Local Government VI – Counties & Regions

---

Special Purpose Boards

To an extent, special purpose boards already exist – Local Health Boards, Community Health Councils, Fire Authorities, National Parks Authorities – even if they’re not directly elected.

Instead of having a single council, regional authority or appointed regional board managing and overseeing certain services, these would be replaced by subject-specific boards directly-elected for their specific roles.

At a bare minimum, you would expect there to be separately-elected: school boards (to replace education departments and school governors), planning boards, licensing boards, public works boards (highways, environment, drainage, waste management etc.) and leisure & culture boards (libraries, leisure services, parks etc.).

At a higher/regional level, separately elected boards could replace Local Health Boards, Police & Crime Commissioners and Fire Authorities.

Advantages:

• It would be far clearer as to who does what by name alone. You won’t have to go through several council committees, cabinet members or officers to figure it all out – all planning decisions and policies in a given area would be decided by a planning board, for example.
• Policy trumps politics; party politics would be largely irrelevant or a background influence at best. Dealing with the facts in hand and acting in a quasi-judicial manner would be the only way it can realistically work.
• It can only really work with experienced professionals winning seats (i.e. current and former teachers being elected to school boards, engineers being elected to public works boards). The professional background of those seeking office would become more important than their party affiliation.
• There’s a lot of flexibility and there can be as many or as few special purpose boards (and members) as is deemed necessary. They won’t be as reliant on boundaries or maps and can be changed to suit changing circumstances fairly quickly.

Disadvantages:

• There are few, if any, checks and balances. You would be relying on the board getting its decisions and policies right 99% of the time with little or no dissent.
• It favours conservative (in the small-c sense) decision-making. This may not be a bad thing in itself, but it means special purpose boards will be less willing to take risks that might have a big payoff in the end.
• It would limit the pool of potential candidates if only experienced current and former professionals are expected to run, possibly affecting diversity and leading to successful candidates seeking high salaries for their time.
• There’s a risk that while a particular board may be rooted in a particular area, people won’t feel any real connection to it as they would with a council.
• Looking at the experiences of the United States, when politics (particularly wingnut politics) becomes influential in these kinds of boards the results can be devastating – i.e. “culture war” stuff like banning books.

---

County Commissions

Under a County Commission model, all of those elected would fill an executive role and a legislative role at the same time. It would be the equivalent of electing a Cabinet and nobody else (Part II).

County Commissioners could either be elected to fill a specific position (i.e. separate elections on the same day to elect a county engineer, county treasurer), to represent a ward/constituency (with their post decided afterwards), or all at once in a single election.

Advantages:

• Similarly to special purpose boards, it would be clear who would be in charge and in control of what and it would also require those seeking office to have suitable professional experience. For example, a “county treasurer” would need to be a chartered accountant.
• It would drastically reduce the number of elected officials overall – each Commission may only have 6 or 7 members; if Wales retained the current 22 unitary authority areas, then instead of electing 1233 councillors, this would fall to maybe ~154 Commissioners.
• It would support the retention of town & community councils as community-based representative bodies and justify handing them additional place-based powers. Commissioners would concentrate on more complicated policy areas.
• Policy and delivery would matter more than politics – candidates and elected Commissioners would be more carefully judged on their record as they wouldn’t have a group of councillors belonging to their party to hide behind.
• It would maintain the idea of a “committee” making decisions, which Wales is fond of. There would be a single body of Commissioners, so avoids having to keep tabs on separate boards, for example.

Disadvantages:

• It concentrates too much power in too few hands, even if moving to such a system would lead to few changes from how councils are run now (a small number of officers are already heavily influential on policies and decision-making; more so than councillors).
• Elections would be incredibly dull and focus on micro-management of specific services with no ideology or principles. It may be difficult for candidates to be seen or communicate what they do effectively (as we’ve seen with Police & Crime Commissioners).
• “Professionalisation” of local government representatives may limit opportunities for people from diverse backgrounds to run for office – and if they can’t get elected at this level, they’re likely to struggle getting selected higher up the food chain too.
• Minor disagreements could cause paralysis, particularly over budgets. There would be limited room for dissent. This could lead to decisions being made by default to avoid antagonising other members of the Commission, leading to groupthink.
• Realistically, the only source of candidates would be sitting senior council officers (i.e. department heads) rather than councillors (most council Cabinet members don’t have prior experience in their portfolio); political parties and groups would struggle to find anyone suitable.

---

Unitary Authorities

This is what we have now. We currently have 22 unitary authorities responsible for delivering all statutory local government services in their particular areas.

As you know, there’ve been countless arguments over whether 22 is too many for Wales and whether Wales should move towards mergers or greater collaboration without changing the map.

Each unitary authority would elect a council that would, in turn, appoint a Council Leader who then appoints a Cabinet – unless we change to a system such as a directly-elected mayor.

Advantages:

• The easiest option is to stick with what we know. It may just be best to admit defeat on local government reform.
• Unless the map changes it would avoid a costly reorganisation and reform process, potentially saving tens – if not hundreds – of millions of pounds (and jobs). Maintaining unitary authorities (though maybe not at current numbers) would also have the support of the WLGA and the major trade unions.
• “One council, one set of councillors” is easy to understand even if the work of councils often isn’t reported on in any great detail.
• There’s scope for reform while maintaining unitary authorities: proportional voting, directly-elected mayors (or a directly elected executive board), integrating health and social care, multi-year budgeting and rationalisation of community councils so they can take on more responsibilities.
• It supports regional collaboration such as combined authorities and the existing Corporate Joint Committees.
• It would maintain a close local connection between councillors and their wards (even if councils switched to proportional voting) and would attract a wider variety of candidates from different backgrounds (in principle; in practice – not so much).
• They can work across services, leading to better coordination of policies because all council departments ought to “talk to each other” – for example, linking general wellbeing to policies on parks and sports facilities.
• Most of the existing unitary authorities in Wales are well-suited to where they are. It’s easier to follow natural local “footprints” and geography by having unitary authorities that are bigger than one of the old district councils but more locally focused than the old county councils.

Disadvantages:

• There’ll always be arguments over whether Wales has too many or too few of them, even if their numbers are cut. For the vast majority of our history before 1996, there’s been two-tier local government across most of the country.
• One of the most common arguments in favour of reform is that unitary authorities replicate what councils do immediately next door to each other, which can be deemed to be inefficient in a country of Wales’ size.
• Some of the existing Welsh unitary authorities are arguably too big to be “local” – often involving journeys of two hours or more to cross them – but too small or sparsely populated to efficiently provide all of the services they’re expected to.
• The obsession over the map and boundary changes has often distracted from basic questions around the wider role of local government – which may not necessarily suit a unitary authority system in the first place.
• It encourages overly-large councils (too many councillors) and “empire building” by officers and council departments (i.e. too many managers); unitary authorities may over-estimate their internal human resource requirements because they think “they’re doing everything”, redirecting resources from frontline services.

 

---

 

Counties & Municipalities (Two-Tier Local Government)

Under a two-tier system, services that local government has a legal duty to provide (statutory services) would be split between a large number of local councils (municipalities/districts) and a smaller number of county or regional councils.

County councils would generally be responsible for “big ticket”, high-spending strategic services like education and social services, while the municipal/district councils would take on regulatory and place-based services (i.e. libraries, planning, rubbish collections).

Advantages:

• The longest-lasting system of local government in modern Welsh history has been the two-tier system that existed from 1894-1996. It clearly worked to an extent and was reformed rather than abandoned in the 1970s.
• It addresses problems of rural sparsity and the delivery of strategic local government services by making sure the right tier of local government is responsible for the right things – a local connection is maintained as well as a regional one, meeting expectations of subsidiarity (services being provided as close to, and tailored for, a community as is realistically possible).
• It’s a better means of delivering services over a larger geographical area by having a properly resourced and scrutinised county council instead of a combined authority or city region made up of appointees and reliant on outside funding.
• The 8 preserved counties (1974-1996) are still, to this day, often used as a means to describe the region/area someone is from in Wales. Despite only existing for a short period, they had a cultural impact and seemed to be a “natural fit”.
• There would be two sets of local elections (three if town & community councils were retained), broadening the pool of potential candidates by increasing the number of seats on offer.
• It provides a great opportunity to think about the role of town & community councils and whether they should continue as is or be merged into districts/municipalities.

Disadvantages:

• There could be an overlapping of some services and possible duplication – for example, both municipal and county councils may play a role in some aspects of the planning system.
• It could increase bureaucracy and the general cost of local government by having two sets of officers, council offices, councillors and administration – even if the two tiers do different things.
• It can lead to confusion over who is responsible for what and lead to the perennial Welsh complaint that certain municipalities/districts may be getting more preferential treatment and attention (by their respective county council) than others.
• It complicates issues around finances: how council tax would be charged, distribution of business rates (if retained), which tier of government would get what from the Welsh Government and who would be responsible for charging a hypothetical tourist tax, for example?
• Splitting the current unitary authorities into two tiers would raise issues over legacy debts, assets and other longer-term liabilities.
• There could be a big variation in the size and “clout” of the district/municipal councils and the power relations – a Cardiff municipality, for example, would likely be far more powerful in terms of economic and soft power than the county or regional council it would be a part of. There’s a risk that county councils would end up becoming city regions by default.

---

Combined Authorities

Wales is already experimenting with this through Corporate Joint Committees.

As the name suggests, each member council (presumably unitary authorities) would come together to collaborate in certain strategic policy areas – whether as an appointed regional cabinet or with an elected mayor as chief executive.

The combined authority would run services that serve the entire region (i.e. bus services or metro networks), draft strategies on things like economic development and employment (which is too much for a single council to take on) and provide funding for various initiatives or priorities agreed between themselves and the Welsh Government.

Advantages:

• It supports the retention of unitary authorities as a tier of local government below them, which may avoid a costly reorganisation process; it already has the support of the WLGA for that reason.
• Unitary authorities/member councils would retain a great deal of operational independence whilst collaborating at a regional level; the powers and role of the combined authority would be within strictly defined limits.
• If the combined authorities have elected mayors, they could become a fairly strong voice for the region at the national level and become significant political positions in their own right, creating more of a balance between the Senedd and local government.
• A number of the existing regional boards, agencies and bodies could be folded into the functions of the combined authority, reducing bureaucracy and the complicated nature of the “unofficial” regional tier of government that already exists in Wales.
• It’s a far easier and more cost-effective form of regional government than some of the alternatives like a regional authority.

Disadvantages:

• It’s a bit less democratic; there would be no elections (unless there’s an elected mayor) and members would likely be appointed by their respective councils.
• The likelihood is that Wales would continue with the Corporate Joint Committee-like system, which has problems with scrutiny and accountability – effectively being a glorified super committee with no clear leadership, overly reliant on officers and business relationships and with few means to hold them to account.
• As is already happening in some Welsh local authorities, councillors and the public may question the value of being a member of a combined authority if they don’t think their particular area is getting a “fair share” of attention and investment.
• To date in Wales, there’s been a greater focus on economic development and growth than other issues best dealt with at a regional level such as the integration of health and social care.
• If Wales adopted municipal councils as the tier below combined authorities (Part V) – as opposed to maintaining unitary authorities – then reorganisation could come with a high price tag.
• The powers and responsibilities of combined authorities can be rather complex and take a long time to negotiate. There may not be a “one size fits all” system as some regions of Wales may be better placed to do certain things that others aren’t.

---

Regional Authorities

Whereas a combined authority would be made up of representatives from its member councils, a regional authority would be a separate tier of local/regional government in its own right, with its own set of elections, relationships with the Welsh Government, powers and responsibilities.

The best example of how this might look is the Greater London Authority (GLA) – which is made up of a 25-member London Assembly and a directly-elected Mayor of London. The GLA is a devolved administration in the same way as the Senedd or Scottish Parliament but doesn’t have any law-making powers.

It would be a strategic authority – setting strategies for the region as a whole – but would also be responsible for delivering certain services directly.

Advantages:

• It’s probably the closest we could realistically get to implementing devolution within Wales’ borders without first achieving independence (due to constitutional restrictions). It would provide the groundwork for a fully devolved (i.e. law-making) or federal system in Wales after independence.
• A separately-elected regional assembly/council would be a bit more democratic than the combined authorities. There would be a body dedicated to scrutinising decision-makers at a regional level and this would be a precursor for devolving additional responsibilities down from Cardiff Bay.
• As with the combined authorities, an elected mayor acting as the executive decision maker would become a fairly strong, high-profile voice for the region at the national level and become a significant political position in its own right.
• As with combined authorities, it supports the retention of unitary authorities as a tier of local government below them (as happens with the London boroughs), which may avoid a costly reorganisation process.
• Several regional boards, organisations, panels etc. can be folded into the regional assembly/council such as local health boards, fire authorities, Police & Crime Commissioners, regional education consortia etc.
• There would only be a single set of decision-makers. It won’t be reliant on finding common ground between multiple councils or seeking Senedd approval every time they want to do something.

Disadvantages:

• It’s another tier of government and another set of elections, making governance in Wales slightly more complicated – not only would there be confusion over what local councils do, but it could further muddy knowledge of what the Senedd does.
• There would be opposition to creating a separate tier of regional government as there was with the creation of the Senedd; members of the regional assembly/council would probably need to be full-time politicians as London Assembly members are.
• While there wouldn’t necessarily be any impact on the current unitary authorities, reorganisation of the regional boards/bodies (i.e. fire authorities, health boards) may prove difficult, expensive and unpopular even if it could be proven it would improve service delivery.
• It could be considered a case of “shit rolling downhill”, with the regional councils/assemblies increasingly becoming the focus of public anger over service delivery failures than the Welsh Government.
• On the flip side, it could challenge the Senedd’s authority, particularly if some regional councils/assemblies end up endearing themselves to residents through popular initiatives or a populist mayor.