Recent experience of Welsh local democracy reveals a troubling lack of oversight of Community Councils, the 'closest tier of government to the people'. Echoing calls for radical reform of the sector, Rachel Gibson identifies the fundamental paradox of power at the heart of the problem
In 2020–21, Llanferres Community Council (LCC) in Denbighshire spent over £25,000 developing a local playing field. In doing so, however, it failed to follow its own financial rules and major national statutes. While such neglect is a source of concern for constituents, it also reveals a worrying vacuum of accountability at the lowest level of Welsh government.
Problems came to light in 2021, when investigation of LCC by the UK Information Commissioners Office identified breaches of GDPR. Specifically, the ICO ruled that in Council minutes, publicly naming constituents submitting Freedom of Information requests infringed Article 6.1(a). The clerk's subsequent failure to properly redact documents released in response to the requests resulted in the unauthorised release of sensitive personal data. This infringed Article 5.1(f). More alarmingly, LCC initially denied any breach had occurred, and designated the residents informing them of the problems ‘vexatious’. LCC upheld this status for up to two years, thereby censoring further criticism.
In April 2023, Council correspondence expressing prejudicial attitudes toward the Gypsy Roma and Traveller community was referred to the Welsh Minister for Finance and Local Government, who deemed it a matter of 'significant concern'. The Senedd’s Divisions on Local Government Policy, and Equality and Human Rights wrote to the LCC chair, reminding him of the Council’s duty to uphold the Divisions of the 2010 Equality Act which pledge to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and victimisation of those with protected characteristics.
In September 2023, the Auditor General for Wales took the unusual step of issuing a 26-page report in the public interest deeply critical of 'significant deficiencies' in LCC procurement practices. Among its findings were that LCC had acted 'unlawfully' and 'misled' companies in awarding contracts for the development. It judged LCC had failed to provide 'proper stewardship of public funds', and that its failings were 'systemic' in nature. The Council categorically denied the report’s key findings.
The Auditor's report found that LCC had failed to provide 'proper stewardship of public funds', and that its failings were 'systemic'
Despite the accumulated evidence of problems within LCC, the Welsh Ombudsman – the only body with power of sanction over Community Councils – declined to investigate.
The Ombudsman's justified his decision on the basis that he was not persuaded any 'shortcomings' in LCC's 'financial governance' or the Clerk's use of prejudicial language had 'caused any direct or significant hardship or injustice' to the complainants. Furthermore, he argued, it was 'not [the Ombudsman's] role to pass judgement on ‘language which may be found to be discriminatory’. The Ombudsman's ruling was upheld on appeal.
Since the Ombudsman’s decision not to investigate, LCC secured further funding of £20,288 from the National Lottery toward development of a second local park. According to LCC minutes, the Lottery made the award despite the fact that an anonymous source informed the funder of the Auditor's report on the day of its publication.
Failure of the national regulator and public funding agencies to respond to serious deficiencies in the practice and culture of the LCC is puzzling. Yet it points to what is, I argue, a deeper problem or paradox of power within Welsh local government.
The Llanferres paradox takes its name from Council that first ‘exposed’ it. It is based on the observation that the more localised or ‘smaller’ a governing authority’s remit, the less power it exercises relative to higher tiers, but the more power it holds in absolute terms to exercise the narrower remit it has, without regular scrutiny from above. The proximity of the governing body to those affected by its decisions compounds the problem. Constituents inevitably feel the consequences of poor governance more acutely than at the higher echelons of power.
There is a naïve but well-intentioned assumption that as the level of political authority closest to the people, democratic outcomes are 'baked in' to the functioning of Community Councils
The paradox stems from the naïve, but well-intentioned assumption that as the lowest level of political authority, and closest to those it serves, democratic outcomes are 'baked in' to the functioning of Community councils. These bodies are drawn from – and embedded within – the communities they serve. Members mingle with constituents on a day-to-day basis. They are, therefore, automatically in synch with local interests, and deliver democracy through a process akin to political osmosis.
In principle, this organic model of representation is an efficient, effective means of addressing the minutiae of local politics. To work in practice, however, it requires recruitment of a critical mass of sufficiently competent actors. These actors must recognise the legal and moral limits of their power, and their obligation to act impartially in the collective interest.
If these criteria are not met, there are few, if any levers that allow constituents to hold Welsh community councils to account, outside the window of opportunity afforded by local elections. My brief analysis of data from the Ombudsman’s website from January 2020–September 2024 suggests my experience is not unique. The overwhelming majority of complaints against Community Councils are not subject to investigation. This applies even when a council like LCC records an unusually high number of complaints.
There are few, if any levers that allow constituents to hold Welsh community councils to account, outside the window of opportunity afforded by local elections
I conducted a closer analysis of Ombudsman statistics for a random sample of 10% of Denbighshire’s 37 Community Councils over the five-year period. My results reveal LCC received the most complaints – ten – compared with just one for the other councils combined. The Ombudsman’s lack of action may be justified by the need to channel limited resources toward bigger targets. Such a rationale, however, simply reinforces the paradox. It leaves citizens unprotected from the governing bodies nearest to them, should they 'go rogue'.
The Welsh government recently released its own report documenting the democratic crisis facing community and town councils. Measures to improve responsiveness and accountability are now urgently required to restore public faith in this vital layer of democracy. Acknowledging and addressing the Llanferres paradox is not sufficient remedy on its own. It is, however, an important first step toward achieving that noble goal.
