Agenda item

PART I – ITEMS RESOLVED BY CABINET

 

There were no speakers on the items resolved by Cabinet at its meeting on 2 April 2025.

 

PART II – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL

 

Item 6 – People Strategy

 

Cllr Cleary introduced the item and moved the recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 2 April 2025.  Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.

 

A few members recognised that with the prospect of Local Government Review (LGR) that it was an uncertain and challenging time for members of staff.  The importance of staff was highlighted, and it was felt that support needed to be in place to manage any insecurities and to provide development opportunities for all staff for the future in an uncertain time.

 

Cllr Cleary acknowledged and supported the concerns raised.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the People Strategy be adopted.

 

Item 7 – Digital Strategy 2025-2028

 

Cllr Heron introduced the report and moved the recommendation.  Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.

 

A member spoke in support of the strategy but raised concern about members of the public who could not, or would not engage by digital means. This view was supported by other members who spoke about the District having an ageing population and that people should be supported by offering alternative ways to contact and engage with the council.  It was highlighted by one member that councillors had a role to play in the community, as that there were various organisations, such as the mens shed, for example, which got people together and this could be used as an opportunity to educate people, recognising that digital skills were important for everyone.  It was suggested that this could be done through the provision of a member grant, or through members attending meetings and that this would help the health and wellbeing of the community.

 

One Member expressed their thanks to the changes which had been made to the Digital Strategy following the discussion at the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

 

Cllr Heron responded, acknowledging the points raised and reported that the council would continue to be accessible to residents through the information offices which provide face to face contact, as well as on the telephone, as alternatives to online digital services for as long current administration remained in place.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Digital Strategy 2025-2028 be adopted.

 

Item 8 – Corporate Peer Challenge report and action plan

 

Part I – Recommendations resolved by Cabinet

 

One Member spoke in support of the Corporate Peer Challenge report and felt that all the recommendations should be implemented.

 

Part II – Recommendation to Council

 

Cllr Cleary, introduced the report and recommendation for Council approval, relating to the motion which had been considered by the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel and by Cabinet.  Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.

 

Cllr Rackham proposed an amendment to recommendation 4.  This had been published with the agenda prior to the meeting and is detailed as follows:

 

That the process for selecting the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Panels only, be amended to support the principle that these six positions are allocated to the political groups on the Council, in proportion to their overall membership of the Council.  At present, this would mean an allocation of:-

 

Conservative Group – 3 positions

Liberal Democrat Group – 2 positions

Independent Group – 1 position

 

If the Council supports this principle, draft amendments to the Council’s Standing Orders for Meetings would be made to establish a procedure, for consideration at the Council’s Annual Meeting in May 2025.

 

Cllr Rackham spoke in support of the amendment, highlighting the purpose of scrutiny, to act as a critical friend and the importance of this in the democratic process.  It would enable more sound consideration of scrutiny topics.  The peer review had suggested that scrutiny meetings could be chaired by the opposition.  The amendment did not propose to alter the political composition of the panels.  There was nothing to fear and everything to gain in terms of more equal discussion.  Finally, the suggested approach was practiced in some other authorities.

 

Cllr M Wade seconded the amendment.

 

A member spoke in opposition to the amendment expressing the view that it was less democratic, as it limited who you could vote for to be chairman and vice-chairman. 

 

A number of members spoke in support of the amendment.  It was suggested that the best person to be chairman of the panels was not necessarily from the leading party and that other members were capable of chairing meetings.  There was merit in an alternative view being expressed by the opposition and that it would allow greater debate, more challenge and that opposition chairman would enable greater involvement of members and improve working between all parties.  A member spoke about scrutiny not being about following party political lines. 

 

It was acknowledged that the peer review report had suggested that the panel meetings could be chaired by an opposition member as a means to strengthen scrutiny.  The motion from Cllr Rackham had been discussed by the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel and that a motion to support the peer challenge recommendation on scrutiny being chaired by opposition members was narrowly defeated by one vote.  A member responded to this, acknowledging that there had been a detailed debate at the panel meeting, and the voting demonstrated that the debate had been fairly equal and that the matter had been fully scrutinised.

 

A member spoke in opposition to the amendment, highlighting that the constitution allowed for any member of the panel to be elected as chairman and vice-chairman and that the proposal would divide up the panels along party political lines. 

 

A member highlighted that the proposed amendment followed the approach taken in the House of Commons, whereby the role of chairman of select committees was shared across the political groups.

 

Cllr Rackham, in her summing up clarified that the amendment presented at the meeting was not her original motion.  The proposal would enable more challenge and examination for the benefit of local residents.  The amendment had been put forward, in light of the recommendation contained within the peer review report.

 

Cllr Cleary responded to the debate reporting that the scrutiny panels allowed for all members to be involved, and that challenge by the opposition was not feared.  She felt that close working had been taking place with opposition members and that whilst the peer review had recommended there be consideration of opposition chairman, it was not something she was supportive of.

 

Put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council, having considered the views of the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet, with regard to the motion that the process for selecting Chairmen and Vice-Chairman of Committees and Panels, agree that the process should remain unchanged.

 

Item 9 – Principal Risk and Risk Management Policy update

 

Cllr Cleary introduced the report and moved the recommendations.  Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.

 

One Member raised an issue which had previously been raised at the Cabinet meeting in relation to page 10 of the Risk Management Policy, and the morale section where it was felt that the first box should be fuller in content.

 

Cllr Cleary responded to this and clarified that this point had been taken on board.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Principal Risk Register and revised Risk Management Policy be adopted.