Agenda item

Governance Review

(A)Governance Review – to consider proposals relating to the outcomes of the Governance Review Process.

For Decision

Minutes:

18 November 2021

(A) Governance Review: Committee Structure

In late 2019, the City Corporation commissioned a comprehensive Governance Review. This was to be undertaken independently and Robert Rodgers, The Lord Lisvane, was appointed to conduct the Review. The Review’s findings indicated that the Corporation’s structures were too complex, with its decision-making too slow; questions of corporate endeavour were also raised.

 

In response to the Review, an informal engagement process had been undertaken, through which Members have been consulted extensively in relation to all the recommendations therein. Through the debate and consideration emerging, a number of immediate changes had already been made, such as the introduction of a new Standards Regime. This report now presented proposals emerging on the overall structure and business cycle for the committees of the Court of Common Council, for Members’ consideration.

 

Introducing the report, the Chair summarised the importance of the changes and improving the efficiency of decision-making within the organisation. She also stressed that the proposals were intended to reflect the consensus position of the Court as a whole which had emerged through the process, balanced with the realities of implementation and packaging everything together into a single proposition.

 

With particular reference to the question of housing governance, and the proposals to establish a new Housing Committee, the Chair reflected on the broad support from Members for the proposals and direction of travel but recognised that there were some concerns about committing to anything at this stage absent the further detail, as referred to within the report, being developed. Following a very productive meeting with interested Members the day prior, she was minded that it would be best to hold off on these specific proposals until a more fully-formed proposition, consistent with the principles articulated in the report, was available. Consequently, she sought the Court’s leave to amend the proposals before it, such as to withdraw the proposal for a new Housing Committee at this stage, with the effect of leaving the existing structures – i.e., the Barbican Residential Committee and Housing Sub-Committee – as they were until such time as detailed proposals were considered.

 

Amendment – That the proposals within the report for a new Housing Committee be withdrawn.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

The Court proceeded to debate the report as amended.

 

During the debate that ensued, Deputy Peter Dunphy spoke to highlight a number of proposed amendments he intended to move, the wording of which had been circulated and which he intended to propose in turn. He expressed the view that it was important to take the opportunity to gauge, formally, the mood of the Court on specific issues. He also highlighted the particular question of term limits and the views of the Court at its recent informal meeting in supporting their introduction, suggesting that this particularly merited a specific vote.

 

Amendment – That the wording in the report at bullet 6 entitled ‘Term Limits’ (page 32; paragraph 8) be deleted andreplaced with the following wording: “‘Term Limits – Members support the introduction of term limits for non-ward committees with maximum terms of 12 consecutive years applying. In relation to existing membership of committees no more than 4 years shall be counted towards existing service allowing for current members to serve at least a further 8 years on any committee to which they are currently elected. Members will be able to seek re-election to a committee after an absence of 4 years with new term limits applying.”

 

During discussion of the proposed Amendment, a number of points arose:

·        Reference was made to the system used when term limits were introduced to the Barbican Centre Board, whereby previous service had been divided by two and rounded down, in order to calculate remaining eligibility should term limits be introduced to committees across the board.

·        Whilst expressing some sympathy with the concept of term limits in general, several Members queried their appropriateness for all committees and also highlighted the current requirement for regular re-election by the Court, which they felt generated a reasonable degree of turnover and left the Court as sovereign in each instance.

·        A Member expressed concern around the specific wording of the proposed amendment and implications around how breaks in service would be treated.

·        Whilst there were some differences of opinion as to the appropriate length of any term limits, several Members also articulated their strong support for their uniform introduction, observing the benefits from a diversity perspective which accrued through the enforced churn of membership.

·        Other Members reflected on the negative perceptions associated with the extremely long service of some Members on some committees, as well as a tendency for incumbents seeking re-election to not be challenged.

Closing discussion on the Amendment, Deputy Peter Dunphy articulated his robust disagreement with the with suggestion that the current process of re-election by the Court was sufficient, arguing that it was a fundamentally different thing to term limits and served a different purpose. The Policy Chair, through her rebuttal, expressed concern that a number of points as to how the proposal would be implemented remained unclear and urged against it being supported. She added that there would be a Post-implementation Review which would be a more appropriate opportunity to look at this properly in due course, should it be the wish of Members.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

 

Deputy Peter Dunphy proceeded to move a further Amendment, relating to the composition of the Community & Children’s Services, Culture Heritage & Libraries, and Port Health & Environmental Services Committees.

 

Amendment – That:-

·        In respect of the Community & Children’s Services Committee, bullet 11 of paragraph 9 on page 34, the addition of the words “To become an elected committee of 18 Members.”

·        In respect of the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee, bullet 13 of paragraph 9 on page 34, the words “No change other than” be deleted and replaced with the words “To become an elected committee of 18 Members.”

·        In respect of the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee, bullet 30 of paragraph 9 on page 35, the deletion of the words “No change” and insertion of the words “To become an elected committee of 18 Members.”

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order No.11(10), the Question be now put.

 

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

Upon the Amendment then being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

 

Deputy Peter Dunphy proceeded to move a further Amendment, relating to the reduction in size of all non-Ward Committees.

Amendment – That, on page36, paragraph 13, bullet 3, the following sentences be deleted: “However, it was agreed that a “one size fits all” approach would not be appropriate and each case would need to be assessed on its merits. Consequently, it is proposed that each affected committee be asked to consider its composition with a view to reducing numbers. Such reductions could be arranged such that they achieved through natural wastage as vacancies occur each year, minimising disruption.”

And be replaced with the following wording: “Members were, in general, supportive of the recommendation to reduce all (non-Ward) Committees in size, noting the recommendation that they be 12-15. Consequently, it is proposed that each committee (without an otherwise determined size) be reduced in size to a maximum of 15 members within a period of 4 years. Such reductions could be arranged such that they achieved through natural wastage as vacancies occur each year, minimising disruption.”

 

During discussion on this Amendment, concern was expressed that setting such a timescale would be premature given the lack of intention to reduce the number of Members on the Court, and might then result in some Members not being able to gain appointment to any committees. In closing debate, Deputy Peter Dunphy articulated his belief that making the decision to reduce size discretionary would be unlikely to result in any change and that action was needed from the Court to enforce this and act in the best interests of the Corporation’s overall governance arrangements.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

 

Deputy Peter Dunphy moved a final Amendment, concerning the status of the Planning & Transportation Committee. He urged that the Court not fetter its future discretion as to the prospective form or composition of a the Committee.

 

Amendment – That, in respect of the Planning & Transportation Committee, page 45; paragraph 46, the words “and as a Ward Committee” be deleted.

 

During debate on the Amendment, observation was made of the strong sentiments expressed by residents about this Committee in recent times, with it suggested that to remove Ward Committee status would indicate a lack of willingness to listen. Closing debate, Deputy Peter Dunphy clarified that this Amendment would not remove the option of retaining Ward Committee status; rather, it simply sought the ability for the Court to retain future discretion.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

 

Debate then resumed on the substantive report, during which, a number of points were raised:

·        Several Members spoke to express their disappointment at the insufficiently radical nature of the proposals, arguing that they should have been significantly more ambitious.

·        In particular, there was commentary around the need for greater delegation to and empowerment of officers, the need for a robust reduction in committee sizes, the need for greater empowerment for institutional bodies, and the importance of dividing the Court’s business into distinct local authority, private, and charitable functions.

·        The point was made that, whilst the proposals might not be as radical as some might wish for, they also went farther than others would like. As with any democratic process, compromise was essential and the realities and importance of achieving an acceptable solution to 125 Members needed to be considered.

·        It was also argued that the proposals did mark a significant step forward and factored in opportunities for further changes and improvements as things became embedded.

·        Several Members reflected on the timing of meetings, which had not been taken forward following soundings taken at the informal Court meeting, but which they felt changes to were essential in order to facilitate greater engagement from prospective candidates and the public.

·        A number of Members also advanced support for the possibility of facilitating public engagement at Court meetings, perhaps through allowing an allocated item at which City residents, workers, students and so on could submit questions to leading Members. It was suggested that this practice was not uncommon elsewhere and might be facilitated through the review of Standing Orders.

·        A suggestion was also made that the number of Members should also be considered further, as there may be discrepancies between the allocation of Members amongst Wards and the in respect of the groups they were responsible for representing.

 

Closing the debate, the Chair reflected on the nature of the discussion and the complexities involved in obtaining consensus. She urged all Members to support the package of proposals before them, which represented significant change and improvement.

 

Resolved – That:-

1.    The proposals made in relation to the Committee structure through the initial Review of the City Corporation’s Governance be noted (Appendix 4).

2.    The proposed responses to the initial Governance review recommendations, as summarised in Appendix 2 and detailed within the body of the report, be approved subject to the withdrawal of proposals relating to a new Housing Committee.

3.    The proposed Committee Structure and amendments to governance processes as set out in the report be approved, subject to the withdrawal of proposals relating to a new Housing Committee.

 

Supporting documents: