To consider report LD.348 and allocate committee seats to political groups and determine appointments to committees and other council bodies.

Please note that the council may be asked under this item to approve alternative arrangements to strict political proportionality for appointments to committees and other bodies in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990.

The Head of Paid Service to convene the first meeting of each committee to elect its chairman and vice chairman.

The chairman explained that members would consider and vote on each report recommendation one at a time. He invited Cllr Molyneux to present information regarding recommendation a).

Cllr Molyneux explained that the tabled spreadsheet (attached) detailed the allocated seats on each committee for each political group on a proportional basis.

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Robinson seconded the recommendation a) at the agenda, using the spreadsheet

Cllr Martin, deputy leader of the Labour group, referred to the spreadsheet totals, which stated that the theoretical entitlement for the Labour group was 25.1 committee seats overall. She claimed that it was unfair that the actual allocation of seats to the Labour group was 24. In contrast, while the theoretical entitlement for the Conservative group was 28.1, the actual allocation was 29. Similarly the Independent group had been allocated 14 seats when its theoretical entitlement had been 13.1.

She argued that the extra seat due should therefore be allocated to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, since the Labour group was the main opposition group. Scrutiny looked carefully at the work of the cabinet and addressed issues of public concern in the community. As an inclusive council she urged members to redress the balance.

Cllr Martin proposed and Cllr Sterry seconded the following amendment.

That there should be six seats allocated to the Labour group and five seats allocated to the Conservative group on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

In support of the amendment Cllr Bill Evans welcomed Cllr Molyneux’s comments about working together. He believed that scrutiny was the most important role within the council, since scrutiny took the cabinet to task over whether it was delivering what it said it would. He urged the leader to reconsider the allocation, arguing that the leading group should not scrutinise itself.

Cllr Molyneux insisted that the council would be inclusive and that the spreadsheet was fair, in that the figures had been arrived at following the 1989 Act’s emphasis on proportionality by committee. As a gesture of goodwill, he had offered a seat on one of the other committees to the Labour group, which had declined the offer. He agreed that scrutiny was vital in looking at the work of the council and every non-executive member of the council should be involved. For that reason many members of his group had been keen to be on the scrutiny committee. He reminded members that the new scrutiny regime would involve sub-committees that would scrutinise the work of cabinet members, thus widening out member involvement.

He believed that the figures on the spreadsheet had been arrived at following the principles of the 1989 Act and he would be voting against the amendment.

Cllr Hiett could not see how Cllr Molyneux’s intransigence could be seen as inclusive. He reminded members that part of the reason for the difficulties of the previous council, as mentioned by the outgoing and current chairman, was the way in which the ruling group had run the executive. This new council now had the opportunity to work together. It would be vital that scrutiny worked well, which he believed had not been the case previously.

He welcomed Cllr Molyneux’s decision to allow questions from members at Cabinet meetings, but to create a truly inclusive council he urged that the extra scrutiny seat be given to the Labour group.

Cllr O’Neill asked for legal advice on the issue, believing that the interpretation of the 1989 Act used for the spreadsheet could be open to legal challenge. He added that in most authorities scrutiny was an opposition activity.

After invitation from the chairman the Solicitor stated that the in 1989 Act there was a duty to review balance across all committees in allocating seats according to four principles in hierarchical order, namely

1. Not all seats on a committee shall be allocated to the same political group.
2. The majority of seats should be allocated to the political group with an overall majority.
3. The number of seats on a committee should be proportionate to political group composition.
4. The number of seats across all committees should be proportionate.

She then clarified that since principle 2 did not apply to the current council, principle 3 overruled principle 4.

Cllr Bill Evans commented that members of the public could come along and ask questions and asked Cllr Molyneux to give further consideration to the amendment.

Answering the question Cllr Molyneux agreed that members of the public did ask questions as was their right and he would welcome more. He repeated that scrutiny did not stop at committee level and that every member was keen to take part in the process, so he declined the request.

Cllr Winship, as chairman of the Future of Scrutiny Task Group that reported to the previous council, clarified an issue raised earlier. The task group had looked at previous scrutiny arrangements and had considered information from many different sources. Research undertaken by the task group had concluded that scrutiny was not the preserve of opposition groups. While some other councils operated in that way, others did not. The task group had also recommended that every member not on the executive should be able to sit on a scrutiny sub-committee, so that all non-executive members could take part in scrutiny.

Cllr Thomson asked if the sequence of principles in the 1989 Act had any references to the injustice of the pre-eminence of principle 3 over principle 4. In the previous council political group leaders had made great efforts to achieve overall proportionality by trading off committee seats to achieve an overall balance. For the Labour group to have lost over one whole seat seemed unfair.

Cllr Birch asked if members of the Audit Committee were barred from sitting on a scrutiny committee.

The Solicitor answered that there was no bar under the legislation and that they were allowed to under the revised constitution.

Summing up her amendment Cllr Martin said that the arguments had been clearly laid out by herself and other supporting members for an extra seat on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It was grossly unfair for the Labour group to lose out by over one seat overall.

Cllr Molyneux assured members that there would be plenty of opportunity to get fully involved in the scrutiny process and repeated the rationale used, which was contained in the 1989 Act. He reminded members that he had made an offer of a seat on one of the other committees, which had been declined by the Labour group.

On being put to the vote the amendment was unsuccessful.

Voting was as follows:

For (16) – Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart,

Against (29) – Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Peter Ede, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Brian Jones, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Abstained (1) – Roy Birch

The original motion as amended by Cllr Molyneux remained substantive.

RESOLVED -

a)     to determine that, having carried out a review under Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the council shall continue to apply the political balance provisions under the Act as detailed in the spreadsheet at appendix 1 to the minutes

Voting was as follows:

For (30) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Peter Ede, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Brian Jones, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (16) – Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart,

Abstained (1) – Roy Birch

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Robinson seconded the motion.

RESOLVED –

b) to appoint councillors to serve on the Council’s Committees and other Council bodies as set out in appendix 2  for a term of office expiring at the next Annual Meeting of the Council;

RESOLVED –

c) to appoint chairmen and vice chairmen for the council’s committees and other council bodies for the Municipal Year, 2011/12 by asking members of each committee to stand and elect their chairman and vice chairman, as at appendix 2 to the minutes

Voting was as follows:

For (46) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Peter Ede, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Brian Jones, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0) –

Abstained (1) – Paul Hiett