The first story
was the one about the ‘leaked’ letter (experience tells me that for
journalists, ‘leak’ can, and frequently does, cover a multitude of sins) from
Cllr Hedley McCarthy to ‘party colleagues across Wales’ (a phrase which suggests
that the letter finding its way into the public eye can hardly have come as a
surprise to the author, given the singularly unfraternal relationships which
exist between members of the Labour Party).
There seems to
be a lot of general whingeing in the letter – typical internal Labour Party stuff
– and the Western Mail seized on it as a sign of a ‘split’. There seems to be little that the paper likes
more than a ‘split’, and the more personal the better. No surprise that some political opponents
leapt onto the ‘split’ bandwagon; it’s a lot less taxing to debate at that
level than to engage with the nub of the argument.
None of that
was the bit that led me to find myself in agreement with the councillor. It was rather the nugget at the heart of his
argument - almost lost in the coverage of the froth - that the idea that small
councils cannot deliver services “…is
theoretical and not backed up by any serious evidence”. This is a very significant point, which I
have no doubt that the four centralist parties in the Assembly will completely
ignore. They have already decided that
size, or rather lack of size, is the problem.
It is true, of
course, that the councils suffering the biggest problems at present are
smaller ones; but that’s correlation, not proof of causation. It could just be that the councillors and
officers in those councils happen to be less competent (although I suspect that
Cllr McCarthy and I might disagree on that!).
It might even be, as Cllr McCarthy himself seems to half suggest, that
the basis used by the Minister for determining ‘failure’ was itself rigged to
favour the result that he wanted.
But here’s the
real point which those rushing to centralise and consolidate councils are
missing: if there’s no hard evidence that the small size of some councils is
the problem, there is equally no hard evidence that amalgamating them into
larger councils is the solution. That it
is the solution to some problem or other is not in doubt of course – but the
problems which it solves are more to do with a populist attempt to cull the
number of politicians, and a rather less open and honest attempt to strengthen
the control of the centre.
I’m not opposed
to reform or re-organisation of local government; on the contrary, I think we
need a root and branch review of what powers local government should have, and form
and size should flow from that. To be
worthwhile, local government needs to have clearly defined powers and be left
to exercise them. That isn’t what we are
getting though – we are getting a process which simply implements the already
formed prejudices of centralising politicians who are accreting power into
their own hands.
The surprise is
not that one Labour councillor from Gwent is expressing his opposition; it’s
the fact that he seems so isolated.
4 comments:
He is quite right, the 1960's local government commission for Wales interim report makes fascinating reading about the capacity of certain councils to do things. Praising Anglesey County Council for progressive policies and damming Denbighshire for inefficiency (an education committee of 105 members for example). However I think your basic premiss is right. I have come to the conclusion we need two tiers plus the community councils. Democratise the joint boards and nominated bodies under new directly elected regional authorities and return to district councils below them. Give real powers of tax raising and decision making to local government with central government money acting as an equalisation grant.
A friend of mine, with a better political brain than I, believes that the best size of a controlling authority varies with the subject that needs controlling. So no geographical solution is likely to be correct. Maybe 5 areas for waste or transport, 10 for planning and forty for education. (Just for arguments sake)
Glyn,
Exactly the point. Start from what decisions can and should be made at a level (or levels) more local than the national, and build structures around that. Instead of which we have a closed mindset - even from those claiming to be devolutionists - which is effectively arguing that 'bigger is always better'.
That was surely the reason for two-tier local government - some big things, some little
Post a Comment