on the other.
Local authorities work within a set of duties and powers approved by Parliament
and to policy guidance issued by the national government currently in office. Local
authorities are also dependent on national government for the bulk of their funding.
Their formal duties and powers effectively set limits on what local authorities can or
must do; national decisions on policy and funding seek to influence how authorities
exercise discretion within these limits. Local authorities have their own political ruling
groups (which may have a different party complexion from central government). They
also have their own electorates which are likely to differ in socio-economic composition
and voting preferences from the country as a whole. There is thus inter-dependence
between the central and the local state but also fertile ground for disagreement.
The present pattern of local government in Great Britain is not one which any
person of sound mind would design from scratch. In addition to differences between
the systems of government there are local anomalies which arise from the boundaries
used to define the administrative areas of individual authorities.
Although the pattern has evolved over centuries, the source of present arrangements
can be understood from the comprehensive reorganisation undertaken in 1974 (1965
in London). A 'two-tier' system was adopted throughout (i.e. with a number of smaller
authorities 'nested' within the area of a single larger one). (Strictly there are three
tiers of local government since in rural areas there remain parish or town councils as
well. These can raise and spend very small sums on local facilities such as footpaths or
bus shelters but their main role is as a sounding board for consultation by the larger
councils.)
In England the country was - and remains - divided into three types of area (Figure
10.2, p. 172)), viz:
• London
• metropolitan areas (provincial conurbations)
• non-metropolitan areas (also sometimes referred to as 'the shires').
In London the two-tier division was between the GLC and London Boroughs (the
latter including the City of London which covers the historic 'square mile'). (Lower-
tier district councils within counties, and boroughs within London are not shown.)
Elsewhere, including Wales, the division was between county and district councils
(although some of the latter retain names as 'boroughs', reflecting their historical
status). In Scotland the upper tier was known as regional councils.
As a general principle the upper-tier authority was assigned responsibility for
strategic planning, passenger transport and major highways (including control of on-