Agenda item

(Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention)

The Chairman introduced the item and highlighted the purpose of the report. She noted we were the first constituent council of the five councils to consider the report, and an identical report was being taken each Executive Committee or Cabinet.

The Chief Executive Officer clarified that the Joint Committee would provide strategic oversight and political leadership for the implementation of the Secretary of State's (SoS) decision to form one unitary authority. Several matters were outlined in detail in the report, and she provided a brief overview, including proposals for a Joint Scrutiny Committee.

It was noted that joint committees for implementation of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) were well established, and had been used successfully in other authorities nationally that had gone through the same situation and process. There was plenty of precedent, and that precedent also dictated that the council who put forward the proposal that was the successful bid approved by the SoS, was the council that would have overall control of the Joint Committee.

The report laid out that the Joint Committee would consist of five members from Somerset County Council (SCC) and four members for the district councils (one from each authority). There had been discussion about the number of members but it had been agreed that the recommendation for 5+4 members would be taken forward. It was proposed that the Joint Committee would meet monthly. The Joint Committee would fall away once the Implementation Executive or alternative Shadow Authority (depending on what's decided) was stood up, following the Structural Change Order and the elections in May 2022.

During a lengthy debate, some councillors expressed their disappointment about the proposed make up of the Joint Committee, and suggested that 4+4 members would be more democratic. There were also queries raised about points of detail regarding the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee and what the consequences might be if the recommendations were not agreed, or a proposal made to amend and reduce the membership of the Joint Committee.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted that had been a good discussion at their meeting and members spoke with passion about the item. The overall view was that transparency was needed. He also referred to other comments made by Scrutiny members including about whether the existing Joint Scrutiny Panels for Waste and Rivers would be amalgamated into any proposed joint scrutiny for the LGR.

In response to comments made during discussion and at Scrutiny Committee, the Chairman, Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer noted that:

·         All five Leaders had met and had originally discussed a membership of 9+8 for Joint Committee, however it was felt smaller numbers would be more manageable. Substitutes would be allowed.

·         If the proposal for the Joint Committee was agreed by all constituent councils, then the previously agreed councillor working group at SSDC would be stood up.

·         A membership of 4+4 members, with the Chairman being an SCC member and having a casting vote, was likely to have the same result as a 5+4 membership.

·         What this is trying to do is create a shadow of what will be in the Structural Change Order, and hence smooth the transition.

·         The meetings of the Joint Committee would be public meetings with agendas published in the usual timeframes.

·         Other Scrutiny Panels, such as those for Waste and Rivers, were unlikely to be included in the Joint Scrutiny arrangements for LGR. Terms of Reference for the proposed Joint Scrutiny for LGR would come forward for consideration shortly.

·         There wasn't an easy answer regarding what might happen if any changes to the recommendations were proposed, as the opinions of other authorities were unknown at the current time. If we suggested an amendment, others may follow or they may not, and there may also be issues about what happens to, or at, the Joint Committee.

·         The recommendations in the report were a set of recommendations negotiated across the five councils. There could be a risk that if the recommendations were not approved that we do not have any authority for our Leader to be on the Joint Committee.

·         If members were wishing to propose a change to one part of the Terms of Reference, the way forward may be to take that suggestion to the Joint Committee to be considered at the first meeting.

·         If the recommendations are not endorsed, there is a risk we won't have a seat at the table, which would be very regrettable.

·         From negotiations so far, indications were that constituent councils were very willing to consider the recommendations outlined in the report.

·         If the Joint Committee is agreed and stood up, one of the first items of business will be to approve the Terms of Reference, and concerns or suggestions about the membership can be raised at that time.

·         If the recommendations were agreed, members of the District Executive could meet with the Leader to discuss any specific concerns that should be raised at the first meeting of the Joint Committee about the Terms of Reference.

At the conclusion of debate, several members expressed their discontent but also that given the situation that there was little option but to approve the recommendations. On being put to the vote, a proposal to approve the recommendations was carried 8 in favour, with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention)