Agenda item

To consider a report by the Monitoring Officer (copy enclosed) informing members of the provisions of the Draft Local Government (Wales) Bill relating to the committee.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report (previously circulated) informing members of the provisions of the Draft Local Government (Wales) Bill relating to the committee.

Reference was made to the Welsh Government’s consultation exercise on the provisions of the Draft Bill together with the Council’s response.  There were 8 parts to the Draft Bill which, if enacted, would result in the most substantial local government reforms in Wales since the Local Government Act 2000.  The Monitoring Officer provided a general overview of the main provisions of the Draft Bill, including the merger proposals, but advised that the most relevant part to the committee was Part 4: Functions of the County Councils and their Members, which sought to introduce new statutory duties on elected members.  He elaborated upon the provisions contained within Part 4 which included the following –

·         a Member must attend all relevant meetings unless they had a good reason not to – there was no change to the legal requirement that a Member be disqualified if he/she failed to attend for 6 months

·         a Member must hold at least four surgeries in every 12 month after taking up office unless they had a good reason not to, with details of the surgery published on the Council’s website in advance

·         a Member must respond to all correspondence sent to his or her official address within 14 days of receipt unless he or she had a good reason not to

·         a Member must complete all compulsory training courses unless they had a good reason not to

·         a Member must make an annual report of their member activities which must be submitted to the Head of Democratic Services and published – there was no provision for having a good reason not to do this

·         a personal duty placed on leaders of political groups to co-operate with the Standards Committee and take reasonable steps to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by their group members – Standards Committees must arrange training for Group Leaders and monitor their compliance with this duty.

The Draft Bill suggested an enforcement mechanism for breaches as follows –

·         any person may make a complaint to the Monitoring Officer about a possible breach by a Member of any of the duties set out above, other than to make an annual report

·         the Monitoring Officer must refer any complaint received to the Chair of the Standards Committee and together they must decide whether or not the matter should be investigated

·         if the Head of Democratic Services believed a Member had breached the duty to make an annual report he/she could refer it to the Monitoring Officer who must consult with the Chair of the Standards Committee about whether to investigate

·         if an investigation was conducted, a report must be provided to the Standards Committee with any recommendations the Monitoring Officer felt appropriate

·         if the Standards Committee decided a Member had breached one of the duties it could impose a censure, a suspension or partial suspension for up to six months or take no further action.

The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the Council’s response to Part 4 of the Draft Bill which had been appended to the report.  In short the response had been measured and whilst members had reacted positively to some aspects of the Draft Bill in terms of governance, peer reviews and audit and inspection regulation, some elements were over prescriptive, creating greater bureaucracy and expense at a time of austerity and there were also some contradictory statements.  A major frustration was the lack of definition as to what a good reason would amount to when enforcing the new duties and concern over the enforcement mechanism for breaches.  The proposals had the potential to substantially increase the workload of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees and result in the creation of a separate standards regime outside of the provisions of the Code of Conduct.  Finally reference was made to other issues including electoral arrangements during transition and following local government reorganisation.  Fewer, larger community councils were expected to closely correspond with community area committees.

Members took the opportunity to clarify particular areas of the Draft Bill with the Monitoring Officer and noted both positive aspects and areas of concern as highlighted in the Council’s response.  Debate focused on the following –

·         if mergers were to proceed then the Council remained of the view that Denbighshire should merge with Conwy.  The Chair believed a strong case could be made by arguing that the Welsh Language would be better supported by the creation of three and not two authorities in North Wales as referenced on page 10 of the consultation document

·         it was possible that the definition as to what a good reason would amount to could be included in future guidance and in the absence of a definitive explanation would likely be defined in future case law

·         there were some discrepancies between the intention of officials and the reality of the draft provisions such as the webcasting of Community Area Committees

·         the creation of statutory Community Area Committees was discussed together with their powers and responsibilities – some county councillors had expressed concern over what they considered to be an erosion of local authority powers

·         the potential increase in the workload of the Standards Committee was considered and the Monitoring Officer confirmed that independent members would need to be paid for attending any additional meetings

·         concerns were expressed that a reduction in the number of community councils would result in communities becoming remote and deter individuals from representing those areas, and the importance of retaining existing community assets was also highlighted.  However it was noted that the change could provide an opportunity for candidates with a greater skills mix and competency

·         the requirement for a community clerk with a relevant professional qualification could pose a significant financial burden on some community councils and it was unclear as to whether grandfather rights would apply for existing clerks who did not meet the new requirement

·         whilst acknowledging the reasoning behind the proposed financial restrictions to be imposed on merging authorities concerns were expressed that it may prove a hindrance for local authorities in terms of service delivery – it was noted that further guidance on the financial restrictions would follow in the summer

·         the timescale for creation of the new local government areas was discussed together with the process for establishing the new councils and transition arrangements.  It was noted that consideration was being given to the appropriate number of councillors for the new councils.  There was some concern that the six year timescale spanning the end of the existing councils and establishment of new ones could prove a deterrent for potential candidates and result in tensions between those elected in the different authorities.  In its response the Council had expressed concern that two three year terms would limit the ability of either Council to be ambitious and make significant improvements in services.

The Chair thanked the Monitoring Officer for his comprehensive report and it was –

RESOLVED that the contents of the Draft Bill and the Council’s consultation response set out in Appendix 3 be noted.