Report and appendix added 28.3.25

The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

In seconding the recommendations, the Deputy Leader reserved his right to speak.

The leader of the Conservative group said there were pros and cons on the proposals but on balance, as demands on Members’ time was increasing and the peer review proposed a reduction in committees, he would support the recommendations. He welcomed the review of area committees. He said the decrease in the number of committees should not lead to more sub-committees that excluded more Members, but there should be working group which all Members could become a part of, whether they sat on the committee or not.

The leader of the SIA group was critical that more discussion had not taken place before the report came to Full Council. He said the recommendations would lead to increased power to the few and he was disappointed that the main opposition group was in support of it as it showed a lack of being involved in decision making. The leader of the SIA group said that committees often disagreed with recommendations made by working groups and not all Members would be able to sit on a committee. He said the Council should be working its best for its communities and building up a resilience as it headed towards devolution but the proposals reduced participation.

The leader of the Reform UK group questioned the two-staged approach and said if committees were not needed, they should be dissolved in one stage, not in a trial and error approach. He said the decision was being rushed without full engagement.

The leader of the Liberal Democrat group said she was broadly in agreement but did not understand the need for a two-staged approach. She said less committees could lead to more efficiency of officer time and would reduce overlaps of work into different committees. The leader of the Liberal Democrat group said it was important going forward to look at the accessibility of working groups at different times of the day for Members.

The leader of the Green group referred to the report that went to the Policy and Resources Committee meeting the previous week and the options that were agreed. He said that more consideration was needed and he questioned what the process would look like if it were to be slowed down and carried out properly.

Other Members made comments including:

·         The move from a Cabinet to Committee system was carried out to involve more Members and reducing committees was the wrong way to go;

·         working groups that took place behind closed doors was not transparent and was the wrong way to do business;

·         the committee system was more democratic and transparent, and reducing committees was a step backwards;

·         the efficiency of different committees was a reflection on the Members who sat on them;

·         there would be less opportunity to scrutinise important issues of the Council with less committees;

·         the corporate peer review recommended to conduct a review of committee meetings including the number and capacity to support their frequency, not just to cut the number of meetings;

·         some committees were better attended than others;

·         not all Members would have a seat on a service committee if reduced;

·         length of committees would increase;

·         should consider the committees more in line with heads of services for a better split;

·         requested that the recommendations taken separately;

·         suggested a further review, ahead of the municipal year, took place;

·         there had already been a lot of discussion on the topic at the Policy and Resources Committee meeting the previous week, and further discussion during this Full Council meeting;

·         hoped Members would support a motion for a scrutiny committee in the future;

·         peer review said very little scrutiny was taking place across some of the five committees; and

·         for all Members to take part in committee meetings, the reports needed to be read in advance of the meeting which did not always happen.

Councillor Alastair Gould proposed an amendment to recommendation one that the Policy and Resources Committee reconsidered the proposal for there to be three service committees in addition to the Policy and Resources Committee, and that the breakdown of the committees be reconsidered. The Mayor advised that should the recommendation fall, the Policy and Resources Committee would be able to debate the matter further via the Constitution Working Group and the late amendment was not accepted.

The Deputy Leader said there was currently duplication across committees. He reminded Members that as the local government reorganisation was looming, officer and member time and attention would be needed for all 47 Members to contribute to the process. The Deputy Leader said the peer review did raise the issue of effectiveness and efficiency in committees. He said the two-staged approach would give time to consider what the two additional service committees would look like and which services sat beneath them. Finally, the Deputy Leader said less evening meetings would allow more working groups to sit in the evening, allowing more Members the opportunity to be involved.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, on recommendation one, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Bowen, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Marchington, B Martin, Miller, Moore, Neal, Noe, Perkin, Tucker, Watson, Wooster, Winckless and Wise.  Total equals 21.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, Chapman, Gould, Jayes, Lehmann, MacDonald, Mischuk, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Pollard, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson and Whiting. Total equals 17.

Abstain: None. Total equals 0.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, on recommendation two, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Bowen, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, MacDonald, B Martin, Miller, Moore, Neal, Noe, Perkin, Tucker, Watson, Wooster, Winckless and Wise.  Total equals 21.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, Chapman, Gould, Jayes, Lehmann, Marchington, Mischuk, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Pollard, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson and Whiting. Total equals 17.

Abstain: None. Total equals 0.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, on recommendation three, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Bowen, Brawn, Carnell, Cavanagh, Chapman, Cheesman, C Gibson, T Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, MacDonald, Marchington, B Martin, Miller, Mischuk, Moore, Neal, Noe, C Palmer, R Palmer, Perkin, Pollard, Tucker, Watson, Wooster, Winckless and Wise.  Total equals 31.

Against: Councillors Nundy, P Stephen and Whiting. Total equals 3.

Abstain: Councillors Jayes, Lehmann, S Stephen and Thompson. Total equals 4.

Resolved:

That Council:

(1)  Take a two stage approach to reduce the service committees from Policy and Resources Committee and four service committees to Policy and Resource and two service committees by reducing the service committees by one in the municipal year 2025/2026 and by a further reduction of one in the municipal year 2026/2027.

(2)  Achieves this by the amalgamation of the Health and Housing Committee and the Community and Leisure Committee from the Municipal year 2025/2026. 

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