Cambridgeshire Council - Council - 23/05/2024

Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Cambridgeshire Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Please note, emails for this council have been paused whilst we secure funding for it. We hope to begin delivering them again in the next couple of weeks. If you subscribe, you'll be notified when they resume. If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate a small amount to support this service, please get in touch at community@opencouncil.network.

Annual Meeting, Council - Thursday, 23rd May, 2024 11.00 am

May 23, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting Watch video of meeting

Transcript

You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You

Well, good afternoon, everyone. Just in case there is anybody live watching, I'll just announce my name is Councillor Russ McPherson. I'm the chair of the Civic Affairs, and this meeting is taking place at 5.30pm on the 13th of May 2004. If I could just ask Councillors to announce their own names, that would be great. If we could start from Councillor Roberson and work our way around.
Thank you.
Councillor Roberson here.
Patrick Shields here.
Councillor Davies here.
Councillor MURPHY it's here.
Councillor Young here.
Thank you very much. I have one apology and that was from the independent person, Rob Bennett. And may I ask for any declaration of interest? If anybody has any, as normal rules, ladies and gentlemen, you can of course declare those at any time throughout the meeting at your measure. So none at the moment. Thank you so much. And that's just takes us to item three, which are the minutes of the previous meeting on the 7th of February 2024. Are there any comments, amendments or otherwise to those minutes?
Sign this assumes a cent in that case. I'll start in those minutes at the end of this meeting. Thank you. Public questions, that's item four. We did have public question, but that has now been withdrawn. And the questioner will not now be with us on this occasion. So we have no known public questions at this time. And what I'm going to do with the items five, six and seven on this agenda, Councillor Bennett had an excellent idea of taking, basically taking the reverse order. So we'll do the governance item five. We'll do that last the other two fairly quick, I would think. But so if we take item seven, so may I just check, these have just been handed to me as well. Item seven, we do have a supplement for the agenda. Item seven, everybody in possession, they're all over the committee places. I think it's only hard copies, I think.
No, we've got, there are electronically on the website as well, I've seen them.
Okay, you'll be, yeah, okay, I've not gone there. So was that a yes or a no?
I don't need a printed copy of it on the screen.
Oh, I'm sorry, that was my human, probably. I thought you said you couldn't see them on the screen. Okay, thank you. So are there any comments which we can take any questions, any comments from anybody on those items? Those appointments? Councillor David.
Forgive me, I haven't had the chance to speak to it. I thought Councillor bit could be here. So it's in relation to the, on the final page, the relation to the planning committee. Councillor Bix asked if we would consider whether or not Councillor Pore will be the vice-gibber when we would like it to remain the candidate. Although the other thing to say on that is also with regards to the JDCC, Councillor Bix asked around representation for the Liberal Democrats, and I'm happy to see to that particular proposal and having consulted members from groups and would be one year, one person, one year, two people. I hope that's helpful. I'm sorry, forgive me, Karen, I'm sorry, Councillor. I didn't have the chance to come see you as well.
That's fine. I'm aware of the discussion.
But, Jack?
Are there any other comments on item seven?
Okay, thank you very much, everyone. That takes us going backwards to item six, which is honorary freedom of city, and I'll hand over to Dan to make that report.
Thank you, Chair, through you. This report just outlines some background information to HMS Protector, who it has been recommended to Council to award honorary freedom of the city. And so the report just gives some background details to that, and at the meeting on the 23rd of May, the item where we normally have the honorary Councillors, we also have the honorary freedom of the city to be granted to HMS Protector, so it's just to get the civic affairs approval to recommend that on to Council, Chair. If you want to say any more, you have the answer.
Sorry, Councillor, I can't hear, understand what you'll say, you speak up a bit.
Can we put it a bit better now, if it's closer?
Okay, I was just saying that the report for the honorary freedom of the city will be going to the annual meeting on the 23rd of May for Council to agree to award honorary freedom city to HMS Protector, and that's in line with the constitution. When it gets to Council, and you will need a 2/3 majority to be voted through.
Does anybody wish to comment on item six?
Councillor Bennett.
My group enthusiastically supports this proposal, but we would like to know that as some residents are quite being used at one of the furthest cities in land in the UK, is giving the freedom of city to HMS Protector, so perhaps in the columns we could explain that a little bit more. It's certainly explained to my satisfaction, but I think we need to explain it's better to the city at large.
You know, actually, that makes perfect sense to me, I can understand that, and it's unusual to see naval cadets here in the city, but we do, and there in actual fact, they were one of the most active from cadet units in the city during COVID, but what I can say is that at 3.1, as you see, it was agreed on the 21st of July 2011, an affiliation between the city of Cambridge and HMS Protector. And some of the reasons for that was because of the, especially even in those days, not so many years ago, climatic change was still high on the agenda, and even higher now, an HMS Protector actually does lots of work for the British Antarctic Survey, which is based here in Cambridge. And it's an actual factor, and of course, the Scott Polar Institute, so they work very carefully with them, so they have very strong ties scientifically to the city. And of course, it's also embedded in our promises to the city that we will address climatic change in a serious manner and be looking to do as much as we can as a city as a whole to improve our carbon footprint and to see publicly that we're supporting climatic change. And I think by taking this, dare I say this, on board, then it's a tangible arrangement that we actually mean what we say, and it's not gonna cost the city anything. There is no actual duties that we're expected to perform. It is exactly what it says, and honorary freedom, because of the work they do in climatic change. Now, it's also the only icebreaker that the Royal Navy have. And just as a sideline, and you probably hear more about this at the AGM, that not the current captain, but the previous captain, was the first female captain that the Royal Navy appointed to a vessel this sort ever. And she visited the Royal Navy, and she visited the Guildhall here a couple of times, and we supported her wholeheartedly, and she's certainly a leader for what can be achieved by women in the Royal Navy. Councillor David.
Going back to your request, Councillor Bennett, we may be able to, but I think we can, sort of rather than the name of Martin did a press release, so we can share it with you in advance side. You're happy to ensure there'll be a small, we're inviting a small number of guests with naval connections going through the years to attend the lunch after the AGM. So if you all, Councillor Young, have anybody you'd like to see invited with reference to this, please do let the chair or myself know. Fantastic, thank you, Chair.
But I get whilst some people are asking the question, I do get that. Hopefully the tide's not reached just to come into Cambridge just yet. Okay, so that takes us, sorry, not entirely. I haven't actually asked the question, are the committee in agreement that this honoree position is granted? Sorry, that was my remiss, I'm sorry. I got carried away with the history of it, which is fabulous. So that takes us members to the last item, item five, Cambridge City Council Governance, and that is also on a separate note. Is everybody in possession of that? Because I know it didn't come out in the main agenda. That's the only reason I'm checking that, everybody's happy. And everybody have a chance to read it. In that case, ladies and gentlemen, any questions? Unless, so Dan, you're going to introduce us. Okay, thank you. Councillor Benning, I'm sorry.
I've got a correction to report, page two, 3.3. It says for GRG, Explored how well the committee system and leader cabinet models met these principles. The leader cabinet model provides best fit. Those of us who were in the Gup governance group will be aware that that decision was made by the Labour group and foisted on the meeting. It is not a decision of the Gup governance review group. And I'd like that report to be corrected.
Councillor DAVID.
Are you saying majority didn't vote in favour of that proposal, Councillor Bennett?
The Labour members voted in favour. The Lib Dan and the Green members voted against.
That's not quite what I asked, Casa Bennett. Are you saying majority did not vote in favour of that proposal?
You are correct majority did vote in favour, but it's certainly not a unanimous recommendation. And I believe that I asked at that meeting to have our separate views noted and our dissent. That doesn't appear to have happened.
Just to come back to you, this report is for the recommendations to go through to full council. So it full council be the ones who make the decision as to whether or not they want to proceed with the recommendations to look at the revised leader and cabinet model and set up a governance design group. So that council meeting or any dissenting or voting against will be recorded at that meeting. That's the official and public version of the meeting, Chair.
Councillor Young.
Thank you, Chair. The Liberal Democrats are not in agreement with this change. We've been, basically on a few grounds, one that it reduces the involvement of back ventures and also the opposition. It is designed to do that. We have been ensured that that's not the case and but we have no details yet and we don't know exactly how that's going to work out. So we disagree and I will not be voting for this recommendation at the civic affairs committee and I'm not going to say anything else. I believe the best better debate will be at full council. So thank you, Chair.
Dan, did you want to cut in there? I know we sort of over around with a couple of questions.
That's right.
Please make the report.
Thank you, Chair. So just very briefly to introduce the report. Obviously, the Centre for Governance, scrutiny first came to the Council in February 2022 to review the governance arrangements at the council. They produced a report which in their report said that the Council's current arrangements lead to lack of collective democratic accountability was resource-heavy and hope-pake and didn't result in improved outcomes for the Council and as well as inclusive as it could be with residents to engage with. Now going through that a little bit more, some of the things that CFTS reported the structures were another thing that created good governance. It was the emphasis on culture and behavior of members and when it came to governance decisions. And there was better ways that the Council could look at carrying out its governance arrangements. Members to know that the city's written constitution already incorporates the leader and the cabinet's form of governance and already provides for collective executive decision-making. But what normally happens to practice is that the Council operates what has been termed and by the Centre for Governance Group near hybrid, hybrid system of governance, blending the sort of leader and cabinet model plus the committee system model together which they found to be a bit opaque and wasn't transparent. The main decision-making routes that local authorities use is the leader and cabinet model and there's about 10 to 15% out there to use the committee system. So one of the key things that members of the GRG looked at was some design and governance principles which is outlined in the report and has been followed through the last couple of meetings with the GRG and which is that decision-making should be timely, prompt, focused and efficient. Decision-making is accountable. The governance system and decision-making process are transparent and that they encourage collaboration. As Councillor Bennett pointed out that the GRG has meant to discuss the leader and cabinet model and also the hospital presentation and the committee system that the group looked at. And the final thing to say is that the recommendations for the committee at the moment are specific affairs to recommend to full Council as the main decision-maker, to implement a revised leader and cabinet model of decision-making and otherwise as the chief executive to enable those changes to be implemented from the annual meeting in May 2025 and to establish a member design group with external technical support to develop this model which will include a number of things such as the rewriting of the constitution, looking at the civic calendar, training that members will be able to attend offices to attend their training, communications and all those sort of areas that make up have a change to any sort of governance model hence why the Council is looking to do is over a course every year because it is quite a lot of work to be doing in that period of time. Just to sort of say there are opportunities within the leader and cabinet model for enhanced roles for non-executive Councillors and the scrutiny committees themselves within the leader and cabinet models, they should be owning their work program and looking at challenging the executive when it comes to those big key items that will affect residents across the city and that will be a key tool that they will have and members of scrutiny committees with the leader and cabinet model are unwipped so they should be free from any party whips that they may be having so they'll be able to come to those security committees with an open mind and looking at those really big key items that will affect the residents. And so that's a very, very short production chair and happy to take any further questions and members for comments.
Thank you there then. Councillor DAVY and Councillor SHIELD.
Thank you, Chair. I think it's probably important to go back and reflect what we're actually proposing. This is not about implementing a new cabinet scrutiny model. This is about working towards implementing that path which will give the opposition parties a considerable opportunity not only to contribute but to actually have a proper democratic debate on at least two more occasions prior to implementation of any model. I think it's really important that we move on. It's over two years since we got the centre for the Government Studies Report and to do nothing means we carry on with a system that is unique in the local government systems across the United Kingdom. So we have to take somewhere. We have to go, we have to move somewhere. And I think publicly I'd want to applaud Martin Smart's work in trying to work collaboratively with all parties and people within our own group to find a way forward. So I think that's my first point. The second point is that clearly there has been a lot of debate on a whole range of levels. For us, it may surprise you it's so important for our back benches and the opposition to be able to scrutinise what the executive actually does. And at the moment, there is no opportunity to do that. It's actually not scrutiny what we do. What happens is to an extent in my view, people are whipped into performing a certain way. In the future, under the proposals, under the scrutiny, depending upon the detail which is yet to be clear, what we would be looking for is the opportunity for scrutiny to actually work effectively. So the back benches in our party and the opposition party is actually properly able to scrutinise what's going on rather than become, in essence, lobby fodder. So that will require us to look at detail and until we approve this, we can't actually get into the detail. All we've got is a system that's not fit for purpose, that we knew wasn't fit for purpose three years ago. So I would ask you to then reflect upon that and look at what's actually reposing IE that we put together some work to bring proposals back for the democratic process for approval as well as a later date. And that is not the space for that. Thank you very much, Chair. Councillor SRIEL.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, great report Dan. Thank you so much. I'm looking forward to comparing and contrasting the experience of the other two ways, if a different way is implemented. And I would like to back up what Councillor Davey has said about involvement. It's my understanding that there will be more opportunity for backbenchers to be there at the point where there is policy for formation. And before a time when the political groups have asked their members to project a certain idea at a later stage that is inevitably a part of those groups in the community system that we have now. So just to pick up Councillor Young's point, I understand the reservation and the worry, but I really think this could be an opportunity actually to have the rank and file people such as us there at the creative stage in a way. I hope I'm right to take that idea from all this. And if I could be very cheeky and make one small request, this is already an excellent report or what would make it a super duper polished report is if, just for my sake, could we have decision making always with a hyphen? I like the way it does have a hyphen increasingly towards the end. But if we could just have consistency across all the decision making mentions, that would be brilliant. Thank you, just indulge me. But yeah, great work. Thank you.
Councillor Young, Councillor Bennett, anything to respond? Councillor Bennett, please.
I think that we will be saving most of our ammunition for the annual council meeting. I think we've all decided how we're going to vote.
Councillor Young.
Just to say, I mean, I would agree that we cannot stay, we cannot stay, we cannot stay with the system we have now. So that's definitely not the Liberal Democrats position. We do definitely need to change. I just question the direction of change. And also, I mean, I'm admitted to say, but the process is being very collaborative, but the decision at the end has not, we've failed to be convinced in the Liberal Democrats. I agree it's been a very, yeah, it's not, it's been a very friendly and projective discussion, but ultimately, we've failed to be convinced. And the detail would be good. Sorry, yeah.
No response Councillor, don't be happy. Only the comments are honest and generous. What can I say? I think the detail is what we're looking for. And I think what I'm hoping is this report will enable us to get to the detail. So we can, I think we're all looking for a better system where we're all looking and I'm trying to make the point as clearly as possible. We think better scrutiny is the key to this. And that's as much for our back ventures as it is for our position parties. Because then it enhances government, rather than diminishing.
Yeah, the comments, will we go to recommendations? Okay, in that case, recommendations are on page two, it's on the item seven supplement. And there are two recommendations at 2.1. And I'll just read just a little bit of each one, just to highlight those. And the last sentences of both of those, I'll read. Section one says authorizes the chief executive to enable changes to be implemented from the annual council meeting in May 2025. Not next week, 2025. With earned item two says with final proposals, including an updated constitution being presented to civic affairs and then to full council for adoption. So if that helps the opposition council, there's still some way to go there. You've still got plenty of time to speak and to have your say and to put in your points. This is just the start of this process. So there's no, as far as I can see, there is no intention, no intent to cut anybody out. So this is all this is a proposal for bring to council that we can carry on with this exercise and there'll be plenty of time to scrutinize it. Would you agree with that, Councillor Davie?
That's the intent.
Thank you so much. In that case, members, if I could just go to the vote on those recommendations, all those in favour?
That's four, Chair.
And against?
The two, so it's four, four, and two against it for it. I've been agreed and we'll go to council next week.
Thank you so much, everyone. In an actual fact, as far as I can see, that concludes today's business. So thank you so much for turning up today and we'll see you till the next week. Thank you very much. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) You [BLANK_AUDIO]

AI Generated

Summary

The meeting focused on discussing the honorary freedom of the city for HMS Protector and a proposed change in the governance model of Cambridge City Council. The council also approved the minutes of the previous meeting and noted the absence of public questions.

The most significant topic was the proposal to grant honorary freedom of the city to HMS Protector. HMS Protector is an icebreaker that works closely with the British Antarctic Survey and the Scott Polar Institute, both based in Cambridge. Councillor Bennett supported the proposal but suggested that the council should explain the affiliation to the public, as it might seem unusual for an inland city to honor a naval vessel. Councillor Russ McPherson highlighted HMS Protector's contributions to climate change research and its strong ties to Cambridge's scientific community. The committee agreed to recommend this proposal to the full council.

The second major topic was the proposed change in the governance model of Cambridge City Council from a hybrid system to a leader and cabinet model. This proposal was based on a report by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny, which found the current system to be opaque and inefficient. Councillor Davey emphasized that the new model would enhance scrutiny and involve backbenchers and opposition members more effectively. Councillor Young and Councillor Bennett expressed concerns about the change, fearing it might reduce the involvement of non-executive councillors. However, it was clarified that the proposal was just the beginning of a process that would involve further discussions and refinements. The committee voted in favor of recommending the proposal to the full council, with four votes for and two against.

Other topics included the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting and the acknowledgment of the absence of public questions. The meeting concluded with no further business.

Attendees

Documents