Agenda item

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

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning amendments to the Constitution to support changes to the Council’s overview and scrutiny arrangements.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer and Service Lead for Legal and Democratic Services introduced the report and highlighted that that since the publication of the agenda, it had been proposed that each of the three new Scrutiny Committee’s would comprise of nine Members. In addition, it was suggested that the new arrangements would begin operation immediately upon their approval at Annual Council, rather than on 1 September 2025. </AI7>

The Committee was informed that currently, the Council had been operating two Scrutiny Committees – the Scrutiny Commission and the Health Scrutiny Committee – and that the proposal was to move to a three-committee model – a Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee, Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee, and a Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee. In addition, the three current advisory groups – the Transport Advisory Group (TAG), the Planning Advisory Group (PAG), and the Environment Advisory Group (EAG) – were proposed to be replaced by a single Policy Development Group (PDG) which would be a group of the Executive. These Committee changes would more closely align the Council’s Scrutiny structure with other councils of a similar size.

Members welcomed the move to the three-committee structure but raised concerns about the proposed size of the committees. Debating the potential number of Members on each Committee, they agreed that nine Members on each of the three Scrutiny Committees would be too large as it would result in a significant proportion of all Council Members needing to sit on a Scrutiny Committee. The Committee agreed that the number proposed would place an even greater workload on Members who would, in turn, not be able to provide as much attention as was needed to these important areas. It was also indicated that the current Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee believed that seven was a sufficient number.

Overall, due to the workload and time needed to properly invest in these new Scrutiny Committees, the Committee agreed to recommend to Council that each of the new Committees would be more appropriate if they were comprised of seven members.

Members also expressed reservations about the lack of detail on the impact these changes would have on Officer resources. Emphasising the need for proper resourcing in order to achieve the maximum potential of these new Committees, Members requested assurances that that the Democratic Services workload would be reviewed. In response, the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Service Lead for Legal and Democratic Services indicated that the Council was conducting an internal review of workloads in order to highlight areas of pressure and to ensure that adequate support could be provided for the new structure. As new scrutiny functions would be taking place, it was noted that additional scrutiny resources, at principal level, would be required.

Questions were also raised about the timeline for implementation of the new scrutiny arrangements. The Committee emphasised the importance in the proper consideration of these changes and that actioning the proposed committees immediately after Annual Council would not provide sufficient time for this. Therefore, the Committee could not agree with the recommendation as proposed. As some Members indicated that the initially proposed 1 September date for implementation was also an ambitious timeline, the Committee agreed that the timescale should be removed from their recommendation to Council.

Members also questioned the wording about the Chairing of the new Committees as it was not clear if the opposition groups would retain Chairmanship. 

The Committee moved on to discuss the Policy Development Group (PDG) and emphasised that there was a lack of clarity about this in the report. Specifically, they highlighted that there was no confirmation about how many Members would be on it, what the political proportionality would be, what powers it would have, how often and on what specific dates it would meet, or about how it would relate to the new Scrutiny Committees. Although it was noted that the Terms of Reference for the Group was being confirmed internally, and that the PDG was an Executive Group rather than one needing to be approved by Council, the Committee believed that this proposal had not been presented in sufficient detail and that these points should be clarified prior to the approval of the new Scrutiny Committees.

On a point of clarity about the Crime and Disorder Committee, Members noted that this responsibility had been taken on by the Scrutiny Commission and the hope was that the new structure would make the functions of each Committee clearer. In addition, it was requested that point 4.3 on page 157 be amended as ‘looked after children’ was not the term used by the Council.

Members noted that, as per recommendation B, the amendments to the Constitution to facilitate these changes would be delegated to the Monitoring Officer.

Overall, the Committee was not satisfied with the recommendations as presented. Although the three Scrutiny Committee structure was considered to be a positive improvement to the Scrutiny functions of the Council, it was agreed that the timeline for their implementation was inappropriate and that the number of Members on the Committee should be seven, rather than nine. For these reasons they agreed to amend the proposed recommendation to Council.

RESOLVED: That the Committee recommend to Council that it:

(a)  approves the proposed changes to the Scrutiny Model, 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 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 to the report)

(d)  that the three Committees be comprised of seven Members.

(This was recommended due to the consideration of time and workload that would be placed on Members)