Portsmouth City Borough Council
Councillors:
42
Wards:
14
Committees:
37
Meetings (2026):
11
Meetings (2025):
117
Meeting
Governance & Audit & Standards Committee - Portsmouth City
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 9th July 2025
5:00 PM
Wednesday, 9th July 2025
5:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 9th July 2025
6:55 PM
Wednesday, 9th July 2025
6:55 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
09 Jul 2025
09 Jul 2025
Location:
The Executive Meeting Room - Third Floor, The Guildhall, Portsmouth
The Executive Meeting Room - Third Floor, The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Deputy Group Leader
Standing Deputy
Group Leader
Agenda
1
Apologies for Absence
Minutes
There were no apologies for absence.
2
Declarations of Members' Interests
Minutes
Cllr Ian Holder declared a personal interest in minutes 27 and 28 as his wife was a Personal Advisor working within the Children, Families and Education Directorate at Portsmouth City Council.
3
Minutes of the meetings held on 20 February 2025 and 5 March 2025
RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the meetings held on 20 February 2025 and 5 March 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records.
Attachments:
- Document GAS Mins 20.02.25 01 Jul 2025
- Document GAS Mins 05.03.25 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings held on 20 February 2025 and 5 March 2025 were confirmed and signed as accurate records.
4
Portsmouth City Council Auditor's Annual Report Year Ended 31 March 2024
Purpose
This report and commentary explains the work that the external auditor has undertaken during the year and highlights any significant weaknesses identified along with recommendations for improvement. The commentary covers findings for the audit year 2023/24.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the committee and notes the content of the report.
This report and commentary explains the work that the external auditor has undertaken during the year and highlights any significant weaknesses identified along with recommendations for improvement. The commentary covers findings for the audit year 2023/24.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the committee and notes the content of the report.
Attachments:
- Document Portsmouth CC Auditors Annual Report 2023-24 - Final 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Andrew Brittain, Partner (Ernst & Young) introduced the external auditor's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2024. The report explained the work that the external auditor had undertaken during the year and highlighted any significant weaknesses identified, along with recommendations for improvement.
Mr Brittain reminded the committee that it had considered the auditor's results report at the 20 February 2025 meeting and that this had subsequently been signed on 25 February 2025. He explained that the report before the committee contained the value for money arrangements for Portsmouth City Council for 2023/24 and confirmed that no significant weaknesses in the arrangements had been found.
In response to questions, Mr Brittain confirmed that the backstop date of 27 February 2026 remained for the completion of the 24/25 audit, however he envisaged that the work would be completed by Autumn 2025 and that audits would be completed within a more normal timescale going forwards.
In respect of the work which had been postponed, he explained that the previous year's audit had been disclaimed, however no in year material adjustments had been necessary during 2023/24.
Following debate, the committee RESOLVED that it NOTED and was assured by the report.
Mr Brittain reminded the committee that it had considered the auditor's results report at the 20 February 2025 meeting and that this had subsequently been signed on 25 February 2025. He explained that the report before the committee contained the value for money arrangements for Portsmouth City Council for 2023/24 and confirmed that no significant weaknesses in the arrangements had been found.
In response to questions, Mr Brittain confirmed that the backstop date of 27 February 2026 remained for the completion of the 24/25 audit, however he envisaged that the work would be completed by Autumn 2025 and that audits would be completed within a more normal timescale going forwards.
In respect of the work which had been postponed, he explained that the previous year's audit had been disclaimed, however no in year material adjustments had been necessary during 2023/24.
Following debate, the committee RESOLVED that it NOTED and was assured by the report.
5
Portsmouth City Council Audit Planning Report (Draft) Year Ending 31 March 2025
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee with the Auditor’s Annual Report, including the commentary on the Value for Money (VFM) arrangements for Portsmouth City Council in respect of the 2023/24 audit year. The report and commentary explains the work the auditor has undertaken during the year and highlights any significant weaknesses identified along with recommendations for improvement.
Recommendation
The committee is RECOMMENDED to NOTE the 2024/25 Audit Plan.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee with the Auditor’s Annual Report, including the commentary on the Value for Money (VFM) arrangements for Portsmouth City Council in respect of the 2023/24 audit year. The report and commentary explains the work the auditor has undertaken during the year and highlights any significant weaknesses identified along with recommendations for improvement.
Recommendation
The committee is RECOMMENDED to NOTE the 2024/25 Audit Plan.
Attachments:
- Document PCC Audit Planning Report 2024-25 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Andrew Brittain, (Partner), Kelly Gates (Manager) and Alison Russell (Assistant Manager) from Ernst & Young were in attendance and introduced the external auditor's planning report for the 2024/25 audit. The purpose being to afford the committee an opportunity to review the proposed audit approach and scope.
Ms Gates provided an overview of the significant risks, which were:
· Presumptive risk of management override of controls* (Misstatement due to fraud or error)
· Risk of fraud in expenditure recognition, through inappropriate capitalisation of revenue expenditure
· Risk of fraud in revenue recognition, through inappropriate recognition of trading and investment property income
· Valuation of Investment Property and Land and Buildings (Valued using EUV & FV method
· Valuation of Lakeside North Harbour Asset
along with the other areas of audit focus which had an inherent risk:
· Pension Liability Valuation
· Valuation of Land & Buildings valued at Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) properties
· IFRS 16 Implementation
· Group accounts assessment
· Restatement of CIES, EFA and related disclosure notes
The report also detailed value for money, of which no significant weaknesses had been identified.
In response to questions, Mr Brittain explained that Local Government Reorganisation was outside of the scope of audit at the present time, but as time progressed and clarity emerged it would factor into audit considerations relating to value for money and governance processes. He predicted that potential actions around the progress of the Local Government Reorganisation timetable could start to become a factor during the 2025/26 audit.
Following the debate it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the report.
Ms Gates provided an overview of the significant risks, which were:
· Presumptive risk of management override of controls* (Misstatement due to fraud or error)
· Risk of fraud in expenditure recognition, through inappropriate capitalisation of revenue expenditure
· Risk of fraud in revenue recognition, through inappropriate recognition of trading and investment property income
· Valuation of Investment Property and Land and Buildings (Valued using EUV & FV method
· Valuation of Lakeside North Harbour Asset
along with the other areas of audit focus which had an inherent risk:
· Pension Liability Valuation
· Valuation of Land & Buildings valued at Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) properties
· IFRS 16 Implementation
· Group accounts assessment
· Restatement of CIES, EFA and related disclosure notes
The report also detailed value for money, of which no significant weaknesses had been identified.
In response to questions, Mr Brittain explained that Local Government Reorganisation was outside of the scope of audit at the present time, but as time progressed and clarity emerged it would factor into audit considerations relating to value for money and governance processes. He predicted that potential actions around the progress of the Local Government Reorganisation timetable could start to become a factor during the 2025/26 audit.
Following the debate it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the report.
6
Data Security Breaches Report
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to inform the committee of any data security breaches and enable them to determine whether any trends appear and whether any further actions should be recommended.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee notes the breaches that have arisen.
The purpose of this report is to inform the committee of any data security breaches and enable them to determine whether any trends appear and whether any further actions should be recommended.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee notes the breaches that have arisen.
Attachments:
- Document Data Breach GAS Report July 2025 Covering Report 01 Jul 2025
- Document PCC Data Breaches Report - July 2025 Appendix A 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Lizzi Goodwin, Chief Internal Auditor, introduced the report as the council's Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO).
She explained that there had been 64 data security breaches between 16 September 2024 and 20 June 2025.
55 had been referred to the Information Governance Team within the required 72 hours of discovering the incident, with 9 falling outside of this timeframe. None of the late referrals had needed to be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office, but two other cases had met the threshold and had been reported. In both instances, the Information Commissioner had been satisfied that the council had taken all necessary actions to mitigate the risk and both had been closed with no further action.
In response to questions, she explained that by the nature and volume of the work, children's and adult social care was expected to generate a higher number of incidents. Overall, whilst the percentage of breaches had been higher than the previous reporting period the pattern remained consistent and no significant concerns had been raised.
Following the discussion, it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the breaches that had occurred and was reassured by the actions taken.
She explained that there had been 64 data security breaches between 16 September 2024 and 20 June 2025.
55 had been referred to the Information Governance Team within the required 72 hours of discovering the incident, with 9 falling outside of this timeframe. None of the late referrals had needed to be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office, but two other cases had met the threshold and had been reported. In both instances, the Information Commissioner had been satisfied that the council had taken all necessary actions to mitigate the risk and both had been closed with no further action.
In response to questions, she explained that by the nature and volume of the work, children's and adult social care was expected to generate a higher number of incidents. Overall, whilst the percentage of breaches had been higher than the previous reporting period the pattern remained consistent and no significant concerns had been raised.
Following the discussion, it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the breaches that had occurred and was reassured by the actions taken.
7
Internal Audit Performance Status Report to 17th June 2025 & Annual Audit Opinion 2024/25
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to update the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee on the Internal Audit Performance for 2024/25 to 17th June 2025 against the Annual Audit Plan, highlight areas of concern and areas where assurance can be given on the internal control framework.
In addition to this the Annual Opinion on the effectiveness of the Internal Control Environment is provided in the attached Appendix B.
This opinion feeds into the Annual Governance Statement and is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1999 and the Global Internal Audit Standards
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee NOTES:
(i) the Audit Performance and results for 2024-2025 to 17 June 2025;
(ii) any highlighted areas of concern in relation to audits completed from the 2024-25 Audit Plan, including follow up work performed; and
(iii) the Annual Audit Report and Opinion for 2024-25.
The purpose of this report is to update the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee on the Internal Audit Performance for 2024/25 to 17th June 2025 against the Annual Audit Plan, highlight areas of concern and areas where assurance can be given on the internal control framework.
In addition to this the Annual Opinion on the effectiveness of the Internal Control Environment is provided in the attached Appendix B.
This opinion feeds into the Annual Governance Statement and is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1999 and the Global Internal Audit Standards
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee NOTES:
(i) the Audit Performance and results for 2024-2025 to 17 June 2025;
(ii) any highlighted areas of concern in relation to audits completed from the 2024-25 Audit Plan, including follow up work performed; and
(iii) the Annual Audit Report and Opinion for 2024-25.
Attachments:
- Document Internal Audit Covering Report July 2025 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix A Internal Audit Progress Report July 2025 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix B - Annual Audit Report and Opinion 202425 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Lizzi Goodwin, Chief Internal Auditor, introduced the report which updated the committee on the Internal Audit Performance for 2024/25 to 17 June 2025 against the Annual Audit Plan. The report highlighted areas of concern and areas where assurance could be given on the internal control framework.
The Chief Internal Auditor advised that there were no significant concerns that she wished to draw to the attention of the committee.
In response to questions, she confirmed that:
· DBS checks for passenger assistants reflected the national issue surrounding the backlog for the processing of DBS checks. The council had however implemented additional measures to mitigate this issue in the interim, namely risk assessments and paired working.
· Whilst there had been four high risks associated with 'plant', those relating to incomplete database content for lifts and the verification of works for payment had both been closed. The actions for the remaining high risks relating to servicing and contracts were in progress.
· The high risk exceptions relating to Special Educational Needs and Disability provision (SEND) concerned Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) not being completed within statutory timeframes and some areas of missing evidence, insufficient reportability within the Synergy system on the EHCPs in place and insufficient places within schools for all children with an EHCP.
· Whilst there had been a slight overall increase in high risk exceptions, she reminded the committee that on occasion the activities audited was a factor rather than there being a general upward trend.
In respect of the 2024/25 Annual Audit Opinion, The Chief Internal Auditor informed the committee that there had been changes in what needed to be reported, therefore the report contained more information that it had in previous years. For the first time the report included counter fraud activities.
Four levels of assurance could be given, with Portsmouth City Council achieving 'Reasonable Assurance'. Portsmouth City Council was a stable organisation with no systemic issues. The annual self assessment of the internal audit team had been undertaken and no major skills gaps had been identified.
Following the discussion the committee was reassured by the report and NOTED:
(i) the Audit Performance and results for 2024-2025 to 17 June 2025;
(ii) any highlighted areas of concern in relation to audits completed from the 2024-25 Audit Plan, including follow up work performed; and
(iii) the Annual Audit Report and Opinion for 2024-25.
The Chief Internal Auditor advised that there were no significant concerns that she wished to draw to the attention of the committee.
In response to questions, she confirmed that:
· DBS checks for passenger assistants reflected the national issue surrounding the backlog for the processing of DBS checks. The council had however implemented additional measures to mitigate this issue in the interim, namely risk assessments and paired working.
· Whilst there had been four high risks associated with 'plant', those relating to incomplete database content for lifts and the verification of works for payment had both been closed. The actions for the remaining high risks relating to servicing and contracts were in progress.
· The high risk exceptions relating to Special Educational Needs and Disability provision (SEND) concerned Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) not being completed within statutory timeframes and some areas of missing evidence, insufficient reportability within the Synergy system on the EHCPs in place and insufficient places within schools for all children with an EHCP.
· Whilst there had been a slight overall increase in high risk exceptions, she reminded the committee that on occasion the activities audited was a factor rather than there being a general upward trend.
In respect of the 2024/25 Annual Audit Opinion, The Chief Internal Auditor informed the committee that there had been changes in what needed to be reported, therefore the report contained more information that it had in previous years. For the first time the report included counter fraud activities.
Four levels of assurance could be given, with Portsmouth City Council achieving 'Reasonable Assurance'. Portsmouth City Council was a stable organisation with no systemic issues. The annual self assessment of the internal audit team had been undertaken and no major skills gaps had been identified.
Following the discussion the committee was reassured by the report and NOTED:
(i) the Audit Performance and results for 2024-2025 to 17 June 2025;
(ii) any highlighted areas of concern in relation to audits completed from the 2024-25 Audit Plan, including follow up work performed; and
(iii) the Annual Audit Report and Opinion for 2024-25.
8
Corporate Performance Report - Q4 2024/25
Purpose
The purpose of this item is to report to the committee any significant performance issues arising from the Q4 2024-25 performance monitoring and highlight areas for further action or analysis.
Appendices to follow under separate cover.
Recommendation
It is RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) notes the report; and
(ii) confirms assurance that a framework is in place to monitor and manage performance in the organization.
The purpose of this item is to report to the committee any significant performance issues arising from the Q4 2024-25 performance monitoring and highlight areas for further action or analysis.
Appendices to follow under separate cover.
Recommendation
It is RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) notes the report; and
(ii) confirms assurance that a framework is in place to monitor and manage performance in the organization.
Attachments:
- Document Q4 performance report 2024-25 for GAS 01 Jul 2025
- Document CP Report Q4 2024 15.05.25 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Kelly Nash, Corporate Performance Manager, introduced the report, which detailed any significant performance issues arising from Q4 2024-25 performance monitoring and highlighted any areas for further action or analysis.
The committee commended the clarity of the report, although would welcome some comparison data against the previous report for benchmarking purposes.
The committee was reassured to see that policies were evaluated and measured and was pleased to learn that 33 venues within the city had received 'Safer Streets 3' training that was designed to reduce violent crime, including against women and girls.
Following the discussion, the committee RESOLVED to:
(i) note the report; and
(ii) confirm assurance that a framework was in place to monitor and manage
performance in the organization.
The committee commended the clarity of the report, although would welcome some comparison data against the previous report for benchmarking purposes.
The committee was reassured to see that policies were evaluated and measured and was pleased to learn that 33 venues within the city had received 'Safer Streets 3' training that was designed to reduce violent crime, including against women and girls.
Following the discussion, the committee RESOLVED to:
(i) note the report; and
(ii) confirm assurance that a framework was in place to monitor and manage
performance in the organization.
9
Treasury Management Outturn Report 2024/25
Purpose
The purpose of the report is to inform members and the wider community of the Council's treasury management activities in 2024/25 and of the Council's treasury management position as of 31 March 2025.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the actual prudential and treasury management indicators based on the unaudited accounts, as shown in Appendix B, be noted (an explanation of the prudential and treasury management indicators is contained in Appendix C).
The purpose of the report is to inform members and the wider community of the Council's treasury management activities in 2024/25 and of the Council's treasury management position as of 31 March 2025.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the actual prudential and treasury management indicators based on the unaudited accounts, as shown in Appendix B, be noted (an explanation of the prudential and treasury management indicators is contained in Appendix C).
Attachments:
- Document Treasury Management Outturn Report 24-25 Final 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Helen Klemm, Finance Manager, introduced the report which updated on the council's treasury management activities in 2024/25 and the council's treasury management position as of 31 March 2025.
She advised that the council had continued to operate within the agreed Treasury Management Policy and in terms of debt, had closed the financial year with gross debt of £709m and gross investments of £248m. This gave a net debt of £461m. This was £500k better than predicted owing to the Bank of England base rate having not reduced as much as had been expected.
Following the discussion, it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the actual prudential and treasury management indicators based on the unaudited accounts, as shown in Appendix B of the report.
She advised that the council had continued to operate within the agreed Treasury Management Policy and in terms of debt, had closed the financial year with gross debt of £709m and gross investments of £248m. This gave a net debt of £461m. This was £500k better than predicted owing to the Bank of England base rate having not reduced as much as had been expected.
Following the discussion, it was RESOLVED that the committee NOTED the actual prudential and treasury management indicators based on the unaudited accounts, as shown in Appendix B of the report.
10
Protocol for determining the Main Opposition Group in the event of equal political group sizes
Purpose
To agree a protocol for determining the main opposition group in the event of equal political group sizes.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) considers the available options detailed in paragraph four of this report;
(ii) recommends that Council adopts option xx (to be agreed at the 9 July 2025 Governance & Audit & Standards Committee); and
(iii) that any resulting consequential changes to accommodate the resolution be made to the council's constitution.
To agree a protocol for determining the main opposition group in the event of equal political group sizes.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) considers the available options detailed in paragraph four of this report;
(ii) recommends that Council adopts option xx (to be agreed at the 9 July 2025 Governance & Audit & Standards Committee); and
(iii) that any resulting consequential changes to accommodate the resolution be made to the council's constitution.
Attachments:
- Document Main Opposition Group GAS Report Final 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Cllr George Madgwick addressed the committee under Standing Order 55, during which he believed that options 2 or 3 were reasonable and fair because they allowed the role to be shared between all eligible group leaders.
The committee considered the report of the Senior Local Democracy Officer.
The committee considered the merits of the seven options presented. Option 1 to no longer recognise a majority group leader, option 6 for the position to be determined based upon the same process used for determining a tied election result and option 7 for the matter to be agreed by Full Council were not supported by any members of the committee.
Option 2, to share the role jointly, and option 3 to alternate the role, were felt to have some merit and had the greatest precedent amongst other councils. However, it was felt by some members of the committee that alternating the role made more practical sense in councils which held all-out elections.
Cllr Smyth believed that option 4, whereby the main opposition group leader would be determined based upon the overall vote share of their party at the last regular elections represented a sound solution and had precedent with another local authority. Other members of the committee however highlighted that this approach was not reflective of the first past the post' electoral system used in England.
Option 5, a variant of option 4, but determining the matter based upon the number of seats won by the parties at the last regular election was proposed by Cllr Horton and seconded by Cllr Simpson.
Following a vote, five members of the committee voted for option 5 and one member voted against.
It was therefore RESOLVED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) recommends that Council adopts option 5 of the report; and
(ii) that any resulting consequential changes to accommodate the resolution be made to the council's constitution.
The committee considered the report of the Senior Local Democracy Officer.
The committee considered the merits of the seven options presented. Option 1 to no longer recognise a majority group leader, option 6 for the position to be determined based upon the same process used for determining a tied election result and option 7 for the matter to be agreed by Full Council were not supported by any members of the committee.
Option 2, to share the role jointly, and option 3 to alternate the role, were felt to have some merit and had the greatest precedent amongst other councils. However, it was felt by some members of the committee that alternating the role made more practical sense in councils which held all-out elections.
Cllr Smyth believed that option 4, whereby the main opposition group leader would be determined based upon the overall vote share of their party at the last regular elections represented a sound solution and had precedent with another local authority. Other members of the committee however highlighted that this approach was not reflective of the first past the post' electoral system used in England.
Option 5, a variant of option 4, but determining the matter based upon the number of seats won by the parties at the last regular election was proposed by Cllr Horton and seconded by Cllr Simpson.
Following a vote, five members of the committee voted for option 5 and one member voted against.
It was therefore RESOLVED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee:
(i) recommends that Council adopts option 5 of the report; and
(ii) that any resulting consequential changes to accommodate the resolution be made to the council's constitution.
11
Process for the nomination of Honorary Aldermen
Purpose
To progress the actions included within the notice of motion agreed by Council on 12 November 2024 titled 'Nominations for Honorary Alderman'.
Recommendation
That the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee recommends to Council that the new Honorary Alderman Selection Protocol attached as appendix A to this report be adopted and included as Part 9F of the Council's Constitution.
To progress the actions included within the notice of motion agreed by Council on 12 November 2024 titled 'Nominations for Honorary Alderman'.
Recommendation
That the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee recommends to Council that the new Honorary Alderman Selection Protocol attached as appendix A to this report be adopted and included as Part 9F of the Council's Constitution.
Attachments:
- Document Honorary Aldermen GAS Report (2) 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix A 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix B 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix C 01 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix D 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Cllr George Madgwick addressed the committee under Standing Order 55, during which he explained the difficulties that he had experienced in making such determinations when newly elected and having had no prior knowledge of the individuals being put forward. He felt that the revised process represented an improvement and in particular welcomed the report in respect of the conduct of the individual.
The committee considered the report of the Senior Local Democracy Officer.
The committee thanked the task and finish group for its work and believed that the process proposed was more robust and offered greater clarity when considering appointments.
The committee did however feel that the term 'with honour' was very much a matter of judgement and difficult to quantify.
As an amendment to the wording, it was proposed by Cllr Brown and seconded by Cllr Smyth to amend the paragraph headed 'Criteria' to read:
'That any member having reached the conclusion of their political career office in Portsmouth, and having served a period of ten years or more and having provided outstanding service, will automatically qualify to be recognised by considered for the granting of honorary aldermanship, or in exceptional circumstances a lesser period, subject in every case to the requirement for a formal vote at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose by no less than two-thirds of the Council members voting.'
Following a vote, this amendment was declared CARRIED.
The committee voted on the substantive recommendation, incorporating the above amendment.
It was RESOLVED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee recommended to Council that the new Honorary Alderman Selection Protocol below be adopted and included as Part 9F of the Council's Constitution:
'PROTOCOL FOR ADMISSION TO THE ROLL OF HONORARY ALDERMEN
Criteria
'That any member having reached the conclusion of their political career office in Portsmouth,having served a period of ten years or more and having provided outstanding service, will qualify to be considered for the granting of honorary aldermanship, or in exceptionalcircumstances a lesser period, subject in every case to the requirement for a formal vote at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose by no less than two-thirds of the members voting.'
Process
1. Any councillor may put forward a nomination for honorary aldermanship for a former Portsmouth City Councillor. This nomination must be in writing and contain a written supporting statement detailing the reasons why they should be considered for the honour.
2. Upon receipt, the Monitoring Officer to provide any relevant commentary in respect of conduct issues or the number of upheld complaints against the member for which records exist. This to be on a 'best endeavour' approach, as a different standards regime existed before 2011 and if a member has had a break in service records may have been destroyed in line with GDPR and retention schedules.
3. The nomination, supporting statement and any commentary from the Monitoring Officer to be considered informally by Group Leaders.
4. If agreed by consensus of Group Leaders to pursue the nomination, the nomination and the supporting statement from the proposer to be emailed, blind copy, to all councillors, with a request that they reply by a set deadline if they have any comments on the nomination. Any comments to be detailed within the reply.
5. Group Leaders to meet to consider any comments received and to make a decision as to whether to progress the nomination to an extraordinary meeting of the Council, subject to the proposed recipient being happy to accept the honour.
6. The proposed recipient to be informed that they have been nominated for the honorary title. The purpose being to seek their confirmation that they wish to be considered for the honorary title, and if so, how they would wish to be addressed if the award is made (Honorary Alderman, Honorary Alderwoman, Honorary Alderperson).
7. An extraordinary Council meeting is convened to consider the matter. For the recommendation to pass, no less than two-thirds of the members voting must vote in favour.'
The committee considered the report of the Senior Local Democracy Officer.
The committee thanked the task and finish group for its work and believed that the process proposed was more robust and offered greater clarity when considering appointments.
The committee did however feel that the term 'with honour' was very much a matter of judgement and difficult to quantify.
As an amendment to the wording, it was proposed by Cllr Brown and seconded by Cllr Smyth to amend the paragraph headed 'Criteria' to read:
'That any member having reached the conclusion of their political career office in Portsmouth, and having served a period of ten years or more and having provided outstanding service, will automatically qualify to be recognised by considered for the granting of honorary aldermanship, or in exceptional circumstances a lesser period, subject in every case to the requirement for a formal vote at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose by no less than two-thirds of the Council members voting.'
Following a vote, this amendment was declared CARRIED.
The committee voted on the substantive recommendation, incorporating the above amendment.
It was RESOLVED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee recommended to Council that the new Honorary Alderman Selection Protocol below be adopted and included as Part 9F of the Council's Constitution:
'PROTOCOL FOR ADMISSION TO THE ROLL OF HONORARY ALDERMEN
Criteria
'That any member having reached the conclusion of their political career office in Portsmouth,having served a period of ten years or more and having provided outstanding service, will qualify to be considered for the granting of honorary aldermanship, or in exceptionalcircumstances a lesser period, subject in every case to the requirement for a formal vote at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose by no less than two-thirds of the members voting.'
Process
1. Any councillor may put forward a nomination for honorary aldermanship for a former Portsmouth City Councillor. This nomination must be in writing and contain a written supporting statement detailing the reasons why they should be considered for the honour.
2. Upon receipt, the Monitoring Officer to provide any relevant commentary in respect of conduct issues or the number of upheld complaints against the member for which records exist. This to be on a 'best endeavour' approach, as a different standards regime existed before 2011 and if a member has had a break in service records may have been destroyed in line with GDPR and retention schedules.
3. The nomination, supporting statement and any commentary from the Monitoring Officer to be considered informally by Group Leaders.
4. If agreed by consensus of Group Leaders to pursue the nomination, the nomination and the supporting statement from the proposer to be emailed, blind copy, to all councillors, with a request that they reply by a set deadline if they have any comments on the nomination. Any comments to be detailed within the reply.
5. Group Leaders to meet to consider any comments received and to make a decision as to whether to progress the nomination to an extraordinary meeting of the Council, subject to the proposed recipient being happy to accept the honour.
6. The proposed recipient to be informed that they have been nominated for the honorary title. The purpose being to seek their confirmation that they wish to be considered for the honorary title, and if so, how they would wish to be addressed if the award is made (Honorary Alderman, Honorary Alderwoman, Honorary Alderperson).
7. An extraordinary Council meeting is convened to consider the matter. For the recommendation to pass, no less than two-thirds of the members voting must vote in favour.'
12
Consideration of the political balance rules in relation to the constitution of Sub-Committees considering complaints against Members
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to ask the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee to consider whether it wishes to disapply the political balance rules in respect of its Sub-Committees which consider complaints against members and to agree that the same rule shall apply to the Initial Filtering Panel.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee disapplies the political balance rules in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees which are considering complaints against members and also the same arrangement should apply in respect of Initial Filtering Panel membership.
The purpose of this report is to ask the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee to consider whether it wishes to disapply the political balance rules in respect of its Sub-Committees which consider complaints against members and to agree that the same rule shall apply to the Initial Filtering Panel.
Recommendation
RECOMMENDED that the Governance & Audit & Standards Committee disapplies the political balance rules in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees which are considering complaints against members and also the same arrangement should apply in respect of Initial Filtering Panel membership.
Attachments:
- Document GAS report Political Balance Rules July 2025 01 Jul 2025
Minutes
Cllr George Madgwick addressed the committee under Standing Order 55.
During his address he detailed that neither he or any members of the PIP Group had sat on an Initial Filtering Panel and therefore questioned how balanced the composition of the panels had been.
He therefore believed that the panels should be proportional in order to promote fairness and asked that the committee not pass the resolution to disapply the political balance rules in relation to the constitution of Sub-Committees considering complaints against members.
In introducing the item, the City Solicitor reminded the committee that the role of members on Initial Filtering Panels was to aid him in making a determination and that the members had no decision making powers. Members did however have decision making powers on sub-committees and when such meetings were convened it was useful to call upon as a wide a pool of members as possible to sit.
In response to a question, it was not clear when it had been decided that only members of the G&A&S Committee could sit on Initial Filtering Panels and the possibility of expanding this to all members would be investigated.
It was proposed by Cllr Brown and seconded by Cllr Smyth that the political balance rules be disapplied in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees that consider complaints against members and also the same arrangement should apply in respect of Initial Filtering Panel membership.
Following a vote the proposal was declared LOST, as one member of the committee voted against the proposal and in order to pass the vote was required to be unanimous.
It was therefore RESOLVED that the political balance rules are not disapplied in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees or Initial Filtering Panel membership.
During his address he detailed that neither he or any members of the PIP Group had sat on an Initial Filtering Panel and therefore questioned how balanced the composition of the panels had been.
He therefore believed that the panels should be proportional in order to promote fairness and asked that the committee not pass the resolution to disapply the political balance rules in relation to the constitution of Sub-Committees considering complaints against members.
In introducing the item, the City Solicitor reminded the committee that the role of members on Initial Filtering Panels was to aid him in making a determination and that the members had no decision making powers. Members did however have decision making powers on sub-committees and when such meetings were convened it was useful to call upon as a wide a pool of members as possible to sit.
In response to a question, it was not clear when it had been decided that only members of the G&A&S Committee could sit on Initial Filtering Panels and the possibility of expanding this to all members would be investigated.
It was proposed by Cllr Brown and seconded by Cllr Smyth that the political balance rules be disapplied in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees that consider complaints against members and also the same arrangement should apply in respect of Initial Filtering Panel membership.
Following a vote the proposal was declared LOST, as one member of the committee voted against the proposal and in order to pass the vote was required to be unanimous.
It was therefore RESOLVED that the political balance rules are not disapplied in respect of Governance and Audit and Standards Sub-Committees or Initial Filtering Panel membership.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in