Attacking that culture of high pay is undoubtedly popular amongst the public at large. I’m still
uneasy, though, about the unholy alliance of the Tories, Lib Dems, and Plaid
getting together to demand that the Welsh Government acts to bring senior pay
in our local authorities under control. I'm not even certain that what they're proposing will work - who's to say that the proposed 'independent panel' won't simply recommend even higher salaries? History and experience suggest that it will be stuffed with people who are, or have been, part of the system themselves.
I suspect that one
argument put forward by defenders of the current system – that this will lead
to legal disputes – is just hot air, and can fairly safely be ignored. After all, the law, in this case, is whatever
the National Assembly says it is. Their
question about why local government is being singled out for special attention
is a rather better one – why indeed are the same arguments not being applied in
the Health Service, where those employed are in any case more directly the
responsibility of the Welsh Government?
Indeed, why
restrict the assault on senior pay to the public sector? I would personally be much more willing to
accept a blanket piece of legislation restricting the pay of those at the top
to a fixed multiple of the pay of those at the bottom – and I’d consider that it
would be much more properly the preserve of government to make such
provision. (The Welsh Government doesn’t
currently have the power to do that of course – but I don’t even hear them arguing for
it.)
That isn’t the
cause of my unease either, however. It’s
more the ideological question about what power and sovereignty are, and where
they come from, which leaves me uneasy.
It’s clear
that, for all four of the centralist parties in the Assembly, power resides
with them, and local government is there to do as they say, and within any
directives which they lay down. Pay is
just the tip of the iceberg in this context.
I may agree with them about the unacceptability of the outcome of
current arrangements – i.e. excessive pay – but I start from a different
place.
Local
government has its own democratic mandate, and if we were serious about
devolution and decentralisation within Wales, we’d be giving local government
more powers, not taking them away or constraining them. Whilst there’s scope for a lot more discussion
about what we want local government to do and how we want to structure it, that’s
not the discussion that’s being had. And
instead of opening out that debate, the Government is simply acting in a
piecemeal fashion to constrain and limit powers as and when it sees fit.
I have argued
in the past that, if we’re dissatisfied with any aspect of the performance of
the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, the right approach is not to
abolish them, but to change the people and the policies. I’d argue the same way about our local
authorities. I wonder how many AMs would
argue that the solution to any problem at Assembly level is for the UK
Government to legislate to constrain the powers of the Assembly. But isn’t that exactly what they themselves
are saying in relation to local government?
Posts
11 comments:
A similar commentary appeared on Inside Out http://insideoutswansea.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/when-local-democracy-no-longer-means.html
I understand that points made but what is the difference between the Assembly deciding that executive pay needs to be regulated and the same body intervening because education or social services are under-perfroming?
The Tory reform that decentralised senior officer pay wasn't intended to serve the cause of local democracy. It was to introduce a market mechanism into pay. Indeed, they were using their other hand to take powers away from local government at the same time.
A much deeper debate is needed about how much "decentralism" we actually want in Wales. John Redwood created 22 authorities for Wales. He wasn't trying to further local democracy or to let a thousand flowers bloom! He knew in fact that the multiplication of local centres of power, would undermine the necessity for a central Welsh political entity to exist.
Many years ago when I was running a forged dinner pass racket at my local comprehensive school, I paid commission to a front man to distribute my ill-gotten product. It came back to haunt me after the front man kept insisting on more pay. I suspect when leaders of the ruling group on some Welsh councils expect chef executives to be the public face of bad decision making, or a fall guy to fence dissatisfaction by residents they also have to pay such danger/silence/flack money. If it was just 'the going rate' for the job you have to ask why the chief executive of Carmarthenshire is paid double that of the chef executive of Gwynedd.
Paul S:
"what is the difference between the Assembly deciding that executive pay needs to be regulated and the same body intervening because education or social services are under-performing?"
I would argue that there is indeed no difference - the same argument applies. Either local government has its own democratic mandate or it doesn't. Having the right to act in specified areas only as long as the 'higher' authority is happy is a rule which we wouldn't apply to the Assembly, so why apply it to councils?
Anon 10:28:
"A much deeper debate is needed about how much "decentralism" we actually want in Wales."
I agree entirely. But it has to be serious decentralism - and that includes the right for localities to do things differently within their opowers - and even to foul up. Answerability is to the electorate, not to the centre.
I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions on Redwood though - I tend to the cock-up view of history rather then the conspiracy view.
Anon 13:14:
Rent-seeking behaviour is what I think they call that. The question, though, is why do we, as electors, allow public sector employees to get away with it? The truth is that, for better or for worse, the people making these decisions were elected to their posts.
In practice national (Welsh) Government has authority over local government. The Minister has the authority firstly to issue guidance, but also to make regulations, and make legislation as well. The Welsh Government, like the UK and Scottish Governments, set the framework in which local authorities operate.
"Having the right to act in specified areas only as long as the 'higher' authority is happy is a rule which we wouldn't apply to the Assembly, so why apply it to councils? "
It's actually a rule that IS applied to the Assembly. And also to local government throughout most of the world. But if you wanted to change that, why would there have to be symmetry between how local government is treated, and how Wales' national legislature is treated?
With reference to your last paragraph – Hear! , Hear! Hear!.
Or as my friends in the South Wales would say – Ear!,Ear!,Ear!
Anon,
"why would there have to be symmetry between how local government is treated, and how Wales' national legislature is treated"
IN legal terms, both are, of course, subservient to Westminster. Under the UK model, that's where sovereignty resides, and if we want to argue in legal terms, then the Assembly isn't a national legislature, but a sub-state regional legislature whose continued existence is dependent on the consent of Westminster. In that sense, it has pretty much the same status as local government.
However, I don't think that the political reaction to an attempt by Westminster to remove powers whenever Westminster didn't like what the Assembly did would be greeted with the same equanimity which has greeted the actions of the Welsh Government in relation to local authorities. Why?
Politicians who claim to be 'decentralist' in UK terms tend to turn out looking pretty 'centralist' in Welsh terms.
"However, I don't think that the political reaction to an attempt by Westminster to remove powers whenever Westminster didn't like what the Assembly did would be greeted with the same equanimity which has greeted the actions of the Welsh Government in relation to local authorities. Why?"
It's obvious why. Because the Welsh Government is now seen as a national legislature and creature of a federal-style Britain. Because of referenda that have been held and so on. It is increasingly being seen as a level of government that should have some kind of enhanced status.
Local government isn't viewed in the same way. The public, and admittedly the political classes, see it as routine and acceptable that local government should operate within a framework set by a higher government. This happens throughout the world.
"Politicians who claim to be 'decentralist' in UK terms tend to turn out looking pretty 'centralist' in Welsh terms."
That's not an unacceptable or contradictory position at all though. You can argue that the UK needs decentralising into multiple units, but then if those units are deemed an appropriate size, you don't necessarily have to agree with decentralising even further. It's a question of scale for some people, tied in with an emphasis on Wales being a useful unit because it has a nationality.
"You can argue that the UK needs decentralising into multiple units, but then if those units are deemed an appropriate size, you don't necessarily have to agree with decentralising even further"
Indeed you can. And it's an entirely coherent standpoint to adopt, albeit not one with which I'd agree. It isn't what they say though, is it? Instead of taking such a clear and unequivocal stance, we have parties and politicians claiming that they support strong and effective local government whilst actually putting ever more constraints on what local government can do.
I've blogged on this before, and the point I've made is this: we can either decide that national standards and consistency are the most important outcomes, in which case, run things on a centralised basis and stop trying to pretend that local councils and local elected politicians are adding any real element of democracy, or else we can decide that local rights to decide on policies are what counts, in which case we should respect the democratic mandate of those elected and accept variations in service provision. We can even make that decision on a service by service basis - we don't have to come to the same conclusion on every single service currently run by local councils.
Anyone arguing that (s)he wants strong local democracy and then demanding that local councils do it 'this way' to 'these standards' so as to provide 'consistency' and avoid 'post code lotteries' just isn't being honest; it's neither one thing nor the other.
"The public, and admittedly the political classes, see it as routine and acceptable that local government should operate within a framework set by a higher government. This happens throughout the world. "
Entirely true, of course. But it's another example of how those who in the past argued for a different viewpoint have, in practice, fallen into the prevailing world view.
"I've blogged on this before, and the point I've made is this: we can either decide that national standards and consistency are the most important outcomes, in which case, run things on a centralised basis and stop trying to pretend that local councils and local elected politicians are adding any real element of democracy, or else we can decide that local rights to decide on policies are what counts "
You make that point forcefully John but you only offer two positions there. Where does it leave someone like me who doesn't want most services centralised, wants to keep electing councils with broadly the same powers as now, but wants pay issues decided nationally? Including the pay of the council staff?
Are you not throwing up a potentially false binary? In reality, based on what's happening on the ground, Wales can probably cope with a relatively healthy mixture of decentralisation and national consistency. If we care about communities as well lets remember that at any given time there are many communities in Wales that are actually in dispute with their council. When Anglesey faced intervention from central Welsh Government, that was the Government moving in to help the community in my opinion.
"Are you not throwing up a potentially false binary? In reality, based on what's happening on the ground, Wales can probably cope with a relatively healthy mixture of decentralisation and national consistency"
In relation to any particular function or power, the choice surely has to be a binary one? If the power does not clearly reside either with a or with b, you end up with a recipe for confusion and doubt - as we have seen with the Assembly's powers themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I'm open to the idea that some services or functions might be better run centrally, and others locally, depending on whether consistency or local control are considered to be the most important factor.
What I'm opposed to is the idea that the power of local government in the areas for which it is responsible is limited to taking decisions with which the central power concurs; that's not meaningful power. Appointing local managers to run services in accordance with central dictates is a valid way of operating; but we shouldn't pretend that it has anything to do with local democracy.
I'm not wedded to the idea that pay rates - even for chief officers - should be decided locally. I just don't think that the 'where' something is decided should be arbitrarily changed just because the people making the decision come up with the 'wrong' answer.
And underlying that point are two wider principles:
1. True local democracy has to include the right of local electors to elect a complete bunch of incompetents to run their affairs badly if they so choose. That's a right that we seem to accept when it comes to Westminster or Cardiff, but to reject at a more local level.
2. The idea that there are 'higher' authorities which can and should intervene in the affairs of 'lower' authorities seems to involve more than a merely superficial acceptance of the idea that sovereignty and power start at the top and are 'devolved' down. But things look very different if you start from the perspective that power is ours, and we choose how much to share at which levels.
Post a Comment