Issue - items at meetings - Final Scrutiny Report on Confidentiality and Transparency

This report presents an evaluation of the resource and policy implications of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Confidentiality and Transparency Scrutiny Panel, which was brought to the Executive on 17 February 2006.

RESOLVED: (i) That the Officer comments in respect of the following recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel be endorsed:

· Recommendation 2

· Recommendations 3a)-3h)

· Recommendations 4a), 4c) and 4d)

· Recommendations 5b), 5d) and 5f)

· Recommendation 6b)

· Recommendations 7b)-7i)

· Recommendations 8a)-8c), 8e) and-8f)

· Recommendations 9a) and 9b)

· Recommendation 10a)

· Recommendation 11

(ii) That the Executive’s comments in respect of the following recommendations be recorded, as indicated below:

· Recommendation 5a) - the Executive recognises the importance of the LDF. However, the City may – for example as a result of economic change – on occasions be faced with the need to act promptly to secure jobs in the City. Factors like these will continue to be taken into account in allocating resources and priorities.

· Recommendation 8d) - the Executive believes that there are already sufficient opportunities for elected Members to raise issues without recourse to an expensive whistle-blowing process.

(iii) That Recommendation 4b) be supported in so far as it can be achieved within existing budget allocations.

REASON: In view of Officer advice on the resource implications.

(iv) That Recommendation 5(e) be deferred, to enable the Executive to see a separate report produced on this option and in particular to understand the resource implications of such a move.

REASON: So that an informed decision can be taken.

(v) That no view be taken on the following recommendations, but that they be referred to the Scrutiny Management Committee for consideration:

· Recommendation 1

· Recommendation 10b)

· Recommendation 12

REASON: In accordance with the agreed procedures for assessing topics for review.

(vi) That the following recommendations not be agreed:

· Recommendation 5c)

· Recommendation 5g)

· Recommendation 6a)

· Recommendation 6c) (however, the Executive recognises that the current practice, where on occasions objectors have been given the opportunity to present their views in a less structured way than occurs at a formal planning committee, should remain an option for the Committee Chair to consider)

· Recommendation 7a)

REASONS: 5c) – in accordance with Officer advice and the Executive’s view that the allocation of individuals to committee places should continue to be the responsibility of the party groups and that individual members of all committees should continue to declare any interests they may have on any item being discussed and, if necessary, leave the meeting when the item is considered.

5g) – in accordance with the advice of the Head of Finance that the ring fencing of income in this matter should not be supported.

6a) - in the absence of any evidence to substantiate shortcomings in the existing Planning Code of Good Practice)

6c) – in accordance with Officer advice.

7a) – in the absence of sufficient resources to support this proposal.

Members considered a report which presented an evaluation of the resource and policy implications of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Confidentiality and Transparency Scrutiny Panel.

Details of these implications had been requested by the Executive when they considered the Panel’s report at their meeting on 17 February 2006. The subsequent delay in undertaking the requested appraisal had been due to the large number of recommendations contained in the report, staffing issues within the Scrutiny team, and the fact that a number of the proposals had been under consideration as part of the review of the Council’s Constitution. Results of the appraisal, comprising Officers’ comments on each of the recommendations, were set out in Annex 1 to the report.

In response to the comments made under Public Participation on the Panel’s Recommendation 5c), Officers’ advice was that the Planning Code applied equally to all Members and that potential breaches needed to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Members commented that the vast majority of Planning applications did not relate to Council developments in any event and that current practices had worked well in ensuring that Members did not prejudice their Planning decisions. They agreed that it would not be appropriate to prohibit any individual Member from deciding planning applications in general. Members also thanked the Scrutiny Panel for their work and noted that the Officer comments set out in the report were broadly in support of the recommendations in most cases.