National
Assembly for Wales Communities, Equality and Local Government
Committee’s scrutiny of the draft Local Government (Wales)
Bill.
Evidence
of
- SOLACE Wales welcomes the
opportunity to give evidence to the Communities, Equality and Local
Government Committee on the Local Government (Wales)
Bill.
- SOLACE Wales understands Welsh
Government’s wish to undertake a reform of local government
in Wales from the current model of 22 authorities, particularly
given the pressures on capacity in the smaller authorities as a
result of austerity. However, we are not in favour of change for
change’s sake; and we only welcome such changes as will
deliver better services, reduced cost and greater
efficiency.
- We do not believe that
reorganisation into a fewer number of large authorities is in
itself a silver bullet to tackle the current financial restrictions
on public service, and we feel that it is imperative that the newly
created councils are well led and citizen centric, with a strong
organisational culture focusing on performance, innovation and
staff engagement.
- We are concerned that the
already longstanding uncertainty on how these proposals will be
taken forward has made it difficult to maintain morale in the
current local authorities and to plan ahead effectively. Even if
the timetable currently proposed in the Bill goes ahead exactly as
planned, we are looking at anther four years before the new local
authorities come into being, and those issues will continue to be
of concern particularly as staff take decisions to leave or
retire.
- In terms of the transitional
arrangements outlined in the Bill, the period between the local
elections in 2017 and the abolition of the old authorities in 2020
will need to be carefully managed to ensure that strong political
and officer leadership and focus is maintained. Once the shadow
authorities are established in 2019, it is inevitable that the
focus will shift to them; but high quality, day to day services
will still need to be delivered by the outgoing organisations until
the last day. There will inevitably be a number of members who are
elected in 2017 who will not be serving in the new authorities,
there are also likely to be a number of officers who will see the
transition as a point to retire or move on. Maintaining the morale
and energy of the outgoing organisations will therefore be a key
task.
- We represent Chief Executives
of Councils from across the Welsh local authorities, and it is
therefore difficult for us to comment on the proposed map, and
number of councils, as there are many different shades of opinion.
We do, however, have concerns about the size of some of the new
organisations in terms of their connectedness to citizens and
communities, particularly with respect to democratic
representation. The advantage of current collaborative arrangements
is that, whilst they take advantage of scale in service planning
and delivery, they are rooted in being overseen by elected members
who have a depth of understanding of local
circumstances.
- As we feel there is a danger
of very large new councils being out of touch with communities, we
are not against the establishment of community area
committees.
However, we do
have concerns about the potential plethora of bureaucracy and the
cost of maintaining and supporting this. One small community could
be overseen by a Community Council, a Community Area Committee, a
Local Authority, a Public Service Board, a constituency Assembly
Member, regional Assembly Members, a Member of Parliament and a
Member of the European Parliament. A major reform of local
government is an opportunity to start from a blank canvas and
design governance that is streamlined, cost effective and fit for
purpose. An alternative to creating area committees is to redesign
the relationship between Community Councils and the new local
authorities, with powers of delegation aligned with clear lines of
accountability for delivery and cost effectiveness.
If there are to be
community area committees, we would be in favour of delegation
powers that relate to services delivered specifically to that
geographical location; for example, greening and cleaning, parks,
community safety. We think that there is potential in this way for
not only elected representatives, but also staff delivering the
services to be much more closely in touch with local communities
and to have a stronger sense of direct accountability to them. We
do not think it would be appropriate to delegate functions that
relate to individuals, such as social services and education, nor
services that have a regulatory aspect.
The strength of
very locally based democracy is that it is very immediately and
directly in touch with key local issues of concern; the danger is
that it can become dominated by individuals with strong
personalities focused on single issue agendas. For this reason we
believe that community area committees should be made up only of
elected representatives and those who have been nominated by
established public bodies and voluntary sector organisations and
who have some accountability back to those
organisations.
- We welcome a five year cycle
for local elections; we believe that this gives elected members a
proper period of time to immerse themselves in the working of the
organisation and therefore enables them to lead and scrutinise
effectively. It also allows time for key decision making to be
undertaken on major issues without the constant presence of an
election looming. Medium to long term forward planning on
financial, service delivery and workforce issues has strengthened
in Wales as a response to austerity; and it is important that
councillors are able to continue thinking in these longer timelines
as we move into the future, whether or not austerity continues to
bite.
- We welcome the provision in
section 23 to give general power of competence to local
authorities. The broad powers in section 23(2) are particularly
appropriate as councils will increasingly need to look at
innovative models of service delivery and ways of raising revenue,
including through the use of arms length commercial
enterprises.
- We feel that the provisions of
the Bill relating to powers of competence for Community Councils
are, in the main, best commented on by Community Councils
themselves. However, we would make a general comment that, if the
powers of Community Councils are to be expanded, it is important
that there are appropriate safeguards and checks and balances to
ensure that the calibre of the Community Council, and the support
that it receives, is equal to exercising those powers.
- We support the proposals to
require Councils to consult on the annual budget. However, we feel
that there should be a wide discretion in terms of how such
consultation is carried out. The rapidly increasing use of new
forms of social media is likely to mean that by the time the new
authorities come into existence there will be ways of communicating
with the public which have not yet been thought of.
Traditional means
of engaging the public by holding public meetings in geographical
locations are increasingly ineffective, often resulting in small
numbers of people attending who are not representative of the
majority of the population.
- In terms of improvement
requests, we can see the merit in providing a mechanism for an open
debate between a council and a community on an issue of specific
local importance. We do feel however that there need to be
parameters around this dialogue, as there is a danger of it
absorbing a very large amount of officer time in the Council.
“Reasonable grounds” for not entering into a dialogue
should include the fact that a similar request has been made
previously or that the issue has become vexatious. We welcome the
fact that the Bill does not heavily prescribe the duty upon local
authorities.
If there are to be
community area committees, there will probably be merit in most
“improvement requests” being dealt with at that level
within the resource envelope delegated to that
committee.
In times of
continuing austerity, there will be issues around fair distribution
of limited resources; and the danger that those who put in
improvement requests are treated more favourably in terms of
resource allocation than those who don’t must be guarded
against. The reality is that local authorities will increasingly
have to take away or reduce services that communities want and
value; a published debate will only have value if it highlights not
only the rights of communities and individuals to receive services
but also their responsibilities as citizens to
contribute.
- We are n favour of transparent
electronic broadcasting of all formal meetings of democratically
elected bodies. Having said this, we believe that there must also
be space for members and officers to discuss and test out ideas in
an informal discussion before formal meetings take place in the
public eye.
- We note at S77 (2) the power
for Ministers to make regulations allowing persons to make their
own electronic recordings of council meetings and to publish them
on social media. We would urge that Ministers give this very
careful consideration before making such regulations. If an
electronic broadcast is freely available to all, we question why
this would be necessary; and the ability of individuals to cut and
paste to distort and misrepresent the facts is a serious
consideration.
- With regard to the question of
keeping written minutes, we question the necessity of this going
forward if all meetings have a full electronic record.
- We support all proposals to
engage children and young people actively in democratic decision
making.
- We welcome the provisions in
the draft Bill requiring members to attend meetings regularly, hold
surgeries at least quarterly, respond promptly to correspondence,
attend all compulsory training and make annual reports. We also
welcome the requirement for Leaders to set and monitor objectives
for the Cabinet. These are all standards that the public have a
right to expect from those whom they elect.
- In section 100 (1)(a) of the
Bill it is stated that a candidate for Leader must in advance of a
leadership election prepare and circulate to other members a
written manifesto. Whilst we understand why the Bill may cite this
as good practice, we would point out that in local government
election years the time between the election itself and the Annual
General Meeting is short and that, particularly if there is a
complicated period of negotiation between parties forming a
coalition, this may be difficult to achieve in
practice.
- We support the provision in
section 101 (2) for Councils to be able to appoint Assistant
Executive Members; this is welcomed as a good way for younger
councillors to gain experience and to allow for succession
planning.
- In Chapter 6 section 103, we
support the provision to change the senior statutory role in the
council from Head of Paid Service to Chief Executive as this more
clearly describes the nature of the role and recognises the status
of the Chief Executive within the organisation.
- In section 103(6) it is stated
that “a county council must provide its Chief Executive with
such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in the Chief
Executive’s opinion, sufficient to allow the Chief
Executive’s duties under this section to be carried
out”. Whilst it of course desirable that councillors should
listen to and respect the advice of their Chief Executive, and that
Chief Executives should only make requests of the Council that are
proportionate and reasonable, we believe that this wording needs
more thought. It surely cannot be the intention of the Bill to make
it a statutory requirement that elected members must provide
whatever resources are required in the opinion of the Chief
Executive to discharge its various functions. Members may
disagree with the Chief Executive as to where resources should be
deployed according to political priorities, and the wording as it
is drafted at present would override that.
- Section 104, concerning the
setting of objectives for Chief Executives, states at subparagraph
(8) that Welsh Ministers may issue guidance, to which the Council
must have regard. Is it the intention that Welsh Minsters should
have the power to intervene in local arrangements between a Leader
and a Chief Executive with regard to the way that the Chief
Executive carries out their duties? If so, this seems to be a
considerable incursion into the running of a local authority
without the Bill putting any parameters around the Minister’s
reason for issuing such guidance – for example if the Council
is failing to deliver on key performance or governance
issues.
- We welcome the decision
referred to in the consultation document that issues concerning the
appointment of Chief Executives and Chief Officers should be
subject to further consideration and advice by the Public Services
Staff Commission. Local Government reform will inevitably see the
loss of a number of experienced and capable Chief Executives and
senior managers, and Wales is not well placed to attract new talent
from England or elsewhere. Therefore, whilst the wish for
transparency and fairness in senior remuneration is understood,
account must be taken as to the levels of remuneration that will
recognise and reward the demands of the role and enable Wales to
recruit and retain the best.
- We feel that much has been
done in recent years to undermine the value and respect that senior
local government officers in Wales are held in. We accept that as senior
public servants our pay should be open to scrutiny in terms of
public value and transparency. However, the salaries of even the
best remunerated of us do not compare favourably with our
equivalents in the private sector (or of local authority Chief
Executives in England or Chief Executives of Health Boards and
other public bodies in Wales) and for that we run extremely complex
organisations within a challenging political environment in the
face of constant public scrutiny and criticism at a time that
requires transformational leadership. When looking at the
multiplier between the lowest and highest paid person in an
organisation, it is considerably higher in most private sector
organisations than in local government; and in Welsh local
government in particular we are well below the maximum of 20:1
discussed in the Hutton Review of Fair Pay. The combination of
increased levels of pension contributions and a lack of percentage
increases on salary mean that many of us take home significantly
less pay than we have done in previous years for carrying out an
increasingly difficult role with fewer people to support us. It is
already difficult to find a reasonable pool of high quality
candidates for senior roles in Welsh local government or to recruit
from outside Wales; this is likely to become an increasing problem
as existing senior people leave or retire as a result of local
government reform.
- The Bill is not entirely clear
on the question of which Returning Officer roles would be regarded
as included as being integral to the role of Chief Executive. The
reasoning behind this with regard to Local Government Elections is
understood, although such elections do add considerably to the
Chief Executive’s workload; with regard to other elections
(Parliamentary, Welsh Assembly, European, Police Commissioner,
referenda etc.) these are not financed by the local authority and
do entail additional duties over and above the Chief Executive
role.
- We recognise and agree with
the need for shadow authorities to appoint interim Returning
Officers given the timescales.
- With regard to the statutory
protections afforded to certain senior officers of the Council,
these are given to statutory officers for a specific reason, which
is that they are required to “speak truth to power” for
the safety, proper conduct and reputation of the organisation and
those leading it, particularly in cases of potential corruption or
illegality. We would strongly oppose, and advise extreme caution
on, taking any action to remove these protections in
Wales.
Votes in full council
concerning the employment of individual officers would inevitably
lead to protracted litigation in employment tribunals and courts
for unfair dismissal, and could easily lead to reputationally
damaging and costly claims of bullying, harassment and
discrimination. It is hard to see the justification for carrying
out such procedures in public, and easy to see how it could turn
into a “witch hunt” playing to the public
gallery.
- We welcome the proposed
greater flexibility to allow Councils to determine what matters can
and cannot be delegated through simplification of the existing
legislation. As stated above in the answer relating to community
area committees, there is a danger in creating new councils with
very large populations and geographical spread that the connection
with local decision making will be lost. Decisions that relate
specifically to a particular community and its activities are most
properly taken at the most local level possible.
Key strategic
policy decisions should remain the responsibility of the full
Council, and it is suggested that the bullet point list in the
consultation document should include the setting of the
Council’s key priorities and objectives in its Corporate
Plan.
- There is much in Part 5 of the
Bill that we strongly support. Many councils have found a
combination of rigorous self assessment supplemented by peer review
to be instrumental in focusing on and driving up
performance.
The huge reduction
in resources available to local authorities makes it vital to have
clear and focused priorities based on clear political choices, and
for the Corporate Plan to be closely aligned with the Medium Term
Financial Plan and Workforce Plan.
- Section 113 of the Bill
requires a County Council to publish its first corporate plan no
later than three months after the date of the first ordinary
election of councillors. Experience suggests that this timescale is
unrealistic. The corporate plan will set out the key strategic
direction for the council for years to come. It requires careful
thought and wide consultation both within political parties and
cross party; in addition the Bill requires consultation with both
the Local Health Board and the Public Service Board. In our view a
plan that attracts wide consensus and support is much more
effective to the good governance of the organisation than one that
has to be rushed into existence.
- We very much support
provisions that require regulators to work and plan together and to
carry out combined assessments, the burden of regulation on local
authorities is very heavy and in many cases disproportionate to the
benefits that it confers.
- We feel that the creation of
local public accounts committees would add unnecessary bureaucracy,
complexity and expense to an already crowded landscape without
delivering significant benefits that would drive public service
improvement.
- Public Service Boards do
appear to be an appropriate place for the examination of key
strategic policy choices. The only caveat to this is that PSBs will
be made up of the senior executives of the local public service
organisations, and there is therefore a danger that their
deliberations will result in a reinforcing of existing attitudes
and views, rather than an element of challenge and enquiry. It
would certainly be beneficial for PSBs to be able to commission
external expertise and for them to be able to introduce independent
critical friends to challenge their thinking. It does not seem
necessary for them to have powers to summon officers to give
evidence, given that they can do so through their seniority within
the constituent organisations.
- Experience suggests that there
not as many legislative barriers to the scaling of shared services
across not only local authorities but public services generally as
may be supposed. There are state aid considerations in terms of
commercial trading but these can be accommodated with the
appropriate legal advice. The general powers of competence proposed
in the Bill should help to iron out any existing wrinkles around
legal powers.
Creating an arms
length wholly local authority owned company allows for strategic
partnerships with private sector providers that do not fall foul of
procurement legislation and therefore provides greater flexibility
within appropriate legal parameters. This can be done under
existing legislation.
- We have considerable concerns
about the proposals in the Bill to issue guidance, to which public
bodies must have regard, with respect to workforce matters. The
definition of workforce matters in section 173 combined with the
ability to issue guidance to particular public body effectively
means that a Minister and his or her officials can take on the
responsibilities of a Chief Executive in relation to the staff with
an organisation. It is of particular concern that there no
parameters built into this power, so that there is no need for a
local authority to be failing in some respect for these powers to
be exercised.