Claims ombudsman 'too slow' on Powys councillor complaints
Complaints against Powys councillors are being dealt with too slowly by Wales' ombudsman, it has been claimed.
Powys County Council's standards committee meeting on Wednesday, June 18 heard an update on eight referrals to the ombudsman from 2023 to this April.
Details of the complaints and the identity of councillors had been kept confidential. One referral was completed with 'no evidence of a code of conduct breach being found', and one case would be referred to the committee.
But the pace of progress was also highlighted by Cllr Ian Harrison, who said there are two cases that are "well past" the 12-month due date.
The Conservative councillor said: 'I wonder if there's any known reason why the ombudsman has failed to complete their investigation within the 12 month period?'
Deputy monitoring officer Debby Jones said: 'We have raised this concern with the ombudsman before.
'I seek regular updates from the ombudsman and I generally receive the response that they are still under investigation.
'There can be lots of reasons for delay, they can be because they can't get hold of witnesses or arrange a convenient time to meet or there's illness or absences.
'It really isn't in our control, once a matter has been referred to them.'
Committee chairman and lay member Stephan Hays said that he understood that the ombudsman had been 'a bit short on personnel' capable of conducting investigations and had only last year been allowed to recruit new staff.
Mr Hays said: 'So it's probably taking some time to catch up on things, in addition there has been a 30 per cent (national) increase in the number cases.
'Put all together it's exacerbated the situation for them.'
Cllr Harrison stressed that he wanted the ombudsman to explain to the committee on whether the delays are down to their 'capacity issues' or there are specific 'difficulties' with the Powys related investigations.
Cllr Harrison said: 'At least then we would have a feel for what's causing the issue.'
Mr Hays said that he was attending a National Standards Forum meeting on Monday, June 24 which the ombudsman is due to attend and where the issue could be raised.
Lay member Jonathan Goolden asked the committee that copies of previous correspondence between the council and ombudsman be passed over to Cllr Harrison.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Perth and Kinross Council's SNP administration accused of "cutting short democracy"
Members of the public and several councillors are frustrated after Perth and Kinross councillors were asked to vote on the future of Perth and Kinross leisure facilities without debate. On Wednesday, June 18 councillors approved a £74 million proposal for Perth's new leisure centre PH20 to be built on Thimblerow car park as part of a £97m investment on leisure facilities across Perth and Kinross . But the crucial decision was pushed through at a meeting of Perth and Kinross Council on Wednesday, June 18 without open discussion. Around four and a half hours after the meeting started - and several lengthy recesses - council leader Grant Laing tabled a motion to "move straight to the vote with no further debate". He cited the council's standing order 17.1, a procedural motion which - amongst other things - can be used to propose "no further discussion or questioning take place". His motion was seconded by deputy leader Eric Drysdale and supported by the majority of councillors who voted by 23 votes to 15 to move straight to the vote on leisure facilities. Councillors had already had the chance to question several protestors - who made passionate deputations against the Thimblerow proposal and for Bell's Sports Centre to be reinstated as a heated multi-use sports venue - and council officers. But councillors had not yet had the chance to share their own views and/or comment on what they had heard. The Conservatives tabled an amendment, against the SNP leadership's motion, for there to be a debate - as is standard procedure. Labour councillor Alasdair Bailey, Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett and Independent councillor Colin Stewart supported the Conservative group's amendment. Provost Xander McDade abstained. Following the meeting, Conservative councillor Chris Ahern accused the SNP of "cutting short democracy". The Perth City Centre councillor said: "I am extremely unhappy with the decision made today by the leader of the council and the administration in cutting short democracy and preventing debate. I can only assume they were scared to hear the truth and didn't want their excuses to be published for the public to see them for what they are." Blairgowrie and Glens Conservative councillor Caroline Shiers was "extremely disappointed" and added: "I don't recall many occasions when that standing order has been used before except when debates have been going on for some time and councillors are repeating the same arguments - not to stop all contributions before they even started." A PKC spokesperson said: "On the procedural point, Cllr Laing moved a motion under section 17 of standing orders, where under 17.1 it says that a procedural motion can be to propose that no further discussion or questioning takes place. 17.2 and 17.3 of standing orders sets out what happens when a procedural motion is made." Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett took part in proceedings remotely. He supported the decision but described the way the meeting was conducted as a "shambles" and "an unedifying spectacle". Speaking immediately afterwards, the Perth City Centre councillor said: "The only good thing you can say about today's proceedings was that the right decision was made. The rest was a shambles. Anyone watching today's events of the PH2O and Bell's proposals in the council chamber unfold must have been left confused, disappointed and angry. "What an unedifying spectacle which dragged on for hours. Ages spent offline with the meeting in apparent suspension, the Provost announcing 'two minute recesses' which went on for more than 20, not a single word of debate exchanged, more points of order than a hedgehog has spines and almost as many totally opaque 'points of clarification'. "Chairing of the meeting is meant to facilitate the swift and efficient conduct of business, the standing orders of the council are meant to support that objective, you'd never in a million years guess either from the live-cast of today's council proceedings. Something has to change and change urgently." Gareth Thomas watched the entire day's proceedings from the public gallery and was "stunned" by what he felt was a lack of democracy. He said: "It's amazing to see democracy not at work. No data or evidence. I'm stunned." Ahead of the meeting, Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network drew up a business plan for how to run Bell's Sports Centre as a heated venue, with plans and revenue cost proposals. On Wednesday, councillors voted through a proposal for Bell's Sports Centre to be used as "an unheated, covered sports pitch/events space". Dr Thomas said: "I struggled to find any data for the proposed unheated G3 use for Bell's. "I fail to see how it can be sensible to commit to a multi-million pound integrated investment on what appear to be back of the envelope (mis)calculations about Bell's." Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network (PKCSN) chairman David Munro prepared a presentation, which he was unable to display during the meeting due to it being against council policy. The council protocol for deputations states: "Deputations are verbal only and any visual or written information should be circulated to members of the committee by obtaining their email address from the council website. It is not permissible for members of the public to display visual information on the day of the committee." His slides - which he later shared with the Local Democracy Reporting Service - compared the Bell's Sports Centre footprint with the Thimblerow site. It showed the six badminton courts - proposed for PH20 - dwarfed by the Bell's dome space in the main arena, which had 17 badminton courts. The PKCSN chair said they feel like the protests and deputations were "a worthless exercise" and the council's current system "lacks credibility and accountability". On Thursday, Cllr Laing said: "The provision under standing orders to move straight to a vote is rarely used, and indeed on the past two occasions I can recall them being used I voted against it because I felt there was still useful discussion to be had on those occasions. "However, yesterday's council meeting had already included several hours where elected members had been able to listen to information and ask questions of both deputees and officers to allow everyone in the chamber to form a decision on how they wanted to vote. It was clear to me from the framing of the questions that everyone in the room had already made up their minds and further discussion would only have taken up more time rather than usefully informing the final decision. "The people of Perth and Kinross have already waited long enough for a decision to be made. I stand by asking to move straight to that decision, and I am pleased that we can now get on with the job of developing the future of sport and leisure facilities in Perth and Kinross."
STV News
2 hours ago
- STV News
Biffa £166m compensation claim over deposit return scheme 'good to go'
A lawyer acting for a company pursuing a £166m compensation claim against the Scottish Government has told a judge that his case is 'good to go' to court. Roddy Dunlop KC made the statement during a procedural hearing on Thursday in an action brought against Scottish ministers by Biffa Waste Services Ltd. The company has raised an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh over a decision made by ministers to delay the introduction of the deposit return scheme. It alleges that Lorna Slater – the former minister for green skills, circular economy and biodiversity – gave negligent assurances to the firm in a letter about the initiative to ensure its participation. Biffa's lawyer Roddy Dunlop KC told judge Lord Clark last year that the correspondence made no reference to how Holyrood would need its Westminster counterpart to give the final go ahead to the scheme. The scheme was later scrapped after the Conservative government in London refused to give the go ahead for it be implemented. The firm believes the Scottish Government 'negligently misrepresented the assurance it gave' to Biffa. Biffa has instructed Mr Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, to act for it in the £166.2m compensation claim. Judge Lord Clark gave permission for the action to proceed following a two day hearing last year when the Scottish Government's lawyer Gerry Moynihan KC asked the court to dismiss the action. On Thursday, the case called again for a procedural hearing before judge Lord Sandison. Mr Dunlop said he and his legal team were making preparations for the case which is expected to be heard in the Court of Session over an eight day period in October 2025. Mr Dunlop added: 'The case is now simplified and good to go.' The deposit return scheme was a key policy of the former SNP-Green administration. Under the plans, a 20p deposit was be added to all single-use drinks containers made of PET plastic, metal or glass. Consumers could reclaim the deposit by returning the containers to retailers or to specially-designed reverse vending machines. It was due to be introduced in August 2023 but the launch date was pushed back, with then first minister Humza Yousaf citing concerns from businesses. The Conservative government at Westminster refused to grant the scheme the go-ahead unless it conformed to a UK-wide approach which excluded glass. In June 2023 Slater said she had no choice but to delay the scheme until at least October 2025, accusing the UK government of sabotage. She left government last year following the collapse of the Green-SNP power-sharing agreement. The company have decided to go to the Court of Session in Edinburgh because it believes the Holyrood government is responsible for it incurring a £166.2m loss. It wants compensation for the cash it invested in the collapsed deposit return scheme and the subsequent loss of profit. At the proceedings last year, Mr Moynihan said the Scottish Ministers acted lawfully and that the government did not act a duty of care to Biffa. He also said the letter sent by Ms Slater – which was dated May 17 2022 – did not amount to a 'negligent representation'. Speaking on the final day of a two day long hearing into whether the action should proceed, Mr Dunlop outlined the alleged actions of Ms Slater in dealing with his clients. Mr Dunlop said: 'Our position is that we did sign the contract in a situation of the assumption of responsibility. 'The minister was not required to give an assurance but she voluntarily did. 'She did so because she wanted Biffa on board. She must have known Biffa would act upon what she said. 'It is writing a letter that provides the assurances that not reflect the actuality of the situation. 'We know why she decided to write that letter. She wrote that letter as she needed the deposit return scheme to have a purpose. 'She needed a contractor like Biffa – who was swithering about whether to become involved – to become involved.' Mr Dunlop also claimed that Ms Slater's purpose in writing the letter to Biffa was to ensure the scheme's success. He added: 'The simple fact of the matter is that the Ministers were very keen to have Biffa on board. 'It was important for them politically and logistically to have a well resourced contractor like Biffa on board. 'Without that the deposit return scheme was dead in the water.' On Thursday, Lord Sandison fixed a date for another procedural hearing in the case – this will take place on September 2 2025. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Claims ombudsman 'too slow' on Powys councillor complaints
Complaints against Powys councillors are being dealt with too slowly by Wales' ombudsman, it has been claimed. Powys County Council's standards committee meeting on Wednesday, June 18 heard an update on eight referrals to the ombudsman from 2023 to this April. Details of the complaints and the identity of councillors had been kept confidential. One referral was completed with 'no evidence of a code of conduct breach being found', and one case would be referred to the committee. But the pace of progress was also highlighted by Cllr Ian Harrison, who said there are two cases that are "well past" the 12-month due date. The Conservative councillor said: 'I wonder if there's any known reason why the ombudsman has failed to complete their investigation within the 12 month period?' Deputy monitoring officer Debby Jones said: 'We have raised this concern with the ombudsman before. 'I seek regular updates from the ombudsman and I generally receive the response that they are still under investigation. 'There can be lots of reasons for delay, they can be because they can't get hold of witnesses or arrange a convenient time to meet or there's illness or absences. 'It really isn't in our control, once a matter has been referred to them.' Committee chairman and lay member Stephan Hays said that he understood that the ombudsman had been 'a bit short on personnel' capable of conducting investigations and had only last year been allowed to recruit new staff. Mr Hays said: 'So it's probably taking some time to catch up on things, in addition there has been a 30 per cent (national) increase in the number cases. 'Put all together it's exacerbated the situation for them.' Cllr Harrison stressed that he wanted the ombudsman to explain to the committee on whether the delays are down to their 'capacity issues' or there are specific 'difficulties' with the Powys related investigations. Cllr Harrison said: 'At least then we would have a feel for what's causing the issue.' Mr Hays said that he was attending a National Standards Forum meeting on Monday, June 24 which the ombudsman is due to attend and where the issue could be raised. Lay member Jonathan Goolden asked the committee that copies of previous correspondence between the council and ombudsman be passed over to Cllr Harrison.
