New Pembrokeshire County Council leader and cabinet announced

Camrose councillor Jamie Adams was officially elected as leader of Pembrokeshire County Council this morning (Thursday).

At the AGM of the new council, Havens councillor and former British Lions rugby player Peter Morgan was made chairman of Pembrokeshire County Council with Cllr Arwyn Williams voted in as vice chairman.

Following the meeting Cllr Adams' new Cabinet was announced - including one Labour member and one councillor who has decided to leave the Labour group.

The ten member cabinet includes Cllr Sue Perkins who becomes member for Safeguarding and Children's Services.

She is one of four new faces on the executive group along with former chairman Cllr David Pugh for Economy, Tourism and Communities, Cllr Elwyn Morse for Culture, Sport and Leisure and Cllr Simon Hancock will handle the portfolio for Adult Services and Equalities.

Cllr Hancock, a Labour group member for 17 years who was returned unopposed as a Labour candidate, told the Western Telegraph he had left the group because he opposed the signing of a contract devised by the national Labour party.

"The main issue is I'm against the candidate's contract all group members sign. The only contract I undertake is the contract of the people who elected me."

He added that the national contract was "quite onerous" and would micromanage members, which he said was unnecessary.

"I haven't changed my principles or policies," added Cllr Hancock.

Besides Councillor Adams - who also holds the brief on Corporate Matters and Finance – the five other Members of the Cabinet are: Councillors Rob Lewis, Huw George, Ken Rowlands, David Simpson and David Wildman.

Councillor Lewis (Martletwy) takes over Highways and Planning – the role vacated by Councillor Adams – while Councillor George keeps Education and the Welsh Language.

Both have also been appointed Deputy Leaders.

Councillor Rowlands (Johnston) retains responsibility for the Environment and Regulatory Services as does Councillor Simpson (Lampeter Velfrey) for Housing and Sustainability. Likewise, Councillor Wildman (Burton) keeps Health, Well-Being and the Voluntary Sector.

A Notice of Motion to increase the number of members on the Planning and Rights of Way Committee and the four Overview and Scrutiny Committees to 15 was approved with an amendment that creates a fifth scrutiny committee overseeing child safeguarding.

The amendment was put forward by Cllr Adams and was questioned by Cllr Mike Stoddart who said it was more than an amendment and actually a constitutional change.

Cllr Stoddart also put forward his own amendment that the number of members of the Corporate Governance, Senior Staff, Democratic Services and Audit Committees increase by one so that the number of unaffiliated members was reflected.

This was not approved.

Comments(17)

Andrew Lye says...
4:32pm Thu 24 May 12

I went to County Hall this morning to see my first ever County Council meeting. I got there about 10.55am and was told I needed to go and find somewhere to park in town. Not very impressed! So much for visitors parking.

Where I was sat, I saw less than 10% of the speakers speaking as the public gallery is appalling. So I had to rely on the sound system. It spoilt my visit as I would have felt more involved if I could see all councillors and to see them speaking.

I was impressed by Cllr John Davies as a public speaker and the outgoing Chair.

Tina2 says...
6:53am Fri 25 May 12

But how many people supported
Cllr Simon Hancock because he was Labour?

indeview says...
7:58am Fri 25 May 12

Missing from the information available in the public gallery was the list and numbers of councillors who elected to join each political group and those that remain unaffiliated to any group.
We now appear to have an Independent majority group which includes two Labour members, both awarded Cabinet posts by the Leader.
A sizeable number of unaffilliated members and their constituents have been disadvantaged by the numbers game, and the revised size of committees agreed by the majority of councillors.
If unaffilliated councillors determined to form a group, purely to adequately represent their constituents on committees, they would form the second largest group after the Independent group.
The leader has allocated the Children's and Adult services personal service cabinet portfolios to the two Labour councillors.
The Cabinet of 10 members ( one more than the last one with an allowance) still share collective responsibility.
The Leader also slipped in another overview and Scrutiny committee (making 5) with an attendant chairman's allowance.
The additional cost of these new allowances isn't in the budget, no costs were reported or considered but hey whose counting. WE just have to pay up.

js9325 says...
12:38pm Fri 25 May 12

In answer to Tina2 as Cllr Hancock was elected unopposed no-one can really complain because at this election no-one voted for him at all.

South of the Landsker says...
2:26pm Fri 25 May 12

A few points noted from the above.

Regarding Cllr Hancock - nobody voted for him in 2012 and nobody will be able to vote for him or anyone else in his ward until 2017.

The 13 true Independents are disadvantaged, as they are each considered to be 1/60 of the Council, I guess it is tough sticking to principles. I hope that they will remain truly independent and not be lured to the Independent Group Plus, The home for secret Tories, disenchanted labourites and those that campaign as Independent and then fight to sign on the dotted line.

Looking at the election results those standing as true independents all returned with decent majorities, lets have faith.

In the mean time can anyone explain what Labour is playing at.

Tina2 says...
2:53pm Fri 25 May 12

js9325 wrote:
In answer to Tina2 as Cllr Hancock was elected unopposed no-one can really complain because at this election no-one voted for him at all.
Yes I understand this but would some one stood against him if it was known that he was going to become Independent?

philipw says...
4:33pm Fri 25 May 12

Tina2 wrote:
js9325 wrote:
In answer to Tina2 as Cllr Hancock was elected unopposed no-one can really complain because at this election no-one voted for him at all.
Yes I understand this but would some one stood against him if it was known that he was going to become Independent?
Tina,yes he would have been opposed but would still have won.

philipw says...
4:39pm Fri 25 May 12

South of the Landsker wrote:
A few points noted from the above.

Regarding Cllr Hancock - nobody voted for him in 2012 and nobody will be able to vote for him or anyone else in his ward until 2017.

The 13 true Independents are disadvantaged, as they are each considered to be 1/60 of the Council, I guess it is tough sticking to principles. I hope that they will remain truly independent and not be lured to the Independent Group Plus, The home for secret Tories, disenchanted labourites and those that campaign as Independent and then fight to sign on the dotted line.

Looking at the election results those standing as true independents all returned with decent majorities, lets have faith.

In the mean time can anyone explain what Labour is playing at.
Don't think Labour is playing at anything. Doubt if they are best pleased about the defection, which came out of the blue from a very long standing and active member.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:11pm Fri 25 May 12

I understand that the "onerous contract" that Cllr Hancock complains about was announced by Peter Hain MP in September 2011; long before Cllr Hancock sought the Labour Party's endorsement as an official party candidate in the May 2012 elections.
The interesting question is whether he was offered the Cabinet post before, or after, he jumped ship.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:11pm Fri 25 May 12

I understand that the "onerous contract" that Cllr Hancock complains about was announced by Peter Hain MP in September 2011; long before Cllr Hancock sought the Labour Party's endorsement as an official party candidate in the May 2012 elections.
The interesting question is whether he was offered the Cabinet post before, or after, he jumped ship.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:12pm Fri 25 May 12

I understand that the "onerous contract" that Cllr Hancock complains about was announced by Peter Hain MP in September 2011; long before Cllr Hancock sought the Labour Party's endorsement as an official party candidate in the May 2012 elections.
The interesting question is whether he was offered the Cabinet post before, or after, he jumped ship.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:13pm Fri 25 May 12

I understand that the "onerous contract" that Cllr Hancock complains about was announced by Peter Hain MP in September 2011; long before Cllr Hancock sought the Labour Party's endorsement as an official party candidate in the May 2012 elections.
The interesting question is whether he was offered the Cabinet post before, or after, he jumped ship.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:21pm Fri 25 May 12

I understand that the "onerous contract" that Cllr Hancock complains about was announced by Peter Hain MP in September 2011; long before Cllr Hancock sought the Labour Party's endorsement as an official party candidate in the May 2012 elections.
The interesting question is whether he was offered the Cabinet post before, or after, he jumped ship.

Mike Stoddart says...
8:50pm Fri 25 May 12

I apologise for repeating myself.
Old age creeping up on me, I'm afraid.

Dave Edwards says...
8:55am Sat 26 May 12

As a Labour candidate in the last election I happily signed this onerous contract. It expected me to keep in touch with my electors, hold regular surgeries, produce a quarterly newsletter, campaign for Labour and pay a 3% levy of my allowance to fund future campaigns. What is there in that for Cllr Hancock to object to?

Tina2 says...
2:58pm Sat 26 May 12

Dave Edwards wrote:
As a Labour candidate in the last election I happily signed this onerous contract. It expected me to keep in touch with my electors, hold regular surgeries, produce a quarterly newsletter, campaign for Labour and pay a 3% levy of my allowance to fund future campaigns. What is there in that for Cllr Hancock to object to?
Well I can't see anything wrong with that.

indeview says...
5:54pm Sat 26 May 12

The Council's constitution provides for all notices of motion presented at council to be referred to the Corporate Resources committee without debate, and report back with recommendations.
Before the elction, a special board set up to consdier the constitution was established and consdiered the issue of committee numbers and numbers of seats allocated to political groups. This board has yet to report back.
Councillor Stock's (IPG) Notice of Motion was considered at the Agm and was allowed to proceed to a vote without the benefit of any advice from the relevant board/committee.
What was the point of the Special Investigation into the Council's corporate affairs?
What is the point of having a Constitution if officers continue to allow it to be ignored?
Indeview John Hudson.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree