LOW turn-outs at council elections are a cause for concern. While apathy may be the principal cause, confusion may be another.

Ordinary members of the public can find it difficult to engage in local politics when they are faced with the riddle of why they have to have two different authorities to meet their needs.

The overwhelming benefit of unitary authorities is that they are simpler to understand. They remove a tier of bureaucracy and provide a 'one-stop shop' for public services.

The Boundary Committee proposals for County Durham and North Yorkshire, should plans for regional assemblies go ahead, confirm the virtues of unitary authorities.

The debate now will centre on the make-up of the new authorities.

It is imperative that the authorities are not too small.

Some existing unitary councils are too small to be cost-effective. They are struggling to meet the extra administrative burdens of stand-alone education and social services departments. This is having an impact of the quality of provision and the level of council tax.

The options, therefore, boil down to either retaining the existing county council boundaries or merging existing district authorities.

We offer no preference, and are content to report on the consultation process in the expectation that there is a genuine engagement of public opinion on this vital issue before final decisions are taken.

But it important that the right balance is struck between viability and the need to keep local government local.

Supporters of the county boundary option for Durham and North Yorkshire must convince us that delivery of service will not be too cumbersome and too remote.

The downside of splitting the existing counties into two or three is that the division is artificial.

Bringing districts together for no other reason than that they are next to each other does not create an entity with which local people can easily identify.

The county option at least has the advantage that the structure already exists and is familiar to us all.