Motions to the Dacorum Borough Council Meeting on Wednesday 15th July, 2020.
A. Climate Emergency. Proposed by Cllr. Ron Tindall
This council takes note of the Strategy and Action Plan adopted by the Cabinet at their meeting on 23rd June. In addition, the council welcomes the Climate Change Emergency Statement and the undertaking to work with businesses, community groups and residents to reduce emissions across the Borough.
In furtherance of these decisions and objectives, the council believes that the bringing together of those interested in working with the Council in a public programme of Community Engagement would be beneficial, and asks that as soon as reasonably possible, given the present restrictions imposed because of the health crisis, a series of consultative events are promoted which will engage all sectors of the community, culminating in a Climate Emergency event at which representatives of those community sectors will meet to discuss with the Council the attainment of the Council's objectives by 2030.
B. Overview and Scrutiny. Proposed by Cllr. Adrian England
This Council recognises that scrutiny is an important part of a well-functioning administration where policies, strategy and decisions are tested by members and justified by Portfolio-holders with the support of officers.
Now that the Council is once again in a state of credible balance, and all Councillors have at least one year's experience, Council believes that scrutiny ought rightly to be led by a politically-proportionate group of Chairs and Vice-Chairs.
The council resolves to review Scrutiny and reform Chairmanship of OSCs so that Scrutiny in Dacorum is cross-party, with Chairs and Vice Chairs being drawn proportionately from the recognised political groups of the council, the appropriate amendment to the Constitution to be presented to the Council at their meeting in September.
Decision:
The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Freedman:
1. Climate Emergency
This council takes note of the Strategy and Action Plan adopted by the Cabinet at their meeting on 23rd June. In addition, the council welcomes the Climate Change Emergency Statement and the undertaking to work with businesses, community groups and residents to reduce emissions across the Borough.
In furtherance of these decisions and objectives, the council believes that the bringing together of those interested in working with the Council in a public programme of Community Engagement would be beneficial, and asks that as soon as reasonably possible, given the present restrictions imposed because of the health crisis, a series of consultative events are promoted which will engage all sectors of the community, culminating in a Climate Emergency event at which representatives of those community sectors will meet to discuss with the Council the attainment of the Council's objectives by 2030.
An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Griffiths
Revise the first line to read:
“This council endorses the administrations ambitious Strategy and action plan….”
A vote was held on the amendment to the motion:
36 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstain
Therefore the
amendment was agreed
A vote was then held on the amended motion
39 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstain
Therefore the Motion was carried.
The following Motion was proposed by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Hobson:
2. Overview and Scrutiny
This Council recognises that scrutiny is an important part of a well-functioning administration where policies, strategy and decisions are tested by members and justified by Portfolio-holders with the support of officers.
Now that the Council is once again in a state of credible balance, and all Councillors have at least one year's experience, Council believes that scrutiny ought rightly to be led by a politically-proportionate group of Chairs and Vice-Chairs.
The council resolves to review Scrutiny and reform Chairmanship of OSCs so that Scrutiny in Dacorum is cross-party, with Chairs and Vice Chairs being drawn proportionately from the recognised political groups of the council, the appropriate amendment to the Constitution to be presented to the Council at their meeting in September.
The following amendment was made by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Griffiths:
Delete all text after the first paragraph and insert a new second paragraph
“This council resolves that the current arrangements for Chairs and Vice Chairs supports the effective process of scrutiny and supports continuing with the current allocations of Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees”
A vote was held on the amendment to the motion:
24 For, 18 Against and 3 Abstain
Therefore the
amendment was agreed
A vote was then held on the amended motion
21 For, 17 Against and 3 Abstain
Therefore the Motion was carried.
Minutes:
The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Freedman:
1. Climate Emergency
This council takes note of the Strategy and Action Plan adopted by the Cabinet at their meeting on 23rd June. In addition, the council welcomes the Climate Change Emergency Statement and the undertaking to work with businesses, community groups and residents to reduce emissions across the Borough.
In furtherance of these decisions and objectives, the council believes that the bringing together of those interested in working with the Council in a public programme of Community Engagement would be beneficial, and asks that as soon as reasonably possible, given the present restrictions imposed because of the health crisis, a series of consultative events are promoted which will engage all sectors of the community, culminating in a Climate Emergency event at which representatives of those community sectors will meet to discuss with the Council the attainment of the Council's objectives by 2030.
An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Williams and
seconded by Councillor Griffiths to revise the first line to
read:
“This council endorses the administrations ambitious Strategy and Action Plan….”
Councillor Tindall thanked everyone involved and said we all needed to work together to succeed.
A vote was held on the amendment to the motion:
36 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.
Therefore the amendment was
agreed.
A vote was then held on the amended motion:
39 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.
Therefore the Motion was carried.
The following Motion was proposed by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Hobson:
2. Overview and Scrutiny
This Council recognises that scrutiny is an important part of a well-functioning administration where policies, strategy and decisions are tested by members and justified by Portfolio-holders with the support of officers.
Now that the Council is once again in a state of credible balance, and all Councillors have at least one year's experience, Council believes that scrutiny ought rightly to be led by a politically-proportionate group of Chairs and Vice-Chairs.
The council resolves to review Scrutiny and reform Chairmanship of OSCs so that Scrutiny in Dacorum is cross-party, with Chairs and Vice Chairs being drawn proportionately from the recognised political groups of the council, the appropriate amendment to the Constitution to be presented to the Council at their meeting in September.
Councillor England said he hoped the majority group would engage with this motion. The purpose of the OSC’s which he quoted from the DBC website says ‘there are three OSC’s which support the work of cabinet and council as a whole. They allow citizens to have the greater say in council matters by holding public enquiries into matters of local concern and these leads to reports and recommendations’. He didn’t feel OSC’s had been doing much reporting and recommending as they should according to the description on the website, reports are typically just noted. He felt giving some responsibilities of Chairman to the minority group would introduce right and proper market forces to the operation of scrutiny. The purpose of scrutiny is observation and examination. Some motions have been agreed and some been defeated by the majority. He gave examples of other authorities that had minority chairs. He said OSC chairs were intended to be impartial and provide challenge to the cabinet and quoted from the councils constitution ‘the purpose of an OSC chair is to act impartially when challenging cabinet or portfolio holder decisions, service provision or policy development. They manage the meetings and make sure they provide constructive challenge to cabinet and portfolio holder decisions. They also maintain political neutrality. They act as a spokesperson for the committees decisions’. He queried if the chair is from the majority group always, how easily are they able to maintain political neutrality and be impartial? He felt it would be easier for a minority chair to challenge. He summarised that he is proposing this motion because it was the right thing to do for the best scrutiny, it engages minority councillors properly into the scrutiny responsibility, and finally if chairs are meant to be impartial how can all the chairs be chosen from the majority party.
Councillor Williams said he
didn’t support the motion and didn’t feel that motions
were appropriate for constitutional changes. He said he would like
to move an amendment to the motion.
The following amendment was made by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Griffiths:
Delete all text after the first paragraph.
Councillor Tindall asked for legal guidance on the amended motion. He felt that by deleting the second paragraph it takes the whole meaning away from the motion leaving it useless. He suggested it was a negative action and they cannot have an amendment that is a direct negative of the motion as those who do not agree with the motion should just vote against it. M Brookes advised that the amendment did negate the effect of the motion and deleted the main part. He said he would uphold the objection.
Councillor Williams withdrew the amendment and then proposed a second amendment to the motion.
Delete all text after the first paragraph and insert a new second paragraph:
“This council resolves that the current arrangements for Chairs and Vice Chairs supports the effective process of scrutiny and the council supports continuing with the current allocations of Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees.”
Councillor Tindall didn’t feel that was any improvement on his first amendment.
M Brookes felt there was a difference between the two amendments and didn’t think it made it ineffective. He recommended that we allowed the amendment to stand.
Councillor Griffiths seconded the amended motion and reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Birnie said he was in favour of the amendment and felt the motion proposed by Councillor England was an insult to the current chairs and vice chairs of the scrutiny committees. He said the strategic planning and environment overview and scrutiny committee that he chaired frequently sends recommendations to cabinet and criticises the policies put forward to them. He was certain that the other scrutiny committees were the same. He didn’t see the relevance of chairman being impartial just because they’re part of a minority group. He always invited and encouraged all members of his committee to criticise and analyse impartially.
Councillor Freedman said as a new councillor he received overview and scrutiny training at the start of his term with the LGA. He said the trainer suggested that DBC’s OSC process was odd and a substandard system and they had pointed out that the focus should be on members scrutinising the decisions rather than scrutinising the officers making those decisions. He said he wasn’t criticising the current committees but believed if we weren’t doing what is considered best practise then we should consider making changes. He disagreed with the amended motion.
Councillor Griffiths said it wasn’t the role of OSC to scrutinise decisions made by portfolio holders but to scrutinise future policies and development and to decide what other elements of the council they would like to see put before them. She said the opposition group wouldn’t understand the independence that the majority group have and felt it was more uncomfortable to be scrutinised by your own party. She felt the present situation worked well, has done for a number of years and she would be voting in favour of the amendment.
Councillor Symington said there was nothing personal about this motion and that it was about trying to get the council to be as effective and in line with current government guidance as possible. She made reference to a document by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on Statutory Guidance on Overview and Scrutiny in Local and Combined Authorities and recommended that everyone read it before making a decision. She quoted the following points from the document:
‘Effective overview and scrutiny should:
• Provide constructive ‘critical friend’ challenge;
• Amplify the voices and concerns of the public;
• Be led by independent people who take responsibility for their role; and
• Drive improvement in public services’.
She then quoted:
‘The method for selecting a Chair is for each authority to decide for itself, however every authority should consider taking a vote by secret ballot. Combined Authorities should be aware of the legal requirements regarding the party affiliation of their scrutiny committee Chair.’
The direction of travel is clearly set by central government and she feels we should endeavour to follow the rules. She said we should be looking to improve the situation and accept we can do better so she wouldn’t be voting for the amendment.
Councillor England agreed with the points made by Councillor Symington and said this wasn’t a personal issue but was about democracy and best practice for scrutiny. He wasn’t criticising the current chairs but felt that by only choosing majority chairs it was hard to argue impartiality. He felt that as the minority group made up a third of the total number of members that should be reflected in the allocation of committee chairs. He asked what the basis was for choosing chairs if it wasn’t down to party.
Councillor Suqlain Mahmood explained he had been a chairman for a number of years and in 2018 the cabinet and portfolio holders were held accountable for the change in leisure contract at the housing and community overview and scrutiny committee. He said they took a motion to council and felt that showed they stayed impartial. He said he was always thinking of local residents of Dacorum and he always had that in his mind when scrutinising the cabinet and portfolio holders. He supported the amendment and felt the current process worked well.
Councillor Adeleke felt the motion was not only a criticism of the current chairs but a criticism to the whole council. He said he supported the amendment.
Councillor Banks spoke in favour of the amendment. She endorsed the comments from Councillor Birnie and Councillor Mahmood as current scrutiny chairman and thanked them for sharing their experiences. She said in her experience the chairs have welcomed open and honest exchange and as a portfolio holder she had been challenged and welcomed that. She said members should feel confident and speak up if they need to.
Councillor Imarni said she supported the amendment. She advised she had been part of a very robust scrutiny meeting in January 2018 where a committee stayed in session until nearly 1am which was against the view of the majority. As chair of a scrutiny committee she urged members to put forward whatever scrutiny they believe is correct and that’s why we’re elected members and members of a scrutiny committee. She felt the current arrangements were more than adequate.
Councillor Pringle spoke against the amendment. She clarified that the logic of the initial proposal was based on the premise that all elected representatives were capable in principle of being impartial and exercising his role. She said no one had said that liberal democrat or independent members were incapable of exercising the same degree of impartiality that is currently demonstrated. She said it was important to remember that any elected councillor should be given the same opportunity to develop their skills as a public representative as any other and it was an honour to be an elected representative. She continued to say it must be more of an honour to be a chairman of a committee and all 50 councillors are potentially capable of exercising this role and being impartial.
Councillor Hollinghurst said what Councillor Griffiths had said was very interesting, however councillors need to take decisions on behalf of the public and in public, so party meetings cannot stand as part of the democratic process. The direction of national policy on this matter is quite clear, and the amendment goes against that direction. He didn’t support the amendment.
Councillor Taylor felt disappointed at the response of this motion and the amendment. It should not be taken as an attack towards the current chairman. He said it has been claimed by some of the speakers that the conservative party are an independent group, however all they have done is support their leaders position, and we can therefore measure how independent the group are.
Councillor Anderson spoke in favour of the amendment. He explained he was chair of the SPAE overview and scrutiny committee for 12 years and gathered a lot of experience over those years. He said it was for local councils to organise their own arrangements so it was for this council to determine how we perform scrutiny. He understood what opposition members were saying about it not being personal, but that was not how it was seen from the other side. He felt opposition members needed to trust the fact that scrutiny chairs were acting independently and felt this motion could be seen as politically motivated. He pointed out that the opposition also didn’t meet in public.
Councillor Barry echoed Councillor Pringle and Taylor’s comments that this was not a personal attack from the opposition, it was about having the opportunity to be involved and serve for our community. She explained that she looked up to some of the current chairs and it wasn’t about being personal or political. She said we were in Hertfordshire, the County of opportunity, and if deny opportunity to our own councillors then what does that say to our community? She summarised that the amendment didn’t sit right with her so she wouldn’t be supportive of it.
Councillor G Sutton spoke in support of the amendment. He said he had been a councillor for many years and had never experienced anything but the best of working relationships between the opposition and majority party. He said, if it isn’t broke don’t fix it.
Councillor Oguchi said in her line of work feedback was a gift and she personally didn’t see the motion as a personal attack but as an opportunity to improve the process. She felt the process was currently working well but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work for further improvement. She felt we should move with the times and give every elected member the chance to chair a meeting if they would like to. She advised she would be voting against the amendment.
Councillor Williams felt that the current arrangements worked well and he was content with our system. He didn’t feel it was necessary to change it and a motion to full council was not the way to approach it if we did need to make changes. He urged members to support the amendment.
A vote was held on the amendment to the motion:
24 For, 18 Against and 3 Abstention.
Therefore the amendment was
agreed.
Councillor Hobson felt saddened by the debate. She said as a new
councillor she had received scrutiny training and they had
discussed best practice. She felt this was about best practice and
it wasn’t about individuals personally. She said it was a
missed opportunity but she hoped we would keep this under review.
She summarised that she was very disappointed at the response by
the majority group.
Councillor England said he was very disappointed at the response of this motion. This isn’t about personalities, this is about doing the best we can and we are all committed to that. He felt it was unfortunate that the personal issue has become part of this and it wasn’t his intention. He explained that the idea of giving some responsibilities to the opposition group would introduce some right and proper market forces to the operation of scrutiny at the council and there was nothing wrong with that. He referred to the scrutiny training and said the trainer had found it difficult to train them due to how unusual the process was at Dacorum and that made him start to question whether we were doing our best. He hoped it wouldn’t be necessary to bring this motion forward and that the process would change naturally but it hasn’t happened. It wasn’t personal, it was about process. He believed this council would work better if we improved our scrutiny process. He congratulated Councillor Oguchi on her intervention as he was beginning to lose hope. He agreed with Councillor Imarni that she gave excellent scrutiny at the meeting regarding the leisure contract and he complimented her on that. He said at that meeting the chair was given the casting vote which had a crucial impact and they voted to close down debate. He asked a rhetorical question: ‘what is the basis of the selection of choosing the chairs if it was not because they come from the majority party’.
A vote was then held on the
amended motion.
21 For, 17 Against and 3 Abstention.
Therefore the Motion was carried.