Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Dr Norma Barry be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee requests a report that sets out, reflecting back on the experience, what the most significant learnings and shortcomings identified have been for the Authority; (b) To receive assurance that the Council has now taken all the necessary steps to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future; (c) To ensure that current processes and procedures are robust and regularly reviewed in the light of the experience; and (d) That relevant staff are effectively performance managed and appropriate disciplinary processes are applied, as appropriate.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Dr Norma Barry be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Head of Democratic Services opened the meeting and sought nominations for the election of Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year. Mr Martin Veale Moved that Dr Norma Barry be appointed as Chair; Seconded by Councillor Aled Thomas. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That Dr Norma Barry be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Chair sought nominations for the election of Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year. Councillor Michael James Moved that Councillor Aled Thomas be appointed as Vice-Chair; Seconded by Mr Martin Veale. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Aled Thomas be duly elected as Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
There were no apologies for absence.
There were no declarations of interest made.
The Chair invited the Head of Law & Governance to outline the reasoning for the Committee to consider excluding the public from the meeting for this item of business. The Head of Law & Governance advised that the matter of going into private session would need to be considered if the Committee wished to discuss exempt information which would include legal advice which was not subject to the public interest test, and information relating to an individual, or information which would be likely to reveal the identity of an individual. It was stated that as the Committee would be dealing with matters relating to individuals, the Committee needed to consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information i.e. is the public interest better served by considering matters in private. It was suggested that by taking the matter in private session the Committee could be more thorough in terms of the questions they ask and in turn, receive fuller responses, to ensure the process was conducted thoroughly. Members were asked to adhere to the Code of Conduct, the Officer-Member protocol (which was quoted) and be mindful of the duty of care we have towards employees at all times. Mr Martin Veale Moved that the Commercial Property Grant Scheme in Pembroke and Pembroke Dock report be considered in private session; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. Councillor Michael Stoddart stated that he opposed the proposal to go into private session as it was his view that all information contained within the report was already in the public domain, and stated that he did not want to cover anything up. He stated that the Authority had written to the Police to complain about their conduct in relation to the matter and queried whether the Chief Executive had received a response. Councillor Jacob Williams also expressed his opposition to taking the matter in private session as he was also of the view that the documents and evidence that would likely be discussed has been in the public domain, some of it, for over a decade. He added that it was his intention to draw a line under the matter today, but doing that in private session would not reflect well on the Authority and he felt that discussing the lessons that have been learned, in open session, would be more respected by the public. Councillor Williams urged Committee Members to consider taking the item of business in public session, to promote openness and transparency. When put to a roll call vote, the proposal fell. The votes were recorded as follows: For the motion: Councillor Michael James and Dr Norma Barry [2] Against the Motion: Councillors Maureen Bowen, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams and Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale. [6] There were no abstentions. Councillor Michael Stoddart highlighted that whilst the Committee had resolved to remain in open session at this time, at any point throughout the meeting, if deemed necessary, a proposal could be made to re-consider going into private session.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee requests a report that sets out, reflecting back on the experience, what the most significant learnings and shortcomings identified have been for the Authority; (b) To receive assurance that the Council has now taken all the necessary steps to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future; (c) To ensure that current processes and procedures are robust and regularly reviewed in the light of the experience; and (d) That relevant staff are effectively performance managed and appropriate disciplinary processes are applied, as appropriate.
The Chair began by reiterating the importance of treating the matter being discussed by the Committee in a sensitive manner and as it was being considered in open session, a request was made for no personal criticisms to be made. Members were reminded that it was not the role of the Committee to question the performance of individual officers. She added that the Committee needed to be clear on what they wanted to achieve from the questioning, and reiterated that the focus should be on the lessons that had been learnt, gaining assurance that the internal control system was working effectively, following the Committee’s resolution at the 8 May 2024 meeting, and drawing a line under the matter. Following requests made by the Committee, the following attendees were in attendance to be questioned and would be questioned in the following order; · Councillor Jamie Adams · Gwyn Evans - External Funding Manager · Jon Haswell – Director of Resources The Committee was advised by the Chair, that whilst Steve Owens (Quantity Surveyor), David Davies (Case Officer) and Lee Reynolds (Counsel) had also been requested to attend, they were not present for various reasons, of which the Committee were made aware of prior to the meeting. Councillor Jamie Adams was welcomed to the meeting and the Chair expressed thanks on behalf of the Committee for his attendance, before welcoming questions from Committee Members. Councillor Mike Stoddart began by stating that on 12 December 2013, Councillor Adams advised Members that he had entered the roof of Coronation School, to see for himself that it had been stripped, but then admitted in March 2024 that access to the full roof space was not actually possible at that time. Councillor Stoddart provided Councillor Adams with an opportunity to reconcile the two statements, to which Councillor Adams stated that, as printed within his responses, the key word would be ‘hindsight’. After further probing from Councillor Stoddart, the Chair queried if that question would assist the Committee to draw a line under the matter, to which Councillor Stoddart expressed that as Chair, he would hope she would help the Committee gain the truth, not hinder the efforts. In response, Councillor Adams stated that the statement he made in March 2024 was an open and honest statement recognising that whilst he had been assured that the work had been undertaken, he still made the visit to undertake an inspection, but did not inspect every section of the roof, due to the sheer size. He stated that he took the word of others but in hindsight admitted that a more thorough inspection of the roof should have been conducted. Councillor Jacob Williams explained that it was the Chamber’s understanding that Councillor Adams had inspected the whole roof so suggested that Councillor Adams was intentionally trying to mislead the Chamber, as it was not the truth. In response, Councillor Adams referred Councillor Williams to his previous answer on the matter. Councillor Williams asked if Councillor Adams regretted lying about the inspection, but before an answer was obtained the Chair advised that she did not feel it was an appropriate question. Councillor Williams explained that he did not care for the thoughts of the Chair, as at the time of the statement being made, Councillor Adams held the position of Leader of the Council, which Councillor Williams stated was the most important position in Local Government, and on the basis that the allegations made about impropriety of the grant scheme were unfounded, it was very important that the truth is obtained. In response, Councillor Adams made reference to an answer he had given in March 2024, and reiterated that ‘at no point did I lie to this chamber’. Councillor Stoddart stated that he felt there was a big difference between witnessing that ‘the whole roof had been stripped off’ and only viewing one small area of a half an acre size roof, and reiterated that the statement made by Councillor Adams was untrue. Mr John Evans explained that being the only independent individual to engage in the investigation, he was party to a meticulous amount of files and data throughout his time in the data room and following thorough investigation of the documents, he formed his own opinions and based on those opinions he feels the Committee should replace using the word ‘lie’ with ‘factual evidence’. He added that on assessing the documents, he believes Councillor Adams was misled and provided with inaccurate information, with the matter being covered up and manipulated by others. It was also clear to him, from being a spectator of the Council meeting, that the Council was trying to discredit Councillor Stoddart on what he was trying to achieve. Councillor Williams stated that for the Committee to be able to conclude the matter, conversations would need to be had in relation to awkward topics to receive explanations. Mr John Evans asked if Councillor Adams considered the Council’s Officer Code of Conduct sufficient enough to prevent a senior staff member issuing wrongful instructions to a subordinate, to which Councillor Adams stated that in his opinion the Officer Code of Conduct was more robust than it used to be and relationships between Members and Officers have strengthened overtime. For context in relation to earlier comments, Councillor Adams explained that when he addressed the Chamber in December 2013, he had been given a lot of information about what had and/or had not been done, but to strengthen his consideration of the matter, he was aware that a number of external audits had also been conducted to give assurance of the scheme, so he advised that he made the statement to the Chamber, feeling assured, but was happy to admit that in hindsight he should have looked more in depth. Mr John Evans informed the Committee that on investigating the data from the Audits, many discrepancies and mistakes were noticed. He stated that it was reassuring to hear from Councillor Adams that the Officer Code of Conduct was now more robust. [The Chief Executive left the meeting as this juncture.] On concluding questions for Councillor Jamie Adams, the Chair thanked him for his attendance and for presenting his perspective on issues and providing further context. She stated that his contribution had been helpful. Questions directed towards Mr Gwyn Evans were then invited. [Amended by Minute 25 of Committee – 25 November 2024] The Chair thanked Mr Gwyn Evans for the statement which he circulated to Committee Members prior to the meeting, but as this statement was not published, Mr Evans was invited to recite it, which he accepted, on the advice that he must exclude the names of individuals involved. Mr Evans then read out his statement in full for the benefit of all present. Members then began questioning My Gwyn Evans, as follows: Mr Martin Veale highlighted a section from a statement Mr Evans provided to the Police, which stated that bank statements were essential for every grant. Mr Veale queried if the individual involved was made aware of that requirement to secure the funding, and in general terms was that requirement communicated clearly to all applicants. Mr Evans stated that each applicant is provided with a procedure manual, as part of the application pack, which states that ‘claims should be accompanied by a receipted invoice and evidence of defrayment, usually a bank statement’. Mr Veale requested clarification as to whether the applicant refusing to provide bank statements was a red flag to Mr Evans at the time, to which Mr Evans stated that once it became clear that the individual would not be willing to provide bank statements, he considered the guidance around receipted invoices, which stated that a letter would be needed from the supplier to confirm that payment had been made, which the individual had provided, and which met the requirement of the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) guidance. He added that when it became clear that something did not seem right, the Authority requested bank statements from the individual, of which the request was refused on the basis that the individual was concerned the statements may be able to be obtained by the public through a Freedom of Information request. Following the reason for refusal being given, WEFO provided the individual with an offer for the bank statements to be provided directly to them, to eliminate fears around the Authority, or even for them to view them, in person, at the individual’s home address, but following all attempts, the refusal still stood. Councillor Jacob Williams asked if efforts were made, in advance of the Authority having doubts about the propriety of the claimant, to obtain bank statements, to which Mr Evans believes efforts were made, and such documents would be expected to be submitted as part of the claim, but he could not give a definite answer. An extract from the Commercial Property Grant Scheme (CPGS) manual was read out by Councillor Williams which stated that ‘certified copies of bank statements must also be kept on file’; he stated that this requirement seemed to have been disregarded by the Authority, and asked if Mr Evans agreed with that statement. Mr Evans agreed that yes, the Authority could not fulfil that requirement, so instead adhered to the WEFO guidance in relation to alternative forms of acceptable defrayment evidence. Councillor Williams suggested that the applicant was given special treatment, and queried if such treatment was extended to any other applicants, to which Mr Evans assured Members it was not, and added that this was the only applicant who had grants withdrawn. Councillor Williams highlighted that the applicant would have had to have agreed to the Council’s Procedure Manual when applying for the grants, so for the Authority to then stray away from the terms of the agreement and revert to alternative guidance was not acceptable. He added that had the Authority stuck to the requirement for certified copies of bank statements to be kept on file, the issues would likely have never happened and added that the situation was unacceptable and did not demonstrate prudent use of money. Mr Evans responded to agree that in hindsight, this should have been a red flag and he should have been alerted to a potential issue, but as the Authority had evidence of defrayment compatible with WEFO guidance, which had more influence than the procedure manual, the Authority was content that the rules had been adhered to. Mr Evans provided an alternative view stating that had the Authority abided by the Authority’s manual, the Pembroke and Pembroke Dock Grant Scheme would have incurred a lot of Council expenditure, which would have had a negative impact on drawing down sufficient EU grant funding in future, resulting in a substantial funding gap for the Authority. Councillor Mike Stoddart provided a plethora of background information and raised frustration regarding a situation which occurred in 2013, where he visited the office of Mr Gwyn Evans to view documents in relation to the CPGS, to find that on advice from the Monitoring Officer at that time, all financial information had been redacted. He also raised that the applicant offering to pay back above and beyond what was required should also have been a big red flag to the Authority. Reference was made to a FAQ document which was authored by Mr Evans, which as part of a question contained within, stated that ‘grant money could only be used on commercial elements of properties’, which Councillor Stoddart highlighted to be not correct, in this particular case. He also outlined concerns with the bill of quantities, as it had been proven that work undertaken which was labelled as eligible was in fact ineligible, and further concerns were raised as Councillor Stoddart stated that some work which had been itemised, was never actually carried out, particularity in relation to the building at the rear of the property. In response to the points raised by Councillor Stoddart, Mr Evans confirmed that the redacted information, was indeed redacted on clear advice from the Monitoring Officer. He confirmed that he did write the FAQ document, which provided answers based on the eligibility rules issued by WEFO, which stated that grant money could only be used for commercial aspects. He stated that on issuing the answers, he was of the view that the grant had been used for eligible work only, however, now accepted that this was not the case, but assured the Committee that the ineligible expenditure had later been removed. He read out an extract from the statement provided to the Police in 2016 which broadly stated that areas of the building were treated as eligible when they were in fact ineligible, and advised the Committee that whilst mistakes were made by Officers, as those Officers were the responsibility of him, he would take responsibility for those mistakes, but highlighted that the grant on those matters had been reversed. Following a question from Councillor Stoddart, Mr Evans stated that he did not take responsibility for misleading information contained within the bill of quantities, as after reviewing the application it was deemed deliberately misleading and stated that the application requested details of any planned changes of use of the building after the grant had been provided, of which no changes of use were outlined. He accepted that the details provided in the application were false, as changes to the use were then made to convert commercial areas to four residential flats. It was recognised by Mr Evans that whilst the Authority could have been more alert to those matters, it was clearly the intent of the applicant to mislead the Authority. Particular concern was raised by Councillor Stoddart in relation to No.25 and No.29 Diamond Street as it was highlighted that to abide by fire safety regulations, these shops required specific work, which was not carried out. It was stated that the failure to carry out this work would have put the flats above the shops at risk in the event of a fire, and with the tragic events that took place at Grenfell Tower, the Authority should have ensured the work was conducted. In response Mr Evans stated that the Grenfell Tower incident did not happen for many years after so he did not feel that was a comparable reference and stated that all work outlined within the grant terms, should have been carried out. Following critical remarks being made by Councillor Stoddart in relation to Council Officers, the Chair requested that he be careful when making such remarks, to which Councillor Stoddart advised that Officers should not be above criticism, as it was his role, as an Elected Councillor, for him to hold Officers to account. [The meeting was paused at 12:12pm for a comfort break and resumed at 12:27pm.] The meeting was resumed and the Chair drew the Committee’s focus back to ensuring that they were satisfied that lessons had been learned and that current processes were robust, and requested that upcoming questioning be in line with those priorities. Mr Martin Veale made reference to the Authority’s processes in relation to grant authorisation and requested clarification in light of what had happened previously, that grants are now not approved until satisfactory defrayment evidence is received. He added that clear requirements need to be set out in the grant offer letter stating that until such time that evidence is provided, grants will not be payable. In response, Mr Evans outlined the conditions contained within the grant offer letter and advised that when the Authority is approving payment for anchor projects, funded through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UK-SPF), bank statements are required as proof of defrayment. The Chair queried if bank statements alone were enough evidence of defrayment to which Mr Evans assured the Committee that bank statements were an effective proof of defrayment and in his opinion he feels the way operations are undertaken at present, are robust but assured the Committee that such matters will also be outlined as part of the Internal Audit review findings. For clarity, Mr Evans advised Members that Internal Audit were conducting a review of grant schemes following issues that previously with the Audit, Risk & Counter Fraud Manager advising that this review should be concluded by November and provided assurance that defrayment was being tested as part of the review. Mr Veale sought assurance that the Authority now had suitably skilled individuals who review and approve applications and bills of quantities ahead of any payments being made, to which Mr Evans advised that his team no longer dealt with such schemes, stating that those projects are now run by the Economic Development and Regeneration division, who have staff who are qualified in those areas. The Chair highlighted that whilst European funding is no longer available, the lessons that have been learned from matters relating to European funding are applicable to all other grant schemes dealt with by the Authority, and sought assurance from Officers that improvements have been applied to all necessary departments, as she does not feel such confidence has been given at present. To assist with the Chair’s request, the Director of Resources outlined some of the improvements that have been made which included strengthening the internal control regime, revising procedures, specific training, more frequent site inspections (to include photographs), the assistance from Quantity Surveyors where required, the appointment of a Senior Responsible Officer to specific grant schemes and the support from Internal Audit. The Chair thanked the Director for the updates and suggested that it may be beneficial for all improvements to be outlined within a succinct report to the Committee, which Councillor Maureen Bowen expressed her support for. Councillor Aled Thomas made reference to a comment made by Mr Evans, which alluded to him feeling offended by points the Barrister had raised, and queried if Mr Evans was even given the chance to portray his side of the story. Mr Evans stated that he had not been given the opportunity to provide his side of the story as comprehensively as he has today, so was grateful to be able address this Committee. Mr John Evans asked Mr Gwyn Evans if he felt the Authority’s whistleblowing policy was robust, to which he stated that he had never had a reason to have any concerns about it and would be confident to use it, if ever needed. Reference was made to both the Council’s Officer Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct of the professional institute Mr Evans is a member of, and Mr John Evans queried which Code of Conduct was stronger. Mr Gwyn Evans stated that all apply to him and are complimentary to each other. Mr John Evans sought assurance that there was no work required, in Mr Gwyn Evans opinion, in relation to strengthening the Council’s Officer Code of Conduct, of which assurance was given that it was robust. Mr John Evans reiterated his involvement, as Chair of the Audit Committee at the time, in the analysis of evidence in the data room, and made reference to the ‘mysterious disappearance of documents overnight’ stating that from his involvement, he had predicted the outcome of the Police, and did not feel an apology, in relation to the conclusion of the Barrister’s investigation, was warranted as he fully agreed with the Barrister’s conclusion. Reference was made by Mr John Evans, to a meeting he attended on the 28 May 2014, of which Mr Jonathan Haswell and Mr Kerry McDermott were in attendance of, and stated it was during that meeting, where ‘decisions were being made to change resolutions of the Audit Committee’ that he had predicted the outcome of the Police enquiry. He read out an extract of his journal from that meeting which stated ‘The police investigation would come to nothing, and they would conclude that Pembrokeshire only has themselves to blame because of the sloppy controls that were in place’. [Amended by Minute 25 of Committee – 25 November 2024] Councillor Jacob Williams raised concerns with an answer Mr Evans provided earlier in the meeting in relation to the FAQ document, where he stated in response to a question querying if the grant money had ever been spent on residential areas of a property, ‘well, the money has now been repaid’ which Councillor Williams expressed left him with a feeling that lessons were still to be learnt, as just because the money had been re-paid, did not alleviate the concerns around the money being issued incorrectly in the first instance. Additional points were raised in relation to the poor conduct of Mr Evans, but Councillor Williams stated that it was reassuring that Mr Evans had joined the meeting and seemed to have expressed more contrition than the written statement he provided. In summing up, Councillor Williams wished to also express his agreement with the Barrister’s conclusion. In response, Mr Evans wished to say that, in relation to the FAQ question, he feels Councillor Williams had misinterpreted his answer and reiterated that at the time, he truthfully believed that the statement he made to be true, but now looking back with hindsight knows it was not, but does not accept that he deliberately misled in that regard, which Councillor Williams expressed that he did not accept to be a truthful answer. [Councillor Aled Thomas left the meeting at this juncture] Councillor Mike Stoddart referred back to the FAQ document, and stated that it has been his consistent view that allowing a mix of eligible and ineligible works to be entered into tenders, was always going to make fraudulent claims more likely. Mr Evans stated that he did not agree with this and as per current CPGS regulations, eligible and ineligible expenditure was not split out. He added that following a suggestion to base the grant on the tender with the lowest eligible costs and not just the lowest total cost would be problematic as the Council would have to insist that the applicant engage a contractor whose costs are not the lowest. He added that whilst he does understand Councillor Stoddart’s logic, he feels it would be impractical to do so in capacity terms, particularly for grants with high numbers of applications. In response to a point raised by Councillor Stoddart in relation to the potential untruthful logic of contractors submitting grants, Mr Evans stated that the way grants are managed in present times is different to how they used to be, with more evidence being required now and increased site inspections taking place so contractors have to undertake what they agree to in the grant offer. The Chair expressed that she had still not been reassured that processes were now in place to ensure clarity regarding specific eligibility for grant funding and raised concern that the lowest cost tender is not necessarily the best tender. Picking up on points raised by Councillor Mike Stoddart in relation to construction contracts, a suggestion was made to review such concerns at a later stage and make provisions to ensure concerns are incorporated into effective training. Mr John Evans referred back to an update provide by the Director of Resources regarding the changes which have been made in relation to the grant procedure rules, and queried if those rules were linked to the Council's financial procedure rules. The Director of Resources advised Members that the Council's Financial Procedure Rules have been updated twice in last few years and the expectation is that any changes are then rolled into any relevant grant procedures. Questions for Mr Gwyn Evans concluded, and the Committee expressed their thanks for his attendance and participation. Questioning then turned to Jon Haswell, Director of Resources, as follows: Councillor Mike Stoddart stated that in December 2013, he identified that the whole roof of Coronation School had not been re-slated, however it was stated in the Director of Resources’ report that it had. An explanation on the matter was sought. For clarity, the Director of Resources stated that the school was part of the Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) not CPGS and the report was authored by the Director of Finance and Leisure and the Director of Development, however he presented it at that Cabinet meeting. He stated that he did not work for the Authority when the work was undertaken so had to rely on what he was being told and photographs. He advised that he had seen pictures of the roof before and after the work was conducted and there was a clear differentiation in the roof tile patterns with new ridge tiles in some areas. He also saw photographs of the inside of the roof before and after and it was clear, in the area shown in the photo, that there had been new felt and batten, so he could only go on what he was being told and shown by the Quantity Surveyor/Case Officer. He added that as the investigation progressed it became clear that he may have been misled by the Officer (which was later included in his statement to the Police), so if he was asked the question now he would not use the word ‘whole’, which he stated to have emailed Councillor Stoddart about in 2016 and it was also raised at a full Council meeting in the same year. Following remarks made by Councillor Stoddart on the matter, in relation to Officers’ conduct, the Chair stated that such matters highlight the need for closer supervisions and greater training of Officers. When asked by Councillor Williams if he would offer an apology to Councillor Stoddart, the Director of Resources stated that his view was correct when he gave it so is unclear what he would be apologising for. Questions for Jon Haswell concluded, and the Committee expressed their thanks for his attendance and participation. Councillors Williams, Stoddart and Bowen expressed the view that residents of Pembrokeshire want the truth, about historic matters and moving forward. The Chair summed up by agreeing that honesty and transparency is absolutely fundamental and throughout the debate, whilst there had been an acknowledgement that things were not as they should be, the concept of hindsight should be used to ensure there is no repeat of the situations. She expressed that she had not been satisfied that all lessons had been adequately learnt and that current processes are fully robust. [The Chief Executive re-joined the meeting at this juncture] Discussion was had in relation to the next steps and the following proposals were made by Members: (a) That the Committee requests a report that sets out, reflecting back on the experience, what the most significant learnings and shortcomings identified have been for the Authority; (b) To receive assurance that the Council has now taken all the necessary steps to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future; (c) To ensure that current processes and procedures are robust and regularly reviewed in the light of the experience; and (d) That relevant staff are effectively performance managed and appropriate disciplinary processes are applied, as appropriate. It was added that the report be presented to the Committee as soon as practicable, to allow sufficient time for a thorough report to be collated. A suggestion was made for an extraordinary meeting to be held, to allow focus to be given to this one report, which Members agreed with. Moved by Mr John Evans; Seconded by Mr Martin Veale The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Maureen Bowen, Michael James, Michael Stoddart and Jacob Williams, and Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale. [7] There were no votes against or abstentions RESOLVED (a) That the Committee requests a report that sets out, reflecting back on the experience, what the most significant learnings and shortcomings identified have been for the Authority; (b) To receive assurance that the Council has now taken all the necessary steps to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future; (c) To ensure that current processes and procedures are robust and regularly reviewed in the light of the experience; and (d) That relevant staff are effectively performance managed and appropriate disciplinary processes are applied, as appropriate.
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.