Issue - meetings

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to consider motions on notice from Members.  The following motion(s) were received:

(a)  Councillor Bennett – Hygiene Ratings

(b)  Councillor Yates – Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) – Community Impact and Evidence Gathering

(c)   Councillor Hiney-Saunders – Support National Gambling Reform

(d)  Councillor Peake – Change the Council Constitution to have one Scrutiny Committee

(e)  Councillor Watson – Definition of the role of Leader of the Opposition

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Councillors were able to submit Motions on Notice for consideration at meetings of Council.

a)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Bennett:

“Bolsover District Council calls on the government to make the display of food hygiene ratings mandatory for establishments preparing and selling food in England, as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland, and will write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lobbying for the necessary legislative changes to be made. The ratings must be displayed prominently at all public entrances to the establishment and prominently on the entry to every online portal.

In England establishments with good ratings tend to display them, whilst many of those with lower ratings don’t do so. In England only 69% of business display their food hygiene ratings sticker. In addition, it was reported by the BBC in October last year that some businesses in England are displaying inaccurate food hygiene ratings. Without an enforcement function in relation to food hygiene display this is not being policed.

We agree with the Chartered Institute of Environment Health who have also called for the display of hygiene ratings to be mandatory. In England more than four in five businesses surveyed were happy to support mandatory display of hygiene ratings.*

Food Hygiene Rating Schemes provide consumers with information about the hygiene standards at food establishments, enabling them to make informed choices about where they eat and purchase food. We believe the public mandatory display of food hygiene ratings supports this, is beneficial to public health and will likely drive up the quality of food for the public.

The Food Standards Hygiene team at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have said that food hygiene ratings are published and can be checked on the FSA’s website. However, that presupposes that the customer has access to the internet. Many senior citizens, who are likely to be most vulnerable from a health perspective, are least likely to have access to the internet and so wouldn’t even have the ability to check hygiene ratings. In any case very few people will check hygiene ratings prior to visiting the establishment, so the display of hygiene ratings at the entrance is crucial for informing customer behaviour.

This is an issue of both consumer information and public health.”

Moved by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Hiney-Saunders and on being put to the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Council supported the motion and call on the

government to make the display of food hygiene ratings mandatory for establishments preparing and selling food in England, as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland, and will write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lobbying for the necessary legislative changes to be made. The ratings must be displayed prominently at all public entrances to the establishment and prominently on the entry to every online portal.

b)       The following motion was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to consider motions on notice from Members.

(a)  Motion from Councillor Tait – to consider changing the constitution regarding political proportionality on Scrutiny Committees

(b)  Motion from Councillor Anne Clarke – the Whistleblowing policy

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Councillors were able to submit Motions on Notice for consideration at meetings of Council.  Two motions were submitted.

a)              Motion submitted by Councillor Tait - to consider changing the constitution regarding political proportionality on Scrutiny Committees

“Our current constitutional arrangements regarding proportionality can be found on page 147 of the constitution under item 4.5.2.

To date, it has been the case that whichever political party is in overall control of the Council, automatically is entitled to have majority representation on all scrutiny committees.

All key decisions are made by the Executive, which again is made up solely of members of the same party. So, if you think about it logically, it is like marking your own homework.

We all know how the party system works; it is not acceptable to vote against the party line, this carries the possibility of having the whip removed. I would argue that these group decisions could be carried through to scrutiny, if the majority of scrutiny committees themselves are made up of the controlling party.

Would it not be better to have a more balanced approach, by having committees made up of members with possible relevant experience or knowledge and broader/opposing opinions, rather than a majority group of likeminded, same thinking members?

The actual legislation regarding this matter is very loosely written and states: “that proportionality rules generally apply, however local authorities can choose to apply these rules for certain scrutiny bodies and local authorities can decide to disapply proportionality rules through a unanimous vote”.

It also states that scrutiny exists to challenge decisions made by the Executive, and surely this would be better achieved when led by opposition members rather than always requiring a majority of members from the controlling party?

Therefore, I put forward a motion for the Council to consider changing the current constitution regarding political proportionality on scrutiny committees, in favour of a more diverse arrangement. I therefore move that this motion is passed to the Standards Committee to be considered and debated.

During discussion the following comments were made:

·       The proportionality of Scrutiny Committees had not previously been raised as a concern by elected members and was not considered to be an issue with Labour group members.  The ‘whip’ had never been used and Scrutiny agenda papers were not discussed in Labour group meetings.

·       It was important that Scrutiny remained independent and some other authorities had opposition members chairing these committees.  Clarity was sought from the Monitoring Officer on the legislation relating to proportionality and political balance requirements for scrutiny committees.  It was suggested this could potentially be explored by the Standards Committee.

·       Due to the impact of political proportionality requirements there was an imbalance with one member of the Independent Group not having a scrutiny seat whilst some within the Labour group sat on more than one scrutiny committee.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the legislation was not clear but the legal default position was that on all committees, including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34