Meeting documents

            Meeting: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 10/11/2008 10:00:00 AM)

                  Item: A1 Minutes of the meetings held on 24 September and 3 October 2008

         

---

At a Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee held at County Hall, Durham on Wednesday 24 September 2008 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:

Councillors Alderson, Avery, Bailey, A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, Boyes, Brunskill, Burn, Burnip, Campbell, Carr, Chaplow, Crooks, Dixon, Gray, Hopgood, Hugill, Jopling, Maddison, Martin, Moran, Murphy, D Myers, R Ord, C Potts, Simmons, Southwell, Stoker, Stradling, R Todd, Wilkes, Wilkinson, Williams, Wright and R Young.

Co-opted Members:
A Barker, D Bates, B Birch, M English, M Fish, B Howarth, K Ibbotson, D Kinch and A Tallentire.

The Chairman welcomed members of the Bishop Auckland Theatre Hooligans Group who were attending the meeting to observe the proceedings.

A1 Minutes

The Minutes of the meetings held on 21 July and 21 August 208 were confirmed by the Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Referring to the last paragraph of the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 August, Councillor Hopgood informed the Committee that she had not received a copy of the notes of the meeting referred to. The Head of Overview and Scrutiny replied that the notes had been sent to all Members, and undertook to provide a further copy to Councillor Hopgood.

A2 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

A3 LGR Update - Presentation by Programme Manager

The Committee received a presentation from Roger Goodes, Programme Manager, which provided an update on the County Durham Local Government Review Programme (for copy of slides see file of Minutes).

Referring to the Area Action Partnerships (AAP’s), Members asked which area Shildon would lay within. Roger replied that the settlements within each AAP had not yet been agreed, although Shildon would probably be within the Bishop Auckland or Spennymoor AAP. Further consultation would be taking place regarding the role of the AAP’s and their geographical boundaries. Councillor Armstrong added that no decisions had as yet been made on the geographics of AAP’s and that Overview and Scrutiny would continue to be involved in the process. A recent press release which had provided specific details of AAP’s had been issued erroneously.

A4 Blueprint

The Committee considered a report on the Blueprint for the new unitary authority (for copy see file of Minutes)

The Committee split into seven workshops to facilitate discussion on:

· The Transformation
· The Approach
· Customer focus
· Community engagement and empowerment
· Modern and flexible services
· Efficient and effective use of resources
· Improving outcomes
· Governance
· Designing the new council - for example, putting people first, management structure.

The Groups then provided feedback on each aspect of the Blueprint. The detail of the feedback provided is attached as Appendix 1 to the minutes.

The Chairman referred to the form and function of Overview and Scrutiny within the new authority and to the current consultation ongoing regarding Heads of Service. He informed the Committee that this would be discussed at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to be held on 3 October, and during the discussion of the item, officers would be asked to withdraw from the meeting.

The Head of Overview and Scrutiny informed the Committee that details of the feedback provided would be reported by the Chairman to the meeting of the County Council on 1 October 2008 when the Blueprint was being considered.

A5 Sustainable Communities Strategy

The Committee noted the notes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Working Group held on 3 September 2008 to consider the consultation on the Sustainable Community Strategy (for copy see file of Minutes)

The Head of Overview and Scrutiny informed the Committee that the comments from the meeting had been fed back to the Head of Corporate Policy, and the Sustainable Community Strategy was to be considered by Cabinet on 25 September.

A6 Scrutiny Café Event for Co-optees

The Committee noted a report of the Head of Overview and Scrutiny which provided details of a training event for Co-optees held on 28 July 2008 (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Chairman informed the Committee that the event had been very useful in receiving feedback from Co-optees, and it was intended to hold such events every 3 to 4 months, as it was important that Co-optees had a real input into the Scrutiny process.

At a Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee held at County Hall, Durham on Friday 3 October 2008 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:

Members:
Councillors B Alderson, R Arthur, E Bell, A Bainbridge, J Blakey, G Bleasdale, D Boyes, R Burnip, M Campbell, C Carr, P Gittins, B Graham, J Gray, A Hopgood, Howarth, S Hugill, G Huntington, S Iveson, P Jopling, J Nicholson, E Murphy, D Myers, M Plews, R Rodgers, M Simmons, A Shield, D Southwell, P Stradling,
L Thomson and M Wilkes.

Co-opted Members:
M English, B Howarth K Ibbotson, D Kinch, Councillor W Meikle, M Robinson,
M Sands, P Spurrell, and A M Tallentire

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Brunskill, M Potts, R Ord,
S Zair, and Mr B Birch, Mr M Jones and Mr R Pye.

A1 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

A2 Items from Co-opted Members

There were no items from Co-opted Members.

A3 White Paper “Communities in Control; Real people, real power (2008)” Consultation Document on “Improving Local Accountability”

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Overview and Scrutiny on the consultation document “Improving Local Accountability” (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Committee discussed the questions set out in the consultation document and the suggested comments and Members made the following comments:-

Question 3 - Councillor E Bell asked how this would relate to locality scrutiny arrangements, and the impact on locality, community and area action partnerships scrutiny arrangements.

Question 6 - Councillor D Myers was of the view that the proposed arrangements for area scrutiny committees are not clear and are ambiguous. Councillor Carr said that the area action partnerships need to be properly established and the constitutional issues need to be clarified and this should be strongly emphasised. Councillor Hopgood expressed concern about the possible reduction in the number of councillors as a result of the Boundary Commission review. With the proposals for areas scrutiny it is likely that a councillor’s workload would increase and it is important for the Council to at least retain the current number of members.

Question 7 - Barbara Howarth raised the issue about the need for dedicated resources and support for area scrutiny arrangements. Councillor Southwell expressed concern about where additional resources would come from to support the enhanced functions. The Head of Overview and Scrutiny said that the issue of resources is extremely important. The Government have mentioned that there is the New Burdens fund when an Act introduces new responsibilities. The Authority will need to seriously consider where the resources will come from and the Council may want to address this in the response to the consultation document.

Question 8 - Councillor Wilkes raised concerns about cost, capacity and accountability in dealing with petitions. The Head of Overview and Scrutiny suggested that it might be helpful to share the County Council model set out in the constitution with CLG. Councillor Carr suggested that there needed to be more stress put on the possibility of vexatious or vested interest elements of petitions. In addition commercial or business interests behind petitions need to be examined and the Authority will need criteria and guidance on what can be accepted as a valid petition. Councillor Southwell sought clarification on the Standards Board role in petitions.

Question 9 - Councillor Myers and Wilkes suggested that rather than the Chairman or the Chief Executive, the portfolio holders should be attending public meetings. Mrs Howarth expressed the view that she did not like the expression ‘hold officers to account’. Councillor Carr was of the view that paid officers effect policy and should be expected to explain this at public meetings. Councillor Stradling said the person attending public meetings should be the most appropriate person. The Head of Overview and Scrutiny outlined the following three themes that arose from the discussion:

· The principle of being outward facing and going out to the public;
· In terms of who attends this could be the Chief officer, the Executive or the most relevant member including the local member;
· In relation of how often, this could depend on the geographical size of the authority and could be three or four time per year as long as it is timely and relevant to the authority.

Question 10 - Councillor Armstrong suggested that there may be a capacity issue and there is a need for strictly defined criteria. Councillor Carr said that guidance on the trigger mechanism is needed. Councillor Wilkes stated that any guidance should be appropriate to each authority to enable decisions to be determined locally.

Question 11 - Councillor Bell explained that a protocol is needed that will assist all communities.

The Head of Overview and Scrutiny informed the Committee that all comments made during the meeting will be added to those set out in the Appendix to the report and these will be shared with the Corporate Management Team and Cabinet.

Resolved:
That the comments set out in the Appendix together with those made during the meeting form the basis of the Authority’s response to the consultation document.

A4 Response to DCC’s Heads of Service Structure Consultation Document

The Chairman of the Committee sought the views of Members on the position of Overview and Scrutiny within the new authority. In the Heads of Service Structure consultation document, Overview and Scrutiny has been placed with Corporate Services. The Chairman was of the view that as a statutory function Overview and Scrutiny should fall within the remit of the Assistant Chief Executive and that it should also have a Head of Service.

In the ensuing discussion Members expressed the view that Overview and Scrutiny ought to be fully independent of other services if it is to be impartial. In addition it was considered important that it had its own Head of Service.

In the event that the Overview and Scrutiny proposal on the structure is turned down, the Chairman proposed that Overview and Scrutiny should seek the attendance of the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council at a meeting of all Overview and Scrutiny members to explain why the proposal has been refused.

On a vote being taken the proposals were unanimously agreed.

Resolved:
1. That in terms of the Heads of Service structure the view be supported that the Overview and Scrutiny function should fall within the remit of the Assistant Chief Executive and that it should have its own Head of Service.

2. That in the event of the proposal in Minute No A4 (1) above on the structure being rejected, the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council be asked to meet with all Overview and Scrutiny members to explain why the proposal has been refused.

Attachments

 Minutes 3 October 2008.pdf;
 Minutes 24 September 2008.pdf