Transcript

I would like to inform everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of repeat viewing. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council. Either Chair have discretion to terminate or suspend filming, if it is my opinion that continuing to do so will prejudice the proceedings of this meeting. If you are seated in the public gallery, it is likely that recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in this meeting are the speaker's own and they do not necessarily reflect the views of Staff to Moreland's District Council. Please can members be aware that the webcast continues to stream live 20 seconds after the close of the meeting. This is due to time delay in transmitting live. So, we go on to the meeting proper. Apologies for absence, please. Thank you, Chair. I've received apologies from Councillors Hart and Church today. Councillor Roberts. Can I give apologies for Councillor Tony Holmes and Pat Hughes? Councillor Pat Hughes might be stuck in traffic because there's Chaddleton. Councillor Gladhill. Councillor Taylor. Any others? No? Okay. Any substitute members? Yes, we do have one substitute member today, Councillor Wilkinson for Councillor Hart. Are there any others? Councillor Gladhill. Just to note, Chair, various members of cabinet have got other meetings later this morning, so if we start disappearing, it's a good opportunity for members to control the rest of the meeting, which is always a good thing. Okay, thank you. So, those cabinet members who have got to leave, if members have got questions for them, please make sure you ask them before they do leave, if you can catch them. Minutes of the previous meeting. Can somebody move those? Councillor Roberts and Councillor Swindler. All in favour? Thank you. Any urgent items for business? No. Declarations of interest, first pecuniary, any? No. Other interests? No. If there are, please say as we go along. Any questions to Portfolios? No, that's a shame, it's an important meeting. So, perhaps next time. Work programme. Is there anything on there that members want to discuss or to add on to the work programme? Are you happy with it as it is? Take that as it's okay. We'll go on now to item 8, the annual scrutiny report. I'll hand over to Sally. Councillor Gladiel. Thanks, Chair. Here's the annual scrutiny report, which is a formal document that we do every year, and I would just like to begin by thanking all the officers who contribute to making the system work for us. You've done a great job there in keeping us informed, keeping the meetings flowing, giving us the reports, et cetera, et cetera, so we do appreciate everything you do on that work. Just to remind that this is a report that's based on the first year since last year's election, so an awful lot of changes. New chairs, new vice chairs, in many ways, a new system because, again, it brought into play the system that we've got now that we worked on after the first peer challenge that we had. So a lot of things have been new, and I think we've worked pretty well with them. I've been pleased with the quality of the debate and the professionalism that I think has been shown by all councillors in being conscious of what Scrutin is all about and making it work well. So all that is good. It never means that something is perfect, and there are lots of things we can still do to improve that, and members have the opportunity today to raise any points on that score. And also to funnel things through to the various groups that sit in the background of these meetings, whether it be group leaders, member development, training opportunities, et cetera, to make sure that scrutiny, which I think is one of the most vital things that happens in public life, it's important that we're all held to account and people have the opportunity to do that. So we need to work hard at keeping it at the standard it is now and making it even better if we can. So just those remarks from me is a general one, and I think Sally may add some detail at this point. Thank you, Leader. Thank you, Councillor Malion. So as you'll see, this report covers the work carried out by the scrutiny panels and the newly arranged committees that we've got now, and that's for the previous municipal year. All the detail you can see in the report, so you can see the range of work covered by each committee and scrutiny panel, and they're summarised in Section 6 to 11 of the main report that you've got before you. So as you'll be aware, we did have a review of the Council's overview and scrutiny arrangements, and that was conducted by the Centre of Governance and Scrutiny. That resulted in a number of actions and recommendations. A couple of those I'll just summarise. So we did have the new overview and scrutiny programming group, which meets regularly now. We arranged two scrutiny seminars that were carried out by a lady called Camilla, if you all recall those, those to assist and help us improve our scrutiny. And as the Leader has referred to, we have now the new structure for the panels, which is a change, and we've appointed new chairs and vice-chairs to the committees. A couple of the other findings were a greater focus on strategy and policy, also earlier access to and involvement with decision-making and activities by members. And we've also looked to increase work programming across each of the panels, and to ensure that is member-led. Now part of that programme, we have now introduced the paper analysis, so that helps us prioritise what we put on the work programme, and also ensure that they're in line with the corporate plan. So to summarise, if we could just refer back to the start of the report, if you could let us know any feedback you'd like to contribute, and also any questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay, so it's over to the panel now for questions. I think it's important that we look at this, because there have been changes, and if you need to make any more comments, please say no. Yes, thank you for this report. As a new Councillor, scrutiny has been the most important bit of the Chamber work, and I echo Councillor Gladhill in congratulating Democratic Services on responding to that report, and actually trying to get scrutiny more focused, more evidence-based, better presentations, tighter, crunchier presentations. I think it has led to scrutiny being a little more based on evidence, rather than endless anecdotes. I mean, as ward Councillors, we all pick up cases and stuff like that, but I found in the past, watching scrutiny, it's sometimes been just a succession of anecdotes. Now it seems to me a little more focused, there's still more work to do. What I particularly would recommend is that early on in the year, I attended a couple of sessions where Cabinet members came, as it were, unaccompanied by the service heads or the relevant officers. I did not like that, because I felt that, at times, the Cabinet members were rightly not equipped to answer the questions that were put to them. I think, as a scrutiny member, it's unsatisfactory when you get a response, Oh, I'll get back to the officer and they'll write to you. Now, sometimes that has to happen, because even the officer doesn't have the relevant information, but if the officer were there with the relevant information, that would enable myself and others as a scrutiny member to actually, I use that word interrogate, I don't mean interrogate, shall we say, examine the officer's responses in more detail. I think that is intended, but I think that's crucial, especially if we're coming with a detailed, new strategy, or if a Cabinet member is appearing before scrutiny with a detailed strategy. I particularly also welcome, and forgive me, I'm lost in whether it was resources, finance and performance, it was probably finance and performance, and Martin will know a little more on this, that I think some of us, including myself, are very keen to get these more focused KPIs into the scrutiny process. I mean, it doesn't provide the whole picture, but it provides an element of the picture that perhaps was not available in the same way to members of the various scrutiny panels, so I would encourage that particular innovation not to be forgotten. Overall, as I say, I sort of welcome the direction of travel, and particularly I certainly regard scrutiny as just about the most important part of my Nunn Ward role as a Councillor. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. I don't know if you want to come back on any of that. Thank you. It's certainly our intention, and it was part of the CPC report, and indeed it's come out through our auditor's opinions as well, that the notion of key performance indicators is really important, that they should be key, and I think we've had far too many, and it's easy to add more rather than take some away, but through this process of setting the corporate plan and the performance indicators around it, I think we've reduced from some 140 KPIs to less than 100, so there's a significant reduction in what we've got there, so that we can really get into scrutiny and focus on the things that matter, the things that make a difference, and the performance elements that you can really measure, whether or not the Council is delivering what you want. The session that we had - I think it was last week, was it? - was really good, actually, here in the moorlands, poorly attended, but it was a good discussion, and that really helped set the framework, if you like, and outline how these KPIs should be used and what we're intended to do on their reporting, so I think it's an important part of what we do. And then, if I might, just following on, I think we as officers have found it helpful to be able to bring in our heads of service. You've got one here today. Because with the best will in the world, we can't have the depth on everything, and I think sometimes the discussion that you have in some areas is informed and best informed by having the depth and the knowledge and the expertise, so it's something that we're intending to continue with. The management team are committed to it. They want to bring their expertise to the fore as well, so we're setting ourselves up in the right way, I think. Thank you for that. Is that OK? Councillor Roberts. Thank you, chair. Just one little criticism I've got is we've been asking for reports for presentations and so forth, and I don't think we get them in enough time. I mean, if we look at the work programme, we know what's on until January next year, so the companies from outside, like AES and everything, we should be getting reports off them at least a fortnight before. We're always being criticised about asking questions. You can't ask questions if you haven't got the report. And because you've got to put them in seven days before, if we don't get the report until five days before, you've got no chance of putting questions in. So I think we need just to pick up on that. If we've got outside people coming in, or even inside people, we've got a work programme now until January. So January, we should be getting at least a fortnight before to be able to read through the reports, and then I think we can scrutinise a lot better than what we are doing. And it's been fair to the portfolio holders as well, so that they can go to the offices if they've got questions coming in. And even to the people coming in, they will have their questions. So I think we just need to tighten up on presentations and things like that, getting them out to us a lot quicker. And to say that we can't, it's not putting pressure on the democratic services, but the people who are giving us the presentations should get them out. Just before bringing in Councillor Gledhill, I think if everybody had attended that meeting that we were last week, there would be a lot more questions. And it was an important meeting and hardly anybody turned up. Councillor Gledhill? I agree with what Councillor Robertson is saying. The sooner we get reports, the more able the members are to scrutinise in the way that we want them to do it. I kind of understand that there might be the occasional slippage there, which is the way things are, but as a principle, I think that suggestion of making sure that reports are with members two weeks before, not one week before, is something that we ought to look at and be able to respond to. We say that we're an essential part of democracy. Having things in good time is often the way that that can help members to do it. So I think under the understanding, and Councillor Robertson has nodded his head, that occasionally that might not be the case, the rule of thumb should be that it is the case. I think it's exceptional circumstances, really, you know, but I can't see no problem why a report can't be out in time. I'm sure that's going to be looked at, especially now that the ladies said so. I might suggest that officers can reflect on that and come back to group leaders if there are issues that we're not foreseeing at this moment, or ways in which things can be improved. I'm sure they're going to take your comments on board. You're boss. Councillor Jebb. Thank you, Chairman. I feel as if scrutiny is much more focused than it used to be, and more relevant in the way that it's more member-led than it used to be in the past, and I'm noticing the difference as a recently returned member from, you know, like, say, six years ago and further back. I'm pleased with all the opportunities that there are for new members and more experienced members to have training, and that that training can be done online, which fits in with a busy lifestyle quite often. I know it's always good to have face-to-face meetings, but equally sometimes if you're in between other meetings of your own, you can't always get to leak and back out again to do that. The one plea that I would have, and I know it's difficult with such a large organisation, is that if we could limit the number of times we change meeting dates, because sometimes it can be unexpected that there's a change. You put everything in your diary when the meetings are set up, and then through unforeseen circumstances they have to be changed. But people have all got busy lives. It's a bit like the line of dominoes. You set all your other appointments and commitments in to fit in with when you're expecting those dates to take place, and then they change, and it affects a lot more than just that day for you. Members are all very busy people. I know it can't always be avoided, but as far as possible, if we could try and maintain the dates, even if it's changing to a Teams meeting instead of an in-house meeting, if necessary. Yes, I agree with Councillor Jebb on that one. A case in point today, there might have been a time when we could have said, well, chair, vice chair, not available, move the date, and I think we've had the confidence to say, no, let's stick with the date and let's go forward. I do think that occasionally it's unavoidable, but I think, again, as a principle, dates shouldn't be changed. If there is little business and the meeting doesn't happen, that's one thing, but shifting the dates around isn't helpful. If this had been shifted, it would have been September, and that wouldn't have been good at all. Thanks. 5.7, where it talks about there's been some effective meetings being held hybrid. I'm just curious to see what the direction of travel is regarding hybrid meetings going forwards. Obviously, I understand legislation prevents certain things from happening at certain meetings, but I'm just curious to see what the general view is going to be over the next few years, looking forward to next year's review. Very happy to say that. Thanks, Councillor Abbally. I'm a bit confused on that, because I'm not sure we've had any scrutiny meetings that are hybrid. I'm not even sure we've had working groups that are hybrid. Have we had one or two? I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I don't think we've had any scrutiny meetings that are hybrid, so that maybe could be a point of clarification for the report. I think in terms of hybrid technology, we've tried it. It didn't work. We had tried it for understandable reasons during COVID. I supported it and then regretted every word that I'd ever said when it came to the crunch because of the complications of the technology. I think it's one of the few times I've actually got annoyed with our procedures, because we just dug a hole and kept digging with it, and I don't think that's going to work. I think we do pretty well at getting the balance right between in-person and Teams. I think Teams has a great advantage for things that are not part of public scrutiny, but today with webcast there's quite rightly so, and those meetings are better done in-person. If others want to celebrate the virtues of hybrid meetings and push us to think about it, I'm quite happy to do that, but I don't think at this stage it's a runner for us personally. Are you happy with that response? Any further questions? If not, then we'll move on to Item 9, which is exclusion of the press and public, and it will take a few seconds for the webcast to start.