Transcript

Good morning. Not good morning. Where am I? Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for coming. Welcome to this meeting of corporate and community overview and scrutiny. Can I point out tonight's meeting is being streamed. So welcome, everybody, to this meeting. I'm Paul Gleeson. I'm chairing today and with me is Councillor Suzanne Welberry, who is my vice chair. Before we move into three items on this evening's agenda, I need to run through with a few housekeeping details. I would like to remind everyone in attendance this evening that we're being streamed and would persons addressing the meeting please use their microphones. If any men of the public are attendants, which they're not, so we can leave that. Apologies for absence. Apologies for absence. Thank you, chair. There have been apologies from Councillor Danny, Councillor Brown and Councillor Staples. Declarations of interest. Any members declaration of interest? No. So we now move on to the Binsdale Night meeting. There's just one item, scrutiny arrangements review. I suppose I need to start really with an apology because it's my fault you're here. I have been concerned. I have been concerned a little bit about the way scrutiny has been operating within the Council. At one level, it's been really good. I think we as a committee gelled really quickly and when we go through our meetings, we actually are really scrutinising well. We're asking the right questions. We've come up with good ideas, so that's good. Also, because I've been chair of scrutiny before, I've found it much easier with the new administration, who are much more in favour of scrutiny, fear for the positive it is. So they're all good things. But what we hadn't been doing in my mind is enough pre-scrutiny that's looking at policy before it becomes a report to us. And then also developing our own policy, because one of the powers of scrutiny is to do that. You have something in your ward that feels right. You feel it might affect everyone else and you think, well, maybe our policy is not strong enough on that. We need to look into it. So they are the two areas where I think we are or have been, well, not weak, but where we could have done more. There then is another issue. The areas that scrutiny, the two scrutiny committees cover, was set out in 2011 and actually reflects the then corporate objectives. So we now have items that really crossed corporate objectives on different committees. And we're ending up with pieces of work that should go to one committee actually ended up having to go to the other because of time scales and things. For example, the CNC committee of the 22nd of May coming up actually has two items that really should have been on EMP. So, so they were the areas I started. And so I started to talk, I expressed my concerns, the leader, and then I spoke to the monitoring officer and things that asked us to have a report to see how other councils do things and how things can be done. And I also, because I think this is important, I did invite the chair of the other scrutiny committee on the 10th of February to make this a joint scrutiny committee and they, she didn't want to. I then went back to her with some of my reasons like tonight, but there was still no desire to go forward. So the reason we're by herself and not a joint. However, I did invite all non-accepted members, I invited all members in truth. So that, because I do think it's important. The other thing where I think scrutiny will become more important, contrary to maybe other people's views, is these next two years, or maybe three years, as we transition to a unitary authority, I think are going to be the most important. The most important years we will have had as a councillor for you and over the last decade or so. Because what is desperate is that we ensure the maximum power is devolved to the putative New Town Council and to the parishes. Some of our larger parishes are large enough to take on some of the responsibilities. And, for example, just to give an example and something that we could be looking at. Yeah, I'm most likely the only councillor actually has been a town councillor. My previous town council, we actually had control of on street parking, the county car parks, the district car parks and the town's car parks. That meant we employed our own local traffic wardens who were able to go out in the evenings and at times that we as councillors knew were hotspots. Now, because of a district council didn't want to take that on years ago, we have ended up with the county doing that, but we want to make sure that doesn't end up. That doesn't end up at the new unitary. Yeah, the money we as a town council in Tame got from looking after car parks paid for the three traffic wardens and bought a surplus of over £75,000 to the town council's funds. And that was a quarter of a century ago. So that's just one, but I believe there's a whole load of areas we need to look at and we need to be talking to the other town councils in the county. The larger parishes, because I'm sure parishes like Curtin, Sutterton and other ones, they would be in a position to take on some of these things and we need to make sure. So these are the things that were driving me to ask us to look at where we go. The report, and I'm congratulating officers when we had a run through it, you know, is really clear and I think well written. So it gives us the two options. I will confess now I have moved slightly towards the single committee, but I do want to hear what you as members say. So now I'll throw it open. Sorry for talking a long time, but I do want to say about Councillor Peerpoint. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I've been fortunate to sit on both the committees in the early stages. I came off the EMP, but from my point of view, the. I found I was coming to meetings reading the same material, the same documents and reports again. So I was actually being duplicated. I think a lot of stuff was heavily duplicated from my point of view. I also think we're spreading ourselves a bit too thin because you've got two committees over crossing, as they say duplicating. Too much time or councillors time spent in both committees when I think basically I would be better placed thinking that we should have one screw to the committee where you can focus better on all the topics and all the reports. Better use of councillors time. And I think it's important that we don't have this crossover because the two, the two committees do cross over in certain areas and a lot of duplication, a lot of time wasting and a lot of councillors time, which I think can be better used. So I think one committee focused on the topics probably more meet more regularly on a monthly basis. And, you know, you don't need 16 people, 18 people across to two committees. You need eight good ones on one committee that's going to really focus on the topics of the day in that scrutiny committee. I share your views and vision about looking at other task and finish things, groups and really sort of doing other things prior to the reports popping on our desk. I think that's more proactive, more progressive. And, you know, I do feel that I have read the document. I've read all the fours of the against. I think everything weighs up for the fours rather than having two committees. So I'm all in favour of having one, one really strong, focused committee with the right people on it that really wants to do scrutiny in a very, very professional and detailed way. That's my little bit. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Counts? Sorry. Counts. Counts. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, reading the report, I see the positives and the negatives to go down to one committee. I'm glad you explained to me that you invited the other committee to come along because I was a bit. wary of making decisions that were going to affect the other group. I sit on both. My thinking is that I like to see a lot more scrutiny and you touched on that a little bit more, maybe some pre-reports as well. And I'm not too sure one committee will be able to have enough hours to be able to really do a good job. As you say, it's really going to be important leading into unilaterally devolution, whatever you wish to call it, in that short space of time for us to change down from two to one. Obviously the task and finish groups aren't tied to the members of the committee. Which is wonderful, Paul. But obviously Ralph Reich is chair of one such task and finish. And the last time I spoke to him, he said he's not making much progress on his task and finish group. So I wanted to see a lot more positive action behind a task and finish group that they support the chair going forward. If we do that, if we go down to one, then these task and finish groups must have more availability. The last time we sat on the task and finish group, he had been provided with none of the information that we had requested. Now that hasn't helped councillors at all. But I would say that is a failure of the chair of the overarching committee. It's possible, Paul. I'm sorry, I don't know, but I mean, yeah, really, you know, that shouldn't happen. You know, the chair of the task and finish group should go to the chair of the committee and the chair of the committee, you know, should kick butt. And if that's not happening, you know, that that's, I'm afraid that's not an argument for two committees. That's an argument for a strong focus committee. Well, what I'm looking at is, is the negatives of. Oh yeah. Going down from two to one, I agree there is some kind of new format that we would need if we do decide as a committee to stay with two committees. We need a structure where we actually decide beforehand what committee is going to discuss what items as a joint committee and say this is what we're going to take on board. So yeah, I'm let's just say I'm undecided at this present time over whether one committee. May not get a chance to scrutinize all the things that are going to be coming forward at this important time for Boston. And that's all I'll say on that. Councillor Pip. Pip on again. Yep. Right. Sorry to come back again. I have to disagree with my colleague here about the, what his thoughts are. My view is a very strong focus committee will get through the work. A task and finish group needs a very strong chairman. And if you haven't got a strong chairman and doesn't pull the thing together and hold the group together, he's the problem or she's the problem. All right. And I think that's important that when people go on these task and finish groups, they know what they're committing themselves to. They know what's expected of them. It's all spelled out and they should be professional. Like all of us are around this table and they should do the job to their utmost ability. So I can't accept, you know, weak chairman. If the chairman are not up to the job, they shouldn't be doing the job. I've got to, I've got to, I'll just give an example now. Sorry to go off the subject a moment, chairman. But, you know, I'm, I'm chairing this, um, um, central park, um, project, as you know. Green flag. Green flag. And yeah, we've got one or two people who are not pulling the weight, but tell you what, I am pulling them into line. And that's my job as the chairman of that group. And I'm, I'm making them accountable and I'm making sure that they do what they should be doing when the things are agreed to be done by. And if you can't do that, they shouldn't be on the, the group. And it's the same with task and finish. Two committees at the moment, it's an outdated system. It goes back 13, 14, 15 years. Um, we've got to change with the times. We've got to look at being more progressive, more proactive and look at having more regular meetings on a monthly basis with a very strong committee. And as the chairman has said, the task and finish groups don't have to be the committee people. There can be other people outside of this committee working for, on behalf of that task and group finish. So to me, we should all be thinking, you know, let's bring the thing into line. Let's bring everything back up to date. I don't want to know why I'm 13 years ago. I wasn't here. I didn't want to be here. I'm talking about today. And I think with the right chairman, with the right committee, the right task and finish groups, the right focusing, the right topics, the right subjects, the right attitude. We can do what we need to do in the next couple of years. Thank you. Councillor Melton. Thank you very much, chair. I've gone through the document and I can see both sides of what my fellow councillors are going on about. Ultimately, from a new eye perspective into the council, as this is my first term on a council, I can understand why two scrutiny committees would have been beneficial at some points. However, looking at what I've sat on on the scrutinies, there seems to be time and time again, the same documents that are coming through that we're discussing over one and then we'll discuss over another. It seems to be a repeated workload. Now, I'm elected. I chose to stand. I chose to be elected. I took on what I expected, which is to go through these documents. What I find frustrating is for the officers, the fact that they are producing the same thing near enough for two committees. Why are we wasting resources in the nicest possible way on producing two lots of documents to discuss the same topic over two committees? The other issue I've got with it is obviously costing. Moving to a single standalone, it's going to streamline a lot of things. Certainly moving forward as we devolve, it will have one impact. So one committee can move it forward in a positive light as opposed to two committees where. You may get a response back from two different committees with two different views. We need a singular view moving forward to devolve and deliver what we're being asked to deliver. Like I say, the cost saving overriding is one of the biggest issues for me. The fact that dropping the chairs to one chair is going to ultimately save the borough money. And ultimately, even if we increase from eight strong committee up to a 10 or 12 strong committee. So there is more eyes on the paperwork. There is more members within there that can scrutinize documents. We can probably look at that, but that's my thought process on it. We need to streamline it for the modern modern day. Thank you. Councillor Wilbury. Yeah, I sit on both of the committees as well. And I think the overriding word is verbiage. You sit here and you think, oh my gosh, it's so wordy. And it's always very reactive, not proactive. You know, we're always rubber stamping. Quite frankly, a lot of the time it's a waste of time. Sit here hoping to go home because you know you're not going to make a difference. It's all it's already predetermined. There's a couple of occasions that it was just, like I say, just a complete waste of time. So I think, yes, it needs modernizing. We need to move to one committee, definitely. We need to stop all this verbiage as well, which is like you're saying, Councillor Mountain, very expensive and totally unnecessary. And meet more often and actually make a real difference. Not just rubber stamp everything through all the time like we're being asked to do. So I'm on for the one committee system. And like you say, Councillor Mountain, Councillor Pierpoint, increase the number on the committee because look at us today. How many are here? You know, not just enough, basically, to make an important decision. Thank you. Councillor Mountain. Can I come back here? Thank you very much. I fully agree. I actually find it quite disappointing the fact that members were invited from both committees and fellow members and they haven't turned up on this sort of decision. What I will stress on the verbiage that we keep getting. What I have seen since I've been here is the documents are progressing to a better written document that is betterly laid out. Betterly? Is that a word? It is now. That has a better layout that is more readable, more understandable. And it, you know, some of the documents we get through in the nicest possible way. I think I expressed my glee when this came through because it's a few pages that I could get through and read. Sometimes we're talking two, three inches thick documents that we've got to not only read, but try to understand and then scrutinise. I will put out that I have seen the change that the officers have made and it is getting a lot better. That is understandable and legible and that needs to be commended. However, we need to keep that progression going. Councillor Pearpoint. Yeah, go to the reports. I mean, I've said this quite a few times and I don't think it's happened yet, but I'd like to see all reports with an overview sheet on the front, bullet points, all the main key points, and then all the paragraphs of all the other stuff following. And to me, that the whole system of reporting needs changing and updating. And I think the overview sheet or sheets with the main things on that's inside that document should be on the front. And then all the other stuff behind it, you can read that as you wish, because I think sometimes, you know, particularly on the A&G committee, things can be so thick and so varied and so detailed. You know, you would tell me you've read it, you're not quite sure what you've read and you'd begin to wonder what you are reading. So I think the whole system of reports from officers down into committees needs to be streamlined, overviewed on the front sheet, and then the information afterwards, so that people get a better understanding. Don't forget, I sit and read 200 and 300 pages for an A&G committee and tell you what, on a Sunday, it makes for interesting reading after the times. Thank you. Can I just quickly ask officers if they have any views on the size of the committee? I'm going to say something I hadn't thought of. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. So at the moment, you've got two committees that actually both have a membership of 11. So that's your current membership on both of those. That's not an unusual size for an overview committee, given you've got multiple political groups and you want cross party representation on an overview committee. That doesn't feel an unreasonable size equally. You could have a committee of 13 or 9. I've seen committees of all of those sizes. So where you are at the moment is not unreasonable as a committee size. The absolute maximum size you could go to would be all those members that are not cabinet members, because cabinet members cannot be part of scrutiny. So at the moment, I think there's eight cabinet members, so you could have a maximum size of 22. That would be really unusual to go to that size of committee. Most committees operate with sort of 11, 13, 9. 14, 16 would be an ideal number because you can do a lot more with people then. And if you've got two sets of people in two committees, you can bring someone to one. OK, thank you. I could chat through yourself. Generally, if we were setting a committee size up, we'd normally have an odd number if possible, rather than an even number for the voting reasons. And I think the the other point that's been made about the use of task and finish groups is they are a, you know, a very helpful option really for councils to get do those sort of proactive pieces, scrutiny pieces of work outside of committee and report back. And they can be open to all non exec members. So you're not limiting yourself if you went for a committee of 9, 11, 13. You're not saying to the remaining members you can't be involved. I think that the key point about task and finish groups is having the clear scope at the beginning and the prioritization as a group of what you want to look at in the year. Because councils are a, as you all know, are a big organization with many different priorities and and having some time focusing at the beginning of the year about what are your priorities as a scrutiny committee. It will then allow officers to go and prioritize those resources to help your chairman of scrutiny task and finish groups going forward. So I think that you know that I would I would make that point that all members can be involved in that and the prioritization within that putting those documents together and scoping them clearly will help you with as a committee or whatever committee you choose to go forward with. Thank you. Thank you. Just coming back. Thank you for that. The partnership partners. They got two scrutiny committees currently. And. Also, if we did streamline it and go to one. I feel the same as the chair, we would probably need to go to a monthly meeting because we're taking on two lots of commit to lots of scrutiny by just one team. So where is their partners in this? Thank you. So that is up for the question. So there's different approaches. As you've seen from the paper, the every council has to consider what's right for itself. So East Lindsay District Council has one overall overview and scrutiny committee and it's called the overview committee and it commissions task and finish groups equivalent task and finish groups. They call them scrutiny and policy panels to go off and do pieces of work and they report back into the main committee. The committee also carries its own workload where it looks at particular reports performance reports on a quarterly basis and other topics and other policies. So it has that approach South Holland has two scrutiny committees. They have one which looks at policies and they have one that looks at performance. So they take a slightly different approach to it. So that's something they've had in place for a number of years. There's also a across the partnership, a joint scrutiny committee that looks at partnership scrutiny where members from each of the authorities come together to see that part that scrutiny in the partnership space as well. So members, any thoughts on the size? We leave it at 11 or how's the mountain? I sort of echo what's been said. I would like to see a minimum of 15 as a minimum. I would like to see it meet on a monthly basis. Ultimately, yes, if we move to a single committee, I think there is a lot of benefits for officers. There's a lot of benefits for the members. I don't really take the disadvantage of risk of burnout to the members fatigue. Ultimately, if you increase the size of the committee, you're spreading the load. And yes, you're meeting on a more regular time. But ultimately, those that are already on two committees, they're having to read. Two documents that are very similar, just worded slightly different from different departments within the Council, which ultimately. That creates more burnout than anything. So I think actually a minimum of 15 on a minimum of a monthly basis, unless it needs to be deferred by the chair. Anybody else have anything to say? Well, the consensus, if I'm right, seems to be that a proposal to move to a single committee of 15 members meeting monthly. Yeah, and with an sort of improved focus on task and finish groups, but including enabling them actually to work properly. I mean, I mean, should I? Chair, can I just add one other thing into that? Can we also just add in there to do a six month review? So the committee has to do a six month review after it has been set up and it is in place? Because ultimately, last thing I want to do is this all to unwind and unravel. And I think that that's where we need to do. We need to do the six month review just to make sure it is working. Yeah, I agree with that as well. And I'll be happy to propose. Yeah, you're proposing. And I'll second it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on the proposal? All those in favour? Carried unanimously. Before I close the meeting, at the beginning of the meeting, I did mean to introduce a new colleague, Ray, who's a new member of Democratic Service. Would you like to give a few words about yourself? Thank you, Chairman. For those I haven't met, Ray Flannery. I'm the newest member of the Democratic Services team. I've been here five weeks and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Nice to meet y'all. Thank you. Yeah. Mr Midler. Thank you, Chair. So obviously you've made a agreed recommendation that just to confirm that will now go forward to the full council and your meeting because it's the full council that has the decision making powers, as you've seen from the report, to make such a decision. So there'll be an item that comes forward on that agenda to look at your recommendation and that will ultimately be the decision of the full council. Good to ask another question, Chairman. Yeah. Will the terms of reference be looked at as well and either updated or amended or improved, please? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Peer Point. So the terms of reference will need to subject to what council determines, of course, would need to be updated. So the paper that comes forward would probably make a delegation to myself as monitoring officer to be able to update those terms of reference. Of course, I think it's been proposed that there'd be a six month review of the arrangements anyway. So it may be that if you want a deeper dive into the terms of reference, that's something the committee could look at that time. But in terms of tidy up to make sure that they reflect whatever decision is made by the council, I think that the delegated power to myself would be sufficient to do that. Well, thank you everybody for turning out for an extra meeting and hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.