In proposing the motion, as set out on the Agenda, Councillor Charles Gibson referred to the many benefits and options the introduction of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee would bring. He said there were a number of other Councils successfully operating an Overview and Scrutiny Committee alongside the Committee system, many of whom had a similar political administration to Swale Borough Council (SBC). Councillor Charles Gibson said that at the introduction of the Committee System in the early 2000’s it was obligatory to also have an Overview and Scrutiny function. Finally, he said the motion was not a stick to beat opponents with different opinions or a tool to delay policies but a way to improve transparency, engagement and decision-making, in order to best serve residents.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Lloyd Bowen reserved his right to speak.

In the debate that followed, Members made points including:

·         Could not see any sense in setting up a Committee to overrule another Committee;

·         the scrutiny element of what Committees did had taken a back seat and a formal call-in process would be helpful;

·         Scrutiny was important but a new Committee was not the answer;

·         it was down to the Members of individual service committees to make sure decisions were scrutinised;

·         the Constitution working group could look at making service committees more effective;

·         the solution to a problem was to fix it at its source and service committees needed to be looked at;

·         there was a need for more scrutiny as shown in the upcoming waste scrutiny committee;

·         working groups held behind closed doors were not transparent to residents;

·         sought clarification on whether there was a call-in process to the service committees;

·         Members needed additional scrutiny and chair training;

·         highlighted that the peer review had made suggestions to strengthen the scrutiny in Committees;

·         referred to the Forward Decisions Plan on agendas and said Members could suggest items to discuss;

·         there were already an excessive amount of scheduled meetings and additional meetings would have a resource impact on officers and Members;

·         it was important that Members of a Committee attended meetings in order that decisions could be scrutinised properly;

·         there were already too many service committees; and

·         it was the responsibility of Committee Members to run an effective committee.

The Chief Executive clarified that on the setting up of the Committee System, the Constitution Working Group did not support a call-in process.

Councillor Bowen said there were a number of Members in the Chamber who had not experienced the Council working with a Scrutiny Committee. A Scrutiny Committee provided an independent oversight, and it was essential to have independent reviews of decisions and policies when required, to ensure actions aligned with the communities needs and legal standards. He said that the Scrutiny Committee could propose changes and propose recommendations for improvements which led to better governance.  Councillor Bowen highlighted the benefits of transparency through scrutiny, and he said that scrutiny acted as a check and balance for SBC ensuring there was accountability. Finally, he said a Scrutiny Committee would only need to meet as and when required and would not necessarily be very regularly.

In summing up, Councillor Charles Gibson said the Council was often viewed as not being transparent and he gave an example of a parking policy that was not scrutinised and was amended whilst being agreed at Policy and Resources, causing budgetary implications.

On being put to the vote, Members voted against the motion and the Mayor announced the Motion had fallen.

Resolved:

(1)  That an Overview and Scrutiny Committee not be set up.