Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee
At its meeting on 23 November 2020, the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered Paper JOS/20/3 – Review of Outside Bodies.
The Committee’s Recommendations to Council are attached as Paper MC/20/19.
Minutes:
48.1 The Chair invited the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to introduce Paper MC/20/19.
48.2 Councillor Welham summarised the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s reasoning behind the recommendations to the Councils and explained that Members had considered the benefits and value of representation on each of the Outside Bodies.
48.3 Councillor Welham PROPOSED Recommendations 1.1 to 1.6 and the tabled recommendation, which was SECONDED by Councillor Matthissen.
48.4 Councillor Brewster explained that the circumstances had changed for representation on Haven Gateway Partnership due to recent developments.
48.5 Council Mansel queried the cost of the subscription fee for the East West Rail Consortium. She added that she did not feel that she could vote on the recommendations on block as some of the recommendations were for consideration, and she was unsure of what was involved with a ‘recommendation to consider’.
48.6 The Chair advised Members that the cost for subscription for East West Rail Consortium was £1500 per year.
48.7 Councillor Welham explained that some Members had been elected as representatives to Outside Bodies, which either did not exist or no longer required member representation. Some of the issues required that the Council debated the representation before a decision could be made.
48.8 Councillor Passmore queried how much the Council currently paid to Haven Gateway Partnership.
48.9 Councillor Welham suggested that each recommendation was voted for individually.
48.10 The Chair proposed that Members voted on the recommendations as follows:
Recommendations 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 together
Recommendations 1.2 and 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7 separately.
48.11 Councillor Welham APPROVED the suggested split of the recommendations.
48.12 In response to Councillor Field’s question regarding Haven Gateway Partnership, Councillor Brewster explained that Haven Gateway Partnership was working with the free ports and that this could be beneficial for projects such as Gateway 14 and could bring some positive developments to the Council.
48.13 The Chair informed Members that the Council paid £5k to the Haven Gateway Partnership per year.
48.14 Councillor Matthissen queried the tabled recommendation and Councillor Welham explained that the recommendation was for a representative to be appointed to the Suffolk Disability Forum but that it may be more appropriate for a Member to be appointed to the Mid Suffolk Disability Forum.
48.15 In response to Members questions on the appointment process for representation on Outside Bodies, the Monitoring Officer explained that the Leader appointed the Outside Bodies representatives and that the recommendations provided a steer to the Leader of the wishes of the Council. Once the Leader had decided the representatives, they would be brought back to Council to agree.
48.16 Councillor Carter queried if the Leader decided not to appoint to a Outside Body would Members be advised of the reason why.
48.17 Members debated the recommendations and representation on Outside Bodies including:
· That it was important that Council was represented on the East West Rail Consortium, to be involved with any issues relating to train lines in the District.
· That the contribution of £5000 to Haven Gateway Partnership would be money well spent, as recent developments including the possibility of Felixstowe becoming a freeport would justify the cost.
· Some Members agreed that a Councillor observer provided a different perspective on Mid Suffolk Local Citizens Advice (LCA) rather than an officer.
· Some Members disagreed with the above and felt that there were no requirements for further representation on the Mid Suffolk LCA.
· That enough information was received from the Mid Suffolk LCA.
48.18 The debate continued and Members were divided on the issues for representation on the Mid Suffolk LCA.
48.19 The Leader clarified that the Council provided funding to the Mid Suffolk LCA and that an observer on the Board would not make any difference, as the Council already worked well with the LCA in Stowmarket. She added that she would support the tabled recommendation for either Mid Suffolk Disability Forum or Suffolk Disability Forum to best serve the residents of the District.
48.20 Members generally agreed that because of the recent development for a free port in Felixstowe, continuation of representation on Haven Gateway Partnership would be beneficial to the Council and that the current funding for the organisation was outweighed by the long-term advantages it could bring.
48.21 Councillor Field thought that representation on the East West Rail Consortium would enable the Council to be involved in and influence decisions made for railway developments in the District and that the sum of money paid to the Consortium should be considered against the potential yield which could be quite high.
48.22 Members supported the recommendation for representation on the East West Rail Consortium for various reasons, some for economic and development opportunities and some for the environmental and carbon reduction possibilities. It was generally agreed that it was important that the Council became involved in future developments and expansion of railway travel and transportation.
48.23 Councillor Brewster clarified that the Council was still part of Haven Gateway Partnership and that he was attending meetings with the organisation. With the regards to the East West Rail Consortium, he had attended meetings in recent months and had found it useful, as trains would be able to transport goods from the port in Felixstowe.
48.24 Councillor Eburne was disappointed that recommendation 1.4, which had been agreed before had not yet come to fruition. She then commented on the proposed observer on the LCA and that it would be useful to have an observer to report back to Members on the work of the LCA.
48.25 Councillor Welham summed up the issues and considered that representation on Haven Gateway Partnership might be an advantage due to recent developments. With regards to the template for receiving updates from Members, this had been attempted last year and had received very little feed-back. The proposed updates would be used in the annual review of Outside Bodies by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In respect of the issues around Mid Suffolk LCA, Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had generally agreed that a councillor observer would report differently than an officer, which he thought was important as the Council was the biggest funder for the Mid Suffolk LCA and that the Leader should consider this in her decision.
48.26 The Chair advised Members that the recommendations would be divided up and that recommendations 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 would be voted on together, the rest of the recommendations would be voted on separately.
48.27 Recommendations 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 were put to Members for voting.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the following appointments to Outside Bodies, no longer requiring representation, be removed from the appointments made:
Mid Suffolk District Council:
Joint Waste Management Board
Suffolk Joint Emergency
Planning Policy Panel.
1.2 That a reporting mechanism in the form of a template for Representatives on Outside Bodies be established to provide valuable information to members and Public, the information to be presented as part of the annual review of Member Representation on Outside Bodies to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
1.3 That support and training be established for members when appointed as representatives on Outside Bodies.
48.28 Recommendation 1.2 was put to Members for voting.
By 5 votes for and 28 against.
It was Resolved:
That the vote was lost.
48.29 Recommendation 1.3 was put to Members for voting
By 21 votes for and 12 votes against
It was RESOLVED: -
1.4 That consideration be given by Mid Suffolk District Council that an observer be appointed to Stowmarket Citizens Advice in line with Babergh District Council.
48.30 Recommendation 1.6 was put to Members for voting
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.5 That Mid Suffolk District Council considers taking up the appointment of a representative to the East West Rail Consortium by making a payment of the subscription fees required for full participation.
48.31 Recommendation 1.7 was put to Members for voting
By 32 votes for and 1 abstention
It was RESOLVED :-
That Mid Suffolk District Council approach the Suffolk Disabilities Forum to establish whether formal Councillor representation on the forum would be appropriate and possible and that any appointment to the Suffolk Disabilities Forum be made by resolution of the Full Council.
Supporting documents: