In a previous article I started to discuss where local government will fit into a newly empowered Welsh Assembly, making laws within the ambit of the twenty fields of competence granted by the Government of Wales Act 2006.

I argued that there is a wider debate as to what structures we need to deliver services to a nation of 3 million people and in particular whether 22 local councils and seven health boards are appropriate vehicles to spend the bulk of the Assembly’s £15 billion budget.

My view then (and now) was that we most probably need bigger and fewer Councils but that the main debate should be around the democratisation and accountability of service delivery as much as its efficiency. In contrast, the Welsh Government’s agenda is becoming much clearer as we approach the next set of Assembly elections.

My concern is that in Labour and Plaid Cymru we have two very centralising parties whose objective is to emasculate local government.  Already, we have heard calls for social services and education to be taken off local councils, whilst the intentions of other parties towards reorganisation remain secret. Ministers are seeking or have acquired legislative competence over the governance arrangements of schools and also over many new aspects of local councils but are not saying what they will do with it.

In fact there seems to be a cross-party consensus that there will be a reorganisation of local government in Wales after the 2011 Welsh General Election, the problem is that nobody wants to talk about it until then and the chances of any coherence emerging from any of the other parties as to how they see the future structure of local government is negligible.

Motives are particularly important in this process. Everybody acknowledges that having 22 Councils means that a number are too small to achieve economies of scale and that there needs to be some reform to address this. However, there is no consensus on what the future map of Wales should look like.

My view is that this issue needs to be addressed before the 2011 Welsh General Election not just because there is a need for a debate but also because how a party plans to reform our democratic structures goes to the heart of their vision for Wales.

Firstly, what is the role of the Welsh Government and of the Welsh Assembly? Following a successful referendum, their role is to set out policy, to make laws and to deliver that through guidance and funding decisions. It is not their role to directly deliver services, nor in my view should they seek to set up other arms-length bodies or add to the role of existing bodies by passing over to them functions currently delivered by Councils.

Secondly, how do we give people greater control over the decision-making process in their own areas? There are in fact many ways that this can be done but I would suggest that the starting point is to enable the democratically elected bodies that serve local communities, in this case the Welsh unitary authorities.

These councils should be more accountable, constituted on a scale that can deliver services efficiently and encompass a broader range of responsibilities so as to produce a more strategic and joined up approach to governance.

To achieve this I would envisage reforming local government so as to create eight or ten unitary councils elected by the single transferable vote system in multi member wards. There would be fewer Councillors, approximately a third less, making between 800-900 across Wales but in return they would be better remunerated so that they could devote a substantial amount of time to delivering and scrutinising services and acting in a more strategic way. Each Council would be run by a full time Cabinet with no more than ten Councillors in each executive body and have a number of strategic directors.

I would disband the heath boards and pass their functions to the democratically elected Councils, thus creating a single health and social care function that would eliminate duplication and waste and be accountable to local electors not the centre.

I would transfer all of post 16 education back to Councils so that they could deliver the 14 to 19 agenda as a seamless whole and incorporate the very important vocational education delivered by FE colleges into their service provision.

I would also give Councils greater strategic control of transport within their area including the power to deliver cross-modal transport solutions and a wider economic development remit. As part of this I would suggest that it should be these bigger unitary authorities who should be delivering regeneration initiatives such as Communities First on behalf of the Welsh Government, not the Government micro-managing it from the centre.

There are many other central government functions that might be better delivered by such a strategic locally elected body. That is a matter for further discussion. My purpose here is to start a debate and to get people thinking about a way forward.

I am an instinctive democrat. That means that I believe in empowering local people and giving them a chance to influence the direction of services in their own area. Democracy may have its flaws and at a local level I am sure that everybody can come up with a horror story that involves their local Council but ultimately it is for the electorate to cast the final verdict and with proportional voting that becomes much easier.

Instead of national politicians treating local government as scapegoats and indulging in playing blame games, let us find a way to work together as equals and in a way that for once delivers the sort of transparency and accountability that was promised when devolution was first voted on in 1997.

Welsh Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
peterblack.blogspot.com

I went to a recent LGIU conference where the three party local government spokespeople were parading their commitment to localism.

Ok - I'm more than a little biased and felt that the Lib Dem proposal for decentralisation, as evidenced by our record in office around the country, was the most believeable.

I asked John Denham why, after 13 years of Labour centralisation, we should start to believe his promises of more power for local councils now? All would be different if Labour get re-elected, he promised.

But what of the Conservatives? Caroline Spelman certainly talks the right way. But I fear that the Conservatives in office make her promises little more than empty words.

Here in Cornwall the Conservatives campaigned last year with a ton of leaflets pledging to freeze council tax for two years. Last week they voted to raise it by 2.9% and they have set provisional figures of 2.5% and 2.25% for the next two years.

The Conservatives in Cornwall also pledged a culture of transparency and openness. But once again their record has been fairly much the opposite. We have found out that they have a secret list of 80 primary schools which are under threat of closure (although at first they denied it existed and still refuse to let anyone see it). They also at first denied (and have now been forced to admit) that there is a list of council buildings they want to sell off. And when it came to the budget, they cut off debate after just an hour and a half with more than 15 councillors from all sides wanting to speak or ask questions.

But it is the threat to localism which really shows that Ms Spelman's words mean nothing.

A new unitary authority brought the danger of centralism with all meetings and decisions taken at County Hall in Cornwall. We were promised that this would not be the case and that local community networks would flourish and One Stop Shops in every town would open into the evening and at weekends to provide full access to all council services. But the comunity networks were put on hold for 6 months and the One Stop Shops are seeing opening hours cut and services centralised.

And ask for meetings taking place close to the people they affect... Residents of Launceston who want to attend the planning meeting that will decide on a waste transfer station in the town will face a 100 mile round trip to Truro - despite there being nothing else on the agenda.

The lessons seem clear. Whatever the Conservatives may promise on local government (and their promises do sound good), on taxation, openness and localism you simply cannot believe a word they say.

Local newspapers in western Hertfordshire exploded on Friday evening with news that the county council had lost a court case. It was chasing an invoice for £335 in a dispute with a water company over a broken manhole cover. The county council had had to put up a couple of cones to warn passing motorists and apparently cones are expensive things to handle.

The water company felt that this was excessive and the council and the utility had seen each other in court. The costs of the case were awarded largely against the council and were reportedly £110,000.

Debate has raged. The Tory Administration has told me that they find my remarks to the press ‘unhelpful’ (I would have preferred ‘outrageous’ but ‘unhelpful’ will do). Anyway: not all the costs were lawyers’ fees – some were internal to the council. Furthermore, it was a test case, although mysteriously they could not identify any council that was willing to help Hertfordshire with its costs.

It is becoming apparent that this was a process that had grown its own legs. While the politicians are accountable the system is responsible. Councils employ lawyers to sue people and sue they do. We pay for their activities.

So, how much control can politicians hope to have over a council’s operations?

In some ways we have moved a long way since (in my political lifetime) a Chief Executive tried to demand that councillors wore visitors’ badges when on council premises.

We are in charge, we are told. But, as was said famously by Dorothy Thornhill: you can get your hands on the levers of power but find the levers aren’t attached to anything.

Our current budget round has uncovered a crop of curiosities. We discovered that the county council erects lampposts and then paints them once they are vertical – much more expensive than painting them while still on the ground. When quizzed, officials told us ‘they might get scratched’ if painted the common sense way.

We discovered that the pedestrian crossings are all being converted from pelicans to puffins – a distinction without a difference for most pedestrians. And the bus stop signs are being renewed because the travel help line number has changed. Heaven forefend that the council should invest in a few sheets of stickers.

These are highways and transport examples – a service that is relatively transparent. As for opaque departments like adult care and children’s services, it is anyone’s guess how many millions are being thrown away because elected members are unable to get close enough to the front line.

True: budgets are scrutinised. But the vast majority of councils budget incrementally. They start with last year as a base and then tweak the figures up or down.

The devil is in the base budget. In the tough years ahead, we will need to be asking searching questions not about growth and savings but about the areas we don’t normally look at.

Cllr Chris White is Hertfordshire County Councillor for St. Albans Central and
St. Albans City & District Councillor for Clarence
He is also a member of the ALDC Management Committee
chriswhite.mycouncillor.org.uk

This article was first published on Liberal Democrat Voice

I hope that after 4 years most Lib Dems know that I am the Lib Dem Leader at the LGA. Not so many will be aware that I am also the portfolio holder for European & International Affairs. I was volunteered for the job when we needed to mainstream our E & I work and make it more relevant to the wider local government family and I happily decided at accept the position. Interestingly the portfolio holder for the Welsh LGA, Chris Holley, is also a Lib Dem. Perhaps it’s just something about practising what we preach!

Much of the work inevitably involves European activity. European legislation is so important to us as 50% of the Westminster legislation that affects councils originates in Brussels. Increasingly however with the political work in CoR and Congress now being dealt with comprehensively both within the LGA and by our local politicians in Brussels I have been able to look at the international work in more detail.

As a result of pressure from the LGA the DFID Select Committee chaired by Malcolm Bruce (another example of practising what we preach?) has suggested to the Government that Councils should be used a lot more in Internal Aid activity.

We offer a win/win/win situation.

• A win for the Country in need. We can supply officers and councillors with current and relevant experience to provide real help. It was local government staff, fire-fighters, for example that were first into Haiti.

• A win for the Government. We can do it far more cost effectively than the usual agencies of private consultancies and NGOs. Often we will put in at least some of the resources ourselves.

• A win for the local council. We can get two benefits. The horizons of our staff and members will eb tested and expanded leading to more innovation and new ideas. We can develop a knowledge of custom and practice in those countries which can guide our work with the diaspora communities in our communities.

We are currently coordinating local government aid to Zimbabwe with more than 30 Councils offering to help. We are looking at long-term support to Haiti with again 30 Councils (but different ones) offering to help there. We are about to conduct the first peer review of another LGA (South Africa) with the World Bank looking to provide more support through us to other LGAs so that they have competent and strategic development partners. I have just assisted with a review of how local government works on a Pan Africa basis and will be hosting a conference in Nigeria in March. Margaret Eaton, the Association’s chair has been leading a review of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum which is our major route for working with others to provide local government aid.

Some people ask, "Why should we help when times are hard?" Most members of the public (and surely every Lib Dem?) reply when they see the devastation of Harare or in a different way Haiti – we have no choice – we must be there.

So what is your council doing in both European and International activity? Could you do more to help provide a win/win/win situation in your area?

Cllr Richard Kemp is Liverpool City Councillor for Church and
Leader of the Local Government Association Liberal Democrat Group

Well, Epsom and Ewell actually.  Channel 4's Best-Place-To-Live-In-The-UK in 2004 (or was it 2005?) but relegated to 4th place more recently. 

It is a unique form of government we have in this borough: controlled by Residents' Association councillors for more than 70 years which are a group of so-called independent councillors mostly registered as Residents Associations of Epsom & Ewell.  We call them the Residents' Party.  There are 23 RA, 10 Lib Dem, 4 Tory and 1 Labour.  The Lib Dems are strong in the Epsom area and the RA in Ewell.  The Conservatives - undoubtedly our long-term threat - have 1 Epsom-based councillor, one RA defector from Ewell and two others representing a Ewell ward.  The 1 Labour councillor took a seat from us in a by-election - she was a previous Mayor and well known - but the by-election being held the day after David Cameron's son passed away didn't help us either.

Until 1999, the Conservatives did not stand in local elections here, (something about an unwritten agreement with the RA that they would leave the borough in their capable hands), but since one Chris Grayling's arrival as our MP and the ever-growing unpopularity of Labour, they are gaining strength and field candidates at every opportunity.  Mostly, they are chipping away at the RA majority, but they are extremely aggressive and underhand at both election time and in the council chamber.  We are under no illusions they aim for worldwide domination.

A flavour of what we are dealing with here might best be illustrated by the following.  Residents' Party non-councillor officials had become used to holding meetings at the Town Hall, free of charge.  The whole system was reviewed and they now have to pay.  However, a Motion to council brought by the Tories demanded they were charged for meeting room hire on a retrospective basis for as far back as records sensibly go (it's more than  a year with the sum of money involved around £3,000).   The decision on the Motion was brought to the Strategy & Resources Committee where Residents' Party councillors, with their majority representation, decided to support the recommendation which was that they should not be charged.  All other branches of political parties would have had to pay for meeting room hire.  It's clearly abuse of Town Hall facilities, with the final decision on retrospective charging being made by those who have a personal and prejudicial interest in the outcome.   Residents' Party councillors did concede that it might be a good idea that a body other than themselves was consulted but ultimately a full council meeting (with all the opposition members voting against) agreed not to pursue the matter. 

The Residents' Party is a unique animal.  At least with recognised political parties, there's a level playing field to start with.

Cllr Julie Morris is Epsom & Ewell Borough Councillor for College Ward
and Liberal Democrat Council Group Leader
epsom-ewell-libdems.org.uk