Jacob Williams https://jacobwilliams.com

The first agenda item at Pembrokeshire County Council’s education scrutiny committee meeting last week may have caused some head scratching.

Members were tasked with electing their vice-chair for the “ensuing” municipal year, which began in May.

The committee’s chair, Cllr. Huw Murphy (Independent Political Group (IPG)) neglected to inform webcast viewers why this election – which also took place at the committee’s June meeting – was being re-run.

On that occasion Haverfordwest councillor Anji Tinley (IPG) was declared to have beaten Tenby member Sam Skyrme-Blackhall (independent of any political group) by eight votes to six.

But the council’s lawyers only later realised this election had been of no effect.

This was because two committee members had been allowed to take part in the vote unlawfully, both co-opted lay members.

Compounding the breach, one of them had even seconded Cllr. Tinley’s nomination.

Top barrister Nigel Giffin KC is said to have confirmed the inevitable – that, since the two co-optees’ voting rights extend exclusively to “education functions,” their participation in the committee’s vice-chairmanship election in May rendered that vote null and void.

So, three months later, the same two candidates of the 2022 intake faced a rematch, in an election whose only participants were democratically-elected councillors.

Of note, Cllr. Maureen Bowen (Labour, Pembroke Dock Bush) was the only switcher – this time around voting for Cllr. Skyrme-Blackhall, having voted in May for Cllr. Tinley.

Just before casting her vote, Bowen lamented how “…it’s such a disappointment that this is happening, and we have to have another vote – but Skyrme-Blackhall has my vote this time.”

All members of the IPG and Tory opposition groups voted for Cllr. Tinley, but on a full turnout of thirteen councillors, Cllr. Skyrme-Blackhall bagged the rest of the votes to scrape the vice-chairmanship 7-6.

Several sources present in County Hall’s chamber concur that Cllr. Tinley didn’t take the result well.

An agitated Anji was heard commenting aloud that it was “a disgrace,” and seen mimicking the action of thrashing with a cane whilst suggesting councillors had been “whipped.”

Given how Cllr. Bowen’s vote is the only one which changed since the flawed May contest – and that her switch dictated the outcome – it’s easy to guess where the runner-up’s finger was pointing.

This is quite interesting because, whether she knows it or not, Cllr. Tinley could be making a rather serious allegation.

Section 78 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, titled “Prohibition of whipped votes & declaration of party whips,” states in its first paragraph:

(1) A member of an overview and scrutiny committee must not vote on a question at a meeting of the committee if, before the meeting, the member has been given a party whip relating to the question (a “prohibited party whip”).

It goes on to say:

(6) If the decision of a question by an overview and scrutiny committee is materially affected by a breach of this section, the decision is to be treated as if it had not been made.

The assumption must be that Cllr. Murphy either didn’t consider that Cllr. Tinley’s assessment stood up to scrutiny, or he wasn’t aware of his sweeping powers – as he didn’t invoke the fifth paragraph.

It seems wide open to abuse, actually, but it nonetheless states:

(5) It is for the person chairing a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee to determine whether a member of the committee has been given a prohibited party whip in relation to the meeting.

A deeper delve into these rules suggests that, in discerning whether a councillor has been whipped, they must have been placed under more than just an expectation of how they should vote – they must also be “likely to” be “liable to disciplinary action by the political group which gives the instruction.”

Any suggestion that Cllr. Bowen’s consequential change of mind was the result of improper pressure by her Labour party’s whip – on threat of punishment, no less – surely comes up against a high hurdle.

But perhaps the bigger obstacle to proving such an accusation is the fact that the Labour group’s party whip is, er, Cllr. Maureen Bowen!

Farewell, Keanjo

I was sad to learn of the death, in December last year, of my blog’s regular commenter, Keanjo.

He wasn’t a constituent but lived nearby, and I don’t think we ever knowingly met. However he corresponded through comments on this blog with me and many others more than enough to leave an impression.

He made 434 approved comments between July 2012 and his last, in May 2022.

I’m sure he’d be the first to joke how this blog can ill afford the loss of a loyal, long-time contributor.

He passed at the age of ninety – so a great innings, and I can only thank him for putting in such dedication throughout his twilight years!

Farewell, Keanjo.