Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Prof J W Raine, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr T A L Wells, Dr C Hotham and Mr M E Jenkins.
The motion was moved by Prof J W Raine and seconded by Dr C Hotham who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.
Those in favour of the Motion made the following points:
· There were limited means for opposition members to influence the Council agenda other than through questions and notices of motion. The introduction of time limits for the consideration of motions had further constrained this opportunity. At recent meetings, attempts by opposition members to raise motions had been thwarted by the filibustering tactics of the controlling group with repetitive, time-wasting and verbose contributions on non-controversial issues. It was disrespectful not just to opposite groups but also local residents, waiting for discussions on important issues. There was now some doubt as to whether the first come first served approach to submitting motions was appropriate or fair. It led to an unseemly race to submit motions as soon as possible in advance of the meeting. It was therefore proposed that a system be implemented that would allow each group the opportunity to submit at least one motion at each Council meeting and to extend the time limit to 120 minutes
· The restrictions resulting from the pandemic had led to further erosion of practices and procedures with artificially imposed time limits being further reduced. At recent meetings, the motions put forward by the controlling group had been non-controversial yet took up a disproportionately large amount of the allocated time
· It was important to have an inclusive system in place that allowed all members from all groups the opportunity to bring forward policy suggestions
· Whilst acknowledging that council meetings should not be unnecessarily prolonged, the introduction of time limits on motions had stifled debate, led to a backlog of motions that lost their immediacy, benefited the group that submitted their motion first and led to important subjects not being debated. The time limits on motions should be discussed and agreed by group leaders prior to formal ratification at the first meeting of Council after the elections
· It had never been suggested that motions were the property of the opposition groups but there were plenty of other ways for members to celebrate aspects of the county. The consideration of issues that impacted policy decisions would be a better use of this time.
Those against the Motion made the following points:
· The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills commented that the Council’s constitution had been amended by Council in May 2018 so that motions would be considered on a first come first served basis for a maximum period of 90 minutes. It would be inappropriate to amend the constitution at this stage of the life of the Council and in such a piecemeal way. It was a task for the new council to determine after the elections next year. A 60-minute time limit for motions had been agreed between group leaders as a result of concerns about the length of virtual meetings. However, the Chairman had now agreed that the 90-minute time limit be reintroduced. The accusation of filibustering was subjective given that every councillor had an equal right to speak at a Council meeting, was limited to a 2-minute contribution, and no doubt believed their contribution to be as important as anyone else. This motion was too specific in nature as there was no way of knowing how many groups would be created post elections
· The changes to the constitution had been brought about as a result of the recommendations of a cross-party working group. This working group had been established by Council to prevent unnecessarily lengthy meetings. However, it was noted that the Labour Group had not participated in this work
· At a previous Council meeting, a motion had been brought forward on the agenda papers at the request of an opposite group. That motion had then taken the whole 90-minute allocation
· The time spent by councillors discussing this motion could be better spent discussing other important council business or motions
· The motion appeared to suggest that councillors could not celebrate the good work being carried out in their local community
· All councillors should be treated equally. Backbenchers would be particularly disenfranchised should this motion be carried
· The Chairman had an independent role in facilitating the order of Council business. The opposition groups had an opportunity ahead of the meeting to make requests to the Chairman to change it
· The vast majority of motions considered by this Council over the last five meetings had been submitted by opposition groups so the facts did not support the accusation that motions were being dominated by the controlling group.
On being put to the vote, the Motion was lost.