To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs James Bevan and Don Pugh and Sue Pangbourne, Head of Paid Service.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2011 (attached).

Cllr Brian Edwards pointed out that the attendance list for non-committee members should have read ' attended as observers or to give evidence.'

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2011 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

Referring to the proposed call-in dates as tabled, Cllr Winship asked why they were not being held within ten days as stated in the constitution.

The Solicitor replied that the constitution stated that a meeting must be called, not held within ten days of the call-in. It was advisable to hold a meeting as soon as possible, but one of the call-ins under discussion was dependent on the attendance of a key evidence giver. She had discussed the matter with the committee chairman and did not believe that the constitution had been breached.

Cllr Winship believed that the constitution needed to be clarified, and the Solicitor agreed to take the matter to the Constitution Working Group.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

No declarations were made.

To consider questions from members of the public in accordance with the published protocol. To submit a question contact Democratic Services on 01594 812625 or email democratic.services@fdean.gov.uk. All questions must be submitted in writing at least two working days prior to the meeting.

There were no public questions.

Attached to the minutes are the notices of two call-ins. These will be added to the plan.

There will be a call-in meeting on 28 September 2011 at 6.00pm to consider parking management and a call-in meeting on 3 October 2011 at 6.30pm to consider the Higher Lydney Local Lettings Plan.

To note the current plan and consider items for discussion at future meetings, including relevant issues on the Cabinet forward plan.

Forward plan

Cllr Martin asked how it was decided whether an item for the Cabinet forward plan was a key decision. She could not understand why the domestic violence sanctuary item could not be key, given that it affected the whole district.

The Solicitor explained that in law the forward plan belonged to the Leader of the Council, who took a preliminary view on each item. When a final report was produced, a definitive decision was made regarding the issue's status as a key decision. In the case of the item mentioned, it was not yet clear whether the Cabinet needed to make a decision in its consideration.

Cllr Burford, committee chairman, commented that clarification of the process might avoid unseemly challenges at Cabinet meetings.

The Solicitor suggested that she and the Leader write a short report on the current process to bring to the committee's next meeting.

Upon invitation from the chairman Cllr Molyneux, Leader of the Council, explained that a crucial element in determining key decisions was to consider the operational impact on the community affecting more than one ward.

Cllr Burford asked if the political group leaders could discuss the matter at their next meeting.

Cllr Molyneux agreed to add that issue to the agenda.

The committee agreed

a)      that the Performance and Value for Money Panel would consider the second quarter performance report.

b)      to consider the forward plan item regarding benefit services partnership at its meeting on 20 October 2011 and to invite Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy.

c)      to consider the forward plan item regarding Lawnstone House at its meeting on 17 November 2011 and to invite Cllr Robinson, Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy.

d)      to consider the item regarding a recyclate bulking facility when sites were being considered.

Cllr Burford took the opportunity to remind report writers that the committee expected short, clear reports of around four pages. Long background papers should be available to those members who wished to read them.

Panel meetings

The committee agreed that the Democratic Services Officer would liaise with the panel chairmen to determine meeting dates.

To determine priorities for inquiries, based on completed scoping documents and answers to questions raised by the panel chairmen regarding the GO project and private sector housing renewals grant scoping documents.

Completed scoping documents for consideration included in this pack:

• 2011-12.01 Fuel poverty - Cllr Jane Horne
• 2011-12.03 GO project - Cllr Bill Evans
• 2011-12.05 Private sector housing renewals grant - Cllr Brian Robinson
• 2011-12.06 Service cuts - Cllr Maria Edey

The committee could not fully discuss the scoping document regarding service cuts, because the member who had put it forward, Cllr Edey, had sent her apologies for this meeting.

Cllr Burford invited Cllr Robinson to speak to his scoping document regarding private sector renewals grant.

Cllr Robinson tabled a report, which answered questions raised by the panel chairmen on behalf of the committee. He explained that the issue had arisen at the Budget Working Group when members discovered that central government funding for the eservice was to stop. The group had decided to continue the service but recognised the need to look closely at how important the service was and how the council could continue to find funds for it. He believed that it was an important area of work where a scrutiny panel could help feed in to the capital budget planning.

Cllr Burford reminded members that this meeting was concerned with deciding whether to scrutinise issues and not to begin scrutiny. He asked if the Cabinet had a preferred option from those detailed in the report.

Cllr Robinson replied that the Cabinet had an open mind on this matter, but wanted to take soundings through the scrutiny process before having to make budget proposals for early December.

Cllr Martin believed that the issue should include the fuel poverty scoping document put forward by Cllr Horne and should be considered in depth by the Community Panel.

Cllr Burford clarified for Cllr Evans that the questions raised by the panel chairmen needed to be answered by an officer, hence the detailed report from the EHO Officer (Private Sector Housing), rather than from Cllr Robinson.

Cllr Winship asked how many households would benefit from continuing the service at a cost of £500,000.

The EHO Officer (Private Sector Housing) referred to the estimate that it would cost £109 million to bring all homes in the district to a 'decent' standard and £52 million to remove all 'category one' hazards. The council had bid for specific projects relating to the warm and well scheme and fuel poverty.

Cllr Martin again emphasised that fuel poverty fitted well with this matter.

Cllr Winship commented that the take-up for the scheme was poor, so there was a need for encouraging people.

Cllr Martin believed that the take-up might have been affected by the change from grant to loan.

Cllr Burford cautioned against making any inquiry too broad, Best practice recommendations from the Centre for Public Scrutiny advised narrow and deep scrutiny to achieve added value.

Cllr Burford invited Cllr Bill Evans to speak to his scoping document regarding private sector renewals grant.

Cllr Evans began by affirming his belief that the future for councils was in shared services, but that such initiatives required full scrutiny. For the GO project the need arose from the answers to questions he had formulated, as tabled. These included the liability risk around Cheltenham Borough Council's investments in Icelandic banks, the length of time employees would be protected under TUPE arrangements,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.2

Cllr Winship, Chairman of the Community Panel, to present an update.

Cllr Winship, chairman of the inquiry, explained that after discussing the results of initial research she had undertaken, the panel had decided to change the emphasis of the scoping document (attached) to focus on what this council could do to help in three areas. She then said that several other panel members had agreed to undertake research on various strands of the inquiry. These were detailed in the meeting notes, available from Democratic Services. The panel would next meet on 29 September at 4.30pm to consider the results of the research and then to take evidence from all four community transport providers in the district.

Cllr Burford thanked her for the report and expressed his pleasure at seeing councillors volunteering to undertake research.

Cllr O'Neill, Chairman of the Finance and Internal Affairs Panel, to present an update.

Cllr O'Neill, chairman of the inquiry, reported that he had initially met the Group Manager for Customer Service to gather background information. The group manager had then presented a thorough report to the panel, which clearly explained that the £80000 savings had been achieved though restructures within the Customer Service Management (CRM) team, alongside changes in public opening hours.

The panel's work plan comprised two specific actions at this point. The first was to begin monitoring phone calls still needing to be diverted to other teams. The monitoring exercise had begun. The second was for Cllr O'Neill and the Democratic Services Officer to speak to CRM staff to ask for their views on the restructure process and how their work had changed, if at all, since the restructure. The meetings had happened, and Cllr O'Neill had found staff to be open, supportive and very helpful in identifying areas for customer relations to be improved. He was very grateful to those staff members and would firstly forward to them his brief report of the exercise, before taking it back to the panel on 3 October ready for inclusion in the final report.

Cllr Smart reinforced the view that the group manager's report had been concise and easy to read. She had learned that calls to the general council number cost officer time and urged members to use their phone lists to call officers direct.

Cllr Frankie Evans commented that it could be off-putting to be asked detailed questions when ringing in.

Cllr O'Neill agreed to consider that process as part of the inquiry.

To note membership of the four panels as attached.

The committee noted the membership of the four panels, which would be put on the council's website.

Cllr Burford explained that the membership was not fixed and councillors were still able to join a panel.

To consider and agree guidelines based on the attached paper.

Cllr Winship asked if members of the public could attend panel meetings.

The Solicitor replied that the panels constituted working groups, as defined by the 1972 Act and therefore did not have to meet in public. However panel chairmen could allow members of the public to observe meetings that were not discussing confidential matters.

The committee agreed the guidelines for the operation of scrutiny panels.

All at 6.00pm with a chairman’s briefing for members at 5.30pm.

All at 6.00pm with a chairman’s briefing for members at 5.30pm.

Additionally there will be a call-in meeting on 28 September 2011 at 6.00pm to consider parking management and a call-in meeting on 3 October 2011 at 6.30pm to consider the Higher Lydney Local Lettings Plan.