Agenda item

The Panel is invited to consider the report and make any appropriate recommendations to Cabinet.

The Chief Executive presented the interim conclusions of the Scrutiny Structures and Policy Development Task Group in response to the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) report and the feedback from the Member workshop held on 8 October 2015.

The report made a number of recommendations to Cabinet and Council, which sought to implement the principle recommendation of the CfPS report with effect from the beginning of the municipal year 2016/17.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Moriarty stated that he felt that training for members was very important prior to the new arrangements being implemented.  He added that he had raised concern in the past about Cabinet Members being present at Panel meetings.  He also raised concern that if the minutes were too succinct then you would not be able to get a flavour of the debate.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Mrs Mellish to address the Committee in accordance with Standing Order 34.  Councillor Mrs Mellish stated that she was pleased with the report from the Task Group.  She added that as a Chairman of a Panel, she did not consider that the Forward Decision List did hamper items being brought to the Panel.  She referred to the fact that the Panels would act as a critical friend to the Portfolio Holder, however she had concerns that this could hamper the Panel acting in a scrutiny capacity.

Councillor Middleton referred to recommendation 6, that the Panels elected their own Chairman and Vice-Chairman and explained to the Panel that he did not agree with this.  He considered that it was important that the Leader still had the right to choose a competent Chairman who had knowledge in that role.  He also referred to recommendation 12, and stated that he agreed that each member of the Panel should be allowed to place an item on the agenda but felt that they should speak to the Chairman first.

Councillor Mrs Mellish added that she always offered members of the R&D Panel the opportunity of having items placed on the agenda.

Councillor Collop stated that that he was a member of the Task Group.  He expressed concern in relation to the opposition parties not being involved in the process.  He referred to members being able to put an item on the agenda, but expressed concern that there was nothing to say that this would be taken forward for discussion.  He considered that the opposition leader had been cut out of anything being taken forward.  He added that if the position of Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Performance Panel was given to a member of the opposition groups this would give an opportunity for them to be involved when the agendas were set. 

Councillor Collop concluded that if the recommendations went forward as proposed there would be no reason for himself or his party to attend meetings.

The Chairman explained that there had been an earlier item on the agenda, which had been requested by Councillor Collop.  He added that if the whole Panel was involved in the sifting meeting it would negate the requirement for there to be a discussion and decision making in public.

Councillor Moriarty stated that he disagreed with the comments made by Councillor Collop, he added that he had never had an item refused to go on the work programme.  He added that he was in favour of Panels being able to choose their own Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Devereux stated that having been involved with the Task Group at the beginning of process he was pleased with the set of recommendations. 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Chenery stated that he would not like to see large items on the agendas and them being ‘whistled through’.

The Chairman stated that he supported the 6 weekly cycle of meetings, even though it could mean that there would be more items on the agenda.  He was also in favour of the Panels being involved with policy development in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder, however he did accept Councillor Mrs Mellish’s point.  He added that the Corporate Performance Panel would be able to call-in items and Cabinet would be expected to listen. He agreed that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee did perform a function. 

Councillor Beales, Portfolio Holder stated that he was a member of the Task Group and thanked Councillor Devereux for his work.  He referred to recommendation 6 and thought this would be a good step forward. However this could be reviewed at a later stage.

Councillor Beales also referred to recommendation 12, and stated that he considered that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee did perform a function whereby the opposition had control of the agenda and it would not be right if the opposition was not involved.

He considered that it was important that there was provision for the opposition to be able to influence agendas.

In relation to recommendation 12, the Chief Executive advised that the Legal Services Manager and Democratic Services Manager could make the constitution explicit that if an item was placed on the agenda then it must be discussed.

The Leader thanked the Task Group for the good piece of work carried out and stated that the arrangements could be reviewed in 12 months’ time.  He added that it was quite clear that scrutiny was not working but the Council was not alone in this and explained that he had recently carried out a Peer Review in another Council where scrutiny had been abandoned.

The Committee agreed that in relation to recommendation 12, the second part ‘or alternatively that each member on a Panel be entitled to place at least one item as of right their choosing on each Panel agenda’, should be supported.

RECOMMENDED:    That the Panel supported the recommendations to Cabinet and Council as set out below, and in particular recommendation 12, the second part ‘or alternatively that each member on a Panel be entitled to place at least one item as of right their choosing on each Panel agenda’, should be supported.

Cabinet is invited to recommend to Council the following:

1.         That the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny and Overview Liaison         Committee are abolished.

2.         That the Audit Committee be decoupled from the Resources & Performance Panel, and reduced in size to nine members with a meeting schedule linked to key audit events.

3.         That the Resources & Performance Panel be renamed as the Corporate Performance Panel and its terms of reference be extended to provide for the Panel to consider the following:

·         Call-ins of Cabinet decisions;

·         Post implementation reviews of both major projects and significant policy changes/introduction of new policies;

·         Monitoring of the Medium Term Financial Plan.

4.         That the Terms of Reference for all Panels be amended to explicitly place a greater emphasis on ‘policy development’ of proposed policy changes and new projects/initiatives, incorporating, where appropriate, clear recommendations for Cabinet and Council to consider.

5.         That Council, Cabinet and the Panels move to a six-weekly cycle of meetings and that the programme of meetings attached at Appendix 1 be adopted for 2016/17.

6.         That in future years Panels elect their own Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

7.         That the recording of meetings be changed to provide for a more succinct summary of discussion, decisions taken/recommendations made and the principle rationale for the decisions taken.

8.         That additional Member scrutiny and policy development training be arranged to coincide with the introduction of the above changes.

9.         That the scheme of delegation be amended, delegating authority to Portfolio Holders to authorise the implementation of policy changes required as a consequence of the introduction of primary of secondary legislation by government.  Noting that Portfolio Holder delegated decisions are open to scrutiny and the call-in process in the same way as Cabinet decisions are.

10.       That the Democratic Services Manager and Legal Services Manager be instructed to draft the consequential changes to the Council’s constitution to give effect to the proposals outlined above.

11.       That the Task Group be invited to undertake a subsequent review of the Council’s constitution and the effectiveness of the changes made, following the implementation of the changes.

12.       That Cabinet and Council consider the minority proposal as to whether the position of Vice-Chairman of the Audit Committee and the Corporate Performance Panel be reserved to a member of the opposition parties, or alternatively that each member on a Panel be entitled to place at least one item as of right their choosing on each Panel agenda.