Issue - meetings

Report attached.

Three questions by Residents’ Group answered by Leader of the Council.

Amendment by Labour Group NOT CARRIED by 26 votes to 23; Administration deemed motion CARRIED by 28 votes to 23.

A report of the Governance Committee set out Havering’s current approach to the overview and scrutiny arrangements in respect of call-in and made a number of suggestions as to how the process could be amended and streamlined.

 Questions by Residents’ Group and Responses by Administration

1.    Would the Leader of the Council confirm why this report is before council when the recommendation agreed at the Governance Committee meeting was for the Overview and Scrutiny Board to be consulted. Is it not sensible to consult with the board before council agrees any recommendations?

Response

As stated in the covering report, it was also agreed at the meeting of Governance Committee that these proposals be brought to full Council at the earliest opportunity. I am pleased that we have been able to do this tonight in order to allow all Members to fully scrutinise and debate these issues if they wish.

2.    In relation to recommendation 4 of the report, who will decide where alternative proposals, actions or resolutions are appropriate (and against what criteria will this be judged) and what will be the effect if no alternatives are put forward.

Response

It will be the responsibility of those Members who call any decision in under the provisions of the Constitution to come forward with alternative proposals, actions or resolutions and it will be a matter of judgement by those Members as to what the criteria should be. The Executive will then decide if it agrees with any alternatives being put forward. Any alternatives suggested however will of course need to be realistic, achievable, measurable and financially robust. Alternative proposals may not be needed in all situations but, failure to submit workable alternative proposals where these are appropriate, is likely to result in a call-in not being accepted.  

3.    Apart from trying to reduce the number of call-ins by adding additional bureaucracy, would the Leader of the Council explain why six members of this council are needed for there to be proper scrutiny of his Administration’s decisions.

Response

I think all Members would agree that there are currently too many call-ins. The introduction of a threshold of around 10% of Members will allow us to focus the powers of call-in more effectively on those issues where there is genuine concern across the Chamber. 

Deemed motion on behalf of Administration

That the report be adopted and its recommendations carried into effect.

Amendment by Labour Group

Recommendation 2.   Delete “six” insert “four”

Recommendation 7.  Delete the words “The Members” Insert in place thereof “At least two of the members”

For clarity, the full recommendations would read as follows:

2. Any requisition submitted must in writing must be in writing and must be signed by at least four members representing between them no less than two groups.

7. At least two of the members submitting call-in requisition or a group representative must attend the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board where the called-in decision is to be reviewed.

Following debate, the amendment on behalf  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17

The committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer which reviewed the overview and scrutiny arrangements in respect of call-in.

The report set out Havering’s approach to call-in, with examples given as to how other local authorities approached it. The report concentrated on a number of key provisions, namely:

•           Which executive decisions can be called-in;

•           Who can make a call-in request;

•           The time-limit (or standstill period) for call-in requests;

•           Call-in validity criteria; and

•           Urgency rules

The report also made reference to the recently issued statutory guidance by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government on “Overview and Scrutiny in Local and Combined Authorities”. The Guidance is concerned with overview and scrutiny as a whole and the very limited references to call-in are in high-level terms only. It advises that the power to call-in should not be viewed as a substitute for early involvement in the decision-making process or a party-political tool. Further, effectively-resourced scrutiny can help policy formulation and so minimise the need for call-in of executive decisions.

Instead the Guidance majors on the broad and general themes of culture, resourcing, committee member selection, access to information and work planning. It was noted that the Guidance would be formally reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Board in the summer for its consideration.

There were a number of contrasting views expressed during the meeting on how call-in should operate and whether it was wise to limit its coverage given the statutory guidance issued by the government department.

A number of suggestions were proposed during the meeting and it was resolved to recommend to Full Council that the following changes to the operation of call-in be made:

1.            Key executive decisions only can be subject to call-in;

The vote for the resolution was passed by 7 votes to 4. Councillors Morgon, Mugglestone, Hawthorn and Darvill voted against the resolution.

2.            Any requisition submitted must be in writing and must be signed by at least six members representing between them no less than two groups;

The vote for the resolution was passed by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention. Councillors Morgon, Mugglestone, Hawthorn and Darvill voted against the resolution. Councillor Wise abstained from voting.

3.         Decisions may only be called-in once and that decisions are not eligible for call-in if there has been pre-decision scrutiny;

4.         Requisitions must specify the decision to which it relates and must not only set out the grounds or reasons relied upon but, where appropriate, also suggest alternative proposals, actions or resolution of the matter. This will in turn set the parameters within which the decision called-in can be reviewed;

5.         Requisitions must not be vexatious, frivolous or repetitive;

6.         The Monitoring Officer be authorised to decide whether a call-in is valid as assessed against the agreed criteria and that it is otherwise an appropriate use of the call-in process;

7.         The members submitting a call-in requisition or a group representative must attend the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Board where the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6