Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Forward Work Programme be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That the Committee endorse the undertaking of the Head of Democratic Services to contact all Group Leaders to encourage their group members to undertake essential training. The Learning and Development Manager then outlined the Personal Development Reviews (PDR’s) and stated that 50% of Members had participated in that procedure. She also referred to the key themes for development, as outlined in the report, and explained that a plan for that development would be established for years four and five, with a view to bringing the plan to the July meeting of the Committee.
RESOLVED (a) That the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ Annual Report for 2025-26 be noted. (b) That the cap on Co-opted Member payments remain the same.
RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 2 be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That Council Committees, such as the Constitutional Review Committee and the Democratic Services Committee, be included under questions four and five. · That each Committee be listed for question six regarding meeting length. · That additional commentary boxes be added.
RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 1 be approved.
RESOLVED That residents from adjoining Counties to Pembrokeshire can sign a petition but not submit one. 2) Page 68 of the Agenda - Constitutional Review Committee considered that the word ‘Council’ be amended to ‘Authority’. In regards to a previous or similar petition being re-submitted, the Constitutional Review Committee did not support the change to 12 months and recommended that it remain at six months for consistency with other timescales. • Councillor Clements stated that she would be happy with the change to 12 months before someone could re-submit a previous or similar petition. • Councillor John sought clarification as to what the rationale was behind the support for a six month time frame. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it was due to consistency with Notice of Motions and questions that Members could submit to Council. Councillor Mike Stoddart added that another reason was due to recurring or ongoing situations, such as the Withyhedge issue, where it would not necessarily be resolved in a certain time frame, which would mean that the public would have to wait a further 12 months before re-submitting a petition on the matter. Councillor John then highlighted the fairness between petitions, questions and Notice of Motions to Council all having a six month time frame. Councillor Di Clements Proposed the 12 month time frame for the same or similar petitions being submitted. There was no Seconder for the Proposal. The Committee was then content with the Constitutional Review Committee’s proposal of six months. 3) Page 72 of the Agenda – The Constitutional Review Committee did not support the addition of Cabinet and considered that petitioners should have the ability to present their petition to full Council. Members suggested that a commentary be provided at the outset on what happens if a petition relates to an Executive matter in order to manage expectations. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that commentary be provided at the outset on the process of the petition, if it related to an Executive matter, in order to manage expectations. She explained that the suggestion from the Committee was that the status quo remained and that all petitions over 500 signatures go to Council, and if related to an Executive matter they would go to Cabinet, which would allow the opportunity for the petitioner to stand in front of Council and present their petition. • Councillor Adams believed that the suggestion of a time limit placed on petitions would be helpful, and stated that he agreed with the views of the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should first go to Council. He also referred to the next point in regards to how many petitions should be considered per ordinary meeting, and questioned how that would be determined if only one petition could be discussed at a time. He also referred to the threshold for responses from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director, and suggested that an individual should get a response from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director regardless of submitting a petition. In response, the Head of Democratic Services suggested that signed petitions added more weight to an issue, but explained that it was highlighted that there were alternative ways for the public to bring forward issues, such as writing to the Cabinet Member, contacting the Local Councillor, referring a matter to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee or asking a question at Council. • The Head of Democratic Services asked the Committee to determine whether they were content with the status quo, or whether they supported the amendment of a petition with 500+ signatures going directly to Cabinet if it related to an Executive matter. Councillor Jamie Adams Moved that the status quo remain; Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That a petition which has been accepted and validated be referred to the full Council. • Councillor John referred to the table of thresholds in the report and suggested that the threshold for any petition going to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee should read ‘100-499+’. • Councillor Stoddart also suggested that the threshold for a response from relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director should be made clear that it was up to 99 signatures. 4) Page 72 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee suggested that there should be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there were more than three petitions going to a meeting. • Councillor Stoddart explained that if there were three petitions and only one could be heard, the other two would need to be deferred to the following meeting, which would mean that any further petitions would not be considered for a long time at a future meeting. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. 5) Page 73 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee did not support a maximum time permitted for the petition debate of 15 minutes and suggested that there were other Constitutional levers available to deal with this scenario, such as ‘that the matter be put’. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that the 15 minute time limit would be for the debate only, and that the petitioner, Local Member and Cabinet Member would each have five minutes to speak. • Councillor Adams stated that he had mixed views on the matter, as he understood that petitions were part of Council business, but questioned the time allowed for each petition and highlighted that if there were multiple petitions at a meeting, it would have an impact on the length of a meeting. • Councillor John believed that it was essential to have a time limit on petitions, especially if there could be three in one meeting. He added that allowing that the matter be put may not be fair, as all petitions should have an equal amount of time to be discussed. • Councillor Clements also agreed with the time limit and suggested that it could be extended by the Chair at their discretion, therefore there was some flexibility if it was required. Councillor Di Clements Proposed that there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. • Councillor Stoddart referred to a comment made at the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should not be regarded as a nuisance, and that the proposed time limit potentially gave that impression. The Proposal was Seconded by Councillor Michael John. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John and Sam Skyrme-Blackhall [5] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Stoddart [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. The Head of Democratic Services then highlighted that Councillor John had referred to points (c) and (g) as outlined in the report and suggested that they be combined to avoid duplication. Councillor John explained that it was only an observation. Councillor Pat Davies Moved the scheme as amended; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the proposed revisions of the Constitutional Review Committee to the Petition Scheme, as amended, be recommended to Full Council. Councillor Davies then referred back to Agenda Item 5 – Follow-Up Actions, and asked whether an item could be added to the November meeting of the Committee in relation to the Electoral Commission report, and the recommendations that they had outlined in their report. She asked that an update be provided as to whether those recommendations had been implemented. This was noted by the Head of Democratic Services.
There were no requests to speak from Members.
There were no declarations of interest.
Moved by Councillor Di Clements; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillor Michael John abstained as he was not present at the last meeting. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 November 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that the actions arising from the previous meeting were outlined in the report, along with the relevant answers and information in response to each action. The Committee was content with the progress of the outlined actions. Moved by Councillor Di Clements; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Forward Work Programme be noted.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that the Forward Work Programme outlined the items for upcoming meetings until November 2025. The Committee was content with the current Forward Work Programme. Moved by the Chair; Seconded by Councillor Jamie Adams. The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Forward Work Programme be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That the Committee endorse the undertaking of the Head of Democratic Services to contact all Group Leaders to encourage their group members to undertake essential training. The Learning and Development Manager then outlined the Personal Development Reviews (PDR’s) and stated that 50% of Members had participated in that procedure. She also referred to the key themes for development, as outlined in the report, and explained that a plan for that development would be established for years four and five, with a view to bringing the plan to the July meeting of the Committee.
The Learning and Development Manager presented the report and stated that it outlined the eight essential eLearning modules that all Elected Members were required to complete, and that the table in the report highlighted non-completion data for February 2025. In considering the report, the following key points were made: • Councillor Michael John referred to the term ‘essential’ and stated that there was no comeback for Members if they had not completed the essential training. The Learning and Development Manager stated that the training could be recommended, and wished to encourage all Members to undertake the training. She then suggested that the Group Leaders could also encourage their group Members, and added that she was happy to support Members in completing the training if necessary. • Councillor Di Clements referred to the Safer Manual Handling training and the Workstation Assessment, and believed that they were not relevant to Members as mandatory courses, and suggested that if courses were mandatory, they needed to be relevant to all. In response, the Learning and Development Manager explained that the Workstation Assessment module could be amended to be more relevant to hybrid working. She added that the fire safety course was relevant, as all Members would need to be aware of the safety procedures when in County Hall. • The Head of Democratic Services wished to highlight that the Strategic Equalities Action Plan Group had been proactive in monitoring the uptake of both Officers and Members in regards to the Equality in the Workplace training. She highlighted that Members would have received periodic reminders, but that there were still 20 Members who had not completed the training. She then highlighted that she had given an undertaking to the Group that she would contact all Group Leaders, and encourage them to get their Groups to do the training, as well as the other essential courses. The Head of Democratic Services suggested that a strong message from the Committee would add more importance to the fact that Members were required to complete such training. • Councillor Mike Stoddart suggested that the training should not be referred to as required, but suggested that it be recommended instead. • Councillor Clements stated that she would happy to chase her Group Members to complete the training, and asked the Head of Democratic Services to provide her with the details on who was yet to complete the training. • Councillor John suggested that the status of each training module should be reviewed, as some could be seen as a higher priority than others, such as the Safeguarding training. He stated that if all modules were deemed as essential, it could create complacency amongst Members. Councillor Clements then Moved that the Committee endorse the undertaking of the Head of Democratic Services to contact all Group Leaders to encourage their Group Members to undertake essential training; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That the Committee endorse the undertaking of the Head of Democratic Services to contact all Group Leaders to encourage their group members to undertake essential training. The Learning and Development Manager then outlined the Personal Development Reviews (PDR’s) and stated that 50% of Members had participated in that procedure. She also referred to the key themes for development, as outlined in the report, and explained that a plan for that development would be established for years four and five, with a view to bringing the plan to the July meeting of the Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ Annual Report for 2025-26 be noted. (b) That the cap on Co-opted Member payments remain the same.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that the Panel was due to be taken over by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru on 1 April 2025, with the new Commission expected to operate along the same lines as the Panel. She stated that the report provided a breakdown of the salaries for 2025/2026 compared to the previous year, and highlighted the uplift in allowances represented a 6% increase on the basic allowance. She added that the Panel's report highlighted that the remuneration issues should not be a barrier to participation in local democracy, and that the remuneration of Elected Members was linked specifically to the average wages of people in Wales. The Head of Democratic Services then went on to outline the salary determinations for other bodies, such as the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees, the National Park Authority and the Fire and Rescue Authority. She also referred to the Co-opted Member payments, and outlined the analysis of the payments made to Co-opted Members and the respective caps, as explained in the report. She stated that there was no recommendation to increase the cap as it was said to be sufficient. In considering the report, the following key points were made: • Councillor Di Clements stated that the amount being paid to Elected Members was a difficult topic at a time of financial strain, and referred to the letter that had been sent to the Panel outlining the current financial difficulties within the Authority. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation and that there be no change to the cap for Co-opted Members. • Councillor Pat Davies sought clarification as to whether the cap for a Co-opted Chair could be increased. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it was within the power of the Committee, but highlighted that there was no need to do so, as Co-opted Members were significantly within their respective caps. The Recommendation was Seconded by the Chair. • Councillor Jamie Adams stated that it was important that Councillors were remunerated for the time put into Council work, and suggested that it also provided the opportunity for people who may not have considered becoming a Councillor previously, due to financial reasons. • The Chair agreed with Councillor Adams and commented that it was difficult to get that balance in the current financial climate. The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ Annual Report for 2025-26 be noted. (b) That the cap on Co-opted Member payments remain the same.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 2 be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That Council Committees, such as the Constitutional Review Committee and the Democratic Services Committee, be included under questions four and five. · That each Committee be listed for question six regarding meeting length. · That additional commentary boxes be added.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that it outlined a survey for seeking Members’ views on the timing, length and frequency of meetings of full Council and any Committee or Sub-Committee of the Council. In terms of setting meeting times, she highlighted that the Committee needed to be mindful of the impact on promoting diversity and equality, particularly amongst potential candidates wishing to stand for election. She added that the relevant guidance was set out in Appendix 1 for information and that the draft survey was set out in Appendix 2, and that it was recommended for the results of the survey to be presented to the Committee at its next meeting in July, with any changes proposed to be recommended to Full Council. The Head of Democratic Services wished to add that in relation to questions four and five on the survey, a further option would be added to include other Council Committees, such as the Constitutional Review Committee and the Democratic Services Committee. In considering the report, the following key points were made: • Councillor Michael John suggested that people putting themselves up for election needed to be aware of the fact that some meetings could take place during the day, and therefore work commitments needed to be taken into consideration. He added, however, that he was personally happy with times that suited others. In regards to the duration of meetings, he suggested that three hours was optimum for Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings, but highlighted that Full Council meetings would benefit from no duration limit, as carrying over business to the next meeting was more difficult. • Councillor Jamie Adams agreed with Councillor John that three hours was long enough for most meetings, and suggested that further options be added under question six of the survey. He also referred to the Planning Committee and members of the public waiting for their applications to be discussed, and that there would need to be some flexibility for such a committee. • Councillor Mike Stoddart raised concern around time limits for meetings and that items at the end of an agenda could be deferred. • Councillor Di Clements stated that time limits could focus debates at committees, and suggested that it be trialled on a particular agenda item. She added that in terms of encouraging people to partake in democracy, time limits may assist with that. • Councillor Adams referred to meetings where a timeline had been provided to the Chair, to outline that larger items that needed more discussion would be given more time, and that it was not about curtailing the item, but instead focusing the proceedings of the meeting. • The Head of Democratic Services stated that the preferred meeting length time was an aspect that the survey had to include according to the guidance, but added that more options and commentary boxes could be included. • Councillor John referred to the duration of the meetings and suggested that the question be split between each Committee, in order to determine the desired times from Members for each meeting. He also added that certain meetings such as the Planning Committee, where there could be controversial items, would take more time, and that some flexibility should be available. In terms of other committees such as Overview and Scrutiny Committees, it should be down to the Chair to ensure that items move forward in a timely manner. He added that it was difficult to put time limits on the Planning Committee and Full Council. • The Chair agreed with Councillor John. • Councillor Pat Davies also agreed with Councillor John in terms of the Chair keeping to a timescale. She added that Members should also be available to stay on for a meeting if it was taking longer than anticipated, as it could result in meetings becoming inquorate and business needing to be carried over to a future meeting. • The Head of Democratic Services advised Members that the points made had been taken on board and would be worked into the final version of the survey, in order to ensure meaningful answers from Members. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation with the inclusion of the suggested amendments; Seconded by Councillor Michael John. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 2 be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That Council Committees, such as the Constitutional Review Committee and the Democratic Services Committee, be included under questions four and five. · That each Committee be listed for question six regarding meeting length. · That additional commentary boxes be added.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 1 be approved.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that it outlined a survey for seeking Members’ views on how they engage with their constituents. She added that this survey would be sent to all Members, not just new Members, in order to get an audit of what practices Members undertake. She explained that results of this survey would be reported to the July meeting of the Committee. The Committee were content with the outlined survey. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Jamie Adams; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the suggested Survey attached at Appendix 1 be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That residents from adjoining Counties to Pembrokeshire can sign a petition but not submit one. 2) Page 68 of the Agenda - Constitutional Review Committee considered that the word ‘Council’ be amended to ‘Authority’. In regards to a previous or similar petition being re-submitted, the Constitutional Review Committee did not support the change to 12 months and recommended that it remain at six months for consistency with other timescales. • Councillor Clements stated that she would be happy with the change to 12 months before someone could re-submit a previous or similar petition. • Councillor John sought clarification as to what the rationale was behind the support for a six month time frame. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it was due to consistency with Notice of Motions and questions that Members could submit to Council. Councillor Mike Stoddart added that another reason was due to recurring or ongoing situations, such as the Withyhedge issue, where it would not necessarily be resolved in a certain time frame, which would mean that the public would have to wait a further 12 months before re-submitting a petition on the matter. Councillor John then highlighted the fairness between petitions, questions and Notice of Motions to Council all having a six month time frame. Councillor Di Clements Proposed the 12 month time frame for the same or similar petitions being submitted. There was no Seconder for the Proposal. The Committee was then content with the Constitutional Review Committee’s proposal of six months. 3) Page 72 of the Agenda – The Constitutional Review Committee did not support the addition of Cabinet and considered that petitioners should have the ability to present their petition to full Council. Members suggested that a commentary be provided at the outset on what happens if a petition relates to an Executive matter in order to manage expectations. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that commentary be provided at the outset on the process of the petition, if it related to an Executive matter, in order to manage expectations. She explained that the suggestion from the Committee was that the status quo remained and that all petitions over 500 signatures go to Council, and if related to an Executive matter they would go to Cabinet, which would allow the opportunity for the petitioner to stand in front of Council and present their petition. • Councillor Adams believed that the suggestion of a time limit placed on petitions would be helpful, and stated that he agreed with the views of the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should first go to Council. He also referred to the next point in regards to how many petitions should be considered per ordinary meeting, and questioned how that would be determined if only one petition could be discussed at a time. He also referred to the threshold for responses from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director, and suggested that an individual should get a response from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director regardless of submitting a petition. In response, the Head of Democratic Services suggested that signed petitions added more weight to an issue, but explained that it was highlighted that there were alternative ways for the public to bring forward issues, such as writing to the Cabinet Member, contacting the Local Councillor, referring a matter to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee or asking a question at Council. • The Head of Democratic Services asked the Committee to determine whether they were content with the status quo, or whether they supported the amendment of a petition with 500+ signatures going directly to Cabinet if it related to an Executive matter. Councillor Jamie Adams Moved that the status quo remain; Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That a petition which has been accepted and validated be referred to the full Council. • Councillor John referred to the table of thresholds in the report and suggested that the threshold for any petition going to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee should read ‘100-499+’. • Councillor Stoddart also suggested that the threshold for a response from relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director should be made clear that it was up to 99 signatures. 4) Page 72 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee suggested that there should be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there were more than three petitions going to a meeting. • Councillor Stoddart explained that if there were three petitions and only one could be heard, the other two would need to be deferred to the following meeting, which would mean that any further petitions would not be considered for a long time at a future meeting. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. 5) Page 73 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee did not support a maximum time permitted for the petition debate of 15 minutes and suggested that there were other Constitutional levers available to deal with this scenario, such as ‘that the matter be put’. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that the 15 minute time limit would be for the debate only, and that the petitioner, Local Member and Cabinet Member would each have five minutes to speak. • Councillor Adams stated that he had mixed views on the matter, as he understood that petitions were part of Council business, but questioned the time allowed for each petition and highlighted that if there were multiple petitions at a meeting, it would have an impact on the length of a meeting. • Councillor John believed that it was essential to have a time limit on petitions, especially if there could be three in one meeting. He added that allowing that the matter be put may not be fair, as all petitions should have an equal amount of time to be discussed. • Councillor Clements also agreed with the time limit and suggested that it could be extended by the Chair at their discretion, therefore there was some flexibility if it was required. Councillor Di Clements Proposed that there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. • Councillor Stoddart referred to a comment made at the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should not be regarded as a nuisance, and that the proposed time limit potentially gave that impression. The Proposal was Seconded by Councillor Michael John. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John and Sam Skyrme-Blackhall [5] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Stoddart [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. The Head of Democratic Services then highlighted that Councillor John had referred to points (c) and (g) as outlined in the report and suggested that they be combined to avoid duplication. Councillor John explained that it was only an observation. Councillor Pat Davies Moved the scheme as amended; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the proposed revisions of the Constitutional Review Committee to the Petition Scheme, as amended, be recommended to Full Council. Councillor Davies then referred back to Agenda Item 5 – Follow-Up Actions, and asked whether an item could be added to the November meeting of the Committee in relation to the Electoral Commission report, and the recommendations that they had outlined in their report. She asked that an update be provided as to whether those recommendations had been implemented. This was noted by the Head of Democratic Services.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that the Petition Scheme had been in operation since 5 May 2022, and has had one review in October 2023. She highlighted that due to the comments made at the last meeting of the Committee, she had given an undertaking to review the scheme, as well as taking into account further experience of dealing with the petitions, as there had been 24 in total since the electronic scheme had been introduced. She advised Members that the proposed changes were outlined in red in Appendix 1, and that the matter was considered in detail by the Constitutional Review Committee at their recent meeting. She added that any amendments made would be recommended to Council, as Council needed to approve the final version. In considering the report, the following key points were made: • Councillor Pat Davies referred to the point which had been added, that the Local Member be informed of a petition in the first instance when a petition relevant to their ward was submitted, which she stated was important to the process. She also referred to people in the areas of neighbouring Councils being able to submit petitions, and stated that she raised concern about this at the Constitutional Review Committee meeting, where it was amended to say ‘adjoining’ Councils. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that the changes made by the Constitutional Review Committee were outlined in the footnote of Appendix 1, and that the purpose of the report was for the Committee to determine whether they endorsed the changes made by the Constitutional Review Committee. • Councillor Michael John stated that the amendments made were all sensible decisions, and welcomed the petition scheme. He then commented on the points raised by Councillor Davies, and highlighted that the Local Member should not be able to influence a petition before being submitted, but that they should simply be aware. In regards to proposed revisions (c) and (g) as outlined in the report, Councillor John questioned whether those points could be combined to avoid duplication. • The Head of Democratic Services then suggested that the Committee work through the highlighted sections in Appendix 1 in order to endorse or amend each proposed change individually. The Committee then considered each point individually as follows: 1) Page 66 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee considered that the word ‘neighbouring’ should be changed to ‘Adjoining’, i.e. Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion • Councillor Di Clements questioned who would determine what services people outside the County would be using in order for a petition to be relevant to them, and raised concern around location and where the cut off would be. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and would be a judgement call between herself, the relevant Officer and the Monitoring Officer, in order to come to a view whether the people in question would be affected. Councillor Clements asked whether there would be an appeals system if the petitioner did not agree, to which the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that to be the case. The Head of Democratic Services also highlighted that the point related to signing and submitting a petition and that there was a significant debate on this point at the Constitutional Review Committee, but that there was consensus in regards to a petition relating to schools. Councillor Clements stated that schools were a good example of a matter that could affect more than one County, but suggested that there could be more that were currently unknown. The Head of Democratic Services highlighted that this point was one that other Authorities had within their own petition schemes, and suggested that those Authorities could be approached to ascertain what their criteria was on that specific point. • The Chair stated that she was happy with the suggestion from the Constitutional Review Committee on this matter. • Councillor Clements asked whether the Head of Democratic Services was aware of any petitions that had been submitted by people outside of the County, to which the Head of Democratic Services stated that she was unaware. Councillor Clements stated that she was content with someone signing a petition who was from an adjoining County, but less so in regards to someone submitting a petition. The Head of Democratic Services suggested that it might be that the Committee recommends that people in adjoining Counties just sign a petition rather than also being able to submit one. Councillor Clements stated she would be happier with that suggestion. The Chair agreed. Councillor Clements Proposed that residents from adjoining Counties to Pembrokeshire can sign a petition but not submit one; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That residents from adjoining Counties to Pembrokeshire can sign a petition but not submit one. 2) Page 68 of the Agenda - Constitutional Review Committee considered that the word ‘Council’ be amended to ‘Authority’. In regards to a previous or similar petition being re-submitted, the Constitutional Review Committee did not support the change to 12 months and recommended that it remain at six months for consistency with other timescales. • Councillor Clements stated that she would be happy with the change to 12 months before someone could re-submit a previous or similar petition. • Councillor John sought clarification as to what the rationale was behind the support for a six month time frame. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it was due to consistency with Notice of Motions and questions that Members could submit to Council. Councillor Mike Stoddart added that another reason was due to recurring or ongoing situations, such as the Withyhedge issue, where it would not necessarily be resolved in a certain time frame, which would mean that the public would have to wait a further 12 months before re-submitting a petition on the matter. Councillor John then highlighted the fairness between petitions, questions and Notice of Motions to Council all having a six month time frame. Councillor Di Clements Proposed the 12 month time frame for the same or similar petitions being submitted. There was no Seconder for the Proposal. The Committee was then content with the Constitutional Review Committee’s proposal of six months. 3) Page 72 of the Agenda – The Constitutional Review Committee did not support the addition of Cabinet and considered that petitioners should have the ability to present their petition to full Council. Members suggested that a commentary be provided at the outset on what happens if a petition relates to an Executive matter in order to manage expectations. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that commentary be provided at the outset on the process of the petition, if it related to an Executive matter, in order to manage expectations. She explained that the suggestion from the Committee was that the status quo remained and that all petitions over 500 signatures go to Council, and if related to an Executive matter they would go to Cabinet, which would allow the opportunity for the petitioner to stand in front of Council and present their petition. • Councillor Adams believed that the suggestion of a time limit placed on petitions would be helpful, and stated that he agreed with the views of the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should first go to Council. He also referred to the next point in regards to how many petitions should be considered per ordinary meeting, and questioned how that would be determined if only one petition could be discussed at a time. He also referred to the threshold for responses from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director, and suggested that an individual should get a response from the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director regardless of submitting a petition. In response, the Head of Democratic Services suggested that signed petitions added more weight to an issue, but explained that it was highlighted that there were alternative ways for the public to bring forward issues, such as writing to the Cabinet Member, contacting the Local Councillor, referring a matter to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee or asking a question at Council. • The Head of Democratic Services asked the Committee to determine whether they were content with the status quo, or whether they supported the amendment of a petition with 500+ signatures going directly to Cabinet if it related to an Executive matter. Councillor Jamie Adams Moved that the status quo remain; Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That a petition which has been accepted and validated be referred to the full Council. • Councillor John referred to the table of thresholds in the report and suggested that the threshold for any petition going to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee should read ‘100-499+’. • Councillor Stoddart also suggested that the threshold for a response from relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director should be made clear that it was up to 99 signatures. 4) Page 72 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee suggested that there should be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the reasons behind the decisions of the Constitutional Review Committee, and added that there was a suggestion that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there were more than three petitions going to a meeting. • Councillor Stoddart explained that if there were three petitions and only one could be heard, the other two would need to be deferred to the following meeting, which would mean that any further petitions would not be considered for a long time at a future meeting. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That there be no more than three petitions per ordinary meeting and that a protocol be developed to deal with a situation where there is more than three petitions due to go to a meeting. 5) Page 73 of the Agenda - The Constitutional Review Committee did not support a maximum time permitted for the petition debate of 15 minutes and suggested that there were other Constitutional levers available to deal with this scenario, such as ‘that the matter be put’. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that the 15 minute time limit would be for the debate only, and that the petitioner, Local Member and Cabinet Member would each have five minutes to speak. • Councillor Adams stated that he had mixed views on the matter, as he understood that petitions were part of Council business, but questioned the time allowed for each petition and highlighted that if there were multiple petitions at a meeting, it would have an impact on the length of a meeting. • Councillor John believed that it was essential to have a time limit on petitions, especially if there could be three in one meeting. He added that allowing that the matter be put may not be fair, as all petitions should have an equal amount of time to be discussed. • Councillor Clements also agreed with the time limit and suggested that it could be extended by the Chair at their discretion, therefore there was some flexibility if it was required. Councillor Di Clements Proposed that there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. • Councillor Stoddart referred to a comment made at the Constitutional Review Committee that petitions should not be regarded as a nuisance, and that the proposed time limit potentially gave that impression. The Proposal was Seconded by Councillor Michael John. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Di Clements, Pat Davies, Michael John and Sam Skyrme-Blackhall [5] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Stoddart [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That there be a 15 minute time limit for the petition debate. The Head of Democratic Services then highlighted that Councillor John had referred to points (c) and (g) as outlined in the report and suggested that they be combined to avoid duplication. Councillor John explained that it was only an observation. Councillor Pat Davies Moved the scheme as amended; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the proposed revisions of the Constitutional Review Committee to the Petition Scheme, as amended, be recommended to Full Council. Councillor Davies then referred back to Agenda Item 5 – Follow-Up Actions, and asked whether an item could be added to the November meeting of the Committee in relation to the Electoral Commission report, and the recommendations that they had outlined in their report. She asked that an update be provided as to whether those recommendations had been implemented. This was noted by the Head of Democratic Services.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.