Agenda item

The Chief Executive noted that this report was created in conjunction with the Leader within his remit to constantly oversee the governance of the Council. He stated that there was a commitment to present this report to Members at this meeting of the Council and appreciated that it was not perfect.

He added that Councillors had been asked to provide feedback in December and they had tried to incorporate these comments into the report, but noted that some of the information needed to be considered in more detail before a decision could be made.

The Leader added that the only recommendations before the Committee were to disband the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which he felt no longer had a purpose, despite having done some good work over the past 7 or 8 years, as each Committee could scrutinise its own work; and to disband the Standards Committee. He added that the report did not mention a Military Working Group, which was intended to be included in the Committee Structure also.

The Leader commented that the most important thing to do was to include as many Members as possible in the decision making process to ensure better outcomes. He accepted that further consultation was required and stated that a further governance report would be presented to the meeting of the Full Council on 29 April 2014, which would include more detail and which would be before Members for adoption.

He concluded that Members were requested to approve the disbanding of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Standards Committee at the present meeting in order to allow the diary of meetings for the coming municipal year to be set.

The Leader of the opposition Conservative group thanked the Leader and Chief Executive for their work on this report. He asked that his following comments be taken in good faith as they were intended to be positive and constructive and made with the best intentions as to high standards and expectations.

The first point made by the Leader of the opposition Conservative group was in relation to complexity of the document. He stated that this was a very important document and that, as such, it is important that the Council clarifies through this document exactly what the roles of Members are and exactly what the roles of Officers are. He expressed his disappointment that the Member/Officer Protocol formed only a small section towards the end of the report when instead it should be the basis of the Council’s governance, as these are the founding principles of the organisation from which Members and Officers take their guidance. He was concerned that the report was too complex, when in fact it should have been written in the simplest way possible such that it would be an easy read for the lay person.

Secondly, the Leader of the opposition Conservative group went on to comment on the quality of the document. He noted that this was a public document and that, as such, a member of the public would be able to locate it with a simple internet search. He stated that as a member of the public or, particularly, a resident of the Borough, you would read this document and notice several basic spelling and grammar mistakes, which does not give a good impression. He felt that this was inappropriate in a document of such high importance and pointed out some basic errors in the report. He stated that a report of this significance should be rigorously checked for errors prior to its publication.

The Leader of the opposition Conservative group’s third point related to the lack of clarity in the report as to resource implications. He noted that the report made reference on several occasions to a need for additional resources and it was even noted that there is a risk of “decreasing financial resources” in the implications section of the report. On this basis, he felt that it was improper for the Chief Executive and the Leader to produce this report and ask Members to make a decision without presenting the financial implications of the suggestions contained within the report. He stated that the budgetary requirements should be the first and primary consideration, as this is the core of governance.

The Leader of the opposition Conservative group went on to make a fourth point with regards consultation. He noted that the Member/Officer Protocol should be applicable at all levels and that it was about working with Officers for the benefit of the Council. He could not understand therefore how a Member/Officer Protocol could be implemented when Officers had not been consulted nor involved in the process. He appreciated that there may have been time limits for bringing this report before Members, but he felt that this lack of consultation undermined the entire governance report. He added that it is unreasonable to have consultations take place after a decision has been made, as this was not an open and transparent process. He suggested that the report be given to all Officers with a reasonable time to allow feedback before being presented back to Members.

The final point made by the Leader of the opposition Conservative group was in relation to Member support. He noted that the report contained a recommendation to appoint an Officer whose primary duties would be to act as a Member Liaison Officer. He noted that 12 months ago he has advised Senior Management Team not to cut back on Member support as this created a “false economy”. At the time he had raised the point that Members require their own support in a different way to Officers and was surprised that the appointment of this Officer was only now being suggested, 12 months after he had made the point initially.

The Leader of the opposition Conservative group concluded by summarising his points and noting that there were also some timescales provided in the report which were unclear and did not make sense to him.

In response, the Leader noted that this report was titled “evolving governance” in that it was an ongoing process and that it had only been brought before Committee at this time as this is what had been promised. He stated that he would not comment on spelling mistakes as this was not a significant issue.

In terms of the resource implications, the Leader contested that you should instead consider what you are trying to achieve and then work out the resources required to achieve it and that as this is an evolving process the Council was not yet at the stage where resources needed to be considered. He confirmed that at the very worst, the changes would cost neutral.

He went on to note that the intention was to match the governance structure with the new Officer structure and to capture information in order to use it more effectively and efficiently. He noted that the issue is that the Council has not gone through the principles yet to identify the resources required, but again noted that the governance is intended to be evolving.

Turning to consider consultation with Officers, he stated that the intention was to speak with members first and then, once the requirements have been agreed, that Officers be consulted accordingly. He argued that this was simply a matter of timing.

Finally, commenting on the timescales to which the Leader of the opposition Conservative group had referred, the Leader noted that the Council had a deadline to create a calendar of meetings for the coming municipal year. Therefore Members were required to make the decision as to whether or not to disband Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Standards Committee at this meeting so as to ensure that the calendar could be created in time. Beyond this deadline, there were no time constraints.

Several other Members commented that the report was very difficult to read in places, that it should have been written more clearly, that the recommendations were unclear and that generally they were not happy with the report in its current form; however, they accepted that it was an evolving document and as such looked forward to receipt of a final report at the next meeting of the Council, setting out further details and the resource implications, as they were essential.

Most Members agreed that Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Standards Committee were no longer necessary as they did not fit within the Committee Structure. However, Members of the opposition First Conserve group disagreed with the proposal to disband the Overview and Scrutiny Committee commenting that it is a powerful mechanism for overseeing the decisions of other Committees and that, without it, those other Committees would not scrutinise their own decisions.

The Leader clarified the recommendations that were intended to be before the Council, despite what was said in the report. In responding to comments about the disbanding of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, he commented that the Council had a dominant leading party and he felt that it was unnecessary to have this leading party scrutinising its own decisions. He agreed that scrutiny was required, but felt that it should be delivered by the other Committees scrutinising themselves.

In considering the Standards Committee, the Leader stated that there are two types of standards issue. The first is a party issue whereby a breach of the standards regime should give rise to an action by the political party. The second issue relates to standards issues in the public domain whereby the Council is brought into disrepute. He felt that these are better dealt with elsewhere without the requirement for a specific Standards Committee.

The Chief Executive welcomed the comments of the Members and apologised for the spelling errors. He stated that these errors demonstrated his need for clerical support, as suggested in the report. He confirmed that the intention was to make scrutiny an integral part of all Committees without the need for a separate Standards Committee. He acknowledged the complexity of the report and commented on the difficulties of producing the report in such a short space of time, and concluded by asking that if Members did have further comments on reports in the future that they raise them prior to the meeting such that work could be carried out on the report prior to it being brought before Full Council.

Members sought further clarification on what they would be voting on as it was not clear from the report and Councillor J W Boyce confirmed that despite what was stated in the report, Members were no longer being asked to approve the entire contents of the report, but instead they were being asked to approve the disbanding of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the disbanding of Standards Committee only, and to note the remaining contents of the report.

Councillor D A Gamble left the meeting and therefore did not vote. Councillor L Eaton arrived during the debate and was therefore unable to vote.

Councillors Mrs J M Gore and P Swift voted against the motion.

RESOLVED: That Members:

(1)  Note the contents of the report; and

(2)  Approve the disbanding of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the disbanding of the Standards Committee.