Agenda item

The Chairman of the Council, Councillor A P Miller, attended for this item.  He had been invited to the meeting to update the OSPB on the work of the cross-party Council Working Group (CWG) and its emerging findings.

By way of introduction, he reminded Members that all information considered by the CWG was available for all Councillors to view as the CWG had worked in an open and transparent way.  The aim of the CWG was to see whether the way Council currently operated could be improved.

Members were given an opportunity to discuss the CWG's emerging findings and, in the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

·         The Chairman of the Board asked about the potential recommendation that Cabinet Member reports should first be considered by OSPB and only passed to Council if Board Members had concerns.  The Chairman of the Council reminded Members that the CWG was not able to make any decisions but would make recommendations that would need to be agreed by full Council.  The suggestions made in the agenda report were from the whole working group.

·         The Chairman of OSPB went on to request further clarification on how OSPB Members would channel their concerns about CMR reports and whether this would be through Cabinet or Council.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services informed the Board that there had been a fair degree of consensus in the Working Group that consideration of Cabinet Member reports was better placed with Scrutiny rather than full Council, with Scrutiny having the power to refer to Council by exception.  The Chairman of the Board told Members that he felt that Scrutiny should have the power to refer any concerns direct to Council.

·         A Member of the Board thanked the Chairman for his work on the CWG.  He went on to suggest that the consideration of CMR reports at Council was sterile and did not allow Members to get to the issues that mattered most.  He felt that Scrutiny had an important role to play and wholeheartedly supported the proposal that Cabinet Member reports should be considered by Scrutiny.  As to whether this should be done by OSPB or the Overview and Scrutiny Panels, the jury was out.  Personally, he felt that it may be most effective for the reports to be considered by OSPB with relevant Panel Members invited to attend.

·         The Member said he was often embarrassed by full Council meetings and the performance of Members and their treatment of officers.  In particular, he referred to the treatment of the Chief Executive at the last meeting.  It should be for Councillors to regulate Council meetings, not officers.  There would be an opportunity as part of the induction process following the May elections to start again and remind Members that they were ultimately responsible for their own conduct.  He questioned what was achieved at full Council meetings and suggested that there should be more meetings spread throughout the year.  Personally, he was not comfortable with time limits for discussion of Notices of Motion.  The prime functions for most elected Members were Scrutiny and full Council.

·         The Chairman of the Council informed Members that the CWG had received a response to the proposals from the 2013 Group which had included many of these points and would be considered at the CWG's next meeting.  Responses had been received from 2 Groups so far and it was hoped further responses would be received from all political groups.  It would then be for the new Council to decide on the recommendations.

·         A Board Member agreed that bringing CMR reports to OSPB was an interesting idea and would provide an opportunity for a serious and thorough consideration, something that was not possible in a full Council meeting, where the purpose of the report was often lost.  He suggested that the same should be true of the Chief Executive's annual report.  He regretted that this had become necessary as there had been a clear rationale for taking the reports to Council.  He suggested that Members needed to exercise self-control and agreed that recent meetings had been embarrassing.  He had also heard comments from Members of the public who had attended Council and they were not flattering.

·         The Member went on to suggest that the Chairman of Council should be given powers not to call a Member to speak if they were being unruly.  He was concerned that, by sending CMR and Chief Executive reports to Scrutiny rather than full Council, the Council would be changing procedures but not addressing the problem.  He felt that, as time for questions was already limited, this should also be the case for Notices of Motion.  He also suggested that Notices of Motion should be disciplined and not designed to obtain maximum column inches in local newspapers, especially where the County Council did not have specific responsibility for the matter being discussed.  Full Council was being abused and Members had not done themselves any favours.

·         The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that there was a formal process that Council could follow for a Member to be 'named' if they were felt to be misbehaving.  This would not be the Chairman's decision but would be put to full Council if the Chairman agreed.  If Council decided to 'name' that person, they would no longer be called to speak.  If the poor behaviour continued, Council could vote to have that person physically removed.  There were also informal methods of discipline which the Chairman used to control business.  The Chairman did not have the express power to simply not call a Member to speak.

·         It was suggested that by the time the meeting had got to 4 or 5pm, Council was no longer doing anything useful and this undermined the reputation of the Council.

·         Another Board Member informed Members that, following the last Council meeting, he had reflected on how the meeting had been of benefit to the people he represented and he concluded that this was very little.  He agreed that questions should relate to the business of the Council and there should be less political grandstanding.  It was clear that a great deal of work went into Cabinet Member reports and they included much interesting content.  Council did not allow for a full discussion of the reports and it was suggested that a mechanism could be devised whereby the reports came to OSPB to identify the key points for Council in preparation for a more sensible discussion.  It was important that the Cabinet Member also attended OSPB for the discussion.

·         A Board Member informed OSPB that he disagreed with the suggestion that Members should be readily 'named' as this set a very dangerous precedent.  He suggested that Members were deluding themselves if they thought that all of the problems of Council were down to questions and Notices of Motion.  He suggested that, in recent years, there had been some poor Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen who were not up to the job.  At the same time people who had years of service and experience were rejected, just because they were not from the majority group.  He referred to a recent incident where a Labour Member was stopped from speaking before the end of his allotted time, whereas a Conservative Member was allowed to speak for 6 minutes over.  The Cabinet system was highly centralised and he suggested that there had been an opportunity to make the Council more inclusive by reviewing the Cabinet system, but this opportunity had been rejected.  He went on to suggest that very few questions or Notices of Motion came from back bench Conservative Councillors and some did not contribute at all to meetings of full Council.

·         The Board Member went on to make the point that, for back-bench Councillors, asking a question on a local issue at Council which may result in a report in a local newspaper, was one way to communicate with local residents.  He suggested that Notices of Motion were very important and deserved the time that they were given.  If the Council was serious about change, it should look at the fundamentals and allow the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be selected from Members who were not part of the majority group.  This would be easy to do and might work to bring the groups together and encourage working across party lines.

·         The Chairman of OSPB reminded Members that the County Council was the chief forum of the County and enabled people to put forward issues, whatever their political background.  He was frustrated by the time limit on questions and would be nervous about putting similar restrictions on Notices of Motion.  It may be better to provide further guidance rather than restriction, with possibly written questions and answers for Question Time.  He agreed that the Council needed to find a better way of appointing the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

A Councillor who was not a Member of the OSPB was invited to comment.  She informed that Board of her anger at the cross-party CWG's proposals.  She believed that the original intention of the Notice of Motion had been distorted.  It had also been about enabling the role of every Councillor and this had been ignored.  Six of the proposed recommendations would further reduce the already minor powers of the back-benchers.  The whole organisation was currently focused on Cabinet and on supporting Cabinet Members.  The number of people who could become involved in Scrutiny was limited due to the rules on political balance.  Bringing Cabinet Member reports to Scrutiny rather than full Council would not enhance the role of the back-bencher.  Rather, it would reduce the already narrow ability of the ordinary Member to play a part in the life of the Council.  The Council should be in the ownership of all Councillors and the agenda should be set by a cross-party group rather than by the controlling group.  There were lots of skilled people who wished to take part but who were systematically left out by the current system.  She reiterated that she was deeply disappointed by the lack of regard for Councillors other than those in appointed roles.

In response, the Chairman of the Council reminded Members that the CWG had been formed by a consensus of the Council and he had volunteered to chair the group because, as Chairman of the Council, he was not a political figure.  The aim of the group was to look at how Members conducted themselves and how things could be improved.  Every Member had had an opportunity to be involved.  The CWG had brought things to a point where Councillors could examine themselves and move forward.

The Chairman of the OSPB made the following points:

·         There was support for Cabinet Member and Chief Executive reports to come to OSPB with the Board raising any concerns with Council.  If this was to work it would also require participation from Councillors who were not Members of OSPB.

·         Personally he would be uncomfortable with time limits for Notices of Motion and questions to Council.

·         He would support written questions to Council, which should be unlimited and answers published on the day of Council.

·         He would support continuing to follow current standing orders rather than allowing the Chairman to have the power not to call a Member to speak.

·         The offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and how appointments are made should be considered further.

Members were given a further opportunity to contribute and the following main points were made:

·         Members were reminded that, in other local authorities, the Chairman did not always come from the controlling group.  In relation to Overview and Scrutiny, it was suggested that the controlling group had done well as they could have decided to appoint a Chairman of OSPB from their own group.  The current system meant that, other than those Members who were on Cabinet, even Members of the controlling group had a small role to play and they felt constrained.  Further support was expressed for a cross-party Chairman.

·         The Chairman of the OSPB referred members to Telford and Wrekin Council who had split the job of Chairman into two elements – a civic head and a Speaker of Council.  If this were done in Worcestershire, it was suggested that one of the roles could be from a different political party.

·         It was suggested that the Council could look at how business was organised in the House of Commons where curtailments were used simply to get through the business.  Further, it was suggested that the timing of the report was not good as it would be finalised before the end of the current Council but it would be for the new Council to agree the action and take matters forward.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that it was anticipated the report would be completed during the current Council ahead of decisions being made by the new Council.

·         It was suggested that the discussion was missing the entire point of the working group which was to empower Councillors.  Currently, the only way the majority of Councillors could have power was via the press.  All power was in the hands of the 9 Members who sat on Cabinet.  There was a need to empower those talented Members with knowledge and experience to allow them to become involved in decision-making.

·         Further concern was expressed that not one proposal from the working group enhanced the power of Councillors and most appeared to further limit it.

·         It was suggested that it may be helpful to give the new Council a few months to settle before deciding on the CWG's report.  It was confirmed that this would be viable and there was no requirement for a decision to made at May Council.  However, it was suggested that delaying the decision might create a vacuum.  It may be best for the working group itself to re-consider the timing of implementation.  There should be consensus across the political groups on this.

·         With reference to the appointment of the Council Chairman, it was suggested that this could be something for OSPB to consider in future.  The current Chairman of Council indicated that he would be happy to attend OSPB and give his views.

On behalf of the Board, the Chairman thanked Councillor Miller for his attendance and for his year as Chairman of the Council.