Agenda item

To consider a report on (a) findings of the Council Working Group, (b) Council Meeting dates 2019, and (c) Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies (Yellow pages).

a) Council Working Group

 

Council considered the report of the Council Working Group. The details were set out in the report.

 

The changes to the arrangements for Council meetings as proposed by the Council Working Group were moved by Mr J H Smith and seconded by Mr M J Hart.

 

The mover and seconder spoke in favour of the recommendation, thanking all those who took part in the workings of the Council Working Group although it was noted that the Labour Group had not participated. Sheena Jones and Debbie Dale were also thanked for their support to the Group.

 

An amendment was moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski that consideration of the findings of the Council Working Group be deferred in order for the task approved by Council, in response to the original Notice of Motion, be properly addressed as agreed in January 2016 when the Notice of Motion was accepted.

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption: the key points being:

 

·         The original Notice of Motion had been agreed unanimously and focused on improving the quality of debate at full Council meetings, improving opportunities for non-executive members and better utilising their skills. It was disappointing therefore that the recommendations from the Group did not recognise these aspects but instead focused on ways of shortening full Council meetings and on this basis, consideration of the report should be deferred

·         The findings of the Working Group totally ignored the basis on which it was set up to improve transparency and increase the involvement of all backbenchers

·         How could every councillor make a strong contribution to debate when the time available for Notices of Motion, questions and Cabinet Member reports was being reduced? The premise behind the findings appeared to be that full Council meetings were too long but this was rejected. Members had a duty to represent their constituents at full Council meetings and the present time commitment for members was not excessive

·         The revised deadline for the submission of questions would prevent councillors from raising important issues at the last minute

·         The 90 minute time restriction on Notices of Motion was undemocratic and stifled debate. The restriction of motions to statutory functions or County Council matters failed to recognise the impact of national issues on the local area. The current procedures worked effectively

·         The time limit proposed for Cabinet Member reports and answers restricted the opportunity of councillors to fully question, complement or criticise the administration on complex issues as well as restricting the time available to  the Cabinet Member to provide (in some cases) lengthy replies 

·         Bearing in mind, there were only 6 meetings of the Council per year and Notices of Motion would be restricted to 90 minutes for discussion under the proposals, each individual councillor would have very limited time over the year to contribute to debate

·         Consideration of the Working Group report should be deferred to allow the full range of issues set out in the original motion to be developed further with cross-party support

·         The proposed restrictions would lead to issues being raised outside the Council Chamber in other forums or through the media 

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·         The contribution to this debate from the Labour Group might have been more meaningful if their nominated representatives had attended any of the Council Working Group sessions

·         Many of the questions raised at Council meetings could be addressed by officers or Cabinet Members outside the meeting. In addition, the quality of the questions asked was poor. The Working Group proposals were not aimed at restricting debate at full Council meetings. In any case, the number of opposition councillors who left the meeting after lunch should be noted. Councillors had plenty of opportunities to get involved in debate at Cabinet and scrutiny meetings but some councillors were more inclined to make comments in the press.

 

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

 

In debating the substantive motion as originally moved and seconded, the following main points were made:

 

Comments in favour of the substantive motion included:

 

·         The purpose of the findings of the Working Group was to improve the standard of behaviour at full Council meetings

·         If members did not agree with the findings of the Working Group then they had the opportunity to vote against them. Deferring consideration of the report because certain aspects were considered unpalatable would just create unnecessary delay

·         Provision already existed in the Council's Constitution to ask emergency questions at the discretion of the Chairman of the Council. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that there was provision for urgent formal questions to be placed before Council if the Chairman agreed that the matter was urgent and filed at least 30 minutes before the start of the meeting, although none had been forthcoming to date. That urgency provision was not part of the recommendations of the Working Group and would therefore continue unaffected by the proposals before Council. There was no such constitutional provision for Notices of Motion

·         If issues arose from the next councillor survey, members could request that the Working Group be reformed.

 

Comments made against the substantive motion included:

 

·         It was not clear what would happen to Motions that were not taken due to the time limit being reached or how to ensure a fair share of Motions between the different political groups within the time limit

·         It would appear that the administration would like to control the questions that were asked of it at full Council meetings. However, the role of the opposition was to ask those questions that the administration did not wish to answer

·         There needed to be some form of provision in the Council's constitution to allow for emergency questions and Notices of Motion to be submitted

·         It was clear from the original Notice of Motion that the work of the Working Group had not been concluded. The last meeting of the Working Group had agreed that there were work streams to progress and to undertake an annual survey of members

·         The Working Group should continue and keep a watching brief on the activities of Council and any changes agreed at this meeting should be reviewed by the Group in due course

·         Full Council was a different form of theatre to any other Council meetings and drew the attention of the  public

·         In response to a query about the status of the proposed recommendation put forward by the Conservative Group, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the statutory officer had set out a neutral recommendation in the report asking Council to consider the proposed changes put forward by the Council Working Group. It was for members of Council to put forward any substantive motion and that was what the Conservative Group had proposed.

 

On a named vote RESOLVED that

 

a)   the arrangements for Council meetings be changed on the following basis:

 

Question Time:

 

1.       (a)     The proposal is that no change to the number of questions that can be asked but questions must be ranked in order of priority by the Member at the time of submitting a question.  The time allowed will be unchanged.

          (b)    The deadline for questions will be 12 noon on the 9th calendar day before a Council meeting, normally a Tuesday.

 

Notice of Motion:

 

2.        (a)     Deadline for Notices of Motion will be at 12 noon on the 9th  calendar day before a Council meeting, normally a Tuesday.

(b)    A maximum of 90 minutes for all discussions on Notices of Motion.

(c)    Notices of Motion must relate to the statutory functions of the County Council or affect the County Council in particular.

 

Cabinet Member Reports

 

3.         It is recommended that reports should be shorter and more concise and a maximum of 30 minutes permitted for questions and answers on the report.

 

Future of Council Working Group

 

4.        This working group has now concluded its work and Council formally disbands it.

 

b)  the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to make any changes to the constitution if required as a result of consideration of the proposals.

 

Those voting in favour were:

 

Mr B Clayton, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr R P Tomlinson, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (37)

 

Those voting against were:

 

Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (14)

 

b) Council meeting dates 2019

 

County Council meeting dates were currently scheduled up to November 2018. To enable the 2019 meetings programme to be produced and help members plan their commitments, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services suggested that further meetings of the Council were now scheduled for 2019. In accordance with the usual practice and pattern of meetings, further meetings (Cabinet, Committees and Panels) would be arranged in the light of the Council dates and members notified in due course.

 

RESOLVED that the programme of meetings for 2019 be approved as follows:

 

17 January 2019

14 February 2019

16 May 2019

18 July 2019

12 September 2019

07 November 2019.

 

c) Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Member Bodies

 

The Council received regular reports on appointments which needed to be made to various chairmanships and vice-chairmanships. The nominations for a number of appointments were set out in the Appendix to the report.

 

In the ensuing debate, concern was expressed about the poor attendance by members of the Overview, Scrutiny and Performance Board. The Chairman of the Board undertook to work with members and officers to select suitable dates for future meetings of the Board.

 

RESOLVED that the constitutional appointments as set out in the Appendix to the report be confirmed.