Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th March 2014.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th March 2014 be approved as a correct record.

To consider the proposed arrangements and timescale for the second stage of consultation and for the remainder of the review, based on the proposed options.

The Committee considered the proposed arrangements and timescale for the second stage of consultation and for the remainder of the community governance review which was being conducted under the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and Government Guidance.

The first stage of consultation had been conducted in June/July 2013 and had consisted of consultation with stakeholders and the public. The consultation had focussed on 7 options. Eight public meetings had been held, which had been attended by 114 people out of a possible electorate of 39,750 (ie 0.3%). 94 responses to the consultation had been received (0.24% of the electorate). 46 respondents had expressed a wish to see a Town Council while 10 had expressed a wish to see multiple parish councils. The Committee noted that little interest appeared to have been generated in the review to date.

On the basis of the feedback received, the Community Governance Sub-Committee had agreed that the second stage of consultation should focus upon the options of parishing and an enhanced Local Service Delivery Committee. With regard to parishing, electors would be given the opportunity to say whether they wished to see a single parish/town council for the whole of Macclesfield or a parish council based on their Borough Ward boundary.       

The Sub-Committee, with input from the Macclesfield Local Service Delivery Committee, had proposed terms of reference for the option of an Enhanced Service Delivery Committee as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

A 15 page leaflet to fully explain the two options had been developed by the Sub-Committee with the assistance of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils (ChALC). The Sub-Committee sought the Committee’s views on a shorter version of the leaflet to be sent out to all electors with the voting paper.

The wording for a postal voting paper had been devised by the Sub-Committee and was attached as Appendix 4 to the report for information. The proposed timetable for the second stage of consultation and the remainder of the review was attached at Appendix 5.                      

RESOLVED

That

1.    the progress made to date with the conduct and outcome of the first stage of consultation be noted;

2.    the proposed arrangements and timescale for the second stage of consultation and for the remainder of the review be agreed, based on the proposed two options of parishing and an enhanced Local Service Delivery Committee, with parishing comprising either a single parish/ town council or 7 parish councils (based on existing Borough ward boundaries);

3.    the proposed terms of reference for an enhanced Local Service Delivery Committee be agreed, and this form the basis of one of the two options for the second stage of public consultation;

4.    the size and format of the explanatory leaflet to accompany the voting paper to electors be approved; and

5.    the voting paper be amended to the extent that all references to ‘parish (town) council’ or ‘parish council’ are capitalised.

To consider arrangements to undertake a review of polling districts and polling places as required by the Electoral Administration Act 2013.

The Committee considered arrangements to undertake a review of polling districts and polling places.

The Electoral Administration Act 2006 had introduced a statutory duty for local authorities to carry out a review of their parliamentary Polling Districts and Polling Places by 31^st December 2007; and at least every four years thereafter. In accordance with this legislation, the Council had conducted its last Review in 2011 and a Polling Arrangements Review Sub-Committee had been appointed for this purpose.

The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 had introduced a change to the timing of compulsory reviews of UK Parliamentary Polling Districts and Polling Places. The next compulsory review must now be completed by 31^st January 2015. Subsequent compulsory reviews must then be completed every five years thereafter.    

RESOLVED

That

1.    authority be given for the publication of the notice of the Polling Districts and Polling Places Review;

2.    the Polling Arrangements Review Sub-Committee be convened to undertake the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places as required by the Electoral Administration Act 2013; and

3.    it be recommended to Council that the final decision concerning the outcome of the Polling Districts and Polling Places Review be delegated to the Constitution Committee at its meeting on 27^th November 2014.    

To consider the adoption of a protocol for the setting up of joint scrutiny arrangements across Cheshire, Wirral and Merseyside authorities to deal with formal consultations regarding proposals by relevant NHS bodies which are deemed to be a substantial development or variation in service by more than one local authority.

The Committee considered the adoption of a protocol for setting up joint scrutiny arrangements across Cheshire, Wirral and Merseyside to consider proposed substantial developments or variations in health services.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations had introduced new arrangements to require a joint scrutiny committee to be established for the purposes of considering consultations by a relevant NHS body or provider of NHS funded Services where such proposals impacted on more than one local authority area and where more than one authority agreed that the proposal was a substantial development or variation in service (SDV).

Knowsley Borough Council, as lead authority on behalf of the Merseyside authorities, had developed a draft protocol, attached as an Appendix to the report, which proposed a framework for the operation of joint scrutiny across Cheshire, Merseyside and Wirral. The protocol would put in place arrangements to convene a joint health overview and scrutiny committee to be made up of each of the constituent local authorities that deemed a proposal to be an SDV. Cheshire, and Merseyside authorities had been invited to consider and adopt the protocol in order for it to be in place in time for the formal consultation process regarding changes to the provision of cancer services at the Clatterbridge Centre in Wirral.

RESOLVED

That it be recommended to Council that

1.    the draft joint scrutiny protocol as appended to the report be adopted; and

2.    nominations to any joint scrutiny committees established in accordance with the protocol be made by the Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee (or successor body) in compliance with the proportionality requirements set out in the protocol.

To consider a revised scheme of delegation to officers.

The Committee considered a revised scheme of delegation to officers.

The revisions were required because of the revised Council Chief Officer Management Structure following the review of management roles and responsibilities, and the Council’s decision to become a Strategic Commissioning Council with the creation of Alternative Service Delivery Vehicles for the provision of Council Services.

The main revisions reflected the Chief Officer Management changes, in particular the span of functions for which the Executive Director of Strategic Commissioning was now responsible. A number of additional amendments were reported and circulated at the meeting.

A rolling programme would be required in order to keep the Scheme of Delegation up to date and ensure that Directors established, operated and kept under review Local Schemes of Delegation within their departments. The Scheme of Delegation would also require appropriate revision as further Alternative Service Delivery Vehicles were developed. 

RESOLVED

That Council be recommended to

1.    approve the revised Scheme of Delegation to Officers as appended to the report subject to the additional amendments reported at the meeting;

2.    authorise the Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer to update the Council’s Constitution accordingly by inclusion of the revised Scheme of Delegation;

3.    authorise the Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer to undertake consequential drafting amendments to the remaining parts of the Council’s Constitution to ensure consistency with the revised Scheme of Delegation; and

4.    authorise a rolling programme approach to keep the Scheme of Delegation up to date.

To consider a range of decision-making and governance issues and to seek a recommendation from the Constitution Committee to Council upon proposed constitutional change.

The Committee considered a range of proposals concerning the Council’s governance arrangements.

PDG/Scrutiny Review

The Constitution Committee had appointed a cross-party member working group to conduct a review of the arrangements relating to the Council’s scrutiny committees and policy development groups. The Working Group had appointed Professor Steve Leach and Professor Colin Copus of DeMontfort University to undertake the work required in respect of the review. Professors Leach and Copus were widely acknowledged for their expertise in scrutiny and other local government matters.

Professors Leach and Copus had presented their report to the PDG/Scrutiny Review Working Group on 14^th April 2014. The report was attached to the Committee’s report as Appendix A. The Working Group had supported the recommendations in the report.

In considering the proposals, Members felt that the policy and performance commissions should be termed ‘overview and scrutiny committees’.

Members also had regard to recommendation (12) of the Professors’ report which stated that the chair and vice-chair of each commission should be held by councillors from different political parties and that in the medium term it would be advantageous if there were some sharing of commission chairs with opposition parties, provided that an appropriate behavioural protocol could be agreed.

Size of Committees

The Constitution Working Group had recently considered the merits of reducing the size of committees to free-up members’ time and to make meetings shorter and more manageable. The Working Group had suggested the following reductions subject to further consideration:

No changes had been proposed to the size of the Audit and Governance and Staffing Committees.

In considering the proposed reductions, Members had regard to the fact that the Licensing Committee’s sub-committees met very frequently and at relatively short notice and that the membership for each meeting was drawn from the membership of the parent committee. Any reduction in the size of the Licensing Committee would result in a smaller pool of members available for sub-committee meetings, making it more difficult for such meetings to be convened. Members concluded therefore that the Licensing Committee’s membership should remain at 15 (and that consequently the quorum of the Committee should remain unchanged).

Terms of Reference of Committees

The Committee considered revised terms of reference for the Staffing Committee, Audit and Governance Committee and Health and Wellbeing Board.

The background to each review was set out fully in the report.

The Staffing Committee at its meeting on 24^th April 2014 had considered revised terms of reference which were recommended to the Constitution Committee for approval by Council. These were circulated at the meeting and replaced the version attached to the report at Appendix C.

A number of additional amendments to the terms of reference of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.