The Chief Executive introduced the report which set out the proposal made by the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) to change the number of Service Committees and reduce the frequency of Area Committees, whilst a review of the effectiveness of Area Committees was undertaken.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments and these included:

·         Considered that Option 1 at paragraph 3.1 on page 5 of the report should be taken forward;

·         not enough consideration had been given to how the Area Committees would operate when they were first set-up;

·         would like any review of the Area Committees to be undertaken before the new civic year;

·         if the area committees were reduced to three rounds per civic year would it be possible to hold extraordinary meetings if required?;

·         the Eastern Area Committee was poorly attended and not productive;

·         concerned that reducing the committees in stages could become complicated in respect of splitting the functions of each committee.  It would be better to get it done before the next civic year, if that was achievable?;

·         the Council did not have a precise vision and was becoming ‘stagnant’;

·         more input from Members and groups was needed, not just comments from the CWG;

·         a ‘stepped’ approach would be better;

·         agreed that the number of service committees needed to be reduced but needed to be clear on the implications if they were;

·         supported reducing the number of committees if it led to more money being saved to allow the Council to provide services for residents;

·         supported any of these decisions being scrutinised so that residents could understand why they were being made;

·         supported Option 2 in the report with the caveat that it be reviewed in a years’ time;

·         drew attention to the breakdown of the Committee information at Appendix 2 of the report, and considered there could be all sorts of reasons why apologies had been given;

·         duplication was not stagnation, and the proposals allowed for streamlining and clarifying of the decision-making process important in light of the peer review and the local government reorganisation;

·         the review needed to consider other committees such as Audit, Standards and Licensing and whether they could be reduced in number;

·         Members ‘time’ was important for local residents and considered that currently something ‘had to give’ in terms of the amount of meetings Members currently attended, particularly with the pending local government reorganisation;

·         disappointed that Options 2, 3 and 4 all had very ‘circular’ reasoning contained within them as to why they should not be progressed;

·         considered Option 2 was the way forward and it would allow time for collaborative working with other authorities to be undertaken with regard to local government reorganisation;

·         supported an increase of membership on the service committees;

·         each service committee would have more work but a smaller pool of Members to draw membership for any working groups;

·         Option 1 was too much too soon and not sensible at this time;

·         some working groups were cross-committees; and

·         recommendation (1) in the report would allow Members to be more radical in their approach and would not leave to a deficit, and delaying for one year could reduce the possibility of being radical.

In response, the Chief Executive explained that Members could consider and agree to any reduction of Service Committees and review of the Area Committees prior to Annual Council 2025.  Following advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Executive confirmed that if the timetable of meetings for the 2025-26 Municipal Year was agreed by Annual Council, but that following the review of committees, Members were overwhelmingly in support that there should be a change: in nature; number; or existence of any of the committees  the Policy & Resources (P&R) Committee could recommend to Full Council to amend any decision made previously at Annual Council. 

The Chief Executive explained that any review needed to be meaningful and thorough and truly understand the views of both parished and unparished areas.  She reported that option 3.1 was achievable and that the Health and Housing Committee and the Community and Leisure Committee would be amalgamated, so that functions were not separated for the first year.  The proposal would also significantly reduce overlapping of functions. 

Councillor Angela Harrison moved the following amendment:  That recommendation (1) be amended to Option 1 as set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Ashley Wise.

Following a point of order, Councillor Angela Harrison confirmed that her proposal was for the P&R Committee and three service committees, followed the next year by a reduction in P&R Committee meetings and two service committees.

The Chief Executive read out Option 1 for Members.

There was a vote on the amendment, and as the vote was tied the Chair used his casting vote.  The amendment was agreed.

The Chair referred to recommendation (3) of the report and invited questions and comments from Members which included:

·         Supported the area committees which provided the unparished areas with ‘a voice’;

·         supported a ‘full’ review of the area committees, including a breakdown of the associated costs;

·         did not consider the relevant data was contained within the report to make a decision;

·         would like to see data regarding the proposed need to remove the Special Responsibility Allowance for chairs of the area committees;

·         concerned that Members were being put in a position by the CWG without the relevant reports and debates being provided;

·         accepted some area committees were more active than others but considered all area committees could be utilised more and consider upcoming council policies;

·         the area committees were a chance for Members to gain experience at chairing meetings;

·         unsure why the council proposed reducing the area committees when there was no issue with them;

·         the scheduled area committee meetings could always be cancelled if there were no items;

·         no data had been provided on public or parish council attendance at the area committees;

·         perhaps the area committees could decide at their first meeting how often they wished to meet;

·         supported not having the Eastern Area Committee as it was poorly attended;

·         considered that as chair of the Eastern Area Committee the public purse was not well represented by the hours spent chairing those meetings;

·         recommendations (3) and (4) of the report pre-determined recommendation (5);

·         supported a review which needed to be undertaken as soon as possible and needed to consider what an effective fora could look like;

·         the area committees should focus more on residents needs and liaising with stakeholders such as the police.  Suggested that all the area committee chairs should meet to discuss what they should be considering;

·         referred to paragraph 2.8 on page 4 of the report which listed the concerns raised in relation to area committees and said that attendance by some parish councillors had let to them becoming borough councillors;

·         collaborative working at the area committee had led to solutions;

·         the shingle bank consultation had received over 1,000 responses because it was raised at the Sheppey Area Committee;

·         Kent County Council (KCC) had taken several consultations including the family hub model and Seashells Children Centre, Sheerness to the area committees;

·         Parish Councils should be able to feedback items for agendas;

·         the regular reports from Kent Police were a good example of a repetitive agenda item working well; and

·         referred to the loneliness and the Seashell Childrens centre projects which were well received by the public and parish councils at the respective area committees;

·         fundamentally disagreed with the recommendations contained within the report;

·         the Council needed a scrutiny committee as it did not currently work within the current committee system;

·         the proposals were about using Member and officer time more efficiently; and

·         the Housing and Health Committee had been complimented on their scrutiny of items considered at that committee.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved the following amendment:  That recommendations (3) and (4) in the report, be deleted.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

In response, the Chief Executive explained that not all the area committees were the same, and Members needed to be mindful that there was only half an officer post administering the area committees.  The full review of the area committees would include liaising with parish and town councils to explore what was possible moving forward, and how the meetings could be resourced.  The Chief Executive reported that data in respect of costs was available and the detail would be shared with Members.

Following a point of order there was some discussion regarding the detail of the amendment in respect of Option 1.  Councillor Ashley Wise moved the following amendment:  That recommendation (2) of the report be amended to read that the Housing and Health Committee and the Community and Leisure Committee be amalgamated.  This was seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison.  On being put to the vote as the voting was tied, the Chair used his casting vote and the amendment was agreed.

The Chair then asked Members to vote on recommendation (1) as amended. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(5) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Perkin, Watson, Wise and Wooster.  Total equals 7.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Hunt, Jayes, Lehmann, Marchington, C Palmer and R Palmer.  Total equals 7.

Abstain:  None.  Total equals 0.

As the vote was tied the Chair used his casting vote and voted for the recommendation.

The Chair then asked Members to vote on recommendation (2) as amended. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(5) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Lehmann, Marchington, Perkin, Watson, Wise and Wooster.  Total equals 9.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Hunt, Jayes, Lehmann, C Palmer and R Palmer.  Total equals 6.

Abstain:  Councillor Hunt.  Total equals 1.

The Chair then asked Members to vote on recommendation (5) of the report, which he read out for Members.  This would now become Recommendation (3) as Members had already agreed that recommendations (3) and (4) as set out in the report be deleted. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(5) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Baldock, C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jayes, Lehmann, Marchington, C Palmer, R Palmer, Perkin, Watson, Wise and Wooster.  Total equals 14.

Against: None.  Total equals 0.

Against: None.  Total equals 0.

Recommendations to Council:

(1)   That a two-stage approach be taken to reduce the service committees from the Policy and Resources Committee and four service committees to the Policy and Resources Committee and two service committees by reducing the service committees by one in the municipal year 2025/26 and by a further reduction of one in the municipal year 2026/27

(2)   That the Housing and Health Committee and the Community and Leisure Committee be amalgamated;

(3)   That the Chief Executive undertakes a full review of the effectiveness of the Area Committees, working with Area Committees, Parish Councils and the public and report back to the Policy and Resources Committee in the Municipal Year 2025/2026.