Agenda item

The DSGOS introduced the report and informed Members that it covered the work of the Committee throughout the 2022/23 municipal year prior to many current Committee Member’s election to the Council. He added that Members should draw their attention to the key issues section of the report and outlined that the first related to twenty-nine instances where apologies had been given with only nine substitutes arranged, equating to approximately three apologies per meeting. The second point related to access to information, which had been a key concern for some Members of the Committee, having taken approximately ten months to receive requested information on the NWHSHAZ project. The third issue related to delays with financial reports, with some delayed by an entire quarter, which had a significant impact on the Committee’s and Cabinet’s work programme. The final point related to the PCC giving very short notice of his inability to attend a meeting, and it was therefore suggested that a substitute would be sought for his next briefing. The DSGOS stated that the Committee had made seventy-three recommendations to Cabinet and Council, not including action requests made to officers, with only three recommendations not supported as they related to urgent requests that could not be completed. He added that this was a positive sign that recommendations were well founded and that the Committee had a meaningful impact on Council business.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        The Chairman suggested an amendment that would take account of Cabinet’s role in helping to provide information requested by the Committee, and proposed that ‘and Cabinet Members’ be added to the second bullet point in the recommendations. Cllr S Penfold stated the recommendation was too broad, as it was only selected instances where information had not been provided as requested. He added that in most cases information was provided in a timely and satisfactory manner, and suggested that the addition of ‘some’ information, may be a helpful amendment. The Chairman agreed that it was a fair point and suggest that he would be willing to accept the amendment.

     ii.        Cllr S Penfold stated that as Vice-Chair he had not seen the report and suggested that it would have been helpful to have reviewed a draft by email, but accepted that he had missed the pre-agenda meeting where it was discussed. He added that comments on the NWHSHAZ did not reflect the divergence of opinion that was held by the Committee, and suggested that he amongst other Committee Members felt that the necessarily level of information had been provided to justify the funding uplift. It was suggested that ‘some Members felt that’ could be inserted before ‘the requested information’ to again show that there was a divergence of opinion on the matter.

    iii.        Cllr N Housden stated that he would prefer the report to stay as written, as the issues identified a point in time when information had not been provided, as requested by the Committee. He added that it was unacceptable for the Committee to have to wait ten months for information to be provided and therefore suggested that the comments should remain unchanged. Cllr S Penfold stated that though he did not fully agree with Cllr Housden, a minor amendment to the wording would allow for both points to be adequately addressed. The Chairman suggested that the addition of ‘some’ information to both the statements in the report and within the recommendation would reflect the different feelings held amongst the Committee. Cllr S Penfold reiterated that he would prefer the comments to include ‘some Members felt that’, to properly reflect the divergence of opinions on the Committee, and proposed the change, with Cllr P Fisher seconding the amendment.

   iv.        Cllr C Cushing stated that given that many Members of the Committee had changed, he felt that the addition of ‘some’ Members was a fair compromise and that the report did not require further amendment.

     v.        Cllr G Bull stated that whilst he was a new Member of the Committee, he was aware that the issue had been a point of contention and it did appear as though there had been a divergence of opinion which Councillors were entitled to. He added that he didn’t think Cllr Penfold’s proposal was unfair as it seemed a reasonable compromise.

   vi.        The DSM stated that the Annual Report was prepared by the Scrutiny Officer on behalf of the Committee to provide an objective review of the previous year, and suggested that given that there had been a change in Membership, Members should take that objectivity into account when seeking to amend the report. She added that Members should also take into account the number of new Members on the Committee that were not present in the period covered by the report.

  vii.        Cllr S Penfold’s amendment to include ‘some Members felt that’ was approved for inclusion in the report before recommendation to Full Council.

 viii.        The substantive recommendations were proposed for approval by Cllr S Penfold and seconded by Cllr P Fisher with the addition of ‘some information’ and ‘and Cabinet Members’ in the second bullet point of the recommendations, as well as the addition of ‘some Members felt that’ in the body of the report, as discussed.

RESOLVED

1.    To recommended that Full Council notes the report, affirms the work of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, and considers the following concerns raised within the key issues section of the report:

·         A high number of apologies and limited substitute availability needs to be addressed by Group Leaders.

·         Some requested information has not been provided in a timely or satisfactory manner and needs to be addressed by officers and Cabinet Members.

·         Delayed finance reports have had an ongoing impact on the work programme that needs to be addressed by officers.

·         Non-attendance of the PCC at short notice impacted the Committee’s crime and disorder update, and substitutes will therefore be requested in future.