Agenda item

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; due regard to public sector quality duty aims and; the highest standards of ethical conduct.

·   That Full Council agrees that the scrutiny of decisions will take place in Policy Committees and/or sub-committees, including the statutory scrutiny functions of flood risk management, community safety partnerships and health.

·   That the Policy Committees will be able to establish their own task and finish groups, working groups and inquiry days for matters that fall within their area of responsibility.