Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed those present and introductions were made. 

Apologies were received from Councillor Helen Holland and Councillor Mohamed Makawi.   Councillor Bradshaw substituted for Councillor Holland.

There were no declarations of interest. 

Approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting so that the following amendments could be made to part 7:

·       The following paragraph to be amended from ‘The Group discussed the principle about democratic decision making and all agreed that the current levels of political oversight must be retained’ to ’the Group discussed the principle about democratic decision making and all agreed that the current levels of political oversight must be retained, which included that all decisions currently made by Members must continue to be so.’

·       That the following sentence be added to the resolution ‘That the CMWG will take regular reports of recommendations for decision to Full Council, commencing in March 23.’

RESOLVED:  That approval of the minutes from the meeting on 27^th January 23 be deferred until the meeting on 31^st March 23.

NB. up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item

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.

Please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received via email at the latest by 5 pm on 20 February 2023.

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 via email at the latest by 12.00 noon on 23 February 2023.

The following public forum business was received for the meeting.

Questions (and answers)

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services provided a brief introduction to the report, following which four illustrative options of potential scrutiny structures were shown to Members.  The Committee went on to consider the information provided and ask for additional details in a number of areas.  The key points made were as follows:

·       The various options for Scrutiny that had been put forward provided a useful starting point for discussion, but all had limitations.  Members generally agreed that it wasn’t necessary to include a standalone Scrutiny function in the new model as all functions could be undertaken in the Policy Committees, including the statutory aspects (i.e., crime and disorder, flood risk and health).  It was noted that Health Scrutiny could entail significant workloads.

·       Current governance arrangements included options for ‘call in’ either through the scrutiny function where the Mayor could be asked to reconsider a Cabinet decision, or when planning applications were referred to Committee.  There was consensus that the option to challenge decisions made by Policy Committees via an ‘escalation panel’ established by Full Council should be included in the committee model, although with broader grounds for referral than the current Scrutiny call in function.  The mechanism to refer decisions to the ‘escalation panel’ would be considered at a later date.

·       If the scrutiny function was significantly reduced in the committee model, there needed to be clear arrangements for how policy development would be conducted, particularly at an early stage.  Task and finish groups (including Inquiry Days) reporting to the Policy Committees would be one way to achieve this.

·       Consideration should be given to the remit of the Audit Committee, including responsibility for monitoring risks and how it would operate in conjunction with the Policy Committees.

·       Regarding access to information, the current entitlements for Members based on the principle of ‘need to know’ would be retained, whether there was a separate scrutiny function or not.

·       Members sitting on Policy Committees must be properly briefed to enable them to make fully informed decisions.  The process for this would be considered in due course.

·       It was important to ensure there was clear accountability for decisions made within the Policy Committees.  

·       As previously discussed, the Group confirmed that Officer Executive Decisions should be published in advance with the option for Members to request them to be passed to a Policy Committee if required.

·       In the new model the Policy Committees must be politically balanced as this was a statutory requirement.

RESOLVED:

Following the debate, Councillor Bartle moved the following resolution and was seconded by Councillor Beech. On being put to the vote, 10 Members were in favour and there was one abstention:

·   That Full Council establish an Escalation Panel, which would consider matters escalated to it, in line with the principles of decision making set out in Article 14.02 of the Council’s Constitution details as follows: proportionality; due consultation; taking of professional advice from others; respect for human rights; a presumption in favour of openness; clarity of aims and desired outcomes;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report was approved.  Members noted that they would be considering further engagement activities at their meeting in April 23.

RESOLVED:  That the report be approved.