Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
1.1 The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming everyone present, with a special welcome extended to newly appointed independent member Lorraine Morgan. 1.2 Apologies for absence were received from Mr Mark Rees.
2.1 The Monitoring Officer (MO) confirmed that the meeting was quorate.
3.1 Councillor Steven Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to Agenda Item 9, Applications for Dispensation – Members Strategic Community Grant Award, and application no’s 4 and 5 in Agenda Item 10, Dispensations in Respect of Members’ Small Schemes, due to his role as Chair of Thornhill Community Centre. 3.2 During Agenda Item Mr Rhodri Guest declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application no.27 as his son played for Pontypool Utd RFC Juniors.
4.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.
5.1 The content of the action sheet was noted. On behalf of the committee, the Chair welcomed completion of the outstanding action and noted that the issue had been discussed several times previously. He noted that the committee received an annual report on members’ attendance and he was pleased to see a motion submitted to Council on this matter in December 2025. He also noted that the revised policy was being updated and would be circulated to members in due course.
6.1 The Chair noted that, having spoken with counterparts across Wales, this item was considered highly valuable, not only for the committee’s work but also for the political leaders attending the meeting. Furthermore, he emphasised that public confidence in local democracy depended not only on the decisions made but also on how those decisions were reached. He highlighted that respectful debate, integrity, accountability and transparency were fundamental expectations in the public sector, and he thanked the political leaders for attending, noting that they set the tone for behaviour and standards, as organisational culture was shaped from the top. He explained that the purpose of the item was not to examine individual cases but to focus on consistency, leadership and process, and he added that the discussion should be honest yet constructive and invited leaders to identify any gaps or areas where the committee could offer support or make recommendations to other committees. 6.2 The Monitoring Officer outlined the report which asked the committee to consider and comment on the steps taken by the Leaders to promote the standards of conduct by members of their groups as set out in the templates attached as an Appendix to the report. 6.3 Group Leader’s responded as follows to questions asked by the committee: Councillor Thomas: • Explained that his group still had work to do in relation to the Code of Conduct, acknowledging that members sometimes struggled when faced with frequent and often hostile online criticism directed particularly at their party. • Stated that this online hostility occasionally led to frustration and moments where members did not conduct themselves as they should, prompting the group to hold internal conversations reflecting on whether certain comments or actions were appropriate. They routinely asked themselves whether something should have been said differently and whether reference to the Code of Conduct was needed. • Reported that he often sought advice from Council officers on issues where potential conduct concerns arose and noted that this reflective approach had become part of their practice. • Accepted that his own attendance had not been strong, explaining that his responsibilities as both a political leader and Director of Wales for Reform UK often drew him away unexpectedly. He stressed that missed meetings were not intentional. • Confirmed that attendance issues were regularly discussed within his group, and members reminded each other of their obligations. He described improving attendance and conduct as an ongoing, collective effort. Councillor Hunt: • Highlighted that the Council benefitted from having a diverse membership, noting that many councillors now had full‑time jobs, which was far less common 30-40 years ago. This meant that attendance needed to be understood in context. • Emphasised that attendance should not be assessed solely on “raw numbers,” as some members with modest attendance records contributed very meaningfully when they were present, while others attended more frequently but contributed little. He stressed that members should be judged on their individual merits, not simple statistics. • Explained that, in terms of conduct, group leaders often acted like “goalkeepers”, and the public usually only noticed when things went wrong, not the many unseen moments where leaders worked to defuse tensions and provide guidance to members. He felt that most issues were managed effectively, even if not perfectly. Councillor Haynes: • Agreed with the comments made above and stressed that there was often too much weight placed on the quantity of meetings attended rather than the value of the contributions made at those meetings. • Stated that she frequently observed councillors attend meetings simply to achieve an attendance mark while contributing very little. She felt this added little value and stated she would prefer a member to attend fewer meetings but participate actively. • Noted that most councillors, except Cabinet Members, Scrutiny Chairs, and political leaders, were effectively backbenchers with part‑time roles, many of whom worked full‑time jobs. She explained that it was therefore inevitable that personal and work commitments would sometimes clash with meeting schedules. • Reported that the Independent Group reviewed attendance regularly and acknowledged that, while attendance was generally acceptable, there was still room for improvement, and the group considered itself a work in progress. In summary, Group Leaders commented as follows around: Meeting formally: • Group Leaders did not currently meet formally, although they were in frequent informal contact and supported one another when issues arose. • Expressed broad support for formalising these meetings, noting that structured discussions could help resolve issues earlier, reduce misunderstandings, and strengthen collaborative working. • Noted that such meetings had existed historically. Code of Conduct Training: • Many councillors did not know the Code of Conduct well enough, and additional training sessions would be beneficial. Social Media Issues and Member Support: • Group Leaders acknowledged that abusive or hostile social media activity was common and varied in severity across political groups. Councillor Haynes highlighted that independent councillors often received personal, rather than party‑based, criticism. • Councillor Hunt stressed the importance of leaders being able to provide pastoral support, noting that hybrid meeting arrangements sometimes made it harder to check on members’ wellbeing in person. He said face‑to‑face interaction was often necessary to identify stress or wellbeing concerns. • Councillor Thomas described being heavily targeted on social media, explaining that he had grown thick‑skinned over time but recognised that other councillors might struggle. He emphasised the need for leaders to monitor colleagues’ behaviour online and challenge vulgar or inappropriate remarks, particularly as such behaviour often affected family members. 6.4 The Chair noted that several other local authorities’ standards committees held informal conversations with political leaders and suggested that such an approach could also be available to this committee if no issues arose. He highlighted that, because the committee met only twice a year, members would likely be willing to engage in additional informal discussions with leaders when appropriate. He thanked the leaders for their contributions and their commitment to maintaining high standards of behaviour and reiterated the committee’s ongoing request that leaders promote good conduct consistently throughout the year, not only when preparing annual submissions. 6.5 The committee considered and commented on the steps taken by the Leaders to promote the standards of conduct by members of their groups as set out in the templates attached as an Appendix to the report.
7.1 The Monitoring Officer outlined the report which asked the committee to note and comment on the draft Annual Report of the Ethics and Standards Committee which will be presented to Council. 7.2 The Chair explained that, due to time constraints, some information would need to be added to the draft report after the meeting. The recommendation was therefore for the committee to review and comment on the draft and to agree that any further amendments required after the meeting could be delegated to the Chair, who would need to incorporate details of the day’s discussions. 7.3 The committee considered the draft Annual Report of the Ethics and Standards Committee attached as an Appendix to the report and agreed that any further changes required could be delegated to the Chair of the Ethics and Standards Committee.
8.1 The Monitoring Officer outlined the Work Programme and asked the committee to consider and implement the draft Work Programme for the Committee for the Civic Year 2025/26. 8.2 Lorraine Morgan asked whether it would be possible to receive a list of Council committees and forums in order to identify which meetings she might wish to attend and observe. Officers confirmed that this information would be shared as an action from the meeting. 8.3 The Chair referred to the Whistleblowing Policy and the Unacceptable Actions of Service Users Policy, noting that the documents had last been revised in September 2023. He asked whether these policies were reviewed on a set cycle, such as every three or five years, and whether the committee would be involved in any future updates. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the policies were owned by HR, who were responsible for their review and maintenance. She stated she would check with HR to determine whether the policies were due for review and, if so, confirmed that they could be brought back to a future meeting for the committee’s consideration, subject to the Chair’s approval. 8.4 The committee approved the draft Work Programme for 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 1 (Version 48) to the report.
Councillor Steven Evans left the meeting for this item due to the prejudicial interest he had declared. 9.1 The Head of Community Wellbeing presented the report which: • Outlined an application for dispensation by a councillor to enable award of funding under the Members Strategic Community Grant. • Sought approval of the application for dispensation by the Ethics and Standards Committee. 9.2 The committee approved the request for dispensation set out in the report.
Cllr Steven Evans left for application no’s 4 and 5 due to the prejudicial interest he had declared. The Chair left for application no.27 due to the prejudicial interest he had declared. Gregor Tay Lodge chaired the meeting during his absence. 10.1 The Chair outlined the applications for dispensations. The committee considered and agreed the 28 schemes applications below: Small Scheme Application Ref No: Councillor applying for Dispensation: Name of Organisation: Amount: 1. Janet Jones Blaenavon horticultural Society £50 2. Janet Jones Tuesday Club £50 3. Rose Seabourne Costar Partnership £250 4. Steven Evans Thornhill Community Centre / Thornhill 4UToo £968 5. Lucy Williams Thornhill Community Centre / Thornhill 4UToo £625 6. Lynda Clarkson Brynonnen PTA £700 7. Lynda Clarkson Friends of Garnteg £700 8. Anthony Hunt Griffithstown Junior AFC £50 9. Anthony Hunt Gollies Playgroup £100 10. Anthony Hunt Panteg Community Foodshare £50 11. Nathan Yeowell Panteg Community Foodshare £50 12. Norma Parrish Panteg Community Foodshare £50 13. Anthony Hunt Panteg House £100 14. Nathan Yeowell Panteg House £100 15. Norma Parrish Panteg House £100 16. Anthony Hunt Friends of Fishpond Park £100 17. Nathan Yeowell Friends of Fishpond Park £100 18. Norma Parrish Friends of Fishpond Park £100 19. Anthony Hunt Bridge 46 to Five Locks Canal Group £50 20. Nathan Yeowell Bridge 46 to Five Locks Canal Group £50 21. Norma Parrish Bridge 46 to Five Locks Canal Group £100 22. Norma Parrish Griffithstown Allotments Association £50 23. Sue Morgan Friends of Pontnewydd Park £200 24. David Daniels Friends of Pontnewydd Park £200 25. Janet Jones Blaenavon Workmens Hall £100 26. Nick Horler Blaenavon Workmens Hall £100 27. Mark Jones Pontypool United RFC £300 28. Liam Cowles Blaenavon & District Men’s Darts League £150
11.1 The following item was not for publication in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as the report contains information in respect of which a claim to Legal Professional Privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings
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.