Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Tuesday, 10th November, 2009

STANDARDS COMMITTEE

 

Minutes of the meeting held on 10th November 2009

 

PRESENT:

 

Mr J.Cotterell (Chair);

 

Lay Members

Mrs Pamela Moore;

Mr Robert Hugh Gray Morris;

Ms Sue Morris;

 

IN ATTENDANCE:

 

Monitoring Officer (LB);

Solicitor (MJ);

Committee Officer (JMA);

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

 

Councillor Robert Lloyd Hughes; William I.Hughes; C.McGregor;

 

1.     DECLARATION OF INTEREST

 

     There was no declaration of interest by a Member or Officer.

 

2.     MINUTES

 

     Minutes of the meeting held on 6th October 2009 were submitted and confirmed as correct.

 

                          

3.       APPLICATION FOR DISPENSATION

 

     The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to address the meeting. The Monitoring Officer drew

     attention to the enclosures attached to her report which was submitted as part of the Agenda                for the meeting. She referred to the relevant parts of the Code of Conduct which Members                     should bear in mind, in particular:-

 

     Part 3 - Interest

 

     10(1) - You must in all matters consider whether you have a personal interest, and whether

     this code of conduct requires you to disclose that interest.

 

     2. You must regard yourself as having a personal interest in any business of your authority

     if :

     “ a member of the public might reasonable perceive a conflict between your role in                taking a decision upon that business, on behalf of your authority as a whole and your                role in representing the interests of constituents in your ward or electoral division and;

 

     your well being or financial position, or that of a person with whom you live, or any

     person with whom you have a close personal association. “

 

     In this particular instance, the Monitoring Officer reported, Members have a Dual Role in

     that they are not only the Local Member but also Members of the Executive and therefore

     the decision markers.  It may not always be necessary to seek a dispensation as this would

     depend on the significance of the decision to be taken. However, the Interest is also

     Prejudicial as Clause 12(1) of the Code states:

 

     Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where you have a personal interest in any business of

     your authority, you also have a prejudicial interest in that business if the interest is one which

     a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so           significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

 
 

     The Monitoring Officer drew attention to a copy of the Dispensation Regulations also included           as part of the Agenda. This sets out the limited grounds on which the Standards Committee           can grant dispensations to Members. The Committee has  Statutory Powers to grant                dispensations if one or more of the listed grounds is established. A dispensation is where a           Member has both a Personal and Prejudicial Interest and where the Standards Committee is                    satisfied that a Statutory Ground exists that effectively expunges the prejudicial element of the      interest so that the Member still has the interest, is required to disclose it, but the element of           prejudice has been removed by the Standards Committee being satisfied that one or more of           the Grounds has been made out.
 

 
 

     The Monitoring Officer quoted the following extract from the Statutory Grounds :
 

 
 

     “2(b) no fewer than half of the members or a leader and cabinet executive of the relevant                authority by which the business is to be considered has an interest which relates to that                business and either paragraph (d) or (e) also applies “
 

 
 

     In this instance, the situation is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, and not one which
 

     the Standards Committee Members needs to deliberate i.e. at least half of the Executive is
 

     conflicted on this issue. The first ground of 2(b) is therefore made out. However, that
 

     ground as a basis for dispensation comes with a caveat that one or two additional grounds
 

     needs to be identified. Ground (d) is applicable and is key to the decision which the                Committee was being asked to make thus:
 

 
 

     “2(d) the nature of the member’s interest is such that the member’s participation in the
 

     business to which the interest relates would not damage public confidence in the conduct of
 

     the relevant authority’s business.”
 

 
 

     The Committee’s deliberations would therefore be restricted to the issue of public confidence.
 

 
 

Members were reminded that six applications for dispensation had been received. Three
 

applications would be heard at this meeting and two at a further meeting on the 11th November. The Chairman invited Councillor McGregor, as Leader of the Council, to
 

address Members. Councillor McGregor reported that Councillor Elwyn Schofield, who was the fourth applicant to be heard at this meeting,  is now no longer a member of the Executive and consequently would not require a dispensation.
 

 
 

The Monitoring Officer concluded by stating that of the three applications to be considered at  this meeting., all three have the same personal and prejudicial interest, namely that they represent Wards which contain one or more schools under threat of closure and are also members of the Executive who is tasked with taking a decision under the Schools Rationalisation Programme. All the applicants are relying on the same grounds under the Code to seek dispensation, namely, that more than fifty per cent of the Executive has a conflict of interest and that public confidence in its decision making would not be damaged by their involvement in the process. That was therefore the element of discretion the Committee has and is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact.
 

 
 

Within her report the Monitoring Officer had included a number of factors which should be taken into account when reaching a decision including the fact that:
 

 
 

There will be an opportunity to ask questions of the Applicants concerning their decision, subject to dispensation, to represent the interests of the County as a whole (as part of the Executive) rather than just the interests of their single ward (as local member).
 

 
 

The Committee would need to be satisfied that each applicant had put to one side the interest of their own Ward in order to represent the interest of the Island as a whole.
 

 
 

In addition, the Monitoring Officer believed the decisions to be taken by the Executive is significant and has major implications for the Island’s communities. Also, the dispensation regulations do envisage a situation such as this and suggests it is not desirable for fewer than half of the members of the Executive to take such decisions, albeit that they would be quorate.
 

 
 

She also reminded the Committee that the Members’ Code of Conduct provides an automatic dispensation for all those Members who are school governors to take part in discussion and voting in matters concerning their schools. There are similarities between that situation and a situation where a Member is a Local Member and the decision maker. She suggested that the relationship between a School Governor and their School is closer than between a Member and the whole of their Ward and that this was a relevant factor to bear in mind in the decision making process.
 

 
 

The Monitoring Officer also stated that whilst this is not a specified ground, the dispensation regulations permit dispensation to be granted if the issue is subject to Scrutiny by the relevant Scrutiny Committee and the interest is a non-pecuniary interest. None of the interests under consideration at this meeting are pecuniary and while there is no guarantee the decision of the Executive will be “called in” for Scrutiny, it is probably likely that it will be.
 

 
 

Members were reminded that this is a lengthy, ongoing process and that after preliminary decisions have been taken a process of consultation will follow such a decision. The result of such consultation will be submitted to the Executive where its decision may be confirmed or a fresh decision taken and that process would last for two months (statutory consultation process).
 

 
 

The Chair invited Mr Geraint Ellis, the Strategic Co-ordinator (Education) to provide a brief overview of the School Rationalisation process. The Officer said he had no doubt the Committee are aware that the Education Authority has been discussing the School Rationalisation Programme and that in the previous process , notices to close two schools, namely Ysgol Aberffraw and Ysgol Llanddeusant had been published. However, a new Council was elected in 2008 and those proposals were withdrawn. The process was restarted from the beginning when, in February 2009, Officers were given authority by the Executive to discuss the future of numerous schools to which two or three  of the following statements applied:
 

 
 

schools with less than 50 pupils in September 2008 and where projections showed there would be less than 30 pupils by 2011;
 

Where the cost per pupil exceeded £4,000;
 

Where the empty places was over 25%;
 

 
 

10 Primary Schools fitted in to those category whereby two or three of the above was relevant to the school.
 

In addition, Urban areas were also to be investigated where there were more than 25% of empty places - that area being Holyhead. Informal consultations were therefore carried out in respect of 10 Primary Schools and schools in Holyhead Town.  Consultations took place at the end of the spring term and during the summer term 2009. Reports were prepared listing the background, options and considerations to be taken into account and School Governors, Staff and Parents and other interested parties were given two months in which to respond to those documents.
 

 
 

The Executive will meet on 16th and 17th November to consider the consultation documents and the responses to the informal consultation and also to listen to a presentation by the Schools. Each school has been invited to nominate three persons who will be given 15 minutes to address the Executive. The Executive will subsequently consider all the documentation they have received together with the presentations made to it and will reach and make a decision at its meeting on the 30th November.  That meeting on the 30th November however will decide whether or not to consult further. The Executive may resolve to leave schools as they are, to close schools or to change the character of schools. However, should the Executive resolve to close or to change the character of a school,  statutory consultation will take place during the  2010  Spring Term when a report on the implications of its decision will be detailed - this will again be a two month consultation period.
 

It is anticipated that the result of that consultation period will be reported to the Executive at the end of March 2010. If the Executive confirm a decision to close a school at this stage, a statutory notice will appear in the press and locally and a further two months period will be allowed for objections to be received. If there are no objections, the Executive will decide whether or not to confirm its decision. If there are objections to the statutory notice then all the documents will be forwarded to the Welsh Ministers for them to reach a decision on whether to confirm reject or modify the decision taken by the Executive.
 

 
 

At this stage, the Education Authority are seeking the Executive’s permission to move ahead with the consultation process which will take place during the spring term of 2010.
 

 
 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and invited the first applicant to
 

address the meeting. He indicated all three cases would be heard independently after which time the Committee would retire to private session and a separate decision announced in respect of each application.
 

 
 

COUNCILLOR  CLIVE McGREGOR
 

.
 

 
 

Councillor McGregor introduced himself as the Leader of the Council and stated he is the local Member for Llanddyfnan and is a County Council nominated School Governor in two schools which are named in the Schools Rationalisation Programme, namely Ysgol Ty Mawr, Capel Coch and Ysgol Talwrn. He recognised his responsibilities towards the County of Anglesey with regard to the Programme and indicated his role as a Ward Member would be discounted in this instance. He assured Members he would represent the Council’s position and represent the County of Anglesey as a whole.
 

 
 

Mrs Pamela Moore asked Councillor McGregor how he would manage the reception of the people in his Ward if they thought his role as a County Councillor outweighed his role as a Local Member.
 

 
 

Councillor McGregor responded by saying that his responsibility is to provide, on behalf of the Authority, the best education for the children of the Island and that dependent on the reasons and arguments put forward. That would be uppermost in his mind when making a decision. He would live with public opinion be that what it may be after the decision has been made.
 

 
 

Ms Sue Morris asked whether or not he had been in this position before where he had potential disparity/focus and what his thought process would be in reaching a decision.
 

 
 

Councillor McGregor said he had not as a County Councillor but did have in a previous employment. He had been required to take a broad view and prepare himself and articulate his decision for the good of the whole rather than for a minority.
 

 
 

The Chair referred to a comment made by the Monitoring Officer that a relationship between a school and a governor could be closer than that of a Councillor and his electorate and asked for Councillor McGregor’s views on this.
 

 
 

Councillor McGregor said support did not necessarily mean being blinkered to the wider picture which has to emerge.
 

 
 

The Chair referred to a decision by the previous administration in that Aberffraw and Llanddeusant were earmarked for closure and asked for his response to this.
 

 
 

Councillor McGregor said he was not a Member of the Authority when that decision had been taken but would faithfully take on, without prejudice all the representations which have been made and arrive at a rational decision having regard to the evidence presented before him as the Leader of the Executive. The Leader concluded by stating he hoped the dispensation would be granted to him as he believed it to be important that the Executive as a whole are involved in making the decision. It will be one of a number of difficult decisions which will have to be made in going forward whilst having due regard  to the budgetary situation of the Authority for this year and for coming years.
 

 
 

      
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

COUNCILLOR ROBERT LLOYD HUGHES
 

 
 

The Chair invited Councillor Hughes to address the Committee. Councillor Hughes said he has an interest in Ysgol Bodorgan which is on the list of schools identified as coming in to the criteria identified by the Strategic Co-ordinator (Education), however he is not a Governor at the School but is regularly invited to and attends meetings of the Governors as the Local Member for Bodorgan. He has no vote but attends merely to offer support to the school and impart any knowledge he may have. He therefore felt he required a dispensation as he has an interest in the School. He had discussed the issue with the Monitoring Officer and informed the Committee that he had attended a Public Meeting at the School on 6th October 2009 when between fifty and sixty persons had been in attendance. The Local MP, Albert Owen and the Assembly Member, Ieuan Wyn Jones were also present. Councillor Hughes said he had outlined his position very clearly at the meeting and informed those present that he would be seeking a dispensation prior to expressing any opinion on the issue. He had distributed an open letter at that meeting (a copy was also distributed to Members of the Standards Committee). The letter indicated quite clearly to his electorate in Bodorgan, the Governors, Parents and the Community as a whole that he would not be disclosing any information on how he would vote until he had heard and seen all the evidence on the 16th and 17th of November and subsequently on the 30th November when a decision will be made on the consultations. He said it was not a pleasant experience, because, as alluded to at this meeting earlier, in asking how one would face one’s electorate if a difficult decision has to be made, he believed he had set out his intention, his electorate knew what he needed to do as a Member of the Executive and he would stand by that principle.
 

 
 

Mrs Pamel Moore asked Councillor Hughes of his views regarding his overall responsibility to the Island as a whole and as an active Member for his Ward.  He responded by saying he believed he had already faced them as, whilst many people supported his stance at the meeting, there were a few who did not. He thought it would have been ill-advised of him not to prepare his electorate that the decision may not go their way. He felt it his duty to do that and having done so he had left the meeting. He had made it quite clear he would not take part in any of the discussion and believed they realised that whether they liked it or not the decision he would make would be one for the County not for his Ward.
 

 
 

Mr.R.H.Gray Morris asked what kind of feedback Councillor Hughes had when speaking to Albert Owen and Ieuan Wyn Jones. Councillor Hughes said he made a point of speaking generally rather than speaking about Bodorgan. He had not solicited any of their views or thoughts and had received no feedback from them.
 

 
 

Ms Sue Morris asked whether Councillor Hughes has been in a similar position, where he has a conflict of interest, on a previous occasion. Councillor Hughes said he works for the Health Authority and in that respect he does have some conflict of interests which he has to make a rational decision about. He believed the issue of surplus places in schools poses a great risk for the Council, and reminded Members that Councillor McGregor had alluded to the fact that the budget had been set, which he acknowledged to be an additional responsibility. The budget is partly linked to the decisions to be made regarding schools. He did not think the Council could allow the present situation to continue, this has been an ongoing issue for quite some time and for the benefit of education, one had to think about rationalisation. The Community should also be taken into account and the decision would need to be a balancing act between education, the community and finance to reach the correct solution. In the case of Bodorgan, he acknowledged the Community is extremely important therefore this must come into the equation. In addition, he believed the Welsh Language must come into the equation. He believed he could be quite clinical as to what needed to be done but would also be able to take into account the bigger picture so as to reach the right decision, and that the decision  would be atransparent decision.
 

 
 

The Chair asked Councillor Hughes for his views regarding Llanddeusant and Aberffraw schools and on what basis he would be operating on as regards those two schools.
 

Councillor Hughes said he was not part of that decision but the rationale behind the decisions are fairly similar to those facing the Executive now but on a County wide basis rather than on a catchment area basis as previously. Most of the principles involved would be the same as in the previous exercise.  The Chair said that members of the public may wish to be assured, having heard of the previous Executive’s decision on those two schools. He asked what Councillor Hughes’ views were on those decisions and what status he would give them. Councillor Hughes said he would not wish to comment until he had heard all the evidence and that his decision would be started from a clean slate.
 

 
 

The Chair said he wished to probe as to why Councillor Hughes felt he needed a dispensation as he does not, at the moment, have any direct links with the school. Councillor Hughes confirmed he had no direct link but he felt the electorate are voting for him and the pressure is there to do what they would wish him to do rather than what he would perceive to be the right decision. That was the nub of the dispensation. He had made his position clear to them and in that he would not be diverted from making the right decision for the County albeit most of the people he represents would feel severely let down if he were to go against them. This had been made clear to him at the public meeting but he was not put off by that fact.
 

Councillor Hughes concluded by saying that taking on board what the Monitoring Officer had said, he did not believe it was fair in any way for part of the Executive to have to make the decision on this important issue of education on Anglesey and to divest that responsibility. He believed as a Member of the Executive he should shoulder that responsibility and made it plain that he takes that responsibility very seriously and will be making a decision for the benefit of the County rather than his Ward.
 

 
 

COUNCILLOR WILLIAM HUGHES
 

 
 

The Chair invited Councillor William Hughes to address the meeting. Councillor Hughes said he was seeking dispensation so as to allow him to take part in the discussions regarding the  Schools Rationalisation issue. His reasons for asking were that he represents the Bodffordd Ward on the County Council and two schools, initially in his Ward have been under discussion as part of the rationalisation programme but that by now only one school remained under discussion and that was Ysgol Llandrygarn.
 

 
 

Councillor Hughes said he is the Chair of the Governing Board of Ysgol Bodffordd and is also invited, and attends, meetings of the Governors in Ysgol Llandrygarn but is not a Member of the Board of Governors. The problem he faces is that the two schools in his Ward are within two or three miles of each other and the public may think that if he voted to close Ysgol Llandrygarn that this would benefit Ysgol Bodffordd, particularly as he is the Chair of the Board of Governors and mention has been made that pupils from Ysgol Llandrygarn may be transferred to Ysgol  Bodffordd if Ysgol Llandrygarn were to close.
 

 
 

In response to a question by Mrs Pamela Moore, Councillor Hughes said rationalisation has been discussed at the Governors meetings and he has to look at the big picture. This is only one of a number of difficult decisions which the Executive will need to take in the coming years and he is confident he will make the correct decision for the benefit of the Island as a whole rather than for the two schools in his Ward. He said he would face his electors when he has to and this did not concern him.
 

 
 

In response to a question by Ms Sue Morris, Councillor Hughes said he has not been in a similar position before but explained his thought processes in that he would have received the documents, considered them, seen the evidence and will make a decision based on that evidence. He said he would not make a decision based on one school against the other but rather that he would make a decision for the benefit of education generally across the Island. even if this resulted in closing one of the schools in his Ward.
 

 
 

Responding to a question from the Chair, Councillor Hughes said he was not a Member of the Executive when the decision regarding Aberffraw and Bodorgan had been made and he had not been part of the decision making process. However, the strong feeling was that the Council should have looked at the County as a whole rather than dealing with individual catchment areas. He said as far as he was concerned all the schools are in the same pot and he will consider the issue from a fresh perspective and not take into account any previous decision which has been taken.
 

 
 

 
 

     Having listened to the representations from the three applicants, the Chair announced that the      Standards Committee would retire to private session to consider its decision.
 

 
 

     On returning to public session, the Chair announced that a unanimous decision had been      reached in respect of the request for Dispensation and announced that the Committee had :
 

 
 

     RESOLVED that :-
 

 
 

The Committee had unanimously agreed that Pursuant to paragraphs 2(f) (g) (i) of Statutory Instrument 2001 No.2279 (W169) Local Government Wales The Standards Committees (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001, a Dispensation was granted to Councillor C.McGregor, Councillor Robert Ll.Hughes and Councillor W.I.Hughes.The dispensation had been extended to include any discussion, whether it be informal or formal and including any meeting , discussion, telephone call or e-mail which may be necessary for the purpose of discussing and/or progressing the Rationalisation Programme to which the three applications relate. The Chair further announced that the dispensation would be in force for the duration of the School Rationalisation Process therefore the dispensation was not time bound.
 

 
 

The Chair concluded by stating that the Standards Committee recognised the importance of this issue and wished the Executive well in its deliberations. He added that the decision would be confirmed in writing and reasons for the decision given at that time. He thanked all those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed.
 

      
 

 
 

 
 

      
 

      
 

      
 

 
 

 
 

MR J COTTERELL
 

CHAIR