The ability of local government to make a difference to local people was the focus of a special debate hosted at the Senedd, in Cardiff Bay, by the Bevan Foundation.
In a wide ranging discussion, members of the public quizzed leading Welsh politicians and activists on the impact of last week’s election results and the prospects for local government across Wales.
Vivian Hepworth, chief executive of Grayling Political Strategy, chaired Dr Brian Gibbons, Labour Minister for Social Justice and Local Government, and Nick Ramsay AM, Conservative spokesman for local government.
Kate Bennett, Wales national director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Professor Steve Martin, Director at the Centre for Local and Regional Government Research at Cardiff University also took part.
Early discussion focused on whether, in the modern media climate, it was possible for there to be a genuine local election on local issues. Although broadly positive, the panel differed in what they felt lay behind a perception that local politics was driven by a national agenda.
Professor Martin said: “It’s about councils being able to communicate with the public about what they are responsible for, why they have taken the decisions they have and what is up for grabs.
“I want to desperately cling to the belief that there is politics and place.”
That view was endorsed by Mrs Bennett, who cited the results of May 1 as evidence that even amid high profile national issues, voters still make their choice on local issues. She said: “I think the fact that we have had a different voting pattern here in Wales to England and we’ve had a different pattern between the councils of people choosing what to do, shows people have made their votes on the basis of local personality.
“A lot of people stuck to their guns and voted the way they wanted to.”
Dr Gibbons conceded that his party had been hurt by national issues – particularly the abolition of the 10p income tax rate. He said: “The national media coverage is important and depending on the issue, maybe it can be decisive.
“There may be a media element but I suspect amongst a fair number of core Labour voters there was a direct personal experience as well and people did want to give the Labour party a good kicking. I think the people who did raise it, raised it with passion.”
Mr Ramsay said there was always a balance of issues in local elections. “There’s a pendulum and it depends on where you are in the national cycle the effect that national politics has on the local elections,” he said.
“I really think the 10p came at a time when it had a big impact and fitted into a psyche where people were already a bit fed up with one party. Perhaps it was the last nail in the coffin in terms of the overall control pattern.”
The panellists largely refused to be drawn on what the local election results might mean on the national stage, though Professor Martin said he believed there was still a lot to play for. He said: “My sense, and it’s a hunch more than anything, that it is not unrecoverable.”
Dr Gibbons agreed, but emphasised the Labour party would have to show it was genuinely listening and prepared to change. He said: “They’ve got to do it in a way that voters are convinced that remediation isn’t just a short term political fix but does represent a reorientation of priorities.
“If it just a political fix, people will see through that and we will struggle to recover.”
An audience question shifted the panel towards how effective local government can be within its current structure and in light of the 2006 Beecham review, a study of public service delivery across Wales. The report was dubbed as the largest review of its type for a decade, and recommended more partnership between local authorities in an effort to boost performance.
Key questions for the panel were the degree of Assembly control of local authorities and whether structural change was needed to have any real impact. Mrs Bennett thought the election results provided the opportunity for change. She said: “I thought the change in politics might be seen as a green light: with such a big political change anyway, we might as well go the whole hog and have the local government reorganisation.”
Dr Gibbons disputed the value of a root and branch reorganisation, but insisted that his office needed to drive change in local authorities. He said: “Local government hasn’t got a good record of recognising its own deficiencies.
“Where serious failures have been identified, they have been almost invariably picked up by external inspections. The change agenda has been driven from outside.
“The big challenge for local authorities is to demonstrate a capacity to identify weakness and drive change internally. If it can’t demonstrate that then clearly I think the way local government in Wales operates needs a more fundamental review.”
Both Mr Ramsay and Professor Martin cautioned against structural change for the sake of it. Professor Martin said: “I am still very Beecham-esque in my view that local government reorganisation is a complete distraction that will lead to infighting and all sorts of things over the next three or four years and we will emerge down the line with all the same capacity problems that we have now.”
Mr Ramsay added: “Beecham was right to say ‘let’s get the elements working together and deliver public services and not just focus on the structure’, because we all know what happens. In ten years time, whatever party is in power, you end up with the whole thing being thrown out again and another reorganisation at massive cost.”
A crucial issue alongside the delivery of public services is the funding giving to local government to provide those services. A key debate in Wales surrounds the Barnett formula, a Treasury calculation to ensure the wealth of the United Kingdom is fairly distributed – leading to bonuses for Wales and Scotland at the expense of England.
There are growing arguments for the formula, originally drafted in 1978 as a short-term, pre-election measure, to be reviewed. Professor Martin argued that taking a fresh look at the formula was sensible – but expressed concern at the possible outcome.
He said: “I am not sure for how many years we can have our cake and eat it, how long we can give ourselves free prescriptions, free school breakfasts, free swimming and at the same time we effectively expect to be subsidised by parts of England.
“But to open that up in the next two or three years feels to me a bit premature. Opening up the Barnett formula might not lead to the conclusion that some people in Wales would like.”
The note of caution was echoed by Dr Gibbons. He said: “I agree with Steve that we can’t make an assumption that there is going to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
“I think we are probably under-funded, but the risk is that we are in the margin of error of any formula and it is a gamble. But I agree it probably should be looked at.”
Mr Ramsay was more keen to take an immediate look at the formula. He said: “It is time for a review and I think we need to move to a much more needs-based formula. I think it is a credit to Lord Barnett that it has actually lasted since 1978 and I think it has worked – but I think we are 30 years down the line.
“What exactly replaces it I’m not sure but I think we do need to look at basing it more on need.”
Later in the debate, the audience shifted discussion toward on-going problems with turnout and representation at the local level. Local elections usually bring out around 30 per cent of voters and the councillors returned are typically white, male, middle-class and aged, on average, about 60.
Mrs Bennett argued it simply isn’t possible to change these problems by persuasion. She said: “I am inclined to be in favour of compulsory voting, but I think there are people for whom all the choices are very unattractive.
“One of the things we have learnt is that you never get any more women into politics by good intentions. Throughout the world, the only things that have got more women into politics have been special measures such as quotas, women-only shortlists or women-only seats.”
Mr Ramsay disagreed with this kind of positive discrimination and emphasised his opposition to compulsory voting. He said: “I think the right to vote is also the right not to vote and I would be very concerned about a system where if you say to people that if they choose not to vote, then you almost criminalise them.
“I think we have to look at other ways of getting people to engage in a political process. I’m probably not providing many answers here – I know what I’m against.”
Dr Gibbons said the key to turnout was convincing voters that going to the polls is worth their time. He said: “Where the vote is a foregone conclusion it is difficult to motivate people and maybe there are issues where there isn’t a lot of difference between the parties.”
He also argued that councillors don’t necessarily need to be typical of their constituents to attract enthusiasm for the political process. He said: “It is true councillors are not the mirror image of the composition of the population, but in representative democracy the question is are they representative, if not typical?
“There was never a time when our elected members reflected our society or even reflected male society.
“We have made real efforts in this, though in some places we’ve paid a hell of a price for doing it.”
Professor Martin agreed there was no need for councillors to mirror their constituents, but he did call for a remodelling of what all councillors were expected to do. He said: “I would be looking at the kind of role we expect councillors to fulfil and see if we can have some councillors who only need to give about 10 hours a week, whose job was not to sit on endless scrutiny committees but to represent their patch and do very little else.
“That wouldn’t appeal to some people who desperately want to get into the Cabinet, but I think it could appeal to quite a significant number of people who have got children, a job, a life to live.”
On turnout, Professor Martin argued the candidates are less important than voters engaging with the process. He said: “I don’t think people are stupid. Where they think it’s going to make a difference they tend to vote.
“There was a lovely research project in the United States where political parties knocked on doors in some areas and not in other areas. They believe they proved that for every 14 doors you knock on, you get one extra person turning out, generally in terms of getting your own core vote out.
“Just make sure you’re knocking on the right doors.”
(Published: Thursday 15 May 2008, Bevan Foundation)
