ARB(10) Report

IN CONFIDENCE

BWRDD ADFER YNYS MÔN t ANGLESEY RECOVERY BOARD

Tenth Meeting, January 31st 2011

Report to the Minister for Social Justice and Local Government

1. The direction to the Isle of Anglesey County Council of August 12th 2009 included
the establishment of a Recovery Board to advise you on the progress that the
Council makes towards addressing the serious corporate weakness identified by
the Auditor General for Wales. As part of that, our terms of reference require us to
provide you with a report after each meeting.

2. The Anglesey Recovery Board met for the tenth time on Monday January 31st. This
is our report to you.

3. This meeting concentrated solely on evaluating the Council’s overall progress and
prospects for improvement, in light of recent political and other developments on
the island. You asked us in particular to consider the likelihood of a sustainable
recovery by this August; and by the local elections in May 2012.

4. In approaching this fundamental question, we had the considerable benefit of

detailed input from the Auditor General for Wales and his staff, the Chief Executive
of the WLGA and the Council’s interim Managing Director. Having discussed their
views, the Board reconvened in private to determine its own conclusions on that
question and on a number of issues which we believe inform it.

Recent instability and its causes

5. You will be aware of recent moves within the Council to unseat the current Leader
and form a different ruling administration. These seem to have arisen over
Christmas, and have continued since then despite an undertaking from the Leader
to stand down at May’s Council AGM.

6. We have no interest in personalities, or in the relative merits of the current and

other possible Leaders or political configurations. Those are matters for the
Council. The issue here is the continuing political instability within the Council; and
the tendency for members to concentrate on making or undermining political deals
rather than on delivering for the island.

7. This continued and continuing instability is highly disappointing. The recent

manifestation comes at a time when members should be concentrating on securing
recovery, setting a budget, developing the proposals for collaboration with
Gwynedd, and tackling the serious strategic and delivery challenges facing the
island – not least the potential development of Wylfa B. These issues demand
careful and detailed consideration; now is very much not the time for councillors to
 ARB(10) Report
IN CONFIDENCE

exercise their right to change the leadership and undermine decision-making and
stability in the executive. Seeking to do so, in our view, shows poor judgement and
a focus on a set of priorities which does not adequately emphasise the critical
issues facing the Council. Furthermore, the Board has in the past received
personal assurances from leading Councillors that in the interests of recovery and
the effective governance of the island they would not destabilise the administration.
While those assurances were welcome and indeed necessary, they now appear to
be without substance. As a consequence, we would treat any further, similar,
assurances with a good deal of caution.

The Council’s political culture

8. We believe this tendency to indulge in personality politics and the pursuit of power
presents a serious risk to recovery. It also presents a major distraction from
service delivery and denies officers the political and strategic leadership they
rightly need. The same tendency was at the heart of the WAO report which led to
our intervention. While there have been periods of relative calm, it seems that the
personal rivalries and allegiances that have characterised Anglesey politics over at
least the past fifteen years remain a significant factor. Thus, a sustainable
recovery is unlikely for as long as councillors, and in particular senior councillors,
choose to behave in this way.

9. However, there are some signs of positive change in the Council’s political culture.
Restructuring and enhancing the scrutiny system has created an environment
within which members can and do engage seriously and amicably with significant
policy and delivery issues such as modernising older people’s services, whether in
formal scrutiny or beyond. We saw a similar phenomenon at our seminar on
financial challenges and collaboration in October. We believe that a more
constructive form of politics and political behaviour can emerge where members
are placed in the right context and provided with suitable support. In time that
might succeed in supplanting the current culture. But equally that has relied
heavily on outside involvement: for instance the scrutiny system was reformed at
your instigation and all Board members actively participated in the seminar. At
present we find it unlikely that the Council would be able to sustain such changes
in its own right and without substantial ongoing outside support and direction.

10. It is also essential to recognise that there are at least some members of the
Council whose commitment to recovery is beyond doubt, and who have taken
considerable personal and political risks in demonstrating that commitment. They
and their actions have also attracted strong public backing in recent meetings,
indicating that the public mood fully supports recovery. That deserves recognition,
although it would be inappropriate for us to single out individuals here. The
problem is that some of those individuals now appear to despair of the prospects of
success: they may be too few in the face of a seemingly intractable political culture
that values personal advancement rather than reform.

11. At our first meeting in October 2009 we noted a widespread belief that the
Council’s problems could be attributed to the actions of a few ‘rogue’ councillors.
We did not accept that then and we do not accept it now. In any elected body
there may be a handful of members who seek to misbehave or further their own
ends. But they should be, and usually are, isolated and thwarted by the majority
 ARB(10) Report
IN CONFIDENCE

making clear that such attitudes are unacceptable, whether through party
discipline, clear support for and enforcement of a code of conduct, or more
informal means. In other words, problems of political culture and behaviour are
collective, and the majority needs to challenge the disruptive actions and views of
the minority.

12. We do not believe this has happened to a great enough extent. If there is a silent
majority of councillors who support changing the council’s political culture, they
have remained largely silent. Again, we have seen some evidence to the contrary,
especially in scrutiny. But those instances are sporadic, and too often undermined
by poor standards of chairing and adherence to procedure which allow bad
behaviour to persist. That needs to change urgently if a silent majority is to have a
chance of making itself heard and challenging the current culture: it is arguable
that this is among the single greatest obstacles to progress. Furthermore, plotting
to change the leadership can only reasonably take place if those involved have
confidence in securing majority support within the council. If councillors had made
it clear that they would not support such changes, political instability would not
have persisted.

13. Overall, the council’s political culture and values have improved to some extent,
but not quickly or deeply enough to give us full confidence in the possibility of
sustainable change and recovery by August 2011.

14. The problems of Anglesey go back at least 15 year since the creation of the new
Isle of Anglesey County Council and possibly for 30 years to include the time of the
District Council. One significant step in the creation of a refreshed and more
forward-looking Council in 2008 was the presence of 13 new members who did not
bring with them a significant amount of historical baggage from previous
disagreements.

Officers

15. We have heard extensive evidence over the past eighteen months about the ability
of the Council’s officer structure to support recovery. On the one hand, there are
grounds for concern about a lack of capacity and capability, especially in the
corporate centre and in support functions such as finance and HR. We are also
concerned that officers sometimes do not fully support members or contribute
adequately in council proceedings. On the other, it is clear that most of the
Council’s services remain at least adequate, with some of them being very strong.
Much credit must go to officers for their commitment to operational management
and service delivery in a time of considerable turmoil.

16. However, we are concerned that the long-standing political instability has seriously
undermined the general relationship between members and officers. A strong
relationship based on mutual respect and understanding is vital for any council to
discharge its duties effectively and to deliver services which meet local needs. We
are aware of very strong views now being expressed in staff meetings about the
impact of political instability on staff morale and a lack of faith in members; we
understand that you heard similar views at a recent meeting with trade union
representatives. We can have no view on the accuracy of such claims, but the
simple fact that they are being made suggests that this critical relationship could
 ARB(10) Report
IN CONFIDENCE

come under strain.

Collaboration with Gwynedd

17. Before Christmas the Council voted unanimously to support your proposals for full-
scale service integration with Gwynedd Council; councillors in Gwynedd did
likewise. That followed our seminar in October when members considered this
possibility seriously and honestly as a response to the current financial climate. It
is important for me to re-emphasise that this service integration was never
envisaged as a move towards merger and that both Councils were to retain a full
complement of democratically accountable Councillors.

18. There must, though, be serious doubt about whether such a project can proceed
while council politics are so unstable and unpredictable. We can have little
confidence in members engaging seriously with the issues involved; and while we
have no remit to consider the position of Gwynedd Council, the political and
practical risks to that organisation would appear to be unacceptably high.
Collaboration in the interests of efficiency and service quality must of course
proceed, as it must across Wales; and in that sense we believe the scoping study
should proceed. But full integration on the scale envisaged does not appear viable
in the current context of council politics.

19. That is highly regrettable. The October seminar was possibly the high point of our
involvement with the council: it appeared that councillors were fully committed to
taking decisive and fundamental action to address some very pressing issues. If
that is now not so then a major opportunity has been lost and it would be very
difficult to get it back. Furthermore, we understand that resistance to integration
lay behind at least some of the recent plotting, which in part aimed to undermine
the project.

Overall prospects and further action

20. You asked us for an overall view on the council’s progress and on how far a
sustainable recovery was reasonably foreseeable by August 2011 and by the
elections in May 2012.

21. We must reiterate that the Council has made progress under intervention. But
overall, the issues we have set out above lead us to conclude that a sustainable
recovery is not reasonably foreseeable by August, at least. There may be a better
chance of this by May 2012; but in view of the speed at which power and loyalties
shift within the council and the significant impact that can have, we cannot predict
that with confidence.

22. We are equally clear that this situation demands some more stringent form of
intervention. This should not be a matter of punishing councillors but rather of
ensuring that continued instability does not obstruct or detract from tackling the
serious strategic, financial and delivery challenges facing the island. In other
words, any further action needs to address to the particular problems we have
identified. It also needs to encourage, rather than abandon, some of the positive
progress and willingness that we have seen.
 ARB(10) Report
IN CONFIDENCE

23. The exact form any such action might take is of course a matter for you. We would,
however, like to offer some considerations which we believe could usefully inform
your decision.

24. Firstly, we believe that, on balance, councillors should not be absolved of all
decision-making responsibility. That would be unfair on those who have shown
genuine commitment to the recovery so far. In the short term, it is important that
they set a budget and council tax next month: much work has already been done,
and councillors must be responsible and accountable for the difficult choices that
that entails. In addition, and even more importantly, if Councillors were to lose their
decision-making responsibilities, there would be no clear assessment structure for
a return of powers.

25. In the longer term, retaining some form of decision-making within the council
would require councillors to develop and demonstrate a more mature approach to
their responsibilities, which would in turn inform a future decision on ending the
intervention. Any such retained decision-making must, though, be tightly controlled
and circumscribed, perhaps by limiting the issues on which the council can decide,
or subjecting its decision-making to external control and accountability.

26. Secondly, we detect a real risk that some councillors could exploit a further
direction for their own political ends and thus enhance their chances of re-election
in 2012 on a platform of resisting external control. That sort of continued
antagonism cannot be in the interests of the island and its citizens. Further action
needs to require councillors to change their ways; anything which encouraged
them to portray themselves as victims or martyrs could be counter-productive.

27. Finally, we strongly believe that the long-term viability of the council demands a
wholesale process of democratic renewal: only then can we be sure that the
political culture will improve. As it stands, the council has among the highest
proportions of members returned unopposed and among the lowest proportions of
female councillors (2 out of 40). It also has some councillors who are returned as
candidates for national political parties (or are known members of them) but
choose then to join one of the various independent groupings. All of that must
change, and it can only do so if more citizens are encouraged to stand for election,
and to do so because of a genuine commitment to govern the island effectively and
accountably. There is probably a role for the Electoral Commission and the
political parties in this, but the Board would be happy to contribute too if you wish.
At the heart of the problems of Anglesey lies the ability to take the electorate for
granted. Our focus must be on active citizenship, participation and representation

28. These considerations lead us to suggest a possible model for further action, which
we set out in the annex to this paper. You will wish to consider this alongside other
possibilities, and with advice on the scope and applicability of your powers, which
is beyond our remit. But we believe this offers a good balance between increasing
the stringency of the intervention, and building on the progress that the Council has
made so far. It also upholds the rights of the people of Anglesey to have their
voice heard at a time when public services are most under threat.

Yr Athro / Prof Elan Closs Stephens CBE, MA (Oxon), D Litt (Glamorgan), FRSA
Cadeirydd / Chair
 ARB(10) Report
IN CONFIDENCE

Annex 1

Our possible model for a more stringent intervention entails:

• Reconstituting and renaming the Recovery Board as an Intervention Board, which

would adopt a more directly challenging approach to the Council and its executive.

• The Board should hold the council officers and executive to account on a number
of clearly defined issues regularly and in public. Each of these issues to have
specific measurable targets and time limits.

• The Board should reserve the right to call in some decisions and ask the executive
to think again. This should be limited to major concerns where we think there is
undue delay or where an inappropriate decision is about to be made.

• The Board should be supported by staff, external to the authority, who will identify
issues for discussion and provide evidence to be used in reviewing and
challenging decisions. There may be some financial provision in the Council’s own
budget for training and corporate renewal.

• The Board should report publicly and regularly on its work, rather than just making
its reports to the Minister available. This might involve a web page or a column in
the local press.

• The Board and the Council (with the involvement of the Electoral Commission and
the main political parties as appropriate) should develop a clear strategy and set of
actions to support democratic renewal.

• An end date should be agreed with David Bowles and the search for a new interim
chief executive should begin now. The power to appoint a chief executive should
remain with the Minister, and consideration should be given to withdrawing the
power also to appoint other statutory officers. This would enhance the seriousness
of the intervention.

• Better and more dedicated support should be provided in council and committee
meetings to ensure adherence to procedure and guarantee that all members are
fairly heard.

• A review of the concept of Energy Island should take place to determine the
Council’s fitness to handle such a major project now and in the future.

• If this approach does not succeed over a six month period the natural next stage
would be the formal withdrawal of executive functions from the Council.