Agenda and minutes

Minute of the meeting of 29 October 2015 to be approved and signed by the Chairman. (Copy attached).

There had been circulated copies of the Minute of 29 October 2015.

DECISION

NOTED for signature by the Chairman.

(a)  To consider Briefing Note by Corporate Transformation and Services Director. (Copy attached).

(b)  To appoint Members to the Scrutiny Working Group.

With reference to paragraph 2(c) of the Minute of 29 October, there had been circulated a briefing note by the Corporate Transformation and Services Director detailing the proposed Terms of Reference for the Scrutiny Working Group.   At the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to form a Scrutiny Working Group to examine the decision making process in respect of the Great Tapestry of Scotland project and ascertain if there were any lessons which could be learned for future projects.  The Committee had also agreed to defer appointment to the Scrutiny Working Group until all members were present to participate in the decision.    Councillor Cockburn asked if paragraph 2.2 of the Terms of Reference could be amended to include reference to the perceived lack of public consultation and to examine the extent to which this was a concern. The Corporate Transformation and Service Director, Mr Rob Dickson, advised that the scope of the proposed Terms of Reference was comprehensive in order that the Working Group could consider all aspects of the decision making process and ascertain if there were any shortcomings in that process. This could include reviewing public perception of the consultation process.    Councillor Nicol commented that the working group should  not be considering the Tapestry decision as such but reflecting and advising on the decision making process for future projects.  Mr Dickson added that recommendations from the Scrutiny Working Group would be presented to officers for guidance when undertaking future such projects.     The Committee agreed to the proposed Terms of Reference. 

The Committee then discussed the appointment of Members to the Scrutiny Working Group.

VOTE

Councillor Torrance, seconded by Councillor Archibald moved that the Scrutiny Working Group membership be: Councillors: Cockburn, Gillespie, Campbell and Garvie. 

The Chairman, Councillor Logan, seconded by Councillor Cockburn moved as an amendment that the Scrutiny Working Group membership be: Councillors: Cockburn, Gillespie, Campbell, Garvie, Mountford and McAteer. 

Adjournment

The Chairman requested an adjournment.  The meeting was adjourned at 10.20 am and reconvened at 10.45 pm.

            On a show of hands Members voted as follows

            Motion             -           5 votes

            Amendment    -           3 votes

            The motion was accordingly carried.  

            DECISION

            AGREED:-

(a)       the Terms of Reference for the Scrutiny Working Group as detailed in the Briefing Note attached to the Agenda.

(b)       to appoint the Scrutiny Working Group as follows:

                  Councillor K Cockburn

                  Councillor I Gillespie

                  Councillor J Campbell (co-opted)

                  Councillor G Garvie (co-opted).

DECISION

          AGREED under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the business detailed in the Appendix to this Minute on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Act.

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

The committee agreed to receive an update at the March 2016 meeting.

Update on Subjects included in the Future Scrutiny Review Programme. (Copy attached).  

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 29 October 2015, there had been circulated an updated list of subjects which the Scrutiny Committee had been asked to review and which included the source of the request, the stage the process had reached and the date, if identified, of the Scrutiny meeting at which the information would be presented.  In addition, Members were also asked to consider further subjects for inclusion on this list for presentation at future meetings of the Committee.  When deciding whether subjects would be reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee, Members required a clear indication from the initiator of the request as to which aspects of the subject they wished to be reviewed.  This would enable the Committee to determine whether they subject was appropriate for consideration.  Following discussion Members agreed that the Support for High Achievers in Schools review be brought to the March 2016 meeting.   It was agreed that the review on Passenger Transport and Escorts requested by Councillor Torrance be amended to a review on School Transport and Escorts and the Committee would receive a short presentation in March 2016 on the issues to determine whether they wished to purse this review further.  With reference to the request from Greenlaw and Hume Community Council to review outsourcing as adopted by other authorities, in particular outsourcing to a third sector organisation, the Committee requested that the Clerk contact the Community Council and ask for clarity on which aspects of the subject they wished to be reviewed.

Under Section 50B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Chairman was of the opinion that the items dealt with in the following paragraph should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency, in view of the need to keep Members informed / make an early decision.

Councillors Cockburn and Gillespie declared an interest in the undernoted item in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct as they were Trustees of BLST.  However, in terms of Section 5.18(2)(i) they did not withdraw from the meeting as the interest was covered by a specific exclusion.

There had been circulated at the meeting, a request from the Royal Burgh of Peebles & District Community Council, requesting a review on the process that led to the decision to agree that Victoria Park, Peebles be the preferred location for the 3G pitch.   In response to a question, Mr Dickson advised that as the decision, made by Executive Committee, had been within the last six months it was therefore not eligible for review.  Moreover, the call-in process was time limited and this had now elapsed.  Mr Hayworth, a member of Peebles & District Community Council was in attendance and stated that there appeared to have been an issue with the public consultation, in particular the leafleting of properties.  The Victoria Park was used by the whole community and only the properties adjacent to the park had been asked to participate in the consultation.     Mr Dickson advised that the Council’s community engagement tool kit was adopted by the Community Planning Strategic Board, in May 2015.  It might therefore be relevant for the Committee to consider the review request in the context of this engagement framework.  In response to a question, officers advised that the avenue open to members of the public to review the decision following the 6 month period would be to submit a petition to the Petition and Deputations Committee.  The Committee discussed the request and agreed to receive a presentation on the community engagement framework at the April 2016 meeting.  In light of this presentation the Committee would then consider how they wished to proceed with the request from Peebles and District Community Council in relation to the 3G pitch.  

DECISION

AGREED the proposed list of subjects for review by Scrutiny Committee, as appended to the Minute, and any further actions detailed against particular reviews.

Thursday, 28 January 2016.

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee would take place on Thursday 28 January 2016.