There can be few sane observers who would doubt the logic of a ‘test of competence' for local councils, or who would not agree with the aims of the Quality Parish Scheme; "...to equip local councils to take on a stronger role in their communities. This stronger role involves local councils being representative of their communities and working more closely with partners, particularly principal local authorities, in the delivery of local services." And yet the wording, the process and perception that ‘other qualifications' are ignored, continue to ensure that a scheme that is about to be enshrined in Statute, enjoys a love/hate relationship in the sector; and there's not always much love going on. Meanwhile the County Associations are stuck in the middle, with little influence, at the mercy of learned ‘national stakeholders', but with a pivotal role to play in the Scheme's success. Yet, they are not listened to, they are often not funded for the work undertaken in this area, and they are often not valued [My notion of value is measured in resource, not fine words that add up to nothing]. When are we going to start up a Federal Union of County Associations? It is obvious that the Scheme is not for every council. Despite this, one could be a quality council without being a Quality council (if you

know what I mean). So then, would you not consider that using words such as ‘Quality' and ‘Competence', is going to really annoy those not in the Scheme? Excellent marketing, motivation and management, guys*.

*Guys denotes ‘important stakeholders'

Having been so done to, County Associations are then left ‘holding the baby', so to speak. As for the process and what's measured; yeah well nothing's perfect, get over it! Looking at the criteria, they are reasonable. There is no doubt though, that more qualitative measurements and less tick boxes are needed. Measuring the intangible is always hardest, and yet perhaps most valuable. Still, looking at the criteria, you might hope that all councils meet them. When you hear councillors (I could name names if I wasn't employed) talking about the ‘democratic mandate' and yet upon examining their council,

you find there hasn't been an election for 25 years, it does rather tell a story.

What about Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)? Local Policy courses, tick. CILCA, tick; (except that it should be an accredited NVQ). But don't tell me that no other learning is relevant, because it obviously is. If exemptions are given from Local Policy modules for other qualifications (as they were to me), then there must be some accreditation for CILCA or for the QPS for these qualifications. How can you get an exemption on a Local Policy degree that you wouldn't get through the CILCA route to QPS; Lunatics and Asylums spring to mind. And to finish on a diversion, what did you think of the Research piece by the University of Wales? Here's one to make you chuckle from the Executive Summary: "National stakeholders have emphasised the

value of the capacity-building benefits of the Quality scheme. However, local councils are more likely to put an emphasis on tangible benefits,

such as additional funds or powers, and the perceived absence of these benefits is acting as a disincentive to participation." Now there's rocket science for you! Well done local councils for having some common sense,

despite all the fine words flowing (like the Amazon) from above. But, please don't shoot the messenger at the County Association. I want more Quality

Councils. Please.