Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relevant to the work of the meeting. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.

There were no public questions.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th January 2012.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th January 2012 be approved as a correct record.

The Committee is asked to:

(1)   consider the recommendations of the Community Governance Review Sub-Committee following the outcome of the Stage 1 consultation; and

(2)   make a recommendation to Council on the formulation of its draft recommendation.

The Community Governance Review Sub-Committee met on 13^th March 2012 and its recommendations will be reported at the Committee’s meeting.

The documents which the Sub-Committee was asked to consider in making its recommendations to the Committee are attached. These comprise:

(a)           a briefing paper on the matters to be taken into consideration in formulating a draft recommendation;

(b)           the results of the consultation with local electors; and

(c)            other representations received.

The Committee considered the recommendations of the Community Governance Review Sub-Committee following the outcome of the Stage 1 consultation with a view to advising Council on the formulation of its draft recommendation.

The Committee had before it the papers considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting on 13^th March 2012. These comprised:

§         a briefing paper based on the statutory guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government which set out the process to be followed in conducting the Community Governance Review and the matters to be taken into consideration by the Council in formulating a draft recommendation;

§         the outcome of the ballot of local electors held in February; and

§         other representations received from the public and stakeholders during the first round of consultation.

The initial phase of consultation had included written representations received in response to public notices, specific invitations, a website tool and information leaflets.  Two public meetings had been held in September to give members of the public the opportunity to learn more about the review and to express their views in a public forum. Further opportunities had subsequently been provided to provide information at various community events during November and December 2011. The Council’s website had also been used as a source of information and as a tool for people to use to record their views. Finally, a voting paper had been sent to electors in Crewe to be returned by 29^th February.

The ballot of local electors had taken place throughout the month of February 2012 and the result showed 10.810 electors in favour of a single town council for Crewe and 1,390 against. The vote represented a 32% turnout and the Sub-Committee was satisfied that this was sufficient to represent the views of the electors of Crewe. Other public and stakeholder responses made during the Stage 1 consultation also showed a clear preference for a single town council.

The Sub-Committee had also considered the electoral and warding arrangements for the parish council, including the numbers and disposition of wards, number of parish councillors, date of elections and transitional arrangements, details of which were set out in the minutes of the Sub-Committee’s meeting.

The Sub-Committee had recommended as follows:

“That the Constitution Committee be advised that pursuant to Section 87 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; and having regard to the provisions of the Department for Communities and Local Government and Electoral Commission Guidance, issued in April 2008, for the conduct of Community Governance Reviews:

1.      Having taken into account

1. the results of the consultation with the electors of the unparished area of Crewe which shows that a majority of those who returned their ballot papers were in favour of a new parish council for their area;

2. the results of the consultation exercise with stakeholders and the representations from other interested persons;

3. the outcomes of the public meetings held in Crewe and subsequent publicity and consultation arrangements; and

4. the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To review the terms of reference of the Outside Organisations Sub-Committee.

At its meeting on 24^th June 2010 the Constitution Committee had reconstituted the then Outside Organisations Task Group as a Standing Sub-Committee of the Constitution Committee.

The Sub-Committee had now reviewed its terms of reference in relation to the procedure for considering new appointments and the criteria to be used when making appointments to outside organisations. The following revised terms of reference were recommended to the Constitution Committee for approval:

“REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Sub-Committee will comprise six Members on the basis previously agreed (3 Conservative; 1 Labour; 1 Independent: 1 Liberal Democrat).

The Sub-Committee, which will meet on an ad hoc basis, will be responsible for the following:

(a)         Managing its own programme of work;

(b)         Making recommendations, as and when appropriate to the Constitution Committee;

(c)         Overseeing all appointments  to Category 2 outside organisations, addressing any issues emerging in respect of those appointments;

(d)         Reviewing representation to inform the appointments process for the next round of appointments [which take effect from the new Council in 2015];

(e)         Considering new requests for representation, and assessing the appropriateness of including those organisations onto the schedule of  approved organisations;

(f)           Subject to the outcome of (e) above, make recommendations to the Cabinet in respect of any outside organisation deemed to be a Category 1; and make recommendations to the Constitution Committee in respect of Category 2 organisations;

(g)         Reviewing, as and when appropriate, the Legal Guidance for Members Appointed to Outside Organisations;

(h)        Conduct comprehensive reviews of representation, as and when  appropriate, to establish the appropriateness of representation;

(i)           Make recommendations to the Senior Member Development Officer in respect of training for Members representing the Council on outside organisations.”

RESOLVED

That the revised terms of reference for the Outside Organisations Sub-Committee be approved and the Borough Solicitor be asked to exercise her delegated powers to make any consequential amendments to the Constitution.

To review the Council’s arrangements for dealing with petitions.

Section 46 of Chapter 10 of the Localism Act 2011 repealed the provisions governing how local authorities received and dealt with petitions and e petitions. In the light of these changes the Committee was asked to review the Council’s scheme for dealing with petitions.

The Council’s Petitions Scheme provided that if a petitioner so requested, an overview and scrutiny committee could review the steps taken or action proposed to be taken by the Council in respect of “ordinary petitions”.

The majority of petitions were ‘ordinary petitions’ and usually had a low number of signatures, generally fewer than 1,000. These were dealt with by Portfolio Holders and Heads of Service, and Local Ward Members were notified of progress.

The Council would normally attempt to resolve the petitioners’ request direct, through the relevant Portfolio Holder or Officer taking appropriate action. Where this was done, the Petitions Officer would ask the petition organiser whether he or she considered that the matter was resolved. In this regard the Council’s Petition Scheme had operated successfully.

However there was no evidence to suggest that “Petitions for Debate” and “Petitions to hold an Officer to Account” made a significant difference to the way in which the Council dealt with Petitions and therefore it was proposed that these aspects of the Scheme should be abandoned and replaced with an alternative provision.

It was further proposed that if a petition had in excess of 3,000 signatories, and a petitioner so requested, an overview and scrutiny committee could debate the matter before it was be referred to the appropriate decision-maker for determination.

Finally, it was proposed suggested that the right of a petitioner to request an overview and scrutiny committee to review the steps taken or action proposed to be taken by the Council should also be removed.

A revised Petitions Scheme was attached as an Appendix to the report.

RESOLVED

That the views of the Corporate Management Team and the Cabinet be sought on the proposed amendments to the Council’s petitions scheme and the matter be considered further in due course.

To consider the Committee’s approach to the review of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee considered a report on the deferred items in its programme for reviewing the Council’s Constitution.

At its meeting held on 17^th November 2011, the Committee had appointed a Constitution Task Group to consider and make recommendations on detailed changes to the Constitution. At the same time it had resolved that with the exception of the Finance Procedure Rules, the remaining review of the Constitution should be suspended until the Corporate Scrutiny Committee had concluded its review of the Council’s governance arrangements.

Council had since appointed a Joint Member Working Group to review the Council’s governance arrangements and that Group’s work was well underway. In the meantime, it was now necessary to consider amendments to the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework. It was also considered opportune to begin a review of the size and layout of the Constitution as a whole with a view to producing a more coherent and user-friendly document.

RESOLVED

That the Constitution Task Group be asked to consider proposed amendments to the Budget and Policy Framework and changes to the size and layout of the Constitution.