Agenda item

To consider a report from the Interim Monitoring Officer on the Constitution proposed for the new BCP Council.

Note: The Shadow Executive report on this item will be published on 4 February 2019 at the following address: https://moderngov.bcpshadowauthority.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=120&Ver=4

The Committee considered a report presented by the Interim Monitoring Officer for BCP on the proposed new Constitution for BCP Council.

The Interim Monitoring Officer outlined the steps taken to develop the Constitution. The process had been undertaken in consultation with a team of Democratic Services Officers. It had been led from a Member perspective by the Governance Task and Group which had been established by the Shadow Executive Committee. The development of the overview and scrutiny function had been overseen by the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Committee. This Committee had set up a Design Working Group to undertake detailed work to prepare a suggested O&S framework. In addition there had been a number of opportunities for all Members of the preceding Councils to be engaged in the Constitution’s development, and to comment and provide input into the process. She referred to the speed at which the work had been undertaken to ensure that a Constitution was in place from 1 April 2019 which was both fit for purpose and sufficiently flexible to be developed and built on by the new Council. A copy of the final draft of the Constitution was circulated with the report at Appendix A.

The Interim Monitoring Officer referred to some of the key elements in the Constitution, and highlighted those aspects in particular which would benefit from review in the first 12 to 18 months of the new Council. The Committee was advised that the Task and Finish Group had considered the proposed O&S arrangements as presented by the Design Working Group in the papers circulated at Appendix B. In respect of the suggested Listening Committee Task and Finish Group Members had taken the view that there were a number of mechanisms which could be used to facilitate public engagement which should be more fully explored before any final arrangement was agreed.  As a result the Listening Committee had not been included in the final draft of the Constitution and it was recommended that the new Council be asked to take this forward and design the most appropriate mechanism.

The Interim Monitoring Officer asked Members to note the requirement to provide interim arrangements between 1 April and 6 May. These arrangements were included in the Constitution and summarised in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. She also reported on the development of a comprehensive induction and training plan to support Members in their role as BCP councillors.

The Interim Monitoring Officer responded to questions and comments on the Constitution, and the following main points were raised:

·         A Member highlighted the need to include an additional item under clause 2.2 (g) of the Planning Committee Functions section for completeness, to ensure that ward councillors were advised of the outcome of planning applications they had requested for referral. The Committee was supportive of this amendment.

·      A Member was concerned that the proposed time limit of 30 minutes for General Questions at Council meetings was insufficient, based on the proposed number of Council meetings (six) and the reduced number of councillors representing a larger population. The Monitoring Officer explained that the number of Council meetings reflected the current arrangements in the preceding authorities. The Constitution specified that this number was approximate rather than fixed which allowed some degree of flexibility.

·      The proposed calendar of meetings for the BCP Council would be published as part of the agenda for the next Shadow Authority meeting on 21 February.

·      In respect of Article 5, the Monitoring Officer clarified that the role of the Chairman of the Council in promoting the aims and values of the Council ‘in an apolitical manner’ applied specifically when acting in the position of Chairman of the Council. It did not preclude them from undertaking other roles outside of this remit.

·      A Member was concerned that the number of representations received on a planning application was not used as a criteria for an application being determined by the Planning Committee, although he acknowledged that ward councillors had a key role in the process. The Monitoring Officer explained that following lengthy consideration it was felt that the provisions in clause 2.2 (c) enabled the Planning Committee to refer to the professional assessment of the Senior Planning Officer as to whether an application should be determined by Members. This could be reviewed over time if it was felt that the process was not working as intended.

·      The Monitoring Officer confirmed that BCP Council would maintain a record of councillors attending meetings as required in Procedure Rule 33, using its ‘modern gov’ meeting management software.

·      A Member asked there would be provision for audio recording and streaming all meetings of the new Council. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that all options were being looked at, but provision may not be fully in place on Day One.

The Committee considered the proposed overview and scrutiny arrangements as set out in the report. Members discussed whether a ‘Place’ Committee should be included in the structure, as some Members felt this was a valuable mechanism for reflecting the public’s concerns. Other Members were not in favour of this suggestion, and made reference to the lengthy and detailed work undertaken by the Design Working Group with the support of the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) in recommending the four Committees as set out in Appendix B. It was noted that while it had not been a unanimous decision the Committee had supported the developing proposals relating to overview and scrutiny at its meeting on 10 December 2018. The O&S Specialist explained the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Board, in undertaking themed scrutiny for a wide range of services, and being able to commission work which had been carefully scoped to ensure added value, rather than using a single banner committee. It was also noted that there was provision for the Constitution to remain under review and development by Members of the new BCP Council to ensure it was fit for purpose. This included the arrangements for overview and scrutiny. The discussion on the Place Committee was not taken forward by the Committee as an amendment or recommendation.

The Committee went on to discuss the Listening Committee, which had been one of the four Committees within the proposed structure recommended by the Design Working Group. A number of Members were concerned that following consideration by Executive Members the Listening Committee had not been included in the final draft of the Constitution circulated with the report at Appendix A. Having considered the rationale put forward by the Task and Finish Group in paragraph 11 of the report, Members made the following comments:

• The recommendation for a dedicated O&S Committee for public engagement had been developed with the support of the CFPS and the O&S Specialist following detailed consideration of best practice in other councils. A dedicated Listening Committee had been established by the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in response to the tragedy of Grenfell. There were also examples where other councils, such as Rotherham and Mid Staffordshire, had been involved in high profile failings where public concerns had not been listened to. Inquiries into these incidents had brought the importance of the O&S role in listening to residents into sharper focus, as a means of being aware of issues and preventing similar failings.
• It was smarter for the new Council to be proactive in its approach to listening to the community rather than waiting until a serious problem occured.
• While the Listening Committee was an inventive proposal which may require further refinement it was better to have this mechanism formally included in the Constitution as part of the overview and scrutiny structure at this stage, rather than wait and have nothing in place for Members of the new Council to work with. There was a recognition that the Listening Committee may not be perfect on Day One, and this was reflected in one of its objectives, to ‘test the process and learn how to improve going forward’. Members could seek further guidance from the CfPS and undertake further research as the Listening Committee developed.
• Members of the new Council should have the opportunity to consider further evidence about the different mechanisms for public engagement before deciding what to put in place.
• There were some reservations about the title ‘Listening Committee’, including from Members who supported the proposal.
• The main objectives of the Listening Committee were centred around openness and listening to residents: to hear directly from residents in a dedicated forum, and for residents to share their views and see that the Council was listening, understanding and responding to what they are saying. It could provide input into the development of the overview and scrutiny work programme so that it was more outward facing.
• The Shadow O&S Committee had been tasked with leading the work to develop and agree an overview and scrutiny function. There were concerns at the role of the Task and Finish Group, as part of the Shadow Executive, in amending the proposed structure at such a late stage of its development, without prior discussion with the Committee and after the Committee had already supported the developing proposals in December.
• The rationale for not including the Listening Committee in the Constitution as set out in paragraph 11 of the report was somewhat unclear.
• If the Listening Committee was not included in the Constitution at this stage, there should be a requirement for the new Council to consider it at the earliest opportunity after 6 May 2019.

The Chair of the Governance Task and Finish Group, Councillor Nicola Greene, explained the role of the Task and Finish Group in considering and responding to the huge amount of work undertaken in developing the new Constitution at pace. In considering the proposed overview and scrutiny structure the Task and Finish Group had been as non-prescriptive as it possibly could. It had formed a balanced view, taking into account views expressed not only by O&S Members but by other Members too. The Task and Finish Group had acknowledged the need to listen, engage and consult with the public, but was also mindful of the uncertainties expressed by Members around the operation of the Listening Committee and the need to ‘get it right’ from the start, particularly as such a public facing function. She referred to the other elements of the proposed overview and scrutiny structure which had been developed under the leadership of the Shadow O&S Committee. The Task and Finish Group supported the focus on health and adult social care and children’s services, as this fulfilled statutory scrutiny requirements and also rightly reflected where the majority of the Council’s budget was directed. She also commented on the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Board in meeting regularly and being able to commission work across a wide range of services.

The O&S Specialist assured the Committee that the work undertaken by the Design Working Group did not end with the adoption of the new Constitution. The discussions around the overview and scrutiny arrangements would continue into the new Council, to consider further examples of best practice and develop a more in depth understanding of ways to engage the public in O&S.

Members thanked the Interim Monitoring Officer for coordinating the huge amount of work undertaken in a  short space of time to prepare the new Constitution for submission to the Shadow Authority.

DECISION MADE:

That the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny Committee makes the following recommendations to the Shadow Executive Committee in respect of the proposed Constitution for BCP Council as appended to the report:

·         To include the following additional clause to Part 3 Responsibility for Functions, Section 2 Planning Committee (reference: page 331/2 in reports package)

g. (v) Following a Planning Officer’s recommendation to grant or refuse a planning application the Planning Officer will ensure that the Ward Councillor initiating the referral is notified that the application has been refused, OR that the application is being referred to the Planning Committee for decision and on what date.

·         To support the proposal of the Overview and Scrutiny Design Working Group as set out at Appendix B of the report, for four Committees: Overview and Scrutiny Board; Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee; Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and Listening Committee, and the Constitution for recommendation to the Shadow Authority be amended accordingly.