Response to Reforming Local Government White Paper consultation.

Transcription

1 1 Response to Reforming Local Government White Paper consultation. This submission is on behalf of Rhondda Cynon Taff Welsh Liberal Democrats. The views reflect those of the local party only and not necessarily of the wider Party within Wales. Firstly can we say we are disappointed that what was intended to be a review of how public services are delivered in order to best meet the needs of the people of Wales has been in essence boiled down to a discussion of merging Local Authorities. Public Service delivery goes far beyond that. Overall proposals We agree with the basic premise that there are currently too many Local Authorities in Wales and that there needs to be a reduction in number. Also that many of the existing Authorities are too small in size to provide value for money from a purely financial viewpoint, although it has to be recognised that some small Authorities Ceredigion being a prime example perform very well. It is not always the case that the larger the Authority the better the service, that depends on a wide variety of other factors. The process of creating larger Authorities will, by itself, not solve the problem of poor service provision in too many instances. The introduction mentions that some have suggested we should be focusing our efforts and resources on improving services, rather than changing boundaries. In light of a lack of definitive figures and vast differences in the estimates of how much any reorganisation will cost then this argument does have some merit. However, we would agree that on balance, as previously stated, there needs to be a reduction in numbers. Where we disagree is on the detail and on a number of the assumptions made. Paragraph 13 says that The Commission finds performance is poor and patchy, with a wide difference between best and worst, and significant variations in efficiency. It goes on to state that given the future financial challenges, weaknesses in performance will only increase unless we act. It is not of course the case that all of these variations are as a result of financial challenges - in many cases it is down to the management or political administration and there is a need to ensure these issues are addressed. Creating larger Authorities alone certainly will not achieve this, in fact the problems could be compounded.

2 2 We would certainly agree from our experience with RCT Council that governance arrangements within organisations are too often unclear, and scrutiny and other accountability mechanisms are under-valued and ineffective. However, it is easy to say that improvements need to be brought about, but not as easy to achieve change when there is a political mind set at the heart of many Authorities that is not interested in collaboration or cross party scrutiny. This consultation document is full of flowery terms and talk of future goals, well being and improvement. Certainly nobody could disagree with the sentiments, but it is the delivery which is lacking, and from what we have seen of the Future Generations Bill so far it offers the same all encompassing culture of hope with little real meat on the bones detailing how all this will be achieved. We have some concern about the comments in paragraph 22 regarding the need to address the call from the Commission for reform to be nationally driven and co-ordinated across the public sector, with suggestions for a clear and concise statement of all-wales outcomes. This seems to suggest greater centralisation which is in contrast to the statement later in the report that the Welsh Government believes in further devolution. We hope that the latter will continue to be the case under the new Minister. We fully agree with the comments in paragraph 26, which address the need for greater transparency and accountability, things which are all too often lacking here in RCT and elsewhere. We look forward to seeing how this will be achieved as efforts so far through recent legislation have done nothing to lift the veil of secrecy again much of which is down to the mind set of political administrations. Paragraph 39 talks of a healthy and robust local democracy, where Councillors see themselves as champions of people and communities and are recognised as such, and where they are responsible for decision making, and for effectively holding each other to account. Many Councillors already see their role rightly as just that, but it is the political machinations behind closed doors that prevent them from fulfilling that role. How is legislation going to address this? As acknowledged in the report, it is difficult to see how simply merging Authorities into larger units can address these issues, or indeed the variation in quality of services. This is particularly worrying where the suggested mergers put together two Authorities that are already under performing in certain service areas.

3 3 We fully agree that merging Authorities will only meet these aims if accompanied by a wider package of Local Government reform but would want far more details of what is intended. If there is no clear picture of what that wider reform would mean then how can anyone fairly look at the benefits or otherwise of specific mergers? Shouldn t details of the package all be in place prior to any talk of mergers in the interest of public accountability and transparency? We disagree with the different timetables offered for those who choose to merge voluntarily and those who are forced to merge. Also the offers of financial incentives for those who choose to merge voluntarily. Elected Members Diversity is an issue for every political party and in every Council across Wales. We are not in favour of any form of positive discrimination, but very much agree that there needs to be a broader mix of individuals in the Council chamber. The role of the Councillor, and indeed that of the Council, needs to be de-mystified. People need to know how they can get involved, and a public awareness exercise is needed to get this message across. Political education in schools could be a major boon in achieving this. We believe that STV needs to be introduced for Local Government elections in order to ensure that every vote counts and that the electorate do not feel that their vote does not make a difference. We agree that there needs to be a review of ward boundaries with a view to reducing the number of Councillors across Wales. Finance We are very concerned about the lack of solid financial information surrounding these proposals. Financial incentives are to be offered to Councils who chose to merge voluntarily but this appears nothing more than a bribe to encourage Authorities to go down the chosen path of the Government. There are concerns over where this money will come from we all know that resources are limited and this could result in less being available for other Local Government spending. It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did in response to recent questions in the Chamber, that it will be covered in the Local Government Settlement. That comes too late for this consultation.

4 How can the Welsh Government expect serious feedback and discussion surrounding these proposals if one of the major factors is not addressed how much will it cost and who will pay? 4 We are even more disturbed by the statement in paragraph 125 that we do not believe it would be helpful to speculate on the precise impact on council tax at this stage. Merging two Authorities which both have a low Council Tax base to start with severely limits the opportunities for bringing in extra income via that income stream. It cannot be acceptable to simply dismiss any thoughts of it in this way. Paragraph 126 states that since it is unrealistic to expect a repeat of the large injections of new money which were provided during previous restructures to limit the impact on individual Authority council tax levels, we will, instead, be looking for solutions which avoid creating and/or minimise significant local impacts. When exactly will this search for solutions begin? There needs to be far more certainty about future Local Government settlements, and an open and transparent system of addressing need. We are pleased to see the commitment to developing a needs based system but again think there should be more detail available before any further steps are taken towards forcing mergers. Community & Town Councils We wouldn t disagree that there is a need for some reform of Community Councils. They are all too often talking shops that seem to provide little benefit to their communities. Local people do not understand their purpose and do not know how they can get involved. Again there needs to be an awareness raising exercise to enlighten people as to the role of Community Councils. If these Councils are to continue in any meaningful form then they need to have a renewed purpose and set responsibilities. Currently there is an ad hoc set of services provided by various Town and Community Councils with, for example, some in RCT being responsible for parks in their area whilst others are not. We believe that more services could be handed down to these Councils, along with the finance to provide them They need to be free of some of the stricter procurement rules so that they can take greater advantage of local traders and ensure more money is spent within their communities whilst of course still ensuring value or money.

5 5 The concept of emerging neighbourhood management approaches worries us. If we are interpreting this correctly then the approach could be seen by some voluntary organisations as a further chance for empire building and rather than empower local communities it could take control away from them. This was seen in some instances when Communities First was rolled out originally lead body responsibilities were given to certain groups who had their own interests first and foremost in their minds. There has to be democratic accountability and that can only come through elected bodies. The specific proposals Whilst we agree that there needs to be fewer Council we do not agree with the specific suggestions put forward and in fact believe that they are not altogether in line with some of the overarching principles. We do not accept the idea that mergers of existing Councils are the only option or that they would be better placed to deliver efficient and effective services. We think that a more radical approach which ignored existing boundaries could have been more sustainable in the long term. Paragraph 73 says the Commission recommended the mergers on the basis local democracy would be maintained, and resilience would be increased, with the least possible impact on delivery of front-line services during transition. We fail to see how local democracy will be maintained by forced mergers. Apart from the Government consultation, which most residents will not even be aware of, there appears to be no mention of consulting more widely with residents who will be affected. We also cannot see how resilience will be increased by putting together Councils which have their existing problems. Take the example of Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly and Torfaen. Two of the three have had their education departments in special measures, how will forcing them to merge help? Paragraph 74 suggests the Commission took into consideration several criteria which could affect the ability of Local Government to respond to the needs of citizens and communities. These included shared heritage and culture, particularly language; levels of deprivation; population density; council tax levels; and patterns of commuting and economic growth. Now whilst they may have looked at this it is difficult to see what conclusions were reached. We have referred earlier to the issues around the Council Tax base how can merging Merthyr with RCT be of benefit? The merger adds an extra sector of high deprivation to RCT which already has more than its fair share.

6 6 As for patterns of commuting then, as was widely assessed and discussed during the recent South Wales Programme consultation, the direction of travel in the RCT area tends to be North / South and not across valleys. RCT is already a large Local Authority, and in our opinion big enough both in terms of population and geographical size to warrant being left as is. Adding Merthyr to it would, in our opinion, make the Authority too large and would be against the Commission s judgement that they should be not so big as to become unmanageable, unrepresentative, or too distant from their communities to have an effective relationship with them. Certainly if the current RCT Headquarters were to continue to be used then it would be a considerable distance away from the residents of Merthyr. There would, in our opinion, need to be a significant cash injection to allow the movement of the headquarters to Pontypridd. Yet the possibility of large injections of cash appears to have been ruled out. If there is to be no option looked at other than mergers of existing Authorities the there are alternatives which could be considered. For instance a merger of RCT and Bridgend would, we believe, give a better socio economic mix as both counties have a mix of some very deprived areas alongside several more affluent pockets. The movement of traffic, certainly between the western side of Pontypridd and the Rhondda valley is as easy to and from the county of Bridgend as it is to Merthyr. The cross- over points are greater, with several wards in RCT in the Bridgend and Ogwr Parliamentary / Assembly constituencies. The Commission recommended mergers should take place within the boundaries of larger organisations, such as Local Health Boards and police forces, to reduce the number of Local Authorities those organisations have to work with. Whilst it is true that RCT and Merthyr come under the same Health Board, the changes proposed under the South Wales Programme mean that for several key critical care services the people of the Rhondda and Pontypridd will have to travel to Bridgend s Princess of Wales Hospital. The Health Board borders will be blurred as regional co-operation takes over. Therefore we think the argument for aligning with Health Board areas is moot. The Commission suggested it would be unwise to combine areas which currently qualify for EU convergence funding with those which do not, as this could risk those which currently qualify

7 7 losing eligibility in the future. This is not altogether a sound argument as surely the aim is to ensure convergence funding is used in such a way that the economic fortunes of the area rise to an extent where it is no longer needed. However, as a short term consideration then Bridgend also qualifies for EU Convergence funding as does RCT and Merthyr. With regard to the Police Force area then South Wales Police covers numerous Council areas and not just RCT and Merthyr. In Summary We agree with fewer Councils, but think much more detail needs to be forthcoming with regard to finance both in respect of the cost of the changes and longer term funding. We think that this should not be an exercise merely in rubbing out existing borders but a wider review should take place. If there is to be no alternative to mergers of existing Authorities then we do not think that a merger of RCT and Merthyr is acceptable. We strongly believe that RCT is large enough to be a stand alone Authority, but that if a merger is essential then it should be with Bridgend and not with Merthyr. Karen Roberts Chair Councillor Mike Powell, Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC