Agenda item

To receive the report of the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager on any Notices of Motion received by her.

Councillors are asked to note that any Notices of Motion must be received by the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager no later than noon on 7 February 2023.

As required by paragraph 29.3 in Appendix 2 of the Constitution (Procedural Standing Orders), any proposal to alter or amend the Procedure Rules is, once proposed and seconded, adjourned to the next meeting of the Council to receive a report from the Monitoring Officer. This Monitoring Officer report covered two Notices of Motion deferred from the Council meeting on 12 January 2023 which propose changes to the Procedure Rules.

Council agreed that the Council consider the report as part of debating the Notices of Motion relating to:

a)    removing the time limit for considering Notices of Motion, CMR reports, and Questions, and

b)    the process for Amendments to Motions,

noting the advice about validity set out in the report, and

If the Council decided to amend the constitution, the Monitoring Officer was authorised to update the Constitution accordingly.

Notice of Motion 1 - to change the constitution – Process for amendments and removal of time limits at the meeting

Those in favour of the Motion commented:

·         There were few opportunities for ‘back bench’ councillors to influence policy and ask questions in public. There were occasions when there was time for Council meeting to be expanded without time limits

·         The purpose of the original motion in 2016 was to better utilise the knowledge and experience of, and give a voice to non-Cabinet members. However, the scrutiny exercise turned into a debate about meetings being too long and how could they be shortened. This motion was aimed at returning to the ethos of the original motion and improve the level of debate. The time limit meant on occasion that time ran out to consider timely and important motions

·         Full Council meetings were the chief forum for councillors to discuss key issues. The time-limit rules had been tested and had failed, resulting in motions not being debated, questions unasked and decisions not being taken

·         It was not good practice to effectively limit discussion of motions by Council to 9 hour per annum.

Those against the Motion commented:

·         A cross-party member group had been established to examine this process and as a result these time limits had been democratically approved by Council. Times had changed and the Council needed to change. There was no reason to return to previous working practices

·         The Council could be considering more important issues to local residents at this meeting rather discussing the organisation of debate

·         The current system worked well and there were plenty of opportunities for councillors to contribute. Members could raise issues with the Leader and Cabinet members at any time.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was lost.

Notice of Motion 2 - Process for Amendments to Motions

Those in favour of the Motion commented:

·         Advanced notice of amendments gave members the opportunity to read them, consider them and come to a sensible conclusion. At present, amendments were handed out at the last minute with little opportunity to absorb them which was not good governance. It did not seem onerous for amendments to be approved by the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance and presented 3 days in advance of the meeting to political groups. This motion would lead to better decision-making. Minor amendments at the last minute would not be an issue. Large-scale rewrites of motions put the Monitoring Officer in a difficult position determining whether the amendment negated the original motion

·         It was difficult for the movers of the original motion to respond to an amendment when they were only circulated via hard copy at the time the amendment was moved at the meeting

·         It was requested that as soon as the Monitoring Officer had approved the wording of an amendment, it was released to all councillors, a few days before if possible. It would give the mover of the motion time to accept the amendment or not, or suggest changes.

Those against the Motion commented:

·         The approval of this motion would not preclude other amendments of any nature (other than a negation) from being tabled at the last minute. The constitution allowed members the ability to request a recess to have time to consider an amendment. Amendments proposed by the administration were always checked with the Monitoring Officer to ensure that they were acceptable constitutionally. The system worked well in its current form

·         The current procedure allowed a degree of flexibility which meant that often, with some rewording, motions could become acceptable and agreed.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was lost.