Agenda, decisions and minutes

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest were made.

To consider the appropriateness of the Exeter “Conventions” and the linked aspects of the Council’s constitution.

The Leader advised of the recommendation to delete (6) from the Exeter “Conventions” and amend the Scrutiny Procedures Rule to enable Scrutiny Chairs and Deputy Chairs to be drawn from any political group. This was in line with the majority of Councils in Devon and to allow for a fairer representation of positions to the majority group.

Councillor Shiel, having given notice under Standing Order no.44, spoke on this item. He stated that the possession of a majority by the Leader and his group was no justification for voting for the changes. The proposal would compromise the credibility of scrutiny in the Council and should, logically, lead to the disbandment of the Scrutiny Review Working Group a role which would become largely irrelevant. The proposal was contrary to Parliament where opposition groups were allowed to play an important role in scrutiny giving strength and transparency to governance. He asked for the majority group Members to take a stand and, at least, abstain from voting for the proposal for the ruling group to take the Chair of Scrutiny Committees.

Councillor Newby, having given notice under Standing Order no.44, spoke on this item. He stated that he had been on the Council for 12 years and in the past there had been good rapport between the political parties. The current procedure of the opposition Groups taking the Chair and Deputy Chairs of Scrutiny Committees worked well and the status quo should remain.

Councillor Harvey, having given notice under Standing Order no.44, spoke on this item. He stated that the changes proposed to the Scrutiny arrangements were flawed and it was clear that any organisation spending public funds and delivering public services needed a rigorous system of public scrutiny, accountability and transparency. At a time when resources were getting ever tighter, there was a greater need than ever to ensure that robust scrutiny was in place holding Executive to account. The Council would be more likely to see greater innovation and efficiency in the way that it delivered services by further deepening and strengthening the scrutiny process; taking the chair of the Scrutiny Committees away from the opposition ran contrary to that. He stated that the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) had developed four principles of good scrutiny; providing a ‘critical friend’ challenge to the Executive; reflecting the voice and concerns of the local community; taking the scrutiny process lead on behalf of the public; and making an impact on the delivery of public services. Giving Scrutiny Chairs to Members of the ruling Group was contrary to these principles. The move proposed this evening was therefore divisive and unfair.

Councillor Harvey commented that changing the arrangements in relation to Chair of Scrutiny Committees was serious, but when taken alongside Standing Orders 16 and 17 of the constitution, the opposition parties were in an even more disenfranchised position. Under Standing Order 16, where urgent decisions needed to be taken it was the Chair of the relevant Scrutiny Committee that had to sign-off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.