Present at the meeting
- Councillor J Moodie (Chairman)
- Councillor N R Whittingham (Vice Chairman)
- Councillor N D Ash
- Councillor Ms P L Holland
- Councillor B J Fagan
- Councillor J D O’Brien
- Councillor P A Tushingham
- Councillor Mrs J Prescott
- Councillor C Rigby
- Councillor R Winkworth
- Councillor Mrs M J Whiteside
- Councillor G W Wilkes
Co-opted Member
Officers in attendance
- Peter Hassett – Principal Solicitor
- Michael Williamson – Committee Services Officer
- Officers presenting reports
- Richard Allen – Life Centre – Project Development Officer
- Gary Finch – Principal Officer – Scrutiny
- Sue Johnson – Deputy Chief Executive
- Kevin Lawson – Service Director Borough Solicitor
- Paul McKevitt – Service Director - Corporate Services
- David Smith – Executive Director Business Support Services
78 Apologies for absence: Councillors N A Bradbury and P Thompson and Mr D Barber and Mrs K A Stokes (Co-opted Members).
79 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 7 December 2009 were approved as a correct record.
80 Whipping declarations: The Principal Solicitor, Peter Hassett reminded the Committee that government guidance expected Members of Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee not to act in accordance with party whipping and that, if they did, they were to declare it.
There were no declarations made.
81 Questions (if any) on the business of the Cabinet: There were none.
82 Questions (if any) on the business of the forward plan – monthly update: The Committee enquired as to when Members would be afforded the opportunity of a Members Seminar on the progress of Building Schools for the Future. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed to liaise with the Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Services in order to set up a Members Seminar for this specific purpose.
The Chairman requested that any reports on Building Schools for the Future that had been considered by the Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny Committee be circulated to members of this Committee for information.
Resolved: The Committee:-
(1) welcomes the report.
(2) requests that a Members’ Seminar be arranged to enable the Executive Director – Children and Young People’s Services to update all Members on the progress of Building Schools for the Future.
(3) requests that the Principal Officer – Scrutiny provide Members of this Committee with any reports relating to Building Schools for the Future which had been considered by the Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny Committee.
83 Peer Review of the Local Strategic Partnership (minute 58 refers): The Deputy Chief Executive, Sue Johnson, presented a report, which informed Members of the outcomes of the Peer Review of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) which took place in November 2009.
The Peer challenge process had been designed as a means to enable the local authority and its partners to evaluate current achievements, explore good practice and benefit from an external perspective of practitioners.
In presenting their findings, the Peer Review Team commented warmly on the “overwhelming friendliness of the Borough” and the “openness” with which all partners had worked with the review team. The review team identified substantial good practice and positive outcomes in a number of areas.
At the end of the review, the Review Team had identified four key recommendations:
- the vision for Wigan needed to be further developed, articulated and have enough detail to enable priorities and action to be set in the medium term;
- the role of the LSP Board needed to be developed to focus more clearly on the big issues and long term challenges;
- performance management required strengthening, when interviewed, partners said that they wanted to be held to account more clearly and robustly; and
- the economic downturn required immediate action and this pressure would increase as public sector finance pressures arrived.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report
Resolved: The Committee
(1) notes the outcome of the Peer Review; and
(2) thanks the Deputy Chief Executive for the report.
84 Local Life Centre Township Network 2010/11: The Deputy Chief Executive presented a report, which provided Members with an overview of the scoping criteria and the identification and selection process for the ten township based Local Life Centres (spokes to the Joint Service Centre).
Members asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- How effective would certain Life Centres be if people had to travel far to access them?
- What provisions would be available in the Life Centres?
The Committee was advised that the indicative locations for the Life Centres in phases two and three had been determined by the same criteria as those in phase one which was set out in the report. It was acknowledged that regardless of the indicative locations, some residents of the borough would have to travel to access the Life Centres. The main benefit to having the Life Centres was that people would have a basic level of access to services closer to home compared to having to travel into Wigan Town Centre.
It was explained to the Committee that the provision in each Life Centre would be determined by what was required in the locality. Ward Members would be consulted with to identify what necessary provisions were needed.
The Chairman suggested that Members of the Committee may wish to visit the Life Centre at either Marsh Green Neighbourhood Centre or Leigh Town Hall to view the facilities and services provided.
Resolved: The Committee
(1) endorses the ongoing application of the criteria in the further roll-out of the Local Life Centres; and
(2) thanks the Life Centre – Project Development Officer for the report.
85 City Region Governance – Consultation on future arrangements for Greater Manchester: The Chairman of the Committee had been asked to agree to the consideration of this report as a matter of urgency, the special circumstances being the need to obviate any delay.
The Service Director Borough Solicitor, Kevin Lawson, presented a report which sought Members views on a consultation paper issued by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) as part of a review of governance arrangements in Greater Manchester.
The Consultation paper referred to the earlier consultation on transport governance arrangements and negotiations with the government on the development of the Greater Manchester City Region. The consultation paper proposed the formation of a new Combined Authority pursuant to the Local Democracy Economic Regeneration and Construction Act 2009 in relation to economic regeneration and transport
The consultation paper also proposed the formation of a joint committee in relation to transport which would effectively replace Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) and work with the Combined Authority with the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) remaining as an executive body.
The Cabinet had considered the report at its meeting on 4 February 2010 and had confirmed approval to the proposals (minute 174 refers).
Members asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- What effect would the proposal have on planning, specifically in relation to the provision of further housing accommodation?
- Would the proposal consider outsourcing the Economic Regeneration function currently carried out in house?
- How would the membership of the proposed Transport for Greater Manchester Committee be determined?
Would the proposal consider having greater influence on health related issues
The Committee was advised that the proposed powers of the Combined Authority would be exercised concurrently with the 10 districts with the exception of certain economic assessment duties. Other statutory initial functions would remain with the districts including those that related to planning. It was anticipated that in the long term, greater joined up working around economic regeneration would help bring in more investment into the Greater Manchester area.
The Service Director Borough Solicitor informed the Committee that the proposed Joint Committee (entitled Transport for Greater Manchester Committee) would have the same membership and composition as the current Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) as well as the ability to appoint its Chairman and Vice Chairman and establish sub-committees and vote in the same way as the current GMITA. The Combined Authority would refer to the Joint Committee the functions that it inherited from the GMITA with, in most cases, delegated authority to act on behalf of the Combined Authority. On matters of strategy the Joint Committee would make recommendations to the Combined Authority.
The Service Director Borough Solicitor acknowledged the request that the proposed Combined Authority had more influence in health related issues within the region and agreed to include this comment submitting the response to the consultation paper.
The Committee suggested that a Members Seminar on the proposal be arranged.
Resolved: The Committee
(1) supports the proposals;
(2) requests that the Service Director Borough Solicitor include the comment relating to health in his response;
(3) requests that a Members Seminar for all Members be arranged on the proposal; and
(4) thanks the Service Director Borough Solicitor for the report
(Councillor Ms P L Holland declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in this item as she is a Board Member of Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority appointed by the Council.)
(Councillor J D O’Brien declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in this item as he is a member of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Scrutiny Pool and NHS Scrutiny Body appointed by the Council.)
86 Corporate Asset Management Plan 2009/10 and 3rd Quarter update report: The Service Director Corporate Services, Paul McKevitt, presented a report, which informed Members of the Council’s Corporate Asset Management Plan (AMP) 2009/10, together with a third quarter update to the AMP action plan.
It was a Comprehensive Area Assessment (Use of Resources) requirement for the Council to have strategic plans that showed how it would develop its assets to meet strategic priorities and operational service needs. The Council had in place strategic plans for its schools, housing and highways assets and for its regeneration initiatives. The Corporate AMP summarised the plans and programmes in place to manage the remaining corporate property assets.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report
Resolved: The Committee
(1) notes the Corporate Asset Management Plan (AMP) 2009/10, together with the third quarter update;
(2) thanks the Service Director - Corporate Services for the report.
87 Council tax and national non domestic rates, benefit payments and collection of income departmental performance 2009/10: The Executive Director of Business Support Services, David Smith, presented a report, which updated Members on the Business Support Services performance in the collection of council tax and national non-domestic rates, benefit payments and the collection of income in 2009/10.
Members were advised that the report was the third in a series of four during this Municipal Year.
Resolved: The Committee
(1) notes the report; and
(2) thanks the Executive Director Business Support Services for the report.
88 Listening to communities: Consultation on draft statutory guidance on the duty to respond to petitions: The Principal Officer – Scrutiny, Gary Finch, presented a report which informed Members of the recently launched consultation paper on draft statutory guidance on the duty to respond to petitions.
In order for Government to assess and evaluate views and feelings towards the petitions duty, a number of questions had been raised which were attached as an appendix to the report together with a number of proposed responses. Members were requested to comment on these proposed responses together with any questions they had.
The Committee was advised that the duty to respond to petitions by local authorities represented, in the Government’s view, radical changes to existing practices which in essence concentrated upon giving citizens a much bigger role in shaping the places in which they lived and the public services they used. The consultation only applied to England and would run from Wednesday 2 December 2009 until Wednesday 24 February 2010
Members asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- What value did petitions hold?
- Did a petition count as just one objection?
- Concern was raised that the use of petitions could be abused?
- Could the use of e-petitions be investigated?
- How would the legitimacy of petitions be determined and by who?
The Principal Solicitor advised the Committee that the Council’s Constitution had a provision relating to petitions against Road Traffic Orders, whereby a petition was treated as just one objection for the purposes of deciding whether the proposed order should be referred to the Regulation Committee for determination.. However, consideration on the size of the petition was given when the Road Traffic Order was to be determined.
The Principal Officer – Scrutiny explained to the Committee that the points raised by Members were all valid and clarification on these points would be requested in the response to the draft statutory guidance.
Resolved: The Committee
(1) endorses the proposed responses as detailed in the report now submitted; and
(2) thanks the Principal Officer – Scrutiny for the report.
89 Councillor Call for Action (CCfA) – approval of protocol (minute 20 refers): The Principal Officer – Scrutiny, presented a report which informed Members of the proposed protocol in relation to responding to a Councillor Call for Action (CCfA).
The proposed CCfA procedure aimed to introduce a simple, user - friendly protocol that would assist Members to resolve issues causing concern at a Ward level. The protocol had been devised based on best practice guidance from the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) and the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS). It was acknowledged that this new mechanism would develop over time, being tested each time a CCfA request was put forward. It was inevitable that lessons would be learnt from each CCfA request, especially early on in the scheme.
The Committee was also advised that the protocol would facilitate and ensure a consistency of approach to the management of CCfA requests. It was crucial that each request would be considered carefully and treated in a fair and equitable manner. It was proposed that regular reviews of the CCfA protocol would be undertaken to ensure it was being operated in an efficient and effective manner.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report
Resolved: The Committee
(1) endorses the proposed protocol in responding to a Councillor Call for Action (CCfA);
(2) requests that the Principal Officer – Scrutiny provide an update on the number of CCfA requests in 12 months time
(3) thanks the Principal Officer – Scrutiny for the report.
90 Minutes of the Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny Committee: The minutes of the meeting of the Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny Committee held on 14 January 2010, were submitted for information.
Resolved: The Committee notes the minutes now submitted.
91 Minutes of the Building Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee: The minutes of the meeting of the Building Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee held on 18 January 2010, were submitted for information.
Resolved: The Committee notes the minutes now submitted.
92 Minutes of the Adult, Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: The minutes of the meeting of the Adult, Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee held on 19 January 2010, were submitted for information.
Resolved: The Committee notes the minutes now submitted.
93 Minutes of the Economy, Environment, Culture and Housing Scrutiny Committee: The minutes of the meeting of the Economy, Environment, Culture and Housing Scrutiny Committee held on 20 January 2010, were submitted for information.
Resolved: The Committee notes the minutes now submitted.
Chairman
