Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

There were no apologies.

It was noted that Councillor Mortimer was substituting for Councillor Parr.

It was noted that Councillors Ash and Field were visiting Members with an interest in all items on the agenda.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

All Members declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 8 and 9 which were in relation to the Overview and Scrutiny Function Review by virtue of their membership of overview and scrutiny committees.

Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

A Member referred to Minute ? 63, “Devolved Budgets”, resolution (c), “that the guidance around spending devolved budget money on “religious activities” be clarified to ensure a clear distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘culture’” and asked whether this had been considered yet.  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager confirmed that all resolutions on this item had been considered by the Audit Committee on 30 November 2009 and a response was expected shortly.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

·  Interview with: Huw Yardley, Clerk; and Emma Gordon, Committee Specialist, Communities and Local Government Select Committee

The Chairman welcomed Huw Yardley and Emma Gordon, Clerk and Committee Specialist respectively for the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, to the meeting and invited them to outline the work of House of Commons Select Committees.

Mr Yardley gave Members a presentation on the work and operation of select committees (attached at Appendix A) and showed a DVD entitled Scrutiny Uncovered[1] which explained the work of Parliamentary Select Committees before Members asked questions.  The following areas were covered in the course of the agenda item:

Politics

Select committees were made up of 11-14 members and reflected the political balance of the House of Commons.  Chairmen were divided amongst the political parties, again to reflect political balance.  Committee members were expected to behave impartially, and it was accepted that although all members would bring political beliefs to an investigation, all members would work together.  Committees tended to act as “we the committee, you the executive”, rather than along political lines, and the chairman was expected to foster this.

The value of a select committee inquiry was that it produced consensual, cross-party report and Mr Yardley suggested that minority reports had little value.  It was argued that if the whole committee could not be convinced of an argument, the executive was also unlikely to be convinced.  Select committees tended to avoid issues of major political controversy for this reason; these issues were not neglected, however, as they were likely to be scrutinised elsewhere.

It was emphasised that the purpose of select committees was not to embarrass the government, however they were not afraid to look into topics that could end up doing so, as this would generally mean that something was going wrong and needed to be corrected.  Mr Yardley suggested that such issues gave select committees power and influence.

Work Programming

Mr Yardley informed the Committee that select committees rarely had topics referred to them and work programmes were chosen entirely by members.  Work programmes were flexible to allow committees to react to events as well as schedule in longer term reviews.  Select committee staff had a role to play in advising on possible topics for investigation and the extent to which the committee was fulfilling its core tasks, but the final choice of work programme rested with the committee.

Select committees did not scrutinise legislation as they were investigative committees.  They did, however, consider draft bills where appropriate.  The select committee chairmen had produced a list of ten core tasks  which select committees were required to take into account when planning their work, and they were required to report on their work against these core tasks annually.  Whilst not prescriptive, this list helped to ensure a balance of work by committees.  The core tasks included examining Government policy proposals and deficiencies (this formed the majority of select committee work), examining progress against Public Service Agreement targets and scrutinising major appointments, though committees had no veto.  Select committees also monitored associated public bodies, including quangos, providing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Committee considered the suggested recommendations within the report of the Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager for inclusion within the final Overview and Scrutiny Function Report.  The Committee made the following comments:

It is recommended that there are four Overview and Scrutiny Committees which all have the option of creating working groups where appropriate.  It is further recommended that the terms of reference of the committees be reconsidered by the Overview and Scrutiny Team and then approved by this Committee.

Agreed.  Particular concern was raised over the size of the remit of the External Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager agreed to look at this as part of the review of the terms of reference.

It is recommended that there are 8 members on each committee.

Members requested information from the Democratic Services Manager on whether having an even number of members on a committee would make achieving political balance difficult.

It is recommended that meetings are held monthly, except for May, with flexibility to add or cancel meetings as appropriate.

Agreed.  Members agreed that having the meetings diarised would ease organisation, but emphasised that the chairman should be strong in cancelling meetings with limited business with the agreement of group spokespeople.

It is recommended that the chairman and vice-chairman of each committee come from different political groups. 

Agreed.  A Member clarified that contrary to the report, one of the groups at the workshop did not recommend this.  However Members agreed that this would be a worthwhile recommendation.

It is recommended that the chairman of the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee comes from a party not represented on the executive.

Agreed subject to an amendment stating that if the cabinet was a coalition of all parties, the chairman would be elected through a normal voting process.

It is recommended that the role of the Scrutiny Coordinating Committee be strengthened to ensure better management and coordination of committee work and working groups.

Agreed.

It is recommended that a clear job description for scrutiny chairmen be established.

Members noted that this would not be enforceable, however the merits of having outline responsibilities included in the Overview and Scrutiny Handbook were noted.  The need for training was also emphasised, for example providing chairing skills training for all members rather than just existing chairmen.

It is recommended that any non-executive member be allowed to substitute on an overview and scrutiny committee, rather than having nominated substitutes.

Members agreed that this should be recommended for all committees where prior training was not a prerequisite to membership.

It is recommended that the vice-chairman received a percentage of the chairman’s allowance.

Members agreed that this should only be the case where the vice-chairman had taken on a significant amount of the responsibility and therefore proposed that this be reworded; “should the chairman be unable to undertake the substantive role for three months or more then the allowance will be reallocated to the vice-chair for that period”.  Members also agreed that further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager informed the Committee that the Budget Strategy 2010/11 Onwards and the Strategic Plan Update would be considered at the 5 January 2010 meeting.  It was also recommended that as this would be a substantial meeting, the update on enhancing local democracy should be moved to the February meeting and this was agreed.

A Member highlighted the Treasury Management Strategy 2010/11 and it was explained that this would be considered by the Audit Committee.  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager agreed to inform Members of the date for this.

Resolved:  That

a)  The update on enhancing local democracy be moved to the 2 February 2010 meeting;

b)  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager inform Members of the date when the Treasury Management Strategy would be considered by the Audit Committee; and

c)  The Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions be noted.

6:30 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.