Anglesey: An island unto itself
Bubble — By Daran Hill on February 25, 2010 7:00 am
A bridge to another world?
A PERSON may know a fair amount about politics in Wales, but still know little about the workings of the Isle of Anglesey local council. Being so far removed from the island geographically does not help, but even greater is the distance between the appearance of good governance and, to adulterate a Kinnock phrase, “the grotesque chaos” of a council which appears to have lost its way.
Personality politics rule in Anglesey. In Parliament it is the only Welsh seat to have been represented by all four of the main political parties over the last 50 years. On the council, it is similarly probably the most difficult political set-up to make sense of in Wales. Candidates go to the polls as independents or with party banners, but subsequently divide up into a number of separate groups.
For example, prior to the local government election of 2008, the council was divided into 15 members of the ruling Anglesey Forward (Independent) group. Nine described themselves as Original Independents (including Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors), three described themselves as Partners for Progress, four were Radical Independents, three were unaffiliated and the remaining six made up the Plaid Cymru group. In other words, the labels on the ballot papers did not reflect the make-up of the council after the election. Instead, divisions have been usually based on personality differences than on any ideological divides.
Consequently Anglesey councillors have been at the centre of a number of political scandals over the years, and the 1990s saw a number of critical reports by the Audit Commission, among others. The Wales Audit Office published a particularly critical report in February 2008. The scathing report began:
The Isle of Anglesey County Council has a long history of not being properly run, from its inception in 1996 to the present day. This has had a corrosive effect on the exercise of its functions and leaves it poorly placed to meet future challenges.
The auditors found that clashes between councillors meant they were unable to concentrate on addressing important issues. They also raised concern about the planning process and residential care. Here are just a few of the chapter headings of the report:
- Weak self-regulation of inappropriate behaviour and conflict has had a corrosive effect and wastes council resources;
- The council is ineffective in dealing with issues of conflict and inappropriate behaviour;
- The council has failed to respond to a number of previous external reviews that have highlighted issues of conflict and inappropriate behaviour;
- Weak political group structures contribute to a lack of control and sanction;
- The council’s reputation has been seriously damaged;
- Conflict has led to a rift between political and managerial leadership.
After the 2008 local election there was at least the opportunity for some change and improvement, when 15 new members were elected on to the council, and each of the four parties – and particularly Labour - increased their presence at the expense of independents, bucking the trend in other parts of Wales. It might have been expected that the influx of new councillors would dilute some of the old personality-based divisions in the county.
Is the sun setting or rising over Anglesey?
But old cultures remained ingrained and problematic. In early 2009 the council’s auditor concluded that the authority had not taken effective action in response in previous recommendations made by the Wales Audit Office, and advised that the Auditor General should undertake a full inspection of the council’s corporate governance. Following this identification of continuing failure, the Welsh Assembly Government took action. Then local government minister Brian Gibbons AM appointed an Anglesey Recovery Board and also an interim head of paid service (Managing Director) of Anglesey, David Bowles. These steps, unprecedented since the advent of the Assembly, were a significant hardening of tone. But harder still was to come.
A little over a month ago David Bowles took the extraordinary step of publishing an open letter to Assembly Members about the operation of the council. In it he said:
The council has been bedevilled by personality driven, petty parochial vindictive factional infighting. This is a disgraceful example of an attempt to use an officer as the meat in the middle of the sandwich of personality driven infighting; even worse those involved see nothing wrong with dragging an officer’s personal and private life into these matters.
I have been appointed by the Minister and … am therefore not bound by some of the constraints which may face other officers within local authorities.
I did consider marking this letter Private and Confidential but decided against it on the basis that it would get leaked anyway. I regret having to write to all Members in these terms rather than just the few but that is a consequence of how the few conduct themselves.
Such words were not used lightly. Carl Sargeant, who took on the local government brief on entering the Welsh Assembly Government as a Cabinet Minister last December, has made dealing with the errant authority one of his top priorities. On receiving a copy of David Bowles’ letter he said:
I am not prepared to tolerate a continuation of such unacceptable behaviour from a minority of members within the council. I will be seeking the views of the Board as to what further action they deem to be necessary to ensure that the council’s recovery is not blighted by this or any further incidents like it.
And yesterday, Sargeant went further. While he acknowledged that some progress had been made, he stressed that much more needs to be changed and warned he would not hesitate to take further action if improvement is not achieved quickly. He first demanded of the council that “misbehaviour needs to be addressed properly and anyone who obstructs recovery must be dealt with.”
This action needs to be combined with an improvement of the operation of the standards committee including what sounds like a bizarre request that “councillors must serve as members of the committee so that they can themselves contribute to maintaining standards.” As his statement goes on to stress, this already happens everywhere else in Wales. He also delivered a stern warning on the operation of the scrutiny committees of the council. And all this comes with the most thinly veiled threat perhaps ever made by an Assembly Minister:
I do not want to be involved in running a council that should be running itself. I do not want to give you more stringent and detailed directions but be in no doubt that I can and, if necessary, I will. I could, for instance, establish and dissolve committees, make internal and external appointments, amend your constitution, your allowances or your arrangements for delegated powers. I could even take functions off you altogether… I do not want to contemplate the consequences of failure and I doubt you would want to either. Failure to complete the tasks required will drive me to consider the future of the council as an autonomous body. Do not force me to go there.
Carl Sargeant sounds like he means it. He reads the situation in Anglesey as dire, and if there is not a remarkable culture change in the authority, then who in public life in Wales would condemn the minister for taking decisive and radical action? The ball is in Anglesey’s court – and the court is in session.
Tags: Anglesey, Carl Sargeant, local government
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
23 Comments
I wonder if it would now be prudent for the Isle of Anglesey County to be merged with Gwynedd County? Perhaps the additional councilors between the two could offer more of an opportunity to offer better governance. A combined council would dilute the factionalism on the island and lessen the impact on personality politics- insomuch as they would now have to make political alliances with a wider council.
Additionally, we did have the conversation some weeks back, here on WalesHome and on Betsan Powys blog that 22 counties are way too much anyway.
Unless these councilors break the law, I do not think any action can or should be taken against them except at the ballet box. They have been elected, after all.
unsure about Mon, but yeah, 22 counties is ridiculous. We should go back to the 8 “preserved counties”. Clwyd, Gwynedd, Dyfed, Powys, West Glam, Mid Glam, South Glam, Gwent. And then stick to them! The Local Government Wales act was stupid bureaucracy just for the sake of it, and should go the same way as the Quango.
The problem with the preserved counties is that they are extremely large and unwieldy. Already we have decisions concening the Tawe valley taken either in Port Talbot or in Llandrindod, and the main effect of larger authorities would be to make this situation the rule rather than the exception. The question that no-one has ever answered satisfactorily is what a principal area is for. My personal suspicions are:
1) that the people of Ynys Môn are getting the local government they deserve: we should respect their democratic judgment and abolish wasteful standards committees and various other legislation that ties democratically-elected councillors’ hands (such as that which forces planning committees to act in accordance with development plans, regardless of whether that is the appropriate decision for the community); and:
2) that we have far too few principal areas; the only people who benefit from larger areas are civil servants, as it increases their budgets and reduces their accountability.
The tail that is wagging the local government dog is local education authorities: these must be done away with — despite having been used as a tool by civil servants to enlarge local authorities since the 1960s, they are not a matter of representation, but one of management, which is done much better by headteachers, governors, and parents, with financial support coming directly from the Ministry in Cardiff Bay. John Major’s introduction of Grant Maintained schools was a step in the right direction, and now would be a good time to drop the partisan silliness that formed the opposition to this policy in the 1990s and instead roll it out throughout Wales.
What is ridiculous is having essentially powerless community councils in large towns (such as Aberystwyth and Haverfordwest) that were formerly municipal boroughs that exercised similar powers to principal areas successfully for many decades.
But returning to our Ynys Môn muttons, I am reminded of the Yes Minister episode in which Sir Humphrey tells Jim Hacker that it is his job to discipline a local authority because they are one of the “least efficient” in the country. “Least efficient”, we discover, means least efficient at returning forms, and the independent advice is that they are in fact the most efficient at providing front-line services. So when I hear the Minister berating Ynys Môn for such heinous crimes as politicians actually debating with one another and saving money by failing to fill a senior civil service vacancy in a recession, I must conclude that Ynys Môn is almost inevitably the best council in Wales.
Anglesey Council’s problems have been ongoing for at least 20 years. The current exec – and leader especially – seem to be making a good go of it but it seems that they still have some individuals who are causing problems.
The question I would like to ask is this – why not name those individuals? We keep being told that it is only a handful. There are plenty of rumours doing the rounds, but it would be better if they were to be named officially.
So go on, Minister, name them.
David wrote: “Unless these councilors break the law, I do not think any action can or should be taken against them except at the ballet box. They have been elected, after all.”
I couldn’t disagree more. If the National Assembly was behaving like that I would expect the Secretary of State for Wales to dissolve it. If the House of Commons was behaving like that, I would expect HM The Queen to prorogue it.
James wrote: “So when I hear the Minister berating Ynys Môn for such heinous crimes as politicians actually debating with one another and saving money by failing to fill a senior civil service vacancy in a recession, I must conclude that Ynys Môn is almost inevitably the best council in Wales.”
Read the report. You’re making light of a very serious situation.
Dyfed wrote: “The question I would like to ask is this – why not name those individuals? We keep being told that it is only a handful. There are plenty of rumours doing the rounds, but it would be better if they were to be named officially.”
Not on this site, mate. As I wrote at the start, I’m no expert of Anglesey. I’ve just followed the reports.
“I couldn’t disagree more. If the National Assembly was behaving like that I would expect the Secretary of State for Wales to dissolve it. If the House of Commons was behaving like that, I would expect HM The Queen to prorogue it.”
With respect Daran, I do not believe the queen, or the secretary, has the right to remove a duly elected representative of the people without due process, and without that representative having broken a law.
I do consider myself a monarchist. However, no monarch, or his or her representative, has the right to remove a duly elected office holder- that is offensive to the electorate.
David – the Head of State or their representative has this power to collectively dismiss legislatures under the “British system” (bet that gets some people going…)
It is used to trigger elections, not remove individuals. Similarly, I understand that Carl Sargeant could dismiss the Council as a whole, but not individual councillors.
Such an action has a noble tradition. The most famous recent case in recent times where such a prerogative was exercised was Australia in 1975 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam).
My favourite such action though was Oliver Cromwell’s dismissal of the Rump Parliament in 1653 with the words: “You have been sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!.” Perhaps Mr Sargeant may wish to quote Cromwell should the situation arise when he is forced to go where he does not want to go.
In our prior threads here on WalesHome and on Betsan Powys blog, the consensus was gravitating to between four and 14 counties for Wales, with powers similar to that of Swiss Cantons. It should be noted that the US state of Massachusetts has a similar area as Wales, but several times the population, but only 14 counties (also, that state has far more authority vested in its state constitution). It is an interesting comparison, because they use far fewer counties yet have more then twice the population, while Wales has twice as many counties (“principle areas”) yet half of the population.
I would favour a reform back to the four counties approach, with Gwynedd for North Wales, Deheubarth* for West Wales, Powys for Mid Wales, and Glamorgan-Gwent for South Wales. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the 1967 White Paper on the subject. This division has a historic basis too, as Professor John Davies highlighted in his book A History of Wales. This was also the suggestion by the Local Government Commission for Wales (1957- 1967), which found the five county, 36 district approach as the best means for delivering essential services. And despite the downward spiral to 22 principle areas we have today, it is this basic four or five division of services we have today for law enforcement, fire and rescue, and health care remains divided between only 3 and 4 divisions.
With the four counties approach, I would favour Gwynedd for North Wales, Deheubarth* for West Wales, Powys for Mid Wales, and Glamorgan-Gwent for South Wales. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the 1967 White Paper on the subject.
I believe the four or five county approach would prove to be far more efficient, reducing bureaucracy and therefore reducing the cost to the taxpayer. Additionally, larger counties would allow for planning on a larger regional basis.
*Why they had chosen “Dyfed” rather then “Deheubarth” baffles me. Deheubarth was the polity which came to define West Wales before the coming of the Normans, while Dyfed proper only refers to the western most tip.
re: James D and Yes, Minister! I can see the wit in what you write! Nice! And so true too.
Perhaps its time that charters and constitutions included a provision for recall elections or a modification of the last local government act?
David Llewellyn. Swiss cantons are more the equivalent of US states, German lander or Canadian provinces, with full law making powers. I would be surprised if people would be advocating this. In the US most powers are exercised at a city level depending on the state. Some states do not have counties.
I wonder if it would now be prudent for the Isle of Anglesey County to be merged with Gwynedd County?
What has Gwynedd ever done to you?
I think bottom line is instead of playing political scientists talking about cantons, counties etc, perhaps it would better if we thought more about the people of Anglesey/ Ynys Mon who are affected by this.
Its almost like a failed business, and perhaps what Ynys Mon needs is a troubleshooter to fix it.
Michael, they’ve got the trouble shooter in David Bowles and a Minister who looks like he’s ready to act on the recommendations of the fixer.
@ Michael: “instead of playing political scientists….”
what else can we do? (Most of us) are not in positions where we can affect the running of a council or such. All we have is an opinion and a vote.
@ Al, I agree. We all visit these articles to offer our perspectives on the issues of the day, thus by and large many of us are ‘arm chair political scientists.’
Here is a link to wiki, which explains the division of functions which, to me, seem more streamlined and efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1972#Division_of_functions
“In Parliament it is the only Welsh seat to have been represented by all four of the main political parties over the last 50 years”
When in the last 50 years was it held by the Liberals/Liberal Democrats?
Megan Lloyd George as a Liberal.
“Megan Lloyd George as a Liberal”
Er……until 1951. So that’s not in the last 50 years then. Is it?
Does it really matter? Not really quibbling about.
Mea Culpa. Re Megan Lloyd George should have said sixty years not fifty. But time passes so quickly doesn’t it?
Nice to see people engaging with the big issues, though. Makes writing a piece like this so worthwhile…
Some interesting updates to the Anglesey story over on the Druid site, which comments on both the new strategic aim of the authority with its commitment to “Enhance the reputation of the Council and Island” (my italicisation); and also that Council Leader, Cllr Clive McGregor has expelled Cllr Elwyn Schofield from the ruling Original Independents grouping for undermining his authority.
http://druidsrevenge.blogspot.com/
It is also worth reading the following article from the Anglesey Mail of which the following is an illustrative extract of the problems facing the authority:
Last November Cllr Schofield was removed from his environment portfolio after he refused to sign a letter of apology from all cabinet members to officers.
The letter was an attempt to heal the rift between the parties and staff following a damning corporate governance inspection (CGI).
Cllr Schofield’s expulsion follows his behaviour at a meeting of the principal scrutiny committee last month.
According to the CGI, opposition councillors are supposed to be given the chairmanship of scrutiny committees.
But Cllr Schofield nominated one of his own members, Cllr Eric Roberts, into the position, angering council leader Cllr McGregor.
Cllr McGregor said: “Cllr Schofield chose to ignore an agreement I had negotiated with opposition leaders in relation to the role of chair of scrutiny.”
You can read the full article here:
http://www.theonlinemail.co.uk/bangor-and-anglesey-news/local-bangor-and-anglesey-news/2010/03/10/anglesey-councillor-thrown-out-of-power-group-66580-25993788/
Council leader Clive McGregor: “respect my authority!”
Cllr Schofield: “Screw you guys… I’m going home!”
*both are Cartman’s catchphrases from South Park.
Cllr Schofield seems to have broken political convention of the council in not nominating an oppositional candidate to the office. For this, he should be suffer the political consequences of his faction. But unless the people vote him out of office or he is found guilty of a crime, he is duly elected to the council.
*shurg*
Mayhap someone else will take him into their faction?
An interesting update piece here from the Druid:
http://druidsrevenge.blogspot.com/2010/07/carl-sargeant-to-anglesey-councillors.html
He quotes liberally from a letter from local government Minister Carl Sargeant, who says:
“But the underlying issues have never gone away. Council business too often focusses on internal disputes and rivalries rather than on delivering for the citizens of the Island. Too many members still prefer jockeying for their own personal advantage rather than serving those who elected them. As I said to you in February, the people of Anglesey do not care about petty squabbles. They care about vital services, and about their council providing leadership in these difficult times. They are still not getting that.”
The Minister clarifies his and WAG’s position with regards to the formation of the new Alliance:
“It is not for me to endorse this or any other arrangement, and neither I, the Recovery Board, or any of my officials had any part in negotiating the new alliance or its terms of engagement. We are determined not to enter into local politics or take sides. Nor do we have any power to approve the appointment of a Leader or any interest in influencing such a decision … But I welcome anything which leads to greater political stability within the Council and more focus on delivering for citizens rather than on internal squabbling….”
“Recent development have shown how quickly change can occur. That works both ways: arrangements can fall apart as fast as they can be put together. Accordingly I have asked my officials in the Recovery Board to prepare contingency plans which we can implement urgently if recovery falters and/or the alliance fails. Those plans would have drastic and possible permanent consequences for the council and its current membership. It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that they are never needed.”
The Druid himself then says:
This is a clear though veiled warning that if the current structure fails then the council will be taken over completely by the Welsh Assembly Government and run from Cardiff. Although this blog is often a critic of Anglesey County Council it also recognises that local people are best served by having decisions about services which affect them taken locally by their elected representatives. Accordingly the Druid hopes that all Councillors will heed Carl Sargeant’s warning and none will be so stupid as to ‘press the nuclear button’ which would lead to the collapse of current arrangements and a WAG take over. It is sad that I should need to write this, but it is time for Councillors to put Anglesey first.