 |
| "If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 8 counties you're going to see some serious shit." |
Today's post was
originally going to be on the annual Programme of Government report,
but due to a "dramatic" turn of events on local government reform I'll have to post it another time. There's a lot to get
through.
The New Map
We knew a new map was going to be published by the summer recess – following the publication of a white paper in February (Local Reform for Local People) - and rumours began circulating over the last few days that something would be published this week. The map was leaked to the press yesterday evening, and there's already been some reaction on the blogosphere from Carmarthenshire Planning, Blog Menai and the Bevan Foundation.
The proposals are for either 8 counties or 9. They're almost identical to the pre-1996 counties, the only differences being that the Rhymney Valley is in "Gwent" instead of "Mid Glamorgan" and the whole of Conwy is in "Gwynedd" instead of being split east and west.
 |
| (Click to enlarge) |
In summary (names are indicative only) :
- "Gwynedd" (Anglesey, Gwynedd & Conwy)
- "Clwyd" (Denbighshire, Flintshire & Wrexham)
- Powys (No change to current boundaries)
- "Dyfed" (Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion & Pembrokeshire)
- "West Glamorgan" (Swansea & Neath Port Talbot)
- "Mid Glamorgan" (Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhondda Cynon Taf)
- "South Glamorgan" (Cardiff & Vale of Glamorgan)
- "Gwent" (Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire, Newport & Torfaen)
- If there were 9 local authorities, Conwy and Denbighshire would be merged into a stand-alone authority instead of being divided between "Gwynedd" and "Clwyd" respectively.
It's expected they would be up an running in/by 2020.
The Announcement
Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews (Lab, Rhondda), said there were over 700 responses to the white paper consultation - including local authorities and community councils (clip); that enthusiasm needs to be harnessed. A draft Local Government Mergers & Reform Bill will be published in November, and will be formally introduced following the 2016 Assembly election.
There was agreement on general powers of competence and a Public Service Commission, while there was disagreement on term limits for councillors, phased elections and a £200,000 threshold of competence for community councils – as a result those ideas have been dropped. Also dropped is a cap of 75 councillors per authority. The Minister said the case for fewer local authorities was "compelling and widely-accepted", and will "drive down the cost of politics and administration".
Shadow Local Government Minister, Janet Finch-Saunders (Con, Aberconwy), said it was useful that the Welsh Government's plans are now known, though she asked for the consultation responses to be published and an opinion on what the elector:councillor ratio should be (clip)? She described the map as a "decimation and centralisation" agenda which would send shock waves across local government, asking where the money would come from? Leighton pointed to a recent KMPG report which suggests £151million in administrative savings could be made.
Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (Plaid, Carms. E & Dinefwr) welcomed the statement, but criticised the 18 month delay when Paul Williams said an agreement was needed by Easter 2014 (clip). Plaid Cymru are happy to discuss details, and recognise the status quo is unsustainable – though they have their own recommendations (I return to that later). Rhodri pointed out that the KMPG report doesn't mention mergers - savings could be made with no merger - and the need to include health and social services in any debate on local government reform.
Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) welcomed the general power of competence and was clearly excited by the resurrection of West Glamorgan (clip). He had a number of questions on which level would be appropriate to deliver services such as the fire services? The Minister said they looked at all options, but wouldn't support a move from 3 fire authorities to 8 or 9, adding it would be for councils to determine how they operate in local communities - whether that's local area committees or stronger community councils.Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) stuck to questions (clip). The data in the KMPG report is 2 years old, so was the Minister confident in its robustness? Would there be any job losses? What has changed on co-terminosity with local health boards? What are the costs of the proposed map? Would there be further consultation on the map? Will there be discussion on disparity in council tax rates in the new authority?
Leighton said KMPG looked at current budgets and he was confident they were robust; job losses would be dependent on how local authorities use savings; Bridgend was the only departure from the co-terminosity recommendation and posed difficult questions; costings are still to be worked on; there'll be informal consultation now followed by a formal consultation alongside the draft Bill in November.
William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) said county councils were "remote and unresponsive", and the proposals would have a detrimental effect on morale and recruitment (clip). He asked how the proposals would impact city status (related post here) and the role of community councils? The Minister repeated that it would be for the new authorities to decide community arrangements, and that cities have hinterlands and are "not islands alone", working to improve wider prosperity.
Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) described the 1996 reorganisation as the "biggest mistake in recent history of Welsh politics" (clip). He asked why there were two options for north Wales? The Minister said there were strongly-held views and there needs to be consensus, with an economic argument for two authorities, but a logistical argument for three.
Gwenda Thomas AM (Lab, Neath) said it was time to "dust off the paperwork from the campaign to save West Glamorgan" - which should've been preserved (clip). She pointed out that the Social Services & Wellbeing Act reinforces collaboration and partnership agreements and it was important that current arrangements are not destabilised. The Minister didn't want to disrupt things where they're working well, but there was a need to reconcile footprints of regional bodies like education consortia.
John Griffiths AM (Lab, Newport East) emphasised the "balance between localism and centralism", and the advantages of two-tier authorities (clip). He asked why Gwent was proposed and whether there were alternatives? Also, he asked if the Minister would provide assurances to concerned frontline staff? Leighton replied by saying an alternative "Heads of the Valleys" authority was proposed by Alun Davies, but it would've led to a Newport-Caerphilly authority. The resurrected Gwent has an advantage as it's co-terminus with Aneurin Bevan health board and Gwent Police. On staff, he's had strong support from trade unions which represent frontline workers.
Alun Davies AM (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) supported the "reform agenda", in particular the general power of comptence (clip), but said many people were concerned by what was published today, especially the creation of an authority in south east Wales that can't focus on deprived communities. Leighton said competence would be discussed with local government. On the deprived communities, it was a question of "sustainability" – Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and Monmouthshire (Alun's proposed authority) have all be placed in special measures for education, while too many small authorities need extra help.
Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Môn) said there was a clear differentiation between being parochial and a requirement for proper local democracy (clip). Ynys Môn had existed as a unit since the 13th century, and Rhun argued that the proposal would "end democracy" on Anglesey. The Minister pointed out that the Welsh Government (famously) had to intervene in Ynys Môn, so its history of local governance independence was hardly a success.
My Reaction
 |
| While Bridgend councillors have been focused on which way down the M4 the county was heading, Leighton Andrews has pointed them onto the A473. ( © Copyright Colin Pyle and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Licence) |
And we still don't have a definitive map as there's still a choice between either 8 or 9 counties (subject to consultation). The Minister should've stuck to a single number once and for all.
I don't have a problem with 8 or 9 counties, conditional on :
- A proportional electoral system, with a reasonable cap on councillor numbers and, preferably, directly-elected mayors.
- Unified constitutions and guarantees on things like transparency, webcasting, use of the Welsh language etc.
- Some sort of commission on local government funding/future of locally-raised taxes.
- A commitment by new authorities not to build new headquarters, go through expensive re-brands etc.
- A mechanism for devolving powers down to the counties from Cardiff (general power of competence is similar to this).
- Community Councils being reformed, merged where appropriate and given greater statutory powers over certain local services (again, there were hints in the White Paper).
- The counties reflecting natural/recognised boundaries.
If
this happens, the new map could work. If there are no reforms to how
councillors are elected and how services are delivered then this
looks like gerrymandering and it's dead on its feet. So I can't tell
if this is a serious proposal, or an attempt to make the Williams
Commission proposals (10-12 local authorities) look less extreme to
opposition parties and the local government lobby in order for a
compromise to be reached – Leighton playing "bad cop" to
Carwyn's "good cop".
It's worth focusing on the awkward position Bridgend finds itself in.
It's a hard local authority to place, because whichever direction a merger goes there are strong arguments for and against : Bridgend is part of the Cardiff city region, is administratively closer to Swansea and NPT (health board, regional AMs) and is historically tied to the central Glamorgan valleys. The latter is the weakest proposition, but it's the one that's been put on the map.
I suspect many Bridgend councillors will be quietly apoplectic about a return of Mid Glamorgan. It's not an appealing prospect, and both previous proposals (merger with Vale or Neath Port Talbot) were preferable to this. If Llynfi Valley councillors and Porthcawl First think they're disadvantaged now, or would be in a Bridgend-Vale merger, try competing with Merthyr Tydfil and the Rhondda for political attention and funding.
It's been pointed out it breaches the Williams Commission recommendations that local authorities shouldn't cross health board boundaries,but this revived Mid Glamorgan also crosses all three Assembly regions in south Wales, which will give regional AMs a headache. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's been done deliberately. Oh Leighton, you cheeky scamp!
If push comes to shove, Bridgend is going to have to throw its hat in with "West Glamorgan" and merge voluntarily with Swansea and NPT. It's the only option that would enjoy at least some support of all involved but would bring its own complications on city regions, policing, fire services etc.
The Williams Commission recommendation on a cap of councillors to 75 per authority has also been rejected. That's understandable because if it were followed through you're looking at 600 councillors (in an 8-county system), which is about half the number we have now. Most of those cast off would've been in south Wales. Most of them would likely be Labour. Most of them would be pissed-off as a result. In an election year, it's not a good idea to anger your grassroots.
Plaid Cymru's Alternative for Local Government
Plaid Cymru launched their own (internal) local
government commission a while ago, but the results were never
published. To have had any impact on the debate those proposals
should've been published last year, but I'm presuming it's been done
with next May's manifesto in mind.
Nevertheless, it's the most "detailed" alternative plan produced by any of the opposition parties to date – also covered by National Left - and we now have an idea where Plaid (and to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems) stand. It's the Tories who are dragging their feet on this.
Coincidentally, they held a debate on this today (hence why this post is later than usual).
I'll concentrate on what Leanne Wood AM (Plaid, South Wales Central) and the Minister said in response to keep this post as short as I can, but you can watch the whole thing above – not everyone was a fan.
Leanne agreed that the status quo wasn't an option, but noted that the health service should've been included as part of the Williams Commission (clip) – up to and including integration of health and social care. She said how services are delivered and protected was the most important issue, with the configuration of local government coming afterwards.
Plaid's proposal is for between 5 and 7 combined regional authorities, the borders determined after public consultation. These wouldn't be a quango or an additional tier of councils, and they wouldn't require extra officers or councillors. This isn't a new invention as there's support for similar structures in England.
On community and town councils, Leanne said they were seen as "add ons" not an integral part of local government. Plaid propose clustering and strengthening community councils to ensure they cover the whole country, as well as giving them power to create jobs through economic regeneration.
The Minister said the Welsh Government's vision is of "activist councils" (clip), and it's right that the government take the lead and make it clear what they want. The current system costs taxpayers million in duplicated services, Plaid's proposal meant retaining 22 authorities and creates and additional tier of regional government. The Welsh Government's proposal would reduce the cost of government. Leighton then tried to troll Plaid Cymru by saying there was little consensus within Plaid in the same way as Labour (numerous Plaid personalities have proposed different/conflicting alternative maps), and based on contributions in the Senedd a few weeks ago he asked whether Plaid's real agenda was to take social services away from local authorities?
Their motion, which noted the Welsh Government proposals and called on them to deliver local services effectively, was approved by 34 votes to 14.
Plaid have made the correct diagnosis : it's a problem of subsidiarity/division of powers. In English : At what level do services need to be provided? Can some be delivered locally? Do some services need to be delivered regionally/collaboratively?
The problem is their treatment plan seems slightly fudged mainly because of scant detail on how these combined authorities would be run. It sounds as though Plaid partially agree with a return of two-tier local government, but aren't quite bold enough to go the whole hog (probably because of cost).
What they propose is better than the Williams Commission proposals (because it includes common sense policies like merging health and social care), falls in line with what the WLGA have suggested (And then there were four?) and Plaid stick to their guns in calling for single transferable vote in local elections.
However, there's no justification for retaining the current number of councillors; internally appointing councillors to the regional bodies is undemocratic and confusing – it'll just become yet another patronage-based "board/committee". Meanwhile, they haven't made clear what would happen to all those other pre-existing regional bodies (fire authorities, local service boards, community health councils etc.); if they were to be folded into these regional authorities then that's a good selling point.
If regional governance is going to work and be taken to heart by the public they have to be separate and substantial bodies in their own right – like the Greater London Authority or the proposals for Greater Manchester. The problem is such things come with a hefty price tag.
It's worth focusing on the awkward position Bridgend finds itself in.
It's a hard local authority to place, because whichever direction a merger goes there are strong arguments for and against : Bridgend is part of the Cardiff city region, is administratively closer to Swansea and NPT (health board, regional AMs) and is historically tied to the central Glamorgan valleys. The latter is the weakest proposition, but it's the one that's been put on the map.
I suspect many Bridgend councillors will be quietly apoplectic about a return of Mid Glamorgan. It's not an appealing prospect, and both previous proposals (merger with Vale or Neath Port Talbot) were preferable to this. If Llynfi Valley councillors and Porthcawl First think they're disadvantaged now, or would be in a Bridgend-Vale merger, try competing with Merthyr Tydfil and the Rhondda for political attention and funding.
It's been pointed out it breaches the Williams Commission recommendations that local authorities shouldn't cross health board boundaries,but this revived Mid Glamorgan also crosses all three Assembly regions in south Wales, which will give regional AMs a headache. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's been done deliberately. Oh Leighton, you cheeky scamp!
If push comes to shove, Bridgend is going to have to throw its hat in with "West Glamorgan" and merge voluntarily with Swansea and NPT. It's the only option that would enjoy at least some support of all involved but would bring its own complications on city regions, policing, fire services etc.
The Williams Commission recommendation on a cap of councillors to 75 per authority has also been rejected. That's understandable because if it were followed through you're looking at 600 councillors (in an 8-county system), which is about half the number we have now. Most of those cast off would've been in south Wales. Most of them would likely be Labour. Most of them would be pissed-off as a result. In an election year, it's not a good idea to anger your grassroots.
Plaid Cymru's Alternative for Local Government
 |
| Plaid Cymru's proposal is very similar to current local government arrangements in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Liverpool. (Pic : The Guardian) |
Nevertheless, it's the most "detailed" alternative plan produced by any of the opposition parties to date – also covered by National Left - and we now have an idea where Plaid (and to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems) stand. It's the Tories who are dragging their feet on this.
Coincidentally, they held a debate on this today (hence why this post is later than usual).
I'll concentrate on what Leanne Wood AM (Plaid, South Wales Central) and the Minister said in response to keep this post as short as I can, but you can watch the whole thing above – not everyone was a fan.
Leanne agreed that the status quo wasn't an option, but noted that the health service should've been included as part of the Williams Commission (clip) – up to and including integration of health and social care. She said how services are delivered and protected was the most important issue, with the configuration of local government coming afterwards.
Plaid's proposal is for between 5 and 7 combined regional authorities, the borders determined after public consultation. These wouldn't be a quango or an additional tier of councils, and they wouldn't require extra officers or councillors. This isn't a new invention as there's support for similar structures in England.
On community and town councils, Leanne said they were seen as "add ons" not an integral part of local government. Plaid propose clustering and strengthening community councils to ensure they cover the whole country, as well as giving them power to create jobs through economic regeneration.
The Minister said the Welsh Government's vision is of "activist councils" (clip), and it's right that the government take the lead and make it clear what they want. The current system costs taxpayers million in duplicated services, Plaid's proposal meant retaining 22 authorities and creates and additional tier of regional government. The Welsh Government's proposal would reduce the cost of government. Leighton then tried to troll Plaid Cymru by saying there was little consensus within Plaid in the same way as Labour (numerous Plaid personalities have proposed different/conflicting alternative maps), and based on contributions in the Senedd a few weeks ago he asked whether Plaid's real agenda was to take social services away from local authorities?
Their motion, which noted the Welsh Government proposals and called on them to deliver local services effectively, was approved by 34 votes to 14.
Plaid have made the correct diagnosis : it's a problem of subsidiarity/division of powers. In English : At what level do services need to be provided? Can some be delivered locally? Do some services need to be delivered regionally/collaboratively?
The problem is their treatment plan seems slightly fudged mainly because of scant detail on how these combined authorities would be run. It sounds as though Plaid partially agree with a return of two-tier local government, but aren't quite bold enough to go the whole hog (probably because of cost).
What they propose is better than the Williams Commission proposals (because it includes common sense policies like merging health and social care), falls in line with what the WLGA have suggested (And then there were four?) and Plaid stick to their guns in calling for single transferable vote in local elections.
However, there's no justification for retaining the current number of councillors; internally appointing councillors to the regional bodies is undemocratic and confusing – it'll just become yet another patronage-based "board/committee". Meanwhile, they haven't made clear what would happen to all those other pre-existing regional bodies (fire authorities, local service boards, community health councils etc.); if they were to be folded into these regional authorities then that's a good selling point.
If regional governance is going to work and be taken to heart by the public they have to be separate and substantial bodies in their own right – like the Greater London Authority or the proposals for Greater Manchester. The problem is such things come with a hefty price tag.
0 comments:
Post a Comment