Agenda item

To submit the report of the Council Leader  (attached).

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.