Agenda item

To consider the joint report of the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance and the Head of Governance and Partnerships.

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance and the Head of Governance and Partnerships.

 

Following on from the Member briefing sessions that had been held, the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance advised that this report sought to inform Members of the two current consultations being undertaken (listed below) on the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill and presented a suggested draft consultation response for the CJC consultation element which, if approved would be forwarded to Welsh Government prior to 4^th January.

 

·        Corporate Joint Committees (CJCs) – consultation response deadline – 4^th January, 2021.

·        Part 6, Chapter 1 - Performance and Governance of Principal Councils – consultation response deadline – 3^rd February, 2021.

 

The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill [the Bill] was introduced in 2019 and passed by the Senedd on 18th November, 2020.  It was anticipated the Bill would receive Royal Assent early in 2021. The Bill was a substantial piece of legislative reform covering many elements including electoral reform, public participation, governance and performance and regional working and would replace the current improvement duty for principal councils as set out in the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009.

 

It was noted that there would be a staggered introduction of the various elements contained with the Bill.

 

The Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance continued by highlighting the following salient points in relation to the CJC consultation element:

 

Corporate Joint Committees(CJCs) - had been the subject of much debate with the Minister during the past 12 months and although called ‘Committees’, these were corporate bodies, described by the Minister as ‘part of the local government family’ and were separate legal entities in their own right.

 

The membership of the CJCs would be Leaders of the respective local authorities and voting initially would be on a ‘one member one vote’ basis.  CJCs could co-opt other members if they choose, either cabinet members or other partners and these could be in a voting or non-voting capacity.  CJCs would be accountable to their ‘constituent’ councils via their leaders.

 

There were 4 CJC regions in Wales and Blaenau Gwent would form part of the South East region.CJCs would have functions relating to economic well-being, strategic planning (Local Development Plans would remain with Local Authorities) and transport. The economic wellbeing power was potentially wide-ranging and significant, but how far it was to be used would be determined by a CJC.

 

Where there was regional working in place, then these regional arrangements may transition into a CJC format.  It was noted that the current city and growth deal strategic functions would be transferred to CJCs.  It was noted that in  future, Welsh Government could however, add other functions to a CJC via future legislation.

 

Although the current draft regulations allowed a degree of regional flexibility, the Welsh Government could constrain or prescribe CJCs through funding or policy instruments. They could provide funding in support of a function via CJCs but specify that the funding must be spent in certain way or in line with WG priorities. However, there was no flexibility in terms of the introduction of CJCs i.e. they were going to be introduced and implemented.

 

The Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance concluded by outlining the options contained in paragraph 3.1 of the report and referred to the consultation responses contained in appendix 3.  It was noted that these responses were closely aligned to those that some neighbouring authorities would be submitting.

 

The views of Members were, thereupon, sought relating to the report.

 

A Member expressed his concerns regarding timeliness of the report because the Bill was likely to receive Royal Assent within a month’s time and pointed out that another local authority had discussed this matter back in October.  He continued by referring the Corporate Joint Committees and said that whilst this was not exactly another tier of government it was a tear in the fabric of democracy.  The Member, thereupon, referred to the following paragraphs contained within the report:

 

Paragraph 2.7 - Membership - concern was expressed that this proposal would put too much power into the hands of one individual.

 

Paragraph 2.8 – Voting – would initially be on a ‘one member one vote’ basis but once established CJCs could adopt alternative voting procedures should they wish and the Member envisaged that this could potentially mean a greater proportion of the votes being allocated to the larger authorities.

 

Paragraph 2.11 – Accountability – CJCs would be accountable to their constituent councils via their leaders and the Member specifically asked the Leader directly, what mechanisms would be established to ensure that this would happen for example, would there be a Special Council prior to a CJC meeting in order that the Council could mandate the Leader (it was pointed out that if the Council met following a CJC meeting, the Council would have no option to veto any decisions made).

 

The Leader of the Council commenced by stating that with regard to the issue around membership he had also expressed concerns regarding this aspect. He continued by stating that he had always been against the principle of mandation but clarified that the way the CJCs were to be set up was vastly different in terms the functions that were being discussed back in October.  In terms of timeliness, the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) had only published its briefing note on the Bill on 19^th November, so the Council had been as timely as it could have been.

 

He continued by stating that he had also expressed his concern that the constituent authorities would have to go along with the majority vote and, therefore, as part of the Council’s response it would be important to request that a veto be built into the CJC arrangements.  In addition, if people were co-opted onto CJCs it should only be the Leaders that should be able to vote as mandated by their councils.  With regard to CJCs being based on the City Deal footprint, he pointed out that the City Deal as it was currently constituted worked as a corporate body (not politically) but there was some concern as administrations changed, the impact and effect that this may have on areas like Blaenau Gwent.

 

For clarification, the Leader of the Council advised that in terms of mandation he was specifically referring to the elements of the Bill for CJCs – he believed that a Leader should be mandated prior to entering into any discussions.

 

The Member continued by stating that this needed to viewed in the context of the failure of successive local government Ministers to reorganise local government - people were aware of the Williams Report to shape local government across Wales reducing the number of local authorities from 22 to between 10 and 12.  He believed that local authorities had been failed on this – he recalled that a number of authorities that had submitted expressions of interest proposals to merge (one being Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen) but these had been rejected.  He believed that this was a further attempt to reorganise local government and he opposed it absolutely.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group stated that he believed this was another tier of confusion – City Deal was already established and was working as best as it could and would start to deliver the benefits in due course and, therefore, CJCs would be replicating much of the work of the City Deal had been undertaking. 

 

He continued by stating that this legislation distracted from the main and core issues in Blaenau Gwent. Given the nature of the local authority i.e. there were issues of size and deprivation to name a few, the area had been badly let down as there was clearly no move in Welsh Government to address these issues going forward.  Previously, a considerable amount of work had been undertaken with Torfaen regarding a proposed merger but this had not accepted by Welsh Government.  Blaenau Gwent was left in a situation where it was trying to survive on next to nothing – the authority did not want handouts but wanted to survive and prosper going forward for the area and if this meant being part of wider and larger organisation, the Council needed to have full and frank discussions on how it would endeavour to be reorganised whilst still maintaining proper political support for the people of the area. 

 

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the earlier comment made by the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance that CJCs would be implemented – however, said that this was not necessarily the case – clearly reorganisation had previously been stopped because people had objected to it and he concluded by calling on the Council to object to this particular consultation.

 

The Chair requested that the debate focus on the report and not stray into political arena. However, it was pointed out that the Council was a political organisation – a Member, thereupon, called a point of order.

 

Other Members commented as follows:

 

-      This was rushed consultancy and Blaenau Gwent had been badly let down and should be fighting for the electorate.  It was felt that CJCs would not benefit this particular area and would be another ‘quango’. Blaenau Gwent would be joined with 10 other local authorities, therefore, a veto was required in order to ensure that Blaenau Gwent was not out voted by other authorities.

 

-      Concern was expressed that the monies required for the communities within Blaenau Gwent would be diverted along the M4 corridor to deal with flooding issues in the future.

 

-      A Member said that he was very concerned about the CJC element of the Bill and felt that this was reorganisation of local government by the ‘back door’.

 

The Leader of the Council pointed out that he had never made the statement of ‘being badly let down’ and did not want this comment attributed to him.  He stated that whilst he was not in favour of mandation and had spoken against the concept of CJCs in October when it had been discussed at the WLGA, he would not accept and have any of his comments interpreted as detrimental to any of the other 9 constituent authorities of the City Deal - these authorities worked together in a fair and equitable manner.  Whilst there may be some vested interests in the future, as the City Deal which would morph into a CJC was currently constituted and operated, he had confidence there were elements of fairness and he was not prepared to have any of his comments attributed to the blanket complaint that areas like Blaenau Gwent were being railroaded by the other authorities that had been named.

 

The Member who had made the comment stated that this had been his interpretation of what had been said particularly, in relation to the need for a ‘veto’ being built into the CJC arrangements.

 

The Leader of the Council stated he had total faith, trust and respect for the current Local Government Minister. With regard to the issue of the veto this related to future years, at present he had a degree of comfort of how the City Deal was currently constituted but in future years this could not be predicted and said as a matter of political morality a veto should be included as part of the CJC arrangements.

 

He continued by stating that he had expressed concerns about the democracy being taken away from local government and it had been established during the pandemic, that more than ever that local government had clearly been seen to be the delivery arm of Welsh Government. However, there was an overwhelming appetite in the local government family for CJCs to take place.  Therefore, if the Bill was going to receive Royal Assent and be implemented it would be beneficial to capture Members points of views which would form part of the response in order that issues that had been raised including the veto, one authority one vote could be considered. 

 

The Leader of the Labour Group said that he was making similar points to those that had been raised by the previous Member and suggested that instead of replicating what already existed i.e. the City Deal perhaps the name could be changed as an alternative and there should be more of a focus put on reorganisation.  He stated that he would propose an alternative recommendation in due course.

 

Members made the additional comments:

 

-      This was reorganisation by stealth and another extra level of government which would have to be paid for – Blaenau Gwent would be expected to make a financial contribution which would mean less money for the area and concern was raised that could potentially lead to a burden on the council tax payer.

 

-      This was an erosion of democracy.

 

-      Appreciation expressed was expressed to the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance for the briefing that had been provided to Members.  Concern was expressed that larger authorities had the capacity to transfer their staff to support CJCs and this would put smaller authorities at a disadvantage – however, this could potentially result in in conflicts of interest. Without a veto, the members of the public would think that the Council would be agreeing with everything that was discussed within the CJCs.  Blaenau Gwent would become the poor relation.

 

-      CJCs could set their own budget without it having to be ratified by constituent councils – this would be similar to the precepts paid to other statutory partners. 

 

In reply to several questions, the Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance advised that:

 

-       the consultation document had been published on the Welsh Government website but the authority would not be privy to private individual consultation responses (apart from the local government family, City Deal and the WLGA) at this point in time, until the consultation period concluded.

 

-      With regard to delaying the submission of the consultation responses in order to seek views from Blaenau Gwent residents, the officer advised that due to the timescales faced the response would effectively have to be submitted before the Christmas period to ensure it was received before 4^th January, therefore, the request for a delay in submission could not be acceded to.

 

-      The Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance said she was unable to confirm if the town/community councils had received the consultation document – because Blaenau Gwent was a principal council, the authority was a primary consultee. However, there was an opportunity for town/community councils to respond to the consultation via the Welsh Government website.

 

At this juncture, a Member pointed out that he had earlier been going to raise a point of order over what he considered prescriptive chairmanship because a fuller debate was being prevented when Members needed to be provided with the context of the topic.  He stated that both he and the Leader of the Labour Group (at different periods) had been Leader of the Council at the time of the proposed local government reorganisation and there were issues that Members should be made aware of in the context of the discussion.   He concluded by stating that when a point of order was raised it should be considered accordingly.

 

The Leader of the Council said that several comments had been made about Blaenau Gwent being the ‘poor relation’ but felt that this was not the case and in no way was Blaenau Gwent the poor relation in South East Wales – there was a need, requirement and desire to work together to achieve an equitable balance across the region as part of the City Deal arrangement.  He concluded by stating that whilst he understood the concerns raised, the only way to influence the consultation would be to endorse Option 1 and he would be proposing that option - the consultation responses were balanced and captured the main points and concerns that had been raised by Members at the briefings.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group clarified that the comments were not being directed towards the 10 local authorities but towards Welsh Government and the establishment of CJCs.  He requested that this comment be placed on record.

 

Performance and Governance of Principal Councils - at this juncture, the Head of Governance and Partnerships gave an overview of the Performance and Governance of Principal Councils provisionscontained within the Bill, which were framed within the wider sustainable development duties of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.  This act sets out a legally binding common purpose for the public bodies subject to that Act to improve the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales.  It was noted that this element of the consultation would end on 3^rd February, 2021.

 

The Head of Governance and Partnerships continued by outlining the provisions within paragraphs 2.13 to 2.19 of the report which included the duty to consult, report and keep performance under review, the duty to arrange a panel assessment on performance (it would need to be ensured that this was meaningful and added value to the current processes because there would be cost implications), intervention powers and the role of the Auditor General together with the socio economic duty – this work was being progressed with linkages to the Strategic Equality Plan.

 

Members raised the following points in relation to this particular section of the report:

 

-      Concern was expressed that most of the duties would be duplicating the processes that had already been established.  A Member pointed out that Blaenau Gwent’s priorities were linked to the Corporate Plan and if the authority was unable to veto any decisions, this could have a detrimental effect on the priorities for the area.

 

The Head of Governance and Partnerships advised that as indicated the Corporate Plan which had been agreed, did set out the Council’s priorities.  The Performance and Governance duty of the Bill would not look to direct priorities but how the Council would implement and effectively deliver its own priorities through a well embedded self-assessment process together with the effective use of resources and performance management to progress and monitor the arrangements in a strong and robust way.

 

For further clarity, the Head of Governance and Partnerships advised this was a separate provision to the CJC duty.  There was already a vast amount of processes in place with regard to performance management and how this information was reported and this point had been made to Welsh Government.

 

In reply to a statement that was made that Audit Wales would ensure the current procedures were effective, the Head of Governance and Partnerships said that she had also raised the point regarding the relationship with external regulators and Auditor General but further clarity was required regarding the remit of the Audit General and external regulators and this would form part of the draft response.

 

Concluding Statements/Amended Proposal:

 

The Leader of the Labour Group said he was concerned about the implications of the Bill and the future of local government and the Council had a duty to the people of Blaenau Gwent.  Therefore, a clear message needed to be sent to Welsh Government objecting to the consultation.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group, thereupon, proposed the following amendment to the preferred option:

 

The Labour Group strongly objected to the creation of Corporate Joint Committees because the Group believed that they formed yet another unnecessary tier of bureaucracy in Welsh local government replicating the already established City Region.  The Group felt that the proposals would do nothing to address the long-standing deprivation issues relevant to Blaenau Gwent and would add yet more confusion that obscures the real challenges that were faced.

 

It was, therefore, proposed that the Council demonstrates its objection by refusing to take part in the consultation.

 

This amended proposal was seconded.

 

The Leader of the Council said that the Bill would shortly be receiving Royal Assent and would be implemented.  Therefore, he would much prefer the concerns and comments raised incorporated within the consultation response in order that discussions could be entered into regarding the principles of CJCs and safeguards included (e.g. the provision of a veto) to protect and shape how CJCs would operate in the future.  He concluded by proposing that Option 1 be endorsed.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group said that he disliked the notion that things would happen – they would only happen if the Council let them happen and it was important to voice concerns and it was time to send a stark message to Welsh Government that Blaenau Gwent was not prepared to put up with the conditions imposed upon the authority.

 

A recorded vote was, therefore, requested.

 

In Favour of the amendment – Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.

 

Against the amendment – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, M. Moore, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.

 

The vote on the amendment was not carried.

 

A recorded vote was, thereupon, taken in respect of Option 1 (preferred option):

 

In Favour of Option 1 – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.

 

Against Option 1 – Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, M. Moore, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.

 

The vote in respect of Option 1 was carried.

 

RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely:

 

The approach as set out below for both the CJC and Performance and Governance Consultations be approved.

 

CJCs

The CJC Regulations have gone out to public consultation with a closing date of 4^th January, 2021. Following the all Member briefing session and discussions ongoing within the Region, the Council consultation responses from Blaenau Gwent (attached at Appendix 3) be submitted to Welsh Government.

 

Performance and Governance

Members provide comment to the Head of Governance and Partnerships and the Council would continue to work with the professional networks and WLGA and, based on these two approaches, construct a response for the February deadline.