Agenda and minutes

Extraordinary, Overview and Scrutiny Management Board - Wednesday, 24th August, 2016 6.00 pm

Venue: A Committee Room - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions

Contact: Allison Taylor 

Link: Click here for video

Items
No. Item

21.

Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information

Minutes:

The emergency evacuation procedure was noted.

22.

Apologies for absence.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

23.

Declarations of Interest

To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors.  They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

 

Any declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

24.

Chair's Business

To note any announcements from the Chair

Minutes:

None.

25.

Public Forum pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item. Petitions, Statements and Questions will only be accepted if they relate to the business for which the extraordinary meeting has been arranged.

 

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

 

Questions - Written questions must be received by 12. 00 noon on 22 August 2016.

 

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on 23 August 2016.

 

Minutes:

There were no public forum items.

26.

West of England Devolution pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Board considered the outcome of the public consultation process which ran from the 4th July to the 15th August.  The Board considered whether it would wish to submit further comments to the Secretary of State by the deadline of the 26th August and whether there should be an Extraordinary Full Council before final consent was given by Cabinet.

During discussion the following issues were noted/raised:

a. It was confirmed that at this point in time  there was no change to the devolution deal, despite speculation in the press in relation to government policy re Metro Mayors.  Each local authority would be making representations for absolute clarity.

b. How representative was a response rate of 0.15% – it was noted that a Secretary of State consultation did not generally engender a large public response and the Council had been advised that the response rate was not out of kilter with other devolution consultations.

c. The public response had not identified particular concerns around the proposal for a metro Mayor.

d. One of the issues was about how the public would be engaged in devolution issues going forward – for example an engagement around what the public would like to see devolved.  A factor in the response rate could also have been the timing over the summer period.

e. The role of the Board was to review the outcome of the consultation and whether there was anything particularly different arising out of the consultation to the Council’s views.


f. It was a widely publicized consultation and 70% of respondents from Bristol were in favour of the proposals, however concerns were expressed about the response rate and whether this could realistically be taken as a representative view.


g. The consultation report was large as the Councils needed to  provide comprehensive information to the Secretary of State. Officers have been in close contact with DCLG regarding the information required in the report.

 

h. Information would be provided on the exact costs of the consultation but there had been a budget of approximately £9k shared between the 3 authorities.

 

i. The consultation was primarily about the process and this probably impacted on the public’s level of engagement.

 

j. It was the Secretary of State who would consider whether the consultation process and outcome were sufficiently robust to go forward with a decision.

k. If the public had been very opposed to the proposals this would have emerged, for example through a social media campaign.

l. The Council discussed with other authorities and the DCLG what needed to go into the consultation.  The report had to cover the questions which the Secretary of State might ask.

m. Going forward the Council would take on board comments made by the Board about ways in which the public could be more involved in council decision making, including the way the Council supports members in terms of providing information for them to pass  on to the public.

 

 

In conclusion the Board

 

Resolved:

 

(1)   To note  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.