Agenda item

Report number CEX373 by the Chief Executive.                       (Enclosure)

DECISION: To approve that, with effect from 17^th May 2007, the following new committee arrangements shall come into effect:

(1)  a new structure for scrutiny and policy development comprising three 7 member Policy Development Groups (PDGs) with remits as follows:

(a)       Resources.  This PDG will be co-terminus with the remit of the Cabinet Portfolio responsibilities for Resources and Assets, and Organisational Development as set out in the current Council’s Constitution;

(b)       Engagement.  The remit will be co-terminus with the Cabinet Portfolio responsibilities for Access and Engagement, and Strategic Partnerships as set out in the current Council’s Constitution;

(c)       Community.  This remit will be co-terminus with the Cabinet Portfolio responsibilities for Economic Development and Healthy Environment as set out in the current Council’s Constitution.

(2)  The formation of an 11 member Scrutiny Committee with powers to exercise call-in over both executive matters and all other call-in functions granted to the Council over third parties.

(3)  That the size of the Development Control Committee to remain at 17 members.

(4)  That the Chief Executive is instructed to prepare a new Constitution for formal adoption on 17^th May 2007 which details all consequential amendments needed to implement this decision.                           

The Leader, in her capacity as Chairman of the Constitution & Accounts Committee, moved the recommendations contained in report number CEX373.  These were seconded. She explained that the committee had spent considerable time discussing these important changes and were of the opinion that a certain level of expertise and professionalism was required to be a member of the Scrutiny Committee.  For this reason the membership of the committee was revised to 9 instead of 11.

Discussion began with a number of members expressing their strong concern at the proposed reduction in the number of the Development Control Committee from the present 17 down to 15.  Points raised covered the apparent “decimation” of this regulatory committee, the increasing delegation of the vast majority of development control decisions to officers, the importance of members’ local knowledge in considering applications, and the erosion of democracy caused by these changes to the planning process.  The Council heard from the longest serving member on this committee as he expressed his concerns about the importance of the public being able to have their say through their elected representatives.  An amendment was proposed and seconded that the number of the Development Control Committee be left at 17 members.

In support of reducing the size of the committee, points were raised about the present difficulty in getting the full number of members to attend the meetings and the fact that any member could attend the meetings and request to speak on any application.  In responding, the mover of the original motion emphasised that this committee acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and the Constitution & Accounts Committee had been concerned that this required a certain level of knowledge and expertise and that was why mandatory training had been introduced.  There was no room for error in taking these decisions and therefore the committee needed to be conducted appropriately.  A vote was taken on the amendment and carried becoming the substantive motion.

The debate then turned to the division of the scrutiny and policy development functions.  A member stated he supported this separation but had concerns over the reduction in the number of members involved in scrutiny down to 9 as this would mean the majority of members would not be involved in the scrutiny process.  He proposed a further amendment that recommendation 8 (2) in the report be deleted and replaced with the establishment of 3 scrutiny committees with the remit of internal, external finance and resources each to be chaired by a non administrative member.  Recommendation 8 (1) in the report be deleted and replaced with the establishment of three 7 member policy development groups all to be compliant with Part 4 Access to Information procedure rules. The amendment received a seconder.

During further discussion on the amendment, concern was raised at the reduction of the proposed Scrutiny Committee membership to only 9 members.  It was pointed out that 11 members would allow smaller groups on the Council to have a seat.  The Chief Executive asked the mover of the amendment to clarify what numbers he was proposing on the three scrutiny committees and received the reply that 7 would sit on each committee.  As mover of the original motion, the Chairman of the Constitution & Accounts Committee stated that the recommendations had been based on the assumption that scrutiny would be chaired by an opposition member.  She expressed concern at the amendment to introduce three scrutiny committees as this could place members in a position of conflict in they had taken part in the formulation of a policy and then sat in a capacity to scrutinise it.  If the amendment was defeated, she indicated that she would accept the increase in the Scrutiny Committee membership to 11.  A vote was taken on the amendment and subsequently lost.  A further amendment was proposed and seconded to increase the Scrutiny Committee membership to 11 and upon being put to the vote was carried.

After the Chief Executive had responded to a question on how the call-in procedure would operate, confirming that all consequent changes to the Constitution will come back to the Council at its annual meeting on 17^th May 2007, he clarified that the substantive motion before the meeting was the original motion subject to two amendments.

A further amendment was proposed and seconded to delete recommendation 8 (4) instructing the Chief Executive to prepare a new Constitution for formal adoption.  The member expressed concern that a new Council would be asked to approve a new system without any knowledge of how the existing system had worked.  Any changes to the Constitution must be first considered by the Constitution & Accounts Committee following a report by the Monitoring Officer and he therefore suggested that this should be deferred.  The Chief Executive responded confirming that the consequent changes to the Constitution would need to be submitted to the Constitution & Accounts Committee.  If recommendation 8 (4) was deleted then the Constitution would not align with the decisions made at this meeting.  The Committee could meet before the end of the Council year to consider these changes.  A vote was taken on the amendment and lost.

Questions were then asked about the remit of the policy development groups and what the cost implications were.  The Chief Executive explained that the remits of the groups were spread as evenly as possible across the six portfolio responsibilities.  The cost implications were neutral as the changes affected the committee structure not financing, although he had acknowledged that officer time had been expended on the production of the reports to Constitution & Accounts Committee and the Council.

A comment was made that to effect change, merely altering the committee structure was not in itself sufficient.  There was a need to change the culture that underpinned it.  A member strongly refuted any implication that the selection of chairmanships and vice-chairmanships was connected with a desire by the administration to retain power.  Other comments were made about the previous selection of these positions.  The Leader denied that this process had been flawed in any way.

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, as amended and carried.