To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the Motion as set out in the associated notice.
Minutes:
Councillor Hayward moved and Councillor Pope seconded, the motion set out in the notice on the agenda.
Debate included consideration of the following points:
· It was important to not only be open but be seen to be open to the voting public therefore it was necessary to go above and beyond minimum standards.
· There was a perception that too many documents were exempt from disclosure.
· The minutes of the Audit and Governance Committee meeting in November 2020 had been delayed and when this was brought to the attention of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee it was determined to be an internal matter for the Audit and Governance Committee. When they were eventually produced they were not entirely consistent with some recollections of the meeting. These types of issue reflect poorly and raises suspicions which needed to be resolved.
Councillor Bailey raised a point of order to question the relevance of previous comments. The Mayor ruled that the debate had been in order.
Councillor Bailey moved, and Councillor Dawlings seconded, an amendment to delete all words and replace with: “We thank members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the additional work they have undertaken during the pandemic and note that TWBC has received positive external feedback on the way it delivers its Overview and Scrutiny functions. The Council asks the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to check that we are following the current best practice based on the latest guidance from the Centre of Public Scrutiny and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We request that the Committee reports the results of this review to Full Council later in 2021.” Comments included:
· The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had undertaken a considerable amount of additional work during the pandemic to pick up the role usually performed by the three Cabinet Advisory Boards.
· Prior to the pandemic there had not been any concerns about the council’s scrutiny functions and a Local Government Corporate Peer Review in 2016 found that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was providing a good check and balance to the executive. A follow up report in 2019 confirmed good governance arrangements.
· No evidence of a failure in the Council’s scrutiny functions had been provided.
· It was unclear whether the documents quoted in the motion were the definitive guide to best practice or the most up-to-date guidance.
· The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be best placed to conduct a review.
Debate on the amendment included consideration of the following additional points.
· The amendment did not address the issues raised in the original motion.
· It was not appropriate for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review its own functions.
Councillor Chapelard raised a point of order that the amendment negated the motion (contrary to Council Procedure Rule 13.6.1(e)). The Mayor, on the advice of the Legal Officer, ruled that the amendment was in order as it only changed the effect of the motion and did not produce the opposite effect of the motion.
Debate on the amendment included consideration of the following additional points:
· There was no evidence of the issues implied by the original motion.
· The proposed use of a cross-party working group, rather than a politically balanced committee, simply sought to extend the influence of opposition parties.
· The original motion was about scrutiny in the broader sense rather than the functions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
· Evidence to support the original motion was intended to have been included in the notice but was omitted.
· To disregard any concerns would be disingenuous and the best way to disprove them would be a open review.
· The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was cross-party, had requisition powers and had a duty to be open in its proceedings.
· Support officers for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were aware of the latest guidance and provided assurance that the scrutiny functions were in line with current guidance.
· Reports highlighting issues relating to the Calverley Square project had not been made available to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and therefore there clearly was a gap in the scrutiny function. The format set out I the original motion was the better way of addressing the problem.
· The amendment only highlighted what the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should already be doing.
· No significant changes had been made in the decision making processes since the cancelling of the Calverley Square project. The amendment would not bring about the necessary change to restore public trust in the Council.
· The Overview ands Scrutiny Committee was not in the business of propping up the executive and had a healthy culture of challenge and review.
· The budget consultation had highlighted public desire to reduce spending on committee therefore the existing Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be used.
Councillor Pound requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted for the amendment: Councillors Bailey, Backhouse, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Hamilton, Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, Thomson and Woodward. (19)
Members who voted against the amendment: Councillors Atkins, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Lidstone, Morton, Poile, Pope, Pound, Rands, Reilly, Rutland, Warne, Williams and Willis. (20)
Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Atwood, Barrington-King, Bruneau, Dr Hall and Simmons. (5)
AMENDMENT NOT CARRIED
Debate returned to the original motion.
Debate included consideration of the following additional points:
· A readily available model of effective scrutiny was available in the form of parliamentary select committees.
· The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not provided effective scrutiny with majority group members remaining silent on many key issues.
· The make up of the Council was significantly different from 2 years ago, the Council did not have a robust culture of challenge that needed to be addressed.
· The motion lacked detail over the structure of the working-party, it should be politically balanced.
· The proposed working-group lacked terms of reference and operating procedures.
· There was no evidence of a failure in the systems, this was more a case of political grandstanding.
· The time and costs in setting up another group on such was not in the public interest.
· The Overview and Scrutiny Committee always sought improvement but this did not amount to a declaration of failure. The Committee remained the best place to address these issues.
· The motion was about doing the right thing for residents and time should be taken to undertake a review.
· Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been misled and may have unwittingly contributed to the delay in uncovering the issues. Regular reports to the Committee omitted critical information but were taken at face value. The Committee had failed to exercise its powers to discover the truth.
· A lack of transparency, obfuscation and a lack of effective scrutiny had cost the Council dearly.
· The Overview and Scrutiny committee was dominated by majority party members including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, contrary to best practice guidance.
Councillor Funnell requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted for the motion: Councillors Atkins, Bruneau, Chapelard, Ellis, Everitt, Funnell, Hayward, Hickey, Hill, Lewis, Lidstone, Morton, Poile, Pope, Pound, Rands, Reilly, Rutland, Thomson, Warne, Williams and Willis. (22)
Members who against the motion: Councillors Bailey, Backhouse, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Fairweather, Hamilton, Holden, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Podbury, Scholes, Scott, Mrs Soyke, and Woodward. (16)
Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Atwood, Barrington-King, Dr Hall, Noakes, Ms Palmer and Simmons. (6)
RESOLVED – There are growing concerns about the impact a decreasing level of transparency and scrutiny is having on our borough's democratic processes.
If we are to expect respect and trust from the public with our handling of their services and money, then good standards of transparency and scrutiny need to be evident within the council.
We welcome the report from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published on 7 May 2019 entitled "Statutory Guidance on Overview and Scrutiny in Local and Combined Authorities" and the "The Good Scrutiny Guide" published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny on 19 June 2019.
This Council agrees to establish a cross-party Working Group reporting to Full Council to examine how the Statutory Guidance should be implemented and best practice followed at TWBC.
Supporting documents: