Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion be not adopted.
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That the additions set out in red in the report regarding the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of reference be approved. (b) That the changes set out in red in the report regarding the Senior Staff Committee Terms of reference be not approved. (c) That the Constitution be amended to delegate the function of setting Licensing fees to the Licensing Committee.
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Democratic Services Committee and Council with a summary of what was discussed and recommended by the Committee.
There were no Members wishing to speak to an item as a non-Committee Member.
The following interest was declared: Item 5 - Notice of Motion relating to Cabinet Members not being employed by a Member of Parliament or Senedd Member Councillor Joshua Beynon declared and personal and prejudicial interest but stated that he had dispensation to speak and vote.
Moved by the Chair; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 September 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion be not adopted.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Law and Governance regarding a Notice of Motion (NOM) relating to Cabinet Members not being employed by a Member of Parliament or Senedd Member, which was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy and referred to the Committee by Council on 12 December 2024. The Head of Law and Governance introduced the report and highlighted that one of the key issues was whether a restriction could be imposed in principle. She also referred to the restricted legal advice within the agenda, and stated that it was up to the Committee to consider whether what was proposed within the NOM was desirable and justifiable on normal public law principles. The Chair referred to the restricted legal advice and stated that he was happy for the advice to be discussed in public. Councillor Mike Stoddart added that he would be against going into private session to discuss the advice, as he believed that it was not necessary as there was no legal opponent. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification as to whether there could be a vote to release the advice to the public. The Head of Law and Governance explained that if no one proposed to go into private session in order to keep the legal advice confidential, then it could be discussed in open session without the need for a vote. The originator of the NOM, Councillor Murphy, then explained the background behind the Motion and raised concern in regards to public perception, conflicts of interest, the role of Elected Members and relationships with the public. He believed that there was a need to improve public trust in elected politicians, as well as the need to improve transparency. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Michelle Bateman sought clarification as to whether a Member working for an Assembly Member or a Member of Parliament would need to be a Member of the same political party. If this was not the case, Councillor Bateman believed there was a slight discrepancy in regards to working for an Assembly Member or a Member of Parliament and not being able to take a Cabinet seat, but that Members could be an active campaigning Member of that party and be allowed to take a Cabinet seat. She believed there were too many grey areas in regards to this aspect. • Councillor Alan Dennison referred to a past Member who was a Senedd Member as well as a County Councillor, and stated that if there was a serious conflict of interest, then he believed that the Declaration of Interest process would manage that. He then outlined his concerns in regards to Cabinet positions and wider Government positions and believed that there were certain circumstances that needed to be reviewed. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with the King’s Counsel legal advice and believed that any issues that may arise could be dealt with using the Code of Conduct. • Councillor Pat Davies questioned whether this matter was just in relation to Cabinet positions or whether it also related to Chair positions, and suggested that it should be consistent for all Members across the Chamber. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion be not adopted; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. · Councillor Dennison raised concern around Cabinet positions being negatively impacted by other jobs, and referred to the devotion and time required to be a Cabinet Member. The Chair stated that there were various Councillors who had multiple different roles, and believed it to be more common than not. Councillor Paul Miller wished to add that Members could be unqualified for a Cabinet position for various reasons, but that it was up to the Leader to appoint who they wish. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jacob Williams, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Michael Stoddart and Aled Thomas [8] Against the Motion: Councillor Huw Murphy [1] Abstentions: Councillors Alan Dennison and Elwyn Morse [2] RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion be not adopted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That the additions set out in red in the report regarding the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of reference be approved. (b) That the changes set out in red in the report regarding the Senior Staff Committee Terms of reference be not approved. (c) That the Constitution be amended to delegate the function of setting Licensing fees to the Licensing Committee.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Law and Governance on proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Senior Staff Committee, Licensing Committee and of the Governance and Audit Committee. The Head of Law and Governance then outlined the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for each Committee as follows: · Governance and Audit Committee: 15. To review the draft Annual Self-assessment and make any recommendations for changes to Council. 16. To review the draft response to the panel performance assessment and make any recommendations for changes to Council. · Senior Staff Committee (a) To recommend to Council proposed severance packages for Chief Officers as prescribed under r. 2 of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2006 (b) To approve severance packages for Heads of Service · Licensing Committee To amend the terms of reference for Licensing Committee to include the setting of fees associated with Licensing functions. The Chair highlighted that the matters relating to the Governance and Audit Committee and the Licensing Committee were simply in regards to who had the power to do what. In regards to the Senior Staff Committee changes, he stated that the existing Terms of Reference in regards to severance payments was brought in a few years ago, and he did not believe there to be good reason to now remove it. The Head of Law and Governance added that the contents of the new Pay Policy Statement was going to be considered by Council on 6 March 2025, and suggested that it might be the wish of the Committee to make a recommendation to Council, that should Council decide to include that change within the statement, then the Head of Law and Governance could amend the Constitution to be in accordance with that decision. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair believed that the current process of severance packages for Officers in excess of £100,000 going to full Council was good governance, and did not wish for it to be changed. • Councillor Huw Murphy agreed with the Chair. • Councillor Elwyn Morse also agreed with the Chair and stated that such significant sums of money should be brought to full Council for all Members to review. • Councillor Alan Dennison also agreed. • The Chair then referred to other Constitutional changes that were not on the Agenda, and sought clarification as to whether it was the intention of the Head of Law and Governance to reconvene the Constitutional Review Working Group to discuss such matters. The Head of Law and Governance confirmed that to be the case and referred to work required on Section 14 of the Constitution in particular, as well as other small matters that may arise. She added that the type of work required would be a matter for the Working Group. The Chair then Moved the following Motion: That Council be recommended: (a) That the additions set out in red in the report regarding the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of reference be approved. (b) That the changes set out in red in the report regarding the Senior Staff Committee Terms of reference be not approved. (c) That the Constitution be amended to delegate the function of setting Licensing fees to the Licensing Committee. Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jacob Williams, Alan Dennison, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, David Howlett, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Michael Stoddart and Aled Thomas [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That the additions set out in red in the report regarding the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of reference be approved. (b) That the changes set out in red in the report regarding the Senior Staff Committee Terms of reference be not approved. (c) That the Constitution be amended to delegate the function of setting Licensing fees to the Licensing Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Democratic Services Committee and Council with a summary of what was discussed and recommended by the Committee.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services on a review of the Petition Scheme, in accordance with Section 42(3) of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (LGE Act). The Head of Democratic Services explained that recent petitions to Council and Committees had allowed the opportunity to reflect on the current process and improve the scheme as appropriate. She added that the Democratic Services Committee had given an undertaking to review the scheme, and that the Constitutional Review Committee was being consulted for its views beforehand. The Committee then reviewed the number of proposed revisions, as outlined in the report as follows: a) A statement is provided on other ways a member of the public can resolve an issue or make their views known, rather than using the Petition Scheme. • Councillor Aled Thomas believed that this was a sensible approach as the public were sometimes unaware of the way that Local Government worked and what powers were available for members of the public. b) Extending the scheme to anyone who lives in a neighbouring Council if they could be affected by the subject matter of the petition. A number of other Authorities do this. • Councillor Rhys Jordan raised concern and suggested that with the large amount of people coming into the County each year, petitions could be received regarding various matters, not necessarily relevant to the County. He believed it could create a significant amount of work. • Councillor Alan Dennison agreed with the proposed change. • Councillor Pat Davies raised concern around the inclusion of anyone living in the area of a neighbouring County being able to submit petitions regarding Pembrokeshire. • Councillor Thomas referred to school children living outside of the Pembrokeshire border but attending schools in Pembrokeshire, and stated that if a petition was started regarding such schools, then it would be right for those parents to have their say. He stated that he was comfortable with the change, and added that there were only two neighbouring Counties and did not believe there would be many tourists from those areas. • Councillor Jordan suggested that the wording referring to neighbouring Counties needed to be more specific. • Councillor Dennison agreed with Councillor Jordan, and wished to add that neighbouring Counties could sign a petition but not submit one. • Councillor Mike Stoddart suggested that ‘neighbouring Council’ be amended to ‘adjoining Council’. c) Clarity on petitions being in respect of something that the Council has a legal authority to implement. • The Head of Democratic Services referred to some recently rejected petitions, as the subject matter of those petitions was not something that the Authority had power over. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. d) A statement advising the petition organiser to check with the Local Member or relevant Service to see if the Council is already acting on the matter. • Councillor Davies stated that it was important for Local Members to be aware of petitions relevant to their wards. • Councillor Thomas agreed that Local Members should be informed, but that that aspect should not deter the petition from moving forward. e) Requirement for postcodes to be provided to assist in the verification of those signing the petition. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. f) Requirement for a contact email address and/or telephone number to be provided by the petition organiser in respect of paper petitions. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. g) Clarity on the fact that petitions must relate to something in respect of which the Council has a power or which directly affects Pembrokeshire. • The Chair suggested that the word ‘or’ be amended to ‘and’, in order to provide clarity for members of the public. The Head of Law and Governance explained that in the Petition Scheme itself it was in the negative and was therefore clear. h) Whether the timescale for repeat petitions and matters already considered should be extended to 12 months rather than six months. • Councillor Dennison questioned whether there had been any petitions that had continued for more than six months. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that there were none, but that this point was in relation to the resubmission of a petition. Councillor Dennison agreed with the change to 12 months. • The Head of Democratic Services added that this was also in relation to petitions relating to a matter that the Council, Cabinet or a Committee had formally considered in the last 12 months and where a decision had been made. • Councillor Thomas highlighted that Members could not resubmit a Notice of Motion within six months of it being originally considered, and suggested that the change to 12 months was not treating the public on the same level as Members. He stated that he would support the six month limit remaining. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that it remained the same. i) Notification to be provided to the Local Member on receipt of the petition. • The Chair referred to a petition relating to saving public toilets, for example, and questioned whether all Members with public toilets in their wards would be notified. The Head of Democratic Services stated that this notification would take place in relation to single ward issues. • Councillor Dennison welcomed this aspect. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that ‘Member’ be amended to ‘Members’, in order to cover off petitions that may involve more than one Local Member. j) The section on who will consider the petition has been strengthened in terms of petitions relating to Executive functions. • The Head of Democratic Services explained the proposed change, and stated that any petition above the threshold of 500 signatures would trigger a debate at Council or Cabinet, if it was a matter for which Cabinet was responsible. She explained that by allowing a petition to go to Cabinet, if relevant, then this would cut out the necessity to take it to Council first for consultation. • Councillor Dennison raised concern that a petition over 500 signatures would not be presented to all Members if it was to go straight to Cabinet instead. • The Chair sought clarification as to whether any past petitions would not have gone to Council, had the suggested rule been in place at that time. Councillor Dennison highlighted the petition regarding the Anchorage Day Centre, to which the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that that particular petition would have gone directly to Cabinet. • Councillor Dennison suggested that that petition would then have not had the same level of debate. The Head of Democratic Services explained that there was an expectation from the public that Council would make the final decisions, which was not true of a petition that required a final decision from Cabinet, therefore this aspect would solve this issue. • The Chair suggested that petitioners be informed where the final decision would come from. • Councillor Thomas stated that he did not agree with this change, and believed that such large petitions do go before Council for them to make recommendations to Cabinet if required. He also referred to the call-in procedure rules and suggested that as a result, petitions could still go before Council at some point during the process. • Councillor Stoddart referred to point (g) and believed that the suggested change would be consistent with that point, which related to Council powers. The Chair believed that point (g) was referring to the Authority as a whole. • Councillor Elwyn Morse also believed that petitions should go to Council regardless of whether the decision would be made by Council or Cabinet. • The Chair asked whether a statement could be made following receipt of a petition, in order to notify the petition organiser that it would go to Council but that the decision would be made by Cabinet, if relevant, in order to manage the expectations of the public. k) Proposal that no more than one petition will be considered per ordinary meeting of Council. This could include other bodies if minded. • The Chair questioned whether a petition would be delayed until the next meeting if one was already due to be considered at a meeting. He did not believe that this suggestion was workable, but also believed that six petitions in one meeting was also not workable. • Councillor Dennison stated that he was against this change as it could result in petitioners waiting a significant amount of time before their petition was discussed, due to the limited amount of Council meetings in one year. He suggested that there be a maximum of three petitions per meeting. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with Councillor Dennison. • Councillor Jordan suggested that a protocol be put in place in regards to if there were more than three petitions required to go to Council, in order to outline how they would be dealt with, potentially via an Extraordinary meeting of Council. • Councillor Morse agreed with Councillor Jordan and stated that petitions should be dealt with seriously, due to the amount of people involved in regards to signatures. He also agreed that there should be a limit. • Councillor Davies also agreed and suggested that Council meetings could start a bit earlier in order to deal with the petitions as necessary. l) Provision for the Local and Cabinet Members to speak for up to five minutes. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that this aspect was largely in relation to Council. • The Chair questioned whether the time limit of up to five minutes would be in addition to the time the Local Member and Cabinet Member would have as a Member of full Council. The Head of Democratic Services stated that it would be unlikely, depending on the views of the Committee on the next point (m). • Councillor Jordan referred to the Planning Committee where the Local Member had an unlimited amount of time in which they could speak, and raised concern that this change could lead to confusion between the different Committees and Council. • Councillor Dennison agreed with the time limit. • The Head of Democratic Services then explained that this aspect was to provide clarity, particularly for Overview and Scrutiny Chairs. She stated that it was suggested that the petition organiser would have five minutes, then the Local Member would also have five minutes, as well as the Cabinet Member, followed by 15 minutes for the debate. • The Chair wished to include the following: ‘That the Local Member has a right to speak if even if they're not a member of the body which is considering the petition.’ m) Consideration of a time limit of 15 minutes for debating the petition. • Councillor Stoddart questioned whether this was in addition to the five minute time limit for speaking. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed this to be the case, and that the total time allocated to a petition would be 30 minutes. Councillor Stoddart raised concern that if there were multiple Members involved, it could breach the time limit. • Councillor Dennison stated his support for the 15 minute time limit for the debate, and suggested that petitions could be deferred to another meeting in exceptional circumstances. • Councillor Morse did not agree with the time limit and suggested that it gave the wrong impression that petitions were not important. He also suggested that there were no time limits for other similar elements. The Chair confirmed that there was a time limit of 30 minutes in place for public questions to Council. • The Chair then suggested that the scheme be amended to read ‘that no more than 30 minutes be allocated to each petition’, rather than separating the time limits between speakers and the debate. • Councillor Bateman stated that it was a difficult situation as petitions could be quite varied, where some may require more debate than others. She referred to the suggested time limit, and wished to add that discretion be given to the Chair to be able to allocate more time to a petition if necessary. • Councillor Thomas believed it was unnecessary to implement a time limit for petitions, and added that Chairs and the Presiding Member already had the powers to extend a debate if they felt it was necessary. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with Councillor Thomas. • The Chair suggested that the matter not be considered since Chair’s and the Presiding Member already had discretion in regards to time limits. n) Clarity on the point that there will be no written report provided when the petition is considered. • Councillors Thomas and Dennison agreed with no reports for petitions. o) Explanation of what the relevant body may do with the petition, if anything. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. p) Link to the description of Executive Functions as contained in the Constitution. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. q) Additional possible outcomes. • Committee Members were content with this aspect. The Committee then reconsidered the following points that they wished to clarify, which were points (b), (h), (j), (k) and (l) as written in the report: b) Extending the scheme to anyone who lives in a neighbouring Council if they could be affected by the subject matter of the petition. A number of other Authorities do this. • The Chair stated that Councillor Stoddart had suggested amending ‘neighbouring’ to ‘adjoining’. • Councillors Jordan and Dennison stated that they would be content with that change. g) Clarity on the fact that petitions must relate to something in respect of which the Council has a power or which directly affects Pembrokeshire. • Councillor Stoddart wished for ‘Council’ to be amended to ‘Authority’. h) Whether the timescale for repeat petitions and matters already considered should be extended to 12 months rather than six months. • Councillor Bateman stated that she would support 12 months, due to the amount of work involved for Officers. • Councillor Stoddart referred to matters that may not be resolved following a petition and that there may be a need for a further petition, and highlighted the Withyhedge Landfill Site petition as an example. • The Chair questioned whether the six months referred to starting or completing a petition. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that it was referring to starting a petition. The Chair added that it would be almost impossible to collect a significant amount of signatures on the day that the six months was up, therefore it could be a further few weeks or months before a petition was submitted following the six month timeline. He suggested that keeping the six month time limit would be suitable. • Councillor Dennison referred to the time limit of six months in regards to questions to Council, and suggested that the same be applied for petitions. • Councillor Davies agreed with six months, but raised concern in regards to how many times the same petition could be submitted. • Councillor Stoddart sought clarification as to whether a petition that was re-submitted would require the same or new signatures. The Head of Democratic Services stated that new signatures would be required. • The Chair concluded that this aspect remain the same. j) The section on who will consider the petition has been strengthened in terms of petitions relating to Executive functions. • Councillor Dennison stated that he was content with the current arrangement. • Councillor Huw Murphy questioned whether there were more petitions crossing the threshold. The Head of Democratic Services explained that sometimes there were a significant amount petitions to consider, and other times there were a lower amount. She added that the threshold was reduced from 1000 to 500, which had resulted in more petitions going to Council. • The Head of Democratic Services then explained that this matter would mean that the ability for a petition to go to Council would be removed and the petition would go to Cabinet, if an Executive function. • The Chair wished to add a statement that explained that if the petition was an Executive matter, then it would go to Council, but that the decision would be made by Cabinet. He stated that this would allow petitions to still go before Council to be debated, and that the statement would manage expectations. • Councillor Thomas agreed with the Chair’s suggestion and wished for petitions to go to Council and not straight to Cabinet, even if it was an Executive function. • Councillor Morse also agreed. • The Chair concluded that the matter remain the same, but that more information be provided to manage the expectations of those submitting petitions. He added that such information should be available to the public in advance of signing a petition. k) Proposal that no more than one petition will be considered per ordinary meeting of Council. This could include other bodies if minded. • The Chair stated that there should be a limit due to the length of meetings, and suggested that there be a limit of three per meeting, as previously suggested by Councillor Dennison. • Councillor Dennison reiterated his support for a limit of three petitions per meeting. • The Chair questioned whether this limit would just apply to Council, to which the Head of Democratic Services explained that it would also apply to Committees and Cabinet. The Chair also questioned whether it was specified that a petition would be carried over to a further meeting if not heard at the next available meeting. The Head of Democratic Services stated that this aspect could be added. • Councillor Stoddart highlighted that if there were six petitions at once, then the following meeting of the relevant body would already be at its limit in regards to petitions. He suggested that some wording be implemented to allow the relevant Chair or Presiding Member, in conjunction with the Head of Law and Governance, to call an Extraordinary meeting if required. • The Chair suggested that a rule be implemented to determine what would happen to petitions if there were already three petitions going to a meeting. • Councillor Davies agreed with the Chair and raised concern in regards to limiting the amount of petitions considered in one meeting, and also suggested the need for an Extraordinary meeting if there was a backlog of petitions. • The Chair concluded by confirming that the recommendation of a three petition limit would be discussed at the Democratic Services Committee. He also requested that a mechanism be devised to make clear what would happen to petitions if they could not be considered at the next available meeting of the relevant body. l) Provision for the Local and Cabinet Members to speak for up to five minutes. • The Head of Democratic Services explained that this would provide structure to the process, particularly for Chairs. • Councillor Jordan suggested that the same protocol as the Planning Committee in regards to public speakers be used, which would result in no time limit for the Local Member. • The Chair then clarified that this aspect would mean that once the petitioner had spoken, the relevant Cabinet Member and the Local Member would have the opportunity to speak. The Chair then stated that he would be comfortable with the five minute time limit. m) Consideration of a time limit of 15 minutes for debating the petition. • The Chair confirmed that the consensus was that a time limit was not needed. The Chair then Moved the proposed revisions as set out above; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jacob Williams, Alan Dennison, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, David Howlett, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Michael Stoddart and Aled Thomas [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Democratic Services Committee and Council with a summary of what was discussed and recommended by the Committee.
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.