Agenda item

Report of the Head of Legal and Property Services

This report follows on from a referral by Constitution Working Party regarding access to meetings and papers in respect of Scrutiny Task Groups.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services which asked Members to consider the procedures for Task Groups, particularly in relation to access to meetings and papers by the public.

The Head of Legal and Property Services highlighted the suggested procedures which were set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the report.  She advised that the procedures were flexible in case it was necessary to set up meetings quickly.  Task Groups would be held in public unless it met the exemptions set out in the Access to Information rules in the Local Government Act 1972.  Task Groups would complete their review before the minutes were published. This would allow the reader to see the full review and how the Task Group had reached its conclusions.  Visits would be classed as informal meetings and would not be open to the public, as they were fact finding sessions.  When people had been invited to provide evidence to a Task Group these would be held in public unless it met the exemption rules.

The Vice-Chair welcomed the officer’s comments and said that it was important that meetings were open.  The County Council had very good practices in place.  He was concerned about the status of minutes.  The minutes helped the Task Group to look back at the earlier meetings and how it had come to its conclusions.  They should be a formal record.

The Head of Legal and Property Services said that she agreed with the Member’s views.  Each meeting needed to be minuted, but they would not be a verbatim record.  She suggested that they were formally published at the conclusion of the Task Group.

The Head of Legal and Property Services added that the minutes were there to provide a flavour of the discussion.  They enabled a person to read the nature of the discussion and the Task Group’s conclusions.  Not every Member’s comment would be included.  When people attended as witnesses and they were asked specific questions, those questions and the responses would be recorded as fully as possible.

A Member said that he welcomed the Head of Legal and Property Services’ comments and her interpretation.  In his opinion the purpose of Task Groups was a free ranging discussion.  He preferred a ‘looser-style’ of minutes.  He had been involved in two Task Groups and the minutes had been recorded differently.  He preferred the minutes which included less detail.

A Member referred to an email the Chair had sent to Opposition Councillors about the way he envisaged Task Groups should operate.  The Chair had appeared to have changed his view.

The Chair confirmed that he had changed his views about Task Groups.  This had occurred due to his discussion with the Vice-Chair and the Head of Legal and Property Services.  He agreed that discussions should be open, but he had been concerned about Members being quoted out of context.  The subsequent discussion had allayed his concerns.

Following a Member’s question, the Head of Legal and Property Services responded that if Members did not want Task Groups open to the public they would have to be classed as informal meetings.  This subject had been reported to Constitution Working Party.  The report and minutes had been attached to the Scrutiny Committee’s report on the agenda.  In her opinion the Council should be as open and transparent as possible.  She confirmed that if the Task Groups were treated as formal meetings Members’ attendance would be recorded.

A Member asked about the role of the Chair with regard to minutes.  He was aware that some of his comments and other Councillors’ comments had been deleted from the minutes of a recent Task Group meeting.  He asked whether Members could be confident if most views had been noted.

The Head of Legal and Property Services explained that minutes were not a verbatim record of a meeting.  The standard practice for all meetings was that draft minutes were circulated to the Chair and officers.  They were given a period of time to comment or provide amendments.  At the next meeting Members were asked to agree to the signing of the published minutes.  This is the point when Members can state if they disagree with the record.

The Chair stated that he had commented on a set of Task Group minutes and as the Vice-Chair had not responded he had assumed he was happy with the amendments.  If other Members felt the minutes were inaccurate they should have put forward suggested amendments at the previous meeting.  He was not aware of any amendments being submitted.

Another Member said that he had made it clear at the Task Group that he was not satisfied with the changes and it had been agreed they would be discussed at this meeting.  He felt the Chair had changed the meaning of the minutes and had excluded some of the comments.

It was acknowledged that this would be further discussed under the appropriate item.

A Councillor asked for confirmation that minutes would be produced each meeting and published at the end of the review.  She asked whether they were submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer explained that the minutes of Budget Panel and Community Safety Partnership Task would be included on Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s agenda for information, as on this occasion.  In respect of other Task Groups, she would continue to provide a verbal update, or Task Group Members present at Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be able to update the Committee, on the Task Group’s progress.

The Councillor then asked for further clarification on Part B items.  She asked whether it was possible to include it on the Community Safety Partnership Task Group agenda for each meeting.

The Head of Legal and Property Services advised that the exclusion paragraph could only be included on the agenda if there was an exempt report for consideration.  If a report was due to be considered in the public section of the meeting and it was felt that exempt information needed to be discussed the membership could agree that the press and public were excluded subject to the relevant exempt reason being recorded. 

The Councillor suggested that this was a training opportunity.  The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that a document could be produced for Chairs setting out the exemptions to the Act. 

The Vice-Chair felt that the Police could be very defensive on occasion.  They were a public body and needed to be far more open.  The Police could present Councillors with sensitive information outside the formal process, for example at briefing sessions.

The Portfolio Holder stated that he had chaired the Constitution Working Party and had suggested that the report should be presented to Overview and Scrutiny Committee to decide how Task Groups should be managed.  He felt the suggested procedure was a good way forward.  He agreed that Task Groups should hold public bodies to account.  There were different procedures for Part B minutes.  Three Rivers added an exclusion paragraph to their agenda.  He did not recommend this particular procedure to Members.  He added that he rarely amended minutes when asked to review a draft set.

Following a Member’s question, the Head of Legal and Property Services re-iterated that the Task Group would have to decide whether it agreed to exclude the press and public from the meeting due to an exempt reason.  If Members decided to remain in public session the person presenting the information would have to consider how much detail they gave to Members.

The Head of Legal and Property Services then repeated that Task Groups would be formal and the dates would be published as soon as they were known.

RESOLVED –

that Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments be noted.