Agenda item

Purpose: To review and if appropriate amend part 5 (Executive Rules of Procedure) following a request from the Liberal Democrat Group.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which asked Members to consider a request from the Liberal Democrat Group to review Part 5 (Executive Rules of Procedure) specifically around the number of Members required to affect a call-in.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution almost all decisions of the Executive, Committees of the Executive, individual Members of the Executive and ‘key decisions’ taken under delegated powers of Officers were subject to call-in.

Where items were marked as being subject to call-in currently five Members were required to sign the notice asking for the decision to be reviewed. Following the May 2015 elections the make up of the Council comprised 48 Conservative Members and 4 Liberal Democrat Members. This meant that in order to affect a call-in the Liberal Democrat Group had to gain cross party support. They had therefore asked that that section of the Constitution be reviewed to reflect the political balance of the Council. Moira Fraser stated that it should be noted that one item had been called-in in 2014 and four items in 2013. The call-in requirements for the other Berkshire unitaries ranged from three to five Members and it was therefore proposed that to promote greater accountability paragraphs 5.3, 2.7,5 and 6.4.4 should be amended to require three Members to affect a call-in.

Councillor Alan Macro commented that not all decisions taken at the Council were transparent (Individual Decisions and Delegated Officer Decisions) and even at Executive items were not often thoroughly debated. He therefore felt that it was important to reduce the threshold in order for Opposition Members to be able to affect a call-in without garnering cross party support.

Councillor Jeff beck proposed that the amendments be accepted. Councillor Alan Macro seconded the proposal.

Councillor Graham Bridgman did not see the need to introduce the change. He explained that he had recently been asked to support a call-in but had declined to do so on the basis that the call-in was badly written not on the basis of politics.

Councillor Rick Jones stated that he did not see the issue with needing to garner cross party support to affect a call-in. He was uncomfortable with the implication that decisions made at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) were made on a political basis. He had always thought that the Commission operated on a politically neutral basis.

Councillor Macro stated that there was only one Members of the Opposition on the OSMC. He stated that it was not only about the politics but also that Opposition did not know the members of the Administration very well and it was therefore difficult to ascertain if they might support a call-in.

The Chairman noted that a proposal had been mooted to undertake more pre-scrutiny activity in the Council. Should this be introduced it would be preferable to let that system operate for a year to see what impact it would have and then decide if there was a need to amend the call-in procedures.  Councillor Webb therefore proposed that the proposal be deferred for a year.  Councillor Rick Jones agreed with the proposal.

The Chairman requested that the Committee vote on the proposal made by Councillor Beck and seconded by Councillor Macro to accept the recommendations set out in the report. At the vote the proposal was not carried.

Members then voted on the proposal made by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Jones to retain the status quo and that the proposal be reviewed in a years time in order to assess the impact of any pre-scrutiny activity undertaken by the Council. At the vote this proposal was carried.

RESOLVED that the status quo be retained and that the proposal be reviewed in a year’s time.

Councillors Jeff Beck and Alan Macro requested that their votes against the Committee’s decision be recorded.