The Welsh Government introduced the Local Government Wales Bill in January this year. What will it mean for the ability of local government to deliver effective services in Wales going forward?
Like any reorganisation there will be an expectation from stakeholders that services would improve and that reform will deliver efficiencies, so a win-win situation for all concerned. Most people involved in delivering reorganisation and reform of public services know that it is not as easy as it sounds to meet those outcomes.
In Wales, the Bill enables (based on recommendations by the Williams Commission) reorganisation of the existing 22 principle authorities down to 12. Interestingly, the Draft Bill enables a two-stage process with the first stage being consideration of voluntary merger proposals and the second stage dealing with the main merger proposals for the remaining authorities.
The risk here is that voluntary proposals move away from objectives established by the Welsh Government through the commission of having stronger more resilient authorities, financially sustainable bodies with a clear ability to deliver more integrated services across the public sector. That means looking to closely match boundaries that already exist for health and other services to provide for greater collaboration in service delivery. The risk of voluntary mergers is that it allows local politics to enter the debate and shifts the focus away from the objectives the Welsh Government has stated. Voluntary mergers should not be allowed to lead to a position where financial strength is concentrated in a few at the expense of financially weaker bodies.
The legislation allows for the setting up of transitional arrangements to facilitate the merger of authorities. These include transition bodies and shadow authorities. What needs to be clear in the legislation or any supporting regulations, aside from their function, is what powers they have. Will the shadow authorities for example be able to enter into loan of debt arrangements for the acquisition of assets for the newly merged authority for example? These powers need to be carefully planned in order to facilitate merger and also to minimise the risk of existing bodies or transition bodies entering into onerous commitments that the newly merged authorities are left to manage.
Reform costs money, at least in its initial stages, with a view to delivering more efficient services over the longer term. The Welsh Government has not made any significant provision so far to assist in the financial burden of reform. Work by CIPFA has suggested that the cost of reform could be between £160m and £268m, which will place an increased burden on local government at a time when its budgets are under increasing pressure and there is clear evidence from auditors that some authorities are using reserves to finance everyday services.
There is a clear vision of what reformed public services with an improved devolution settlement for Wales should look like as set out in the Welsh Government’s Devolution, Democracy and Delivery, Improving Public Services for People in Wales document. However the vision for local government now needs a plan to ensure it is funded, has real outcomes (qualitative and quantitative) that support the objectives from the Williams Commission and is realistic in its timeframes for delivery. It’s an old cliché, but failing to plan is planning to fail and in this case the risks are high.
