Agenda item

Purpose: To set out proposed amendments to the Constitution in light of proposed changes to the Council’s overview and scrutiny arrangements.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning amendments to the Constitution in order to support changes to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny arrangements.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Denise Gaines:

“That Council:

A) approves the proposed changes to the Scrutiny Model effective from 15 May 2025, replacing the two existing committees (Scrutiny Commission and Health Scrutiny Committee), with three committees as follows:

• Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee
• Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee
• Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee

(b) delegates amendments to the Constitution that are necessary to accommodate the above changes to the Scrutiny Model (outlined in Section 5 of this report) to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Constitution Review Task Group

(c) approves the updated programme of public meetings required to accommodate the above changes to the Scrutiny Model (as set out in Appendix C)”

Councillor Brooks introduced the report and highlighted that Council was asked to consider a new structure for how scrutiny would be conducted. This would involve the creation of three Scrutiny Committees, each with their distinct areas of focus, and the replacement of the Planning, Transport, and Environment Advisory Groups with a new Executive body called the Policy Development Group (PDG). The membership of the PDG would be drawn from all Members of the Council and would be used to help develop specific policies which could be taken forward for adoption.

The Governance Committee had discussed these proposals at their meeting on 29 April 2025 and had raised several concerns with the proposals. However, Council noted that there was a desire to give the Scrutiny Committees more influence and for them to work more effectively. For these reasons, the recommendations had remained and were being put before Council. Members noted that the proposals had also been discussed with the Group Leaders who were generally supportive of them as they would make the Council more in line with how scrutiny was conducted in other similar authorities. However, some Members indicated that they would have liked the proposals to have been taken through the existing Scrutiny Commission for their input.

Members emphasised the necessity of sufficient Officer support for these new Scrutiny Committees and highlighted the extensive work that the Principal Democratic Services Officer, Gordon Oliver, and the Principal Policy Officer, Vicky Phoenix, had been providing to the current structure. Having opposition group Members chairing some of the Scrutiny Committees was also agreed to be a positive inclusion but they noted that training, especially for new Members of these Committees, would be essential in order to run the meetings as effectively as they could be. These proposals were also noted as helping to ensure that proper scrutiny was put on key service areas, such as adult and children services.  

In response to questions about the PDG, particularly about its Terms of Reference, membership, and proportionality, Council was informed that the Group’s membership would be open to all Members and would allow them all to contribute to policy development rather than it being controlled by the Executive. In addition, the Terms of Reference would not be voted on as it was a body of the Executive, not Council.

In response to a point about the Council’s internal governance processes, Council was assured that Corporate Board would not block the progression of any report unless it was unaffordable or not legally possible.

Overall, as Council were satisfied with the report, they agreed to approve the recommendations.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.