Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor DM Morgan. 

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 December 2006 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 21 December 2006 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

• The inclusion of Cllr RE Barrett in the list of attendees
• The insertion of the word “not” in the first paragraph of minute 6, after the words “external organisation could”

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 21 December 2006 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

• The inclusion of Cllr RE Barrett in the list of attendees
• The insertion of the word “not” in the first paragraph of minute 6, after the words “external organisation could”

It was noted that County Councillor John Reynolds had recently expressed reservations about the proposed access road to Addenbrookes Hospital.

Please note that when considering the review of any decision in respect of which a member of the Committee is subject to a party whip, the member must declare the existence of the whip.  Any Councillor who is a member of an Advisory Group which has discussed an item that is now being scrutinised cannot participate in that debate.

Councillors SGM Kindersley, DC McCraith and AG Orgee all declared personal interests as County Councillors.

None.

The Committee agreed to:

• Add Member/Officer Contract, which had been postponed from this meeting, as an item on February’s agenda
• Include an item on the Council’s Complaints Procedure at February’s agenda.
• Add an item on Grants to Voluntary Organisations to February’s agenda
• Add an item on Anti-social behaviour to the agenda programme
• Add an item on Community Call to Action for late summer early autumn, exact meeting to be arranged following further information on when this new process was to be piloted.
• Remove East of England Plan Panel report from the agenda programme

The Committee agreed to:

• Add Member/Officer Contract, which had been postponed from this meeting, as an item on February’s agenda
• Include an item on the Council’s Complaints Procedure at February’s agenda.
• Add an item on Grants to Voluntary Organisations to February’s agenda, on the request of the Community Development portfolio holder
• Add an item on Anti-social behaviour to the agenda programme, on the request of the Community Development portfolio holder
• Add an item on Community Call to Action for late summer/early autumn, on the request of the Community Development portfolio holder
• Remove East of England Plan Panel report from the agenda programme

The Committee would decide when to schedule discussion on Community Calls to Action following further information on when this new process was to be piloted.

It was noted that a special meeting might be convened in February to discuss the Corporate Government Inspectors’ report.

No portfolio holder meetings have been held since the last meeting of the Committee.

Councillor Dr SEK van de Ven explained that the matter of exploring the possibilities of energy efficiencies in restorations of listed buildings would be raised at the Conservation, Sustainability and Community Planning portfolio holder meeting on 19 January 2007.

No portfolio holder meetings had been held since the last meeting of the Committee.

The Committee agreed to set up an informal task and finish group of Councillors R Hall, Mrs EM Heazell, AG Orgee and Mrs HM Smith. This group will report back to the Committee on how best to respond to the Government’s consultation exercise, basing the proposed response on the Committee’s discussions. The response will be copied in to Postwatch.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer agreed to send the consultation form, with Postwatch’s two page explanation of the consultation process, to all Members.

The Chairman welcomed Linda McCord and Dawn Giddens from Postwatch, an independent consumer body, not attached to the Royal Mail Group or the Government. Linda McCord then gave a presentation on the proposed closure plan and made the following points:

• The Government proposed that a maximum of 2,500 post offices be closed, 50% to be from rural areas
• This amounted to 17% of all post offices, which equated to 230 in the Eastern region
• The Access Criteria was to ensure that 99% of people will be within 3 miles of a post office,
• Closures could start happening from the summer of 2008, which was seen as too soon
• Voluntary redundancies of post masters would not be offered as the closure programme would be governed by the access criteria
• 500 alternative or outreach post offices would be set up in rural areas, to offset the closures and the Village Retail Service Association (ViRSA) were expected to be involved in this process
• Postwatch were in the process of contacting parish councils on the closure programme
• Closing date for the Government’s consultation process was 8 March 2007

The closure programme of 2002/3 had demonstrated that a six week consultation period following the announcement of closures was insufficient and Postwatch would be campaigning for a 12 week period. It was understood that Postwatch did not have the power to veto proposed closures.

Linda McCord expressed concern that although the Government had recognised the social role of the post office, they had not specifically defined what that role was or how this could affect the closure programme.

Members of the Committee made the following comments:

• Clarification was required as to whether the three miles described in the access criteria was “as the crow flies” or via the available roads or footpaths
• Availability of public transport should be included in the Government’s access criteria
• Some villages were dependent on their post offices as it was their only shop
• Some shops were dependent on revenue from their post office duties
• The closure programme could have a severe impact on the District’s smaller villages
• The impact on small businesses should be considered
• The Government’s policies had ensured that post offices were less viable than before

The Committee agreed to set up an informal task and finish group of Councillors R Hall, Mrs EM Heazell, AG Orgee and Mrs HM Smith. This group will report back to the Committee on how best to respond to the Government’s consultation exercise, basing the proposed response on the Committee’s discussions. The response will be copied in to Postwatch.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer agreed to send the consultation form, with Postwatch’s two page explanation of the consultation process, to all Members.

The Committee agreed to appoint Councillors RF Bryant, R Hall and Mrs EM Heazell to a task and finish group, which will examine possible amendments to the Constitution to include the role of an official opposition.

Councillor R Hall introduced his report which informed the Committee of the implications of the Government’s White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities” for the scrutiny function.

It was agreed that neither the Leader nor the Scrutiny Chairman should be elected for four years, as implied by the White Paper. Annual elections were more appropriate.

It was agreed that ex-members of Cabinet should be allowed to serve on the Committee, as their experience was invaluable.

The Committee discussed possible amendments to the Constitution regarding the scrutiny function and the role of the opposition.

The Committee agreed to appoint Councillors RF Bryant, R Hall and Mrs EM Heazell to a task and finish group, which will examine possible amendments to the Constitution to include the role of an official opposition.

Councillor Hall was thanked for the work he had carried out in compiling his report.

CIPFA best practice states in its “Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities” (2005):

Ideally, audit committees should be separate from executive and scrutiny arrangements, and chaired independently from both these functions.

It is expected that the Constitution Review Working Party, which meets on 12 January 2007, will have made a recommendation to Council by the time of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee meeting. The Committee is invited to discuss this matter before Council determines the issue.

The Committee noted the proposed changes to the terms of reference for the Audit Panel, which would be determined at the next meeting of Council on 25 January 2007. 

The Committee are invited to authorise the use of the Scrutiny contingency budget to allow the Vice-Chairman to attend a scrutiny training course at York. Full details to be confirmed at the meeting.

The Committee

AGREED        to book Councillor R Hall on to an IDeA training course for Overview and Scrutiny Chairs at York at a cost of £500.

The Committee considered whether to authorise the use of the Scrutiny contingency budget to allow the Vice-Chairman to attend a scrutiny training course at York and the following points were made:

• If sent on the course, Councillor Hall should compile a short report to ensure that all scrutiny members benefit from the training
• An Independent and Liberal Democrat councillor should also be sent on this course
• It would cost £1,500 to send three members on the course and this was prohibitively expensive
• It was important to bring new ideas to the Committee and training could provide this

A vote was taken and by 10 votes to 4 the Committee

AGREED        to book Councillor R Hall on to an IDeA training course for Overview and Scrutiny Chairs at York at a cost of £500.

The £500 for this training will come out of the budget for member training, which will be compensated by the Scrutiny Contingency fund. The net cost to the training budget will be £0, but the expenditure will appear in the budget figures.

2007: 15 February, 15 March, 19 April & 17 May

All meetings will begin at 2.00pm.

The Committee NOTED the following future meeting dates:

2007: 15 February, 15 March, 19 April & 17 May