Agenda item

RecommendED:

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 it’s 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 Panels move to a six-weekly cycle of meetings and that the programme of meetings attached at Appendix 1 be adopted for 2016/17, with the change in Cabinet date to 24 May 2016 from 17 May 2016.

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 or 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, 12 months following the implementation of the changes.

12.   That the Opposition have the right to place an item on any Panel agenda for discussion, without the requirement to get agreement of the Chairman.

Reason for Decision

To seek to make the roles and functions of the Council’s policy development and scrutiny panels more effective and thereby enhance the good governance of the Borough Council.  The right the Opposition to place an item on Panel agendas ensures their ability to bring items for discussion.

The Chief Executive presented a report which set out the conclusions of the Scrutiny Structures and Policy Development Task Group in response to the feedback from the Peer Review, consequent report of the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) report and the feedback from the Member workshop held on 8^th October 2015. 

It also 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. 

It was noted that the Cabinet meeting previously scheduled for 17 May 2016 had been moved to the 24 May 2016.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor J Collop addressed the Cabinet.  He expressed disappointment that some of the recommendations from the CfPS had not been taken on board.  However he did hope that the proposals would help improve the current scrutiny arrangements.  He supported the de-coupling of Audit Committee from the Resources and Performance Panel, and hoped that the re-arrangement would be suitably resourced. He referred to recommendation 12 in the report which made reference to the ability to add agenda items to Panels, and expressed concern that there may not be representation by each Group on the Panels, and that any items put forward could be brushed aside. 

Councillor Pope stated that he was of the opinion that all Members could ask for items to be added to panel agendas through the Chairman.

Councillor Beales drew attention to the fact that the Peer Review report stated that scrutiny was not working and the Administration had acted upon this amongst the overall task group findings with a radical recommendation that Panels should appoint their own Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen.  He also proposed that if all Members were free to put an item onto each agenda without reference to the Chairman it could make the meetings far too unwieldy, therefore that right should be limited to Opposition Groups, with a requirement for them to be discussed.  He hoped that this would encourage active participation.

Councillor Long endorsed those proposals re-iterating concern that the original proposal could have caused logistical problems.

Councillor Blunt particularly supported recommendation 3, and encouraged post project appraisals.  He hoped that the accountability for projects and its aims and objectives were clearly identified to enable scrutiny of them.

It was confirmed that constitutional changes had to be submitted through Council.

It was also agreed that the new arrangements should be reviewed in 12 months time.

The Resources and Performance Panel had considered the report and had supported the recommendation, in particular the point about the entitlement to place items on Panel agendas.

RecommendED:

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 it’s 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 Panels move to a six-weekly cycle of meetings and that the programme of meetings attached at Appendix 1 be adopted for 2016/17, with the change in Cabinet date to 24 May 2016 from 17 May 2016.

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 or 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, 12 months following the implementation of the changes.

12.    That the Opposition have the right to place an item on any Panel agenda for discussion, without the requirement to get agreement of the Chairman.