To undertake a Call to
Account as agreed by the committee at the meeting on 7 November 2018.
Minutes:
A brief introduction was provided by Councillor C
Brooks, Vice-Chairman (in the Chair), as the Chairman Councillor T Jones
indicated that he would not chair the meeting as he wished to take a full part
in the meeting.
Members were informed that written statements had
been received from:
·
Councillor Keith Day
·
Councillor David Rickard
·
Councillor David Harris
·
Verwood Town Council
·
Bridport Town Council
The following councillors had informed the Scrutiny
Officer, prior to the meeting, that they wished to speak to the item.
Councillor C Reynolds, representing West Dorset
District Council (WDDC), stated her belief that the same standards for
transferring assets had not been upheld across the county, using the proposals
WDDC had put forward to the Shadow Executive Committee as an example of this.
Councillor D Rickard, WDDC, stated that he believed
the benefits of transferring assets in West Dorset had been ignored by the
Shadow Council. He informed members that much of what had been proposed would
have returned assets to their communities and be funded at a local level.
Councillor M Rennie stated that Dorchester Market
was not an asset as it had been described in transfer documents, and that it
was important historically for the town. Councillor Rennie believed that
discussion should continue with Dorchester Town Council, so that not only the
market continued beyond April 2019, but also so that relations with the current
operator could continue.
Councillor Susie Hosford represented Dorchester
Town Council and wished to express support for the previous statements.
Councillor D Harris stated he was representing
Weymouth and Portland. Councillor Harris also stated he believed that initial
discussions over transfer of assets had been clear that the Unitary Authority
would not be taking on assets that did not contribute to its statutory
functions. Councillor Harris stated that whilst he understood why an asset such
as the crematorium in Weymouth should be run by the new authority, he did not
understand why the seafront hotels owned by Weymouth and Portland Borough
Council should be under the control of the new Dorset Council. Councillor
Harris also stated that he believed the transferring of the car parks in
Weymouth to the Town Council could also encourage its relationship of working
with the Unitary Authority.
Will Austin, Clerk of Bridport Town Council, stated
that he believed the Shadow Executive Committee had exceeded its powers by
considering matters beyond physical assets and that the Shadow Council should
not have a say in the £1.3 million reserve WDDC had earmarked for service/asset
transfers. Mr Austin also stated that he did not believe the minutes of the
meeting of the Shadow Executive Committee were accurate and that the actual
debate was also inadequate, as there was no discussion of assets or revenue
savings. Mr Austin also did not believe that Town/Parish Councils had been
given any input into the Shadow Executive’s initial decision, or the Call to
Account.
Councillor Alan Thacker expressed support for the
statements that had already been given, and also wished to thank officers who
had contributed to the proposals.
For clarity Councillor S Bartlett informed the
committee he was also a member of Wimborne Minster Town Council.
Some members expressed concern that the same
standards for the transfer of assets had not been upheld across the county.
Members suggested that some Town and Parish
Councils may need some reassurance the asset transfers would proceed as expected.
The Call to Account also included the panel of the
following members and officers, who were involved in the decision making
process:
·
Councillor Rebecca Knox – Leader of Shadow
Dorset Council
·
Councillor Tony Ferrari – Executive Lead,
Finance
·
Councillor Jeff Cant – Executive Lead,
Property and Assets
·
Jonathan Mair –
Monitoring Officer
·
Jim McManus – Chief Accountant, Deputy
Section 151 Officer DCC
Stuart Caundle, Head of Paid Service, Dorset
Councils Partnership had also been invited to the meeting.
In reference to the first line of enquiry, the
Monitoring Officer informed members that they had received information from
Rebecca Kirk, General Manager (PDC) on how these principles had been developed.
The General Manager (PDC) had stated that they were asked by the Chief
Executives to provide an update to themselves and the programme board relating
to asset transfers from predecessor councils. This report was drafted and
circulated to the Chief Executives, who then asked for a set of principles to be
drafted. The report was presented to the programme board, who gave their
feedback and amendments. The report was then presented at the Shadow Executive
Committee on 20 July 2018, where the principles were amended further.
Members asked the panel if the structural change
order was considered by officers when creating these principles. The Monitoring
Officer replied that during meetings between MHCLG and Chief Finance Officers
it had been discussed whether it would be necessary to impose Article 24, which
would limit the ability of predecessor Councils to transfer assets of a certain
value. However, it was decided that this would not be necessary. The Monitoring
Officer informed members that the decision of the threshold value had been
decided locally, although in previous Local Government Reorganisations this had
also been set at £100,000.
The Leader of the Shadow Dorset Council confirmed
that whilst they had been working with advice from MHCLG, the formulation of
these principles had been a local decision. She explained the principles were
developed in line with previous experiences of officers and also by the
judgement of the Section 151 Officer.
In reference to the second line of enquiry, the
Leader of the Dorset Shadow Council stated that the principles did not only
apply to asset transfers. She informed members that each proposal for a
transfer of assets was looked at individually, therefore the principles were
needed to make sure decisions were consistent.
The Executive Lead for Property and Assets
recognised that this process could be seen as confusing to those not on the
committee. He informed members their main focus had been to look at whether
there had been the chance of substantial or valuable assets being transferred,
to the detriment of residents.
Members questioned the consistency of the Shadow
Executive Committee, as the proposed asset transfers by West Dorset District
Council were not approved as they had exceeded £100,000. However the committee
had then approved Weymouth and Portland Borough Council (WPBC) securing an £11
million loan. The Executive Lead for Property and Assets explained to members
that the two proposals were not comparable, as WPBC were not borrowing from the
unitary tax base and would not have any impact on the new authority.
Some members stated concerns as to whether the Lead
Member for Property and Assets may have had a conflict in interest in promoting
the £11 million loan that had been proposed by WPBC, as they were also the
Leader of WPBC. The Leader of the Shadow Dorset Council stated that there was
not a conflict, as all members of the Shadow Executive Committee were leaders
of the sovereign Councils, or had been nominated by their leader. The Lead
Members were then decided based on who would be most appropriate for the role.
The Monitoring Officer also added that the Lead Members had not been agreed
when the set of principles had been agreed. The Monitoring Officer informed
members that the Lead Member for Property and Assets had no pecuniary interest.
The officer also informed the committee the structural change order allowed all
members to participate, as nothing ruled out members from participating and
decision making if it affected their predecessor Council.
Councillor R Bryan left the meeting at 10.46 am.
In reference to the third line of enquiry, members
were informed that the report that went to the 18 June 2018 meeting of the
Shadow Executive Committee stated that each asset would be considered
individually.
Members asked how the values of some assets were
determined and if their marriage value was considered. The example of Kiosks in
Lyme Regis was given, if they would be considered in isolation or together. The
Monitoring Officer replied that this would depend on the proposal. The Lead
Member for Property and Assets agreed, stating that they had worked with a list
of potential assets but could only work out their value under certain
circumstances.
In reference to the fourth line of enquiry, the
Lead Member for Property and Assets informed the committee that the Weymouth
Town Council had been considered to have ‘unique circumstances’ as it was a
brand new Council still being created.
Members asked the panel if the loan secured by WPBC
could have been delayed and considered by the new Unitary Authority. The Lead
Member for Property and Assets stated that a lot of work had already gone into
securing the loan, and that they were aware the new authority would probably
not be able to carry on this work during its initial set up.
In reference to the fifth line of enquiry, the
Monitoring Officer informed members that principle (vii) and principle (viii)
were separate and did not have a relationship. They explained that principle
(vii) ensured that all transfers were cost neutral, whereas principle (viii) set
out that ongoing revenue support of an asset should not be provided.
Members asked if that where a Town or Parish
Council carried out a statutory service on behalf of the Unitary Authority,
would there be a contribution for this? The Monitoring Officer replied that
Town or Parish Councils had been contracted on behalf of the Unitary Authority.
Following questions from members, the Monitoring
Officer confirmed that principle (vii) would mean there would be no negative
effect on Dorset Council.
In reference to the sixth line of enquiry, the
Leader of the Shadow Dorset Council stated that this presumed how the new
authority would proceed. By creating these principles, the Shadow Executive
Committee was instead trying to establish ways of working and what the new
Dorset Council should be looking at. The Leader of the Dorset Shadow Council
also informed members that through the constitutional structure of the new
Unitary Authority, there would be a forum for these discussions to take place.
In reference to the seventh line of enquiry, the
Monitoring Officer stated that under the current circumstances the Secretary of
State would not do this, as there was not enough time left. The Monitoring
Officer also informed members that the Shadow Council could also use a
direction to restrict a predecessor Council from transferring assets, as this
was a provision of the structural change order.
In reference to the eighth line of enquiry, the
Leader of the Shadow Dorset Authority stated that they could not speak as to
the reasons for individual members of the committee. However as Chairman, after
questioning they felt that the proposal went against the agreed principles. The
Shadow Executive Committee felt these proposals could be considered in the
future, but that it was not currently appropriate to consider these at present.
Members asked if the Shadow Executive Committee had
considered the Wednesbury Principles when deciding on proposals, as some
members felt that other Market Towns should have also been looked at under
‘unique circumstances’. The Monitoring Officer informed members that this
didn’t apply to the decision surrounding Weymouth Town Council.
Members expressed concern at the first principle as
they felt the wording was vague. However, they stated that clarification from
the panel had addressed these concerns.
In reference to the ninth line of enquiry, the
Leader of the Shadow Dorset Council stated that she believed previous answers
had revealed where these parameters had been set, after new members had been
elected.
Members expressed the view that whilst great
efforts had been made into communication, this had not reached the Town and
Parish Councils in enough detail. Members also hoped this would be corrected
under the new authority. The Leader of the Shadow Dorset Council agreed that a
discussion in further depth would have been of great benefit, but due to time
constraints this was not able to take place.
Members also stated that there was also a reliance
on Shadow Executive members to filter information back to the members of their
sovereign Councils.
Recommendation A, that the Shadow Overview and
Scrutiny Committee agree with the evidence provided by members and officers
during the Call to Account, was proposed.
Decision
That the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
(a) Agree
with the evidence provided by members and officers during the Call to Account;
(b) That
this decision be forwarded to the Shadow Executive Committee, for their
information.
This was not a unanimous
vote.
Supporting documents: