Agenda item

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning those aspects of the Governance Review relating to Competitiveness. The report presented the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC), following an informal engagement process intended to gather the views of all Members.

The Committee proceeded to debate the various recommendations in turn:

(i)         Do Members agree with the need to establish a dedicated group, body, or committee in relation to competitiveness?

This proposal was strongly endorsed.

(ii)        If so, do Members agree with the recommendation to establish a free-standing Competitiveness Committee, or would an alternative vehicle / format be preferable?

Members were in favour of this approach.

(iii)       What should the composition of such a body be, noting the requirements to draw on both external and internal expertise more effectively?

The Committee supported the Resource Allocation Sub Committee’s views on the composition of this body. The Policy Chair clarified there would be a core group and then bringing in other Members ad hoc for particular issues.

(iv)       How should the membership of such a body be determined and appointed?

One Member felt that this should be an elected body rather than an appointed body. The Deputy Chairman relayed the views of the consultative exercise for the composition to be a skills-based approach. He also outlined that this would be an advisory body and that Policy & Resources Committee (made up of elected Members) would continue to hold decision-making powers. This point was underlined and supported by other Members. One Member suggested that Policy & Resources Committee ratify a list of individuals who should be appointed – this would be sufficiently democratic but allows for the technocratic element as well.

(v)        What should the Terms of Reference of such a body be?

The Policy Chair relayed the Resource Allocation Sub Committee’s views that any Terms of Reference should define firm outputs, encompassing both market promotion and policy.

This was supported by the Committee.

(vi)       Should any new body take on the functions of the Hospitality Working Party?

It was agreed that the Advisory Body should be able to give advice on the strategic deployment of hospitality in certain areas but without taking away from or stepping into the remit of the Hospitality Working Party.

(vii)      What should happen to the PRED Sub-Committee?

It was agreed that the PRED Sub-Committee should be reconstituted to take away the “Economic Development” element of its role, but retained as a dedicated sub-committee to focus more on the scrutiny around communications and messaging, including public affairs. It was, however, noted that the PRED Sub-Committee would then also need to be re-named.

(viii)     How should the Chair of the Policy & Resources Committee be referred to?

The Policy Chair relayed a conversation that she had with the Remembrancer that “Leader of the Council” might not be the right term for the City Corporation constitutionally and that this should be considered further.

A Member felt that it was important that “Court of Common Council” be referred to but not “Council”. Others felt that “Leader” was an acceptable title and did not think “Political Leader” was appropriate, and asked for the Remembrancer to put his concern in writing.

It was agreed that this matter should be deferred back to the Resource Allocation Sub Committee to be considered again in more detail and in light of the Remembrancer’s advice.

(ix)       Are Members supportive of Lisvane’s general commentary in respect on other areas set out in paragraph 11 above (and paragraphs 200 – 231 in the Lisvane Review itself)?

This commentary was noted.

The Chair thanked Members for their helpful contributions and was pleased to be in a position to present consensus proposals to the Court.

RESOLVED: That Members:-

1.         Note the proposals in relation to Competitiveness made by Lord Lisvane in Section 6 of his Review (Appendix 1).

2.         Note the feedback provided by Members through the informal engagement process (Appendix 2).

3.         Determine to present recommendations in respect of the various proposals, as set out in discussion above, to the Court of Common Council.