Carwyn Jones: We know that public services face unprecedented challenges, with a perfect storm of downward pressure on funding and increased demand on services. These pressures are not sustainable, and something has to change. That is why the commission that is now known—by its shorthand, I suppose—as the Williams commission was set up. What then did we ask the commission to do? Quite simply, we asked it to produce an honest, independent and robust report on how our services are governed and delivered now, and how that needs to change in order to meet the needs and aspirations of people today, and to provide a sustainable basis for the future.
The report is comprehensive and detailed. Some of it makes uncomfortable reading for local government, for us, and for other public services here in Wales. There may be things in the report with which we do not agree, but we will respond positively and we will seize this opportunity to make a real change to how our services are delivered.
What, then, does the report tell us? It tells us that performance is far too patchy. The variation in performance between authorities is described as ‘wide and often inexplicable’. It cannot be right that one council can take more than a year longer to complete a disabled facilities grant scheme than another or that more than one in four looked-after children in one local authority had three or more placements last year, while in another the figure is less than one in 25. There are problems with scrutiny and governance, which are not effectively supporting and driving improvement, and the commission finds that basic standards and principles of governance are not being applied consistently and effectively. Scrutiny needs more status, and its capacity to drive change needs to be enhanced. There are wide variations in efficiency. If all authorities were to reduce their waste-handling costs to the level achieved by Swansea, the saving would be around £24 million per year. If all authorities were to reduce their corporate costs to the level achieved by Rhondda Cynon Taf, the saving would be around £38 million per year.
We do not accept that there is widespread deterioration in local public services, because the report highlights the consistently strong performance from fire and rescue services in Wales, but some services are not where we want them to be, and demand is only likely to increase in the coming years. We want to see better governance and better delivery of services despite these challenges. Resources are scarce, and they will remain scarce as the UK Government continues to reduce public expenditure. We cannot afford to wait to act until a more favourable financial climate returns.
The commission’s findings cannot be considered in isolation of the wider financial position. We are clear that this is not just about pounds and pence, but about improved performance, better governance and stronger local delivery, as well as making better use of limited resources. Efficiency and value for money are important, but they are not the yardstick by which alone we will measure success; we also need to think about the cost of doing nothing, because inaction would be very costly.
Let me be clear: this report was never just about mergers in local government, although that is, of course, where the focus of the discussion has centred in the past week. I am clear, and the commission is clear, that reorganisation is not a magic bullet; we cannot just reorganise or merge and then sit back and wait for things to improve. We need better governance, better leadership, more effective scrutiny, and a proper relationship between those who provide a service and those who rely on it. We particularly need to see better scrutiny of senior officers in some authorities.
Many of us will remember the last reorganisation. It is inevitable that people will fall back on previous experiences, but what takes place this time will be very different. The commissioner recommends merging existing authorities, not splitting authorities or, indeed, redrawing boundaries. We need to think carefully about how that transformation is supported, but we will not be replicating structures that were designed for a different time and a different task, unless they help us to deliver.
We will be working on our response to the commission in the coming months, but other work does not stop. We will continue to develop and implement reforms to improve public services. We expect all of those responsible for delivering devolved services to continue to improve their delivery, and that authorities will continue to work together to improve performance. Collaboration will remain vital, no matter how boundaries are drawn. Vulnerable people require public service partners to collaborate, integrate and work together to design and deliver services around the needs of individuals, families and communities. We know that collaboration makes a difference—the national procurement service being one example.
Let me talk about the timing. It is quite clear from the wording in the report that the report’s recommendations will need to be taken forward swiftly. As far as my party is concerned, we will be consulting between now and the end of March. We will then arrive at a formal party position and we intend then to move forward based on that position. We need to get it right, of course. We have the powers to make the legislation needed to implement changes, but, inevitably, developing that legislation will take time.
Like all parties, we will be consulting with our members. There will be a Government position by March. After that, we will look to move forward with legislation. I do not want to hang around on this issue, but, as I am sure Members will appreciate, there is a need to take soundings in terms of ensuring that party members are fully aware of what the proposals are. However, this is not a process that can take months. This is a process that needs to be done properly, of course, but it has to be done in a timely manner.
I invite other parties, of course, to put forward their views on this matter. I would like to work towards consensus, where it is achievable. It is preferable that these changes should go through on the basis of as much cross-party support as possible. That, of course, will need discussion between the parties, and there can be no timetable imposed on that. I think that it was misunderstood, at one point, that somehow the Williams commission was suggesting that we should be in a position to agree and legislate on everything by Easter. Clearly, that is not going to be the case. However, it does show, of course, that there is a need to move forward with change sooner rather than later.
Turning to the amendments, we will support amendment 1. We want to put in place a time frame. That time frame in terms of the delivery of potential legislation will need to be in place by the end of March or beginning of April. That is something that will be done, hopefully, in consultation with other parties. In terms of amendment 2, we will support that. We will have to oppose amendment 3, because much has already been taken forward to integrate. Annex G of the full report, for example, from the commission presents a comprehensive analysis of health and social care integration, with a clear rationale for the commission’s conclusions on this matter. So, the issue was fully considered, although, of course, the commission did not come to the conclusion that there should be a full process of integration of health and social care under the aegis of one body. In terms of amendment 4, we will support that. Inevitably, if there are to be fewer authorities, there will be fewer councillors. In time, consideration will have to be given to what the cap is in terms of the number of councillors per authority.
In terms of amendments 5 and 6, we cannot support these amendments. The commission’s report is about delivering better service for the citizen, not electoral arrangements. Leaving aside the views of the different parties on the single transferrable vote, for example, this is not the right vehicle, I believe, for examining this issue, now and in the future. What is important is that we have a robust system of public service delivery in Wales, one that, at the end of the day, delivers consistent services for the citizen. That is the major issue identified in the commission’s report, namely the inconsistency of what happens across Wales. More needs to be done to ensure that that inconsistency disappears. That means looking very carefully at the nature of local government organisation in Wales—that is true—looking at how public services can work together and making sure that we have a structure for the delivery of public services that will stand the test of time for many years to come.
Deputy Presiding Officer: I have selected the six amendments to the motion and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of William Graham.
Janet Finch-Saunders: I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 calls on the Welsh Government to indicate a time frame to respond to the recommendations in the report of the commission on public service governance and delivery. If you are minded to implement the recommendations, we call on you to define the function and structure of any new local authority areas, and a transparent system of monitoring and evaluating service delivery in those areas.
We support amendment 2, tabled by Elin Jones, and the report’s findings of the need to reduce complexity in public services and that any changes to public service delivery should improve outcomes for our citizens.
However, First Minister, I am somewhat disappointed to learn today that, while this report was only out last week and we were calling for you to provide some very strong leadership on this, you are now saying that you expect all the mergers to be in place for Easter. However, until you have had those discussions—[Interruption.] You have said that all mergers were to be in place—[Interruption.]—or agreed by Easter. What you did not tell us last week was that this is all dependent on your own party discussions. However, in the media you have made great statements about how this very much needs cross-party support.
The Williams commission, although welcomed as a means to look strategically across all public service delivery, poses as many questions as it does recommendations. The lack of reference of a cost-benefit analysis within the original remit of the commission is somewhat baffling and raises further concern. Local authorities the length and breadth of Wales are looking to you, First Minister, to show strong leadership. The question remains as to how we got where we are, and where we are now in terms of empowering those charged with administrating their duties in delivering essential and vital services in a transparent, accountable and democratic manner.
It is rather interesting, is it not, that 12 of the key recommendations focus on the need to up the game in terms of the current workings within our public service delivery? This begs the question as to whether there is strong leadership within the Welsh Government and whether it is fully accountable to the people of Wales.
You have often stated that local government is unsustainable. So, we ask this now: where is your clear direction of travel? Why do we have to wait until you have had those discussions within your own party? The people of Wales deserve better.
Carwyn Jones: I am very grateful that she raises the point about leadership. What is her party’s view on that?
Janet Finch-Saunders: This is a report commissioned by you. The ball is very much firmly in your court, First Minister.
Our front-line workers, senior management, executive and backbench members are now left in limbo, unable to plan on a short, medium or long-term basis. Many employees in local authorities have actually gone through a very painful and lengthy job evaluation process. Only yesterday, we highlighted the same concerns that the Wales Audit Office did about the lack of planning for the short term and mid term in financing in local authorities. We have witnessed many scandals across Wales. There have been spurious pension payments, behind-closed-doors increases and costly compromise agreements, not to mention the sad number of local authorities in special measures. It is four years until these mergers take place, but what mergers are these? All mergers are to be agreed in principle by Easter.
First Minister, you need to come out now and state your clear way forward. Will your proposals to merge two or three authorities—. You know, we have so many issues that would address it. Software: across the piece now, there have been problems with data sharing and problems like that. You owe it now to your staff or senior officers, elected members, service providers and, most importantly, our service users and taxpayers to step up to the mark. The spotlight for public service delivery responsibility is now upon you. It is time to step forward, step out of the shadows and speak up.