Agenda item

To consider Motions submitted under Procedure Rule 11.

a)     Scrutiny of Executive Decisions

A Notice of Motion had been submitted by Councillor Jane Potter proposing changing the day when Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings were held to allow extra time to pre-scrutinise reports to Executive Committee meetings.  She reported that as Chair of the O&S Committee, she had asked for more time to scrutinise Executive reports and this had not been given.  As such, she felt it appropriate to make the request more formal, in order to make for a more open and transparent Council.  The Motion was seconded by Councillor Tom Baker-Price.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Potter stated that the Council supported open transparent scrutiny of the Executive decision-making body.  However, under current arrangements the Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Committee had only 24 hours in which to scrutinise the reports that were sent to the Executive Committee for a recommendation or decision.  In order to aid the O&S Committee in allowing them more time to scrutinise such reports, it was recommended that in the next municipal calendar O&S Committee meetings be moved back to Thursday.

A number of Members spoke against the Motion.  It was stated that whilst all O&S Members had agreed that they wanted more time to digest Executive papers, the Motion was very unfortunate and politically driven.  Members also suggested that the motion was unnecessary given that if Members had any concerns regarding meeting dates set out in the Calendar of Meetings they could raise these with the appropriate Officer(s). 

In support of the Motion, Members stated that in the interests of openness and fairness 24 hours was insufficient to read what were often very detailed papers, such as the Budget.  As Members had agreed at O&S to look into the possibility of changing the day on which they met, Councillors should support the Motion now before them.   

Other Members stated that the Motion was not politically-driven.  O&S made important checks and balances and the limited time available to scrutinise papers made it difficult for O&S Members to have a considered opinion.  The Motion was a pragmatic solution to avoid having to change the Council’s Constitution.

On being put to the vote the Motion was declared lost.

b)     No Confidence in Portfolio Holder for Housing

A Notice of Motion had been submitted by Councillor Brandon Clayton proposing a vote of no confidence in Councillor Mark Shurmer, Portfolio Holder for Housing, and calling for Councillor Shurmer’s resignation following issues which had arisen in relation to gas safety tests.  This was seconded by Councillor David Thain.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Clayton stated that the role of Portfolio Holder held a lot of responsibility.  When it was reported that the statutory gas safety tests had not been completed on Council properties on time he was concerned for Council tenants’ safety, and the confusion, worry and inconvenience caused in this regard.  He stated that this was a whole-Council problem with Councillors being corporately responsible should the worst have happened.  Councillor Thain seconded the Motion. 

Councillor Brunner stated that whilst she took no pleasure in supporting the Motion, Portfolio Holders were given a Special Responsibility Allowance for the additional work and responsibility involved with their roles, and that there was a clear expectation that this work would be undertaken.  She referred to a damning report from the Homes and Communities Agency and tenants having been exposed to possible serious harm.  She further stated that despite safeguards and promises further issues had arisen in 2016, with the cost to the Council totalling £68k.  She expressed concern at the wider implications of this for both the Council’s reputation and tenants’ loss of confidence in the Council.  She felt that Councillor Shurmer should resign and a new Portfolio Holder for Housing appointed.

The debate then turned to what was understood to be a second breach in late 2016, following the earlier gas safety test issues in 2015.  It was queried whether lessons had been learned and assurances were called for this to never happen again.  A query was raised as to whether the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had dealt with all of the alleged breaches.  Concerns were also raised that the original contractor was allowed to continue with the contract following the first breach.

Councillor Hartnett stated that when the initial issues had become apparent the Council had reported the matter to the HSE.  A full process had then been followed to rectify the situation.  He did not feel that anyone could categorically state that there would never be any issues in the future.

It was suggested that all Members understood the seriousness of this matter, and that there was a corporate responsibility to ensure that all possible measures were put in place to avoid any possible problems arising in the future.  The view was also expressed that it was unfair to blame any single Portfolio Holder.

Councillor Shurmer responded on the issues raised.  In relation to the alleged second breach, he stated that this was not a breach as such.  In November 2016 data had showed that there were some deficiencies with the then gas contractor, which mainly related to the capping of gas pipes.  The contract had duly been terminated and it was Councillor Shurmer’s understanding that the situation had been resolved. 

Councillor Shurmer reported that he had worked closely with Officers following the disclosure of issues and had been open and transparent throughout the process.  The Council had self-reported to the HCA and all-Member briefings had been arranged and the press informed.  Monitoring had shown deficiencies with the contractor in November 2016 and they had been replaced, with there having due diligence throughout.  He received regular updates and briefings from Officers and there were currently no gas safety checks outstanding.  He stated that both he and Officers continually looked to improve the service and that he would not be resigning.

Following a show of hands the Motion was declared lost.