Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor J Philip was substituting for Councillor A Grigg and Councillor J Lea was substituting for Councillor Stallan.

To agree the notes from the 20 May 2013 meeting.

The notes of the meeting held on 20 May 2013 were agreed subject to:

• Minute item 32, the first agreed point should read  “that these steps to go to the Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel meetings…”.  And

• Minute item 34 under the first agreed point, third bullet point, to be clarified by saying that officers were to turn public suggestions into a PICK form so that they could be considered by the Committee. And the last bullet point on synchronising the Council’s rules about members of the public speaking at committee meetings  - this should be referred to the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel for their consideration.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To note the Panels Terms of Reference.

The Panel noted their Terms of Reference.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) An annotated schedule of interim recommendations reflecting discussions at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 20 May 2013 is attached.

The Panel noted the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20 May 2013 when they considered the latest interim recommendations of this Panel for any comments they would wish to make.

The Panel thought that under 3(c) an indicative timescale should be added. It should say a review to be held after 6 or 12 months.

The Committee considered the comments on the O&S work programme. Under Item 3(d) the Panel clarified that the proposed officer OSAPG steering group would initially consider any requests from the public and if appropriate would turn the request into a PICK document for consideration by the O&S Committee. They would also weed out topics that were inappropriate for consideration by the O&S.

A query was raised under 3(f), should the training on budget scrutiny be held before September as it appears the budget setting process started before then. It was agreed that the Director of Finance should be consulted on the most appropriate time to hold this type of training.

The Committee considered the proposals on call-ins (item 5(f) of the report) and asked if a call-in was withdrawn, would it still be reported to the O&S Committee? The Panel agreed that it would have to be reported back to the Committee saying why it had been withdrawn and what if any, changes had been made to the report in question.

They also asked if (under item 5(g)) this proposal meant that only the lead member of the call-in could speak to a call-in and would the other signatories be excluded? The Panel clarified by saying that the lead call-in member would speak first, followed by the Portfolio Holder. This would be followed by the other four signatories being given a chance to speak with the Portfolio Holder being given the chance to reply. It would then be opened up to a general discussion by the committee. If there were more than 5 signatories to a call-in then this initial chance to speak should be limited to the first five on the list. The other signatories would have a chance to join in during the general discussion.

The wording on 6(a) (Scrutiny of External Organisations) to be changed so that it read “…and when making presentations and responding to questions following a presentation.”

The Committee queried the proposed new seating arrangements and if it was suitable for call-ins. They agreed that the Portfolio Holder and the appropriate Director should be sat together and this should be put into the recommendations. This should also be put into section 5 on call-ins.

Under 6(d) preparation for questioning the Panel noted that the committee needed to prepare their questions thoroughly. There needed to be the facility for a questioner to respond to any answers that they received by virtue of a supplementary question and to urge the Chairman to let questioners come back with a further supplementary question on any answers given.

The Panel also said that the O&S  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) Whilst considering the interim recommendations of the Panel on 20 May 2013, the Chairman of the Audit & Governance Committee indicated that he would appreciate an opportunity for the Audit & Governance Committee to review these proposals in accordance with its governance responsibilities.

The schedule is due to be considered by that Committee on 27 June 2013 and an oral report will be given on the outcome.

The Assistant to the Chief Executive, Ian Willett noted that the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee had requested that his group be afforded the opportunity to review this Panel's proposals. They had received a copy of the draft recommendations on 27 June and had been satisfied that a robust review was in progress. They would also like to consider this Panel's final recommendations and to this end, the Audit and Governance Committee would be treated as consultee once a draft final report had been produced.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) The Panel asked for further information concerning arrangement for scrutiny of policing and crime matters. The Panel has so far not looked at this issue.

A copy of the terms of reference of the Essex Police & Crime Panel is attached together with the terms of reference of this Council’s Safer, Cleaner, Greener Standing Scrutiny  Panel which deals with scrutiny at a more local level in paragraph 6.

The Panel noted that we already have a good link with the Community Safety Partnership on Crime and Disorder matters via the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel. They noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) had attended a recent SCG Standing Panel meeting, in February this year, which was opened out to all members, Town and Parish Councillors and members of the public to attend and ask questions. This had proved very successful. They noted that the PCC also wanted to hold two public meetings a year in our district and we had facilitated his first one, held in May this year, by allowing him to hold it in our Council Chamber.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To  consider the enclosed web documents concerning health service scrutiny. These deal with Essex Wellbeing Board and the Essex County Council’ Health Scrutiny Committee which are the statutory bodies for dealing with NHS service monitoring.

The Panel noted that Health Scrutiny was a County function. However, they would not be adverse for us to undertake local health scrutiny on local matters. As a district we border the London Health District which our resident would probably use more than our local services. If County gives us authority to carry out any particular health scrutiny then the most logical place this could go to would be to the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel.

If members wanted to a raise a specific health matter that they would like scrutinised then, as always, they could fill in a PICK form. Officers would have to ask county if as a District we could consider it. We should use a dual hated District/County Councillor as our link to County on health scrutiny (e.g. Councillor Gadsby in 2013/14). Ideally the Councillor should be the District/County Councillor on the counties health scrutiny committee.

Members of the Panel asked if Officers could write to County to see if they were content with this proposed arrangement on possible future health scrutiny.

To consider the next steps to consult on the Panel’s proposals.

The Panel agreed that a draft final report should be written and the recommendations circulated for comment to all Councillors, Management Board and the Audit and Governance Committee.

The Panel is asked to consider their next meeting date(s).

The Committee Secretary to consult with members on possible dates for their next meeting.