Malcolm Prowle presents ideas for restructuring Welsh local government which takes account of the current socio-economic characteristics of Wales and future trends.
The last set of proposals from Welsh Government for local government restructuring in Wales now seem to have been buried following strong resistance from many quarters about the level of cost and disruption with a lack of clarity about the benefits to be gained. Basically they were the wrong proposals at the wrong time and the threat of forced mergers has now been lifted.
Does this mean that the issue of local government reorganisation in Wales can now be considered to be buried forever? Almost certainly the answer to this question must be no. Virtually everyone would agree that having 22 smallish local authorities in Wales is not a good idea and significant residual problems still remain. In the future the issues involved are bound to be resurrected over and over again. Indeed last week, a war of words erupted between the local government secretary, Alun Davies, and Welsh council leaders concerning the current local government structure and the demands for more funding from local government.
The key issue is what kind of local government restructuring does Wales need? When considering this, it is worth noting that there are two broad approaches which can be applied.
- Combining existing units – this involves combining existing local government units into a smaller number of larger organisations. This is the usual approach that was applied in the 1974 and 1996 local government reorganisations in Wales. Prior to 1974 Wales had 184 local authorities (13 counties, 4 county boroughs and 167 districts) and through merger this was reduced to 45 (8 counties and 37 districts). In the 1996 reorganisation, through merger, this was reduced still further to 22 unitary authorities.
- “Clean sheet of paper” – adopting a “Clean sheet of paper” approach to local government restructuring is one which ignores existing local government units. Instead it designs a structure for local government which fits the structure of Welsh society today, and for the future, and takes account of the current socio-economic characteristics of Wales and future trends.
If we look at Wales today, we would have to note that the socio-economic structure of Wales has changed enormously in the last 50 years or so since the discussions leading to the 1974 reorganisation of Welsh local government, when the process of combining existing local government units began. Consider just the following examples covering the last 50 years or so:
- People reside in different places compared to 50 years ago. For example, the large scale residential housing developments around Llantrisant did not exist 50 years ago
- They travel to work in different places, with different journeys and in different ways
- They spend their leisure time in different ways as can be seen with the growth of private leisure centres, the mass closure of public houses and the decline in church attendance
- They send their children to a wider range of schools as a consequence of the growth of Welsh-medium schools, faith schools and some children going to schools out of catchment
- They shop in different places as a consequence of the development of out of town retail parks and the growth of internet selling
- Transport links are very different compared to 50 years ago and this affects the journeys people make for work, leisure, retail etc. There are now three fast main link roads running east-west in Wales (the A55 in the North, with the M4 and A465, Heads of Valleys Road in the South) which were patchy or non-existent 50 years ago. Travel from North to South Wales is as difficult as it always was
- Life expectancy in 1960s was a full thirteen years lower than it is today. The ageing society and the growth of adult social care wasn’t even on the radar then
- The growth of conurbations and city-regions in Wales.
In the light of these sorts of changes, it seems unlikely that basing local government restructuring on combinations of existing and dated units is the right approach. Instead, I suggest it is important to go back to basics and develop a plan for restructuring Welsh local government using a “clean sheet of paper” approach. The current structure may no longer be relevant and we need to look at new options based on existing and future positions.
This is a time consuming and complex task and some of the factors which need to be considered include:
- Population size and trends
- Trends in population structure (age/sex)
- Needs for different services by different parts of the population
- The resource base of particular areas
- Travel patterns and transport links by residents
- The physical geography of the area
- The degree of community cohesion in different areas
- Potential coterminosity with other agencies such as police, Fire, NHS etc.
In the light of the above, I want to suggest that a future local government structure in Wales might look something like that shown below. Lack of available information means that I am not able to take account of all of the above factors at this point in time and so the table below tries to take account of population size and trends, physical geography, travel patterns, transport links and community cohesion.
|PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY TITLE||AREAS||POPULATION (000)|
|South Wales||Cardiff, Vale, South Taff Ely, South Caerphilly||620|
|South West Wales||Swansea, Neath/Port Talbot, Bridgend||520|
|North Wales||North Gwynedd, Conway, Anglesey, Denbigh||360|
|South East Wales||Newport, Monmouth, South Torfaen||300|
|Northern Valleys||Cynon Valley, Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent, North Torfaen, Rhymney Valley, Rhondda||330|
|West Wales||Carmarthen, Pembroke||310|
|North East Wales||Wrexham, Flint||360|
|Mid Wales||Ceredigion, Powys, South Gwynedd||250|
Now if the traditional ways of restructuring local government were disruptive and costly, isn’t the radical approach described above likely to be more so. Indeed it is, but this can be mitigated by some form of “migration” strategy.
Currently, collaboration between existing local authorities in Wales is evolving in relation to service provision and back office functions. I suggest this collaboration process should be encouraged and even accelerated. Over a period of years this ongoing collaboration should lead to closer union between local authorities with eventual merger taking place, after a period of years, more easily than might otherwise be the case. Such a migration approach has been successfully tried elsewhere in some London public services and the disruption involved can be much less than usual approaches.
The famous economist Maynard Keynes was quoted as saying that “In the long run we are all dead”. People have debated endlessly what it was the Keynes meant by this remark but it does seem that he was implying a criticism of the short termism that dominated economic policy in his day. No doubt he would also have criticised short termism in relation to policy on local government reorganisation!?
Finally, it should be noted that while local government restructuring, along the lines I have suggested, should produce a local government system more relevant to 21st century Wales than the present system, this is not a panacea for all ills. There are many other challenges, particularly those associated with increasing demand for services and limitations on resources. Local government in Wales faces huge challenges in meeting the increased demand for social care for the elderly consequent on the ageing population. No local government system can cope with these challenges without radical changes to the way in which social care is financed. Hence the ongoing debate in Wales about the potential merits for a social tax supplemental tax.
All articles published on Click on Wales are subject to IWA’s disclaimer.
8 thoughts on “Restructuring Welsh local government: What about the long term?”
I suggest that Mr Prowle looks at
1) reorganisations of public services over the last 30 years and see if he can find a merger that has been beneficial (try NRW to start )
2) look at European and commonwealth local government structures
3) Inefficiency of scale
4) cost of reorganisation
Finally can I suggest people read my pamphlet on Local government
Re your comments. I suggest the following:
You are right that mergers in the public sector are generally not successful. As a consultant or employee I have worked on over twenty such mergers in various parts of the public sector and the results are disappointing. The basic reason is that they take too long, are too political and involve too much consultation. I summarised this in this paper. PROWLE, M.J., 1999. Organisational mergers in the public sector. Accounting and Business.
The costs and disruption associated with the usual style of local government reorganisation are very high. I should know – I worked in Welsh local government in the last two reorganisations in 1974 and 1996. I have highlighted the cost issues in the paper below. https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2014/02/wales-cost-council-cull
The efficiency or inefficiency of scale idea is a commonly held myth. The work of George Boyne, Rhys Andrews at Cardiff Business School clearly indicate this in an empirical manner with regards to local government. Broader evidence from other types of organisation show that the main drivers of performance are things like culture and leadership not structures and size. If small size was such a “killer” then you wouldn’t get all these successful small scale start-ups in Silicon Valley
With respect, I don’t think you have understood what I am arguing for. Everyone agrees that 22 local authorities in Wales is too many. What I am arguing for is an evolutionary approach to merger involving closer and closer working by groups of local authorities over a period of years leading to merger, and not a big-bang solution which is so disruptive. However, I am proposing an evolution towards a model of local government based on the state of Wales in the 21st century not the 1960s. This means looking more closely at what the final structure should look like. The problem is that collaborative working in Welsh local government leaves much to be desired.
What about economic viability Malcolm? How will the super poor Northern Valleys pay for its services and where would they be? The only link between these valleys is the Head of the valleys road in the north but the bulk of traffic, for work and services will continue to travel south. Dividing the valleys from Cardiff was the gerrymandered result of the 1971 division of Glamorgan. It made no economic sense and it hasnt since.
Have you read my pamphlet
Why is 22 too many, have you looked at local authorities across Europe?
Everyone agreed we should stay on the gold standard!
There is a strong argument for the two tier system with unitary authorities in the cities
The existence of the Assembly stops that happening
If we change it needs to be to improve services and accountability not just to reduce the number of councils
Reorganisation is buried. This article omits the essential ingredient – political will. It isn’t there in either the National Assembly or the Welsh Government. Instead local government is essentially invited by a succession of ministers to reorganise itself, which isn’t going to happen. Seven years of debate, as many Green and White Papers, maps, committees and policy statements is ample evidence of this failure of public policy. As is the Beecham collaboration agenda – a failed experiment supported only by assertion; but no evidence. The only credible counter argument is a series of Northamptonshire style financial collapses – which is very possible.
Northamptonshire has a population of over 700,000.
Surely Rutland with a population of under 40,000 should be the first to fail if population size is all important
Thank you for your comments. I would respond as follows:
• The point about the valleys authority and its resource base has been pointed out previously and is a valid criticism. My answer is that this can be remedied by changing the approach to distributing revenue support grant. This is much easier to do with a smaller number of authorities.
• Northamptonshire County Council is a failure of leadership and management (at both political and officer level) not a consequence of structure. They have now appointed a new Director of finance who has a herculean task
• In many European countries, local authorities have a smaller range of services (e.g. Sweden where I have worked) and do not always run strategic services like schools and social care. Thus small size is less of an issue
• I agree there is a lack of political will. Consider the issue of social care which is in a mess throughout the UK. It is essential to have more resources. However, this is not an economic issue but a political issue. There is a need for political will to raise revenues through some form of taxation. However, I would not bet my shirt on this happening
Overall I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that I have the perfect answer –clearly not. However, the key issues are:
• to have a local government structure which is fit for purpose in the 21st century and not based on borders established many decades ago
• to have a route map to eventual merger which is evolutionary and avoids major disruption
Yes if you ignore problems of accountability it is possible to devise a formula in which every one else pay`s for most of the valleys services. However you haven’t addressed my second criticism, which is where to locate the services? The Valleys arent flat and people travel up and down: moving from one valley to the next is more difficult and moving across several valleys a nightmare. I know it is possible to go from Ebbw Vale to Hirwaun on the Heads of Valleys quite easily but that convenience only exists for those living near that road. The bulk of the population will travel south to shop, work and for leisure. The only sensible place to locate services is where the rivers meet and not where they start.
By the way I was brought up in Maerdy and then lived in Aberdare for the next 10yrs . Have a look at a map of travel times and work out where Maerdy residents should be administered from.
Comments are closed.