To submit
the report of the Council Leader
(attached).
Minutes:
The Leader submitted a
report inviting the Council to consider and amend draft observations prepared
as a basis to the Council's response to the main proposals and questions of
Welsh Government's White Paper on local government reform.
During the discussion, it
was noted:
·
That morale was low
in the community councils as a result of having to accept more responsibilities
by this Council. The Leader replied that the White Paper referred to the need to
respond to the change in the situation of town and community councils and to
carry out further work in order to see what structure of community councils
would be needed in the future in order to be suitable to cope with the new
contexts.
·
That the White Paper
gave everyone everything, however, when going under the surface, strong signs
of centralising services for the North Wales region could be seen. The questions that had been posed related to
peripheral issues that were easy to answer; however, a question should be asked
about the purpose of a local authority and the principles of democracy and
accountability should things be taken away from the councils and given to some
regional body? Also, there was a confusion of partnerships across the North which
was almost impossible to comprehend. Who was responsible for making decisions
and where and when would they be scrutinised and by whom? There was a risk that
Gwynedd Council would not have much to do in ten years' time. Everything would have been taken somewhere
else and what impact would that have on our Welsh language policy?
·
That there was a need
to make strong general comments expressing concern regarding the journey that
was commencing here to centralise services into a North Wales region level. This was also contrary to the Local Services
Boards which had been established by another piece of legislation and what
would be their subsequent role? There
was a risk of duplicating work and the situation was very confusing.
·
If Assembly Members would be prevented from standing as councillors, it
was assumed that it would not be possible for councillors to stand as Assembly
Members either. In the past, individuals had been seen to serve as councillors
whilst being Assembly Members and appointment to both posts did not prevent an
individual from carrying out their work in full.
·
The Paper did not address the six month rule and this needed to be
tightened.
·
The document raised
doubts regarding regional operation. There was reference to GwE here, for example,
and to the value of it at the end of the day.
There was also reference to the role of councillors and it was
questioned whether or not moving to a regional model would make it more
difficult to engage with the public. It mentioned that councils themselves
should decide upon their own committees system, and this was to be
praised. In response, the Leader noted
that he had argued in favour of reorganisation along robust lines; however, he
did not share the same enthusiasm for reorganisation that appeared loose and
vague with a lack of accountability. He also noted that it was strange that
matters such as a committees system and voting system were optional within
legislation.
·
That vague legislation, that did not tie-in together, made it more
difficult to operate as a councillor and for the public to understand who was
responsible. Regional committees were far away from the public. The whole thing
did not tie-in together. The various
recommendations had been collated in an untidy and loose manner.
·
The role of local government in the twenty-first century should be the
starting point; however, nobody seemed to be looking at that.
·
That all powers had been stolen from local government, thus leaving
councils with many responsibilities, but not many powers. Should these powers
be transferred back, councils would not have to consider sharing services
because there would be a sufficient purpose to their existence. Also, there was
a tendency to believe that the answer was to be found at the top, rather than at
the bottom.
·
That councillors served on regional bodies as members of the board,
rather than as members of Gwynedd Council, and made decisions on behalf of the
board. This was not democracy.
·
That the White Paper did not address the situation where individuals
fooled electors by changing parties after being elected to the Council. The
Leader replied that the White Paper, on the whole, related to the structures of
local government, rather than the system of electing councillors or their terms
of service; however, a comment of this type could be included if desired.
RESOLVED
to accept the draft observations as the basis to the Council's response to the
White Paper - Local Government - Resilience and Renewal.
Supporting documents: