Agenda item

To consider the updated recommendations from the Constitution Review Group and agree that changes to Standing Orders in relation to Council meetings are to be made. 

As part of the Constitution Review Group and as the newly elected Vice-Chairman of the Council, Mr Skellett introduced the report. He explained that the Council had last reviewed its council and committee processes at the County Council meeting in October 2014, when it was agreed that the Review Group would re-consider how to handle the number and timing of motions and also the number of signatures required, in the Council’s Petition Scheme, to trigger a debate at full Council.

He drew attention to the recommendations set out in the Update Report as set out on pages 43 – 45 of the Council agenda and expanded on the reasoning for them.

Mr Harrison tabled an amendment to the recommendations – amending recommendations (2) and (6) as set out below:

(2)   There is a presumption that original motions will normally be taken in the order in which they are received.  However, in the event that the number of motions received deems it unlikely that they can be debated within the time limit, or for example, where an excessive number of motions had been received or a number of motions from one Group which might prohibit a balance of debate across the Council, the Chairman has the discretion to determine the order in which they are debated following consultation with Group Leaders and others as appropriate. , but second motions submitted by any Group will be added to the end of the end of the list of first motions submitted by each Group or by an individual Member, in a similar manner to which the Council deals with Member questions. Third motions will follow and so on. 

(6)   The Chairman’s role is to ensure that the debate on motions is fully heard but that the debate is not prolonged unnecessarily to prevent later motions and debates being given sufficient consideration. but is not unduly repetitive and the debate is not prolonged unnecessarily.

The remaining recommendations were unchanged in his amendment.

He said that the Residents Association / Independent Group would prefer an overall time limit rather than a restriction on the number of motions and he also considered adopting a similar approach as Members’ questions was a good approach, so that any second / third motion would be added to the list after all first motions submitted by each Group, because he disagreed with the Chairman using his/her discretion in determining the order of the motions.

He referred to the option, already available to Council, to defer motions to select committees / Cabinet and also said that as the Constitution Review Group was continuing its work for a further year, there would be a further opportunity to review changes and therefore urged Members to support his amendments.

Mr Skellett did not accept Mr Harrison’s amendment to the recommendations of the Constitution Review Group because he considered that it removed from the Chairman, the option to determine the order of the motions and therefore, proposed his own amendment to recommendation (2) by adding the following to Mr Harrison’s amendment:

‘However, in the event that the number of motions received deems it unlikely that they can be debated within the time limit the Chairman has the discretion to determine the order in which they are debated following consultation with Group Leaders and others as appropriate, being mindful of the political balance of the Council and the need to ensure fair representation for all political groups.’

So that recommendation (2) now read:

‘There is a presumption that original motions will normally be taken in the order in which they are received but second motions submitted by any Group will be added to the end of the end of the list of first motions submitted by each Group or by an individual Member, in a similar manner to which the Council deals with Member questions. Third motions will follow and so on.  However, in the event that the number of motions received deems it unlikely that they can be debated within the time limit the Chairman has the discretion to determine the order in which they are debated following consultation with Group Leaders and others as appropriate, being mindful of the political balance of the Council and the need to ensure fair representation for all political groups.’

The remaining recommendations remained unchanged.

Mr Harrison did not accept the amendment as proposed by Mr Skellett.

The Chairman said that Members would debate the amendment, as further amended by Mr Skellett and vote on this amendment. However if Members voted against this amendment, they would return to Mr Harrison’s amendment and vote on that one.

During the debate on the amendment, the following points were made:

·         Mrs Watson said that these amendments indicated how complicated this review had become and informed Members that she had a further amendment, which she would table after this amendment had been decided

·         Concern that the Chairman would not be impartial

·         The original amendment was simple and logical and the further amendment should be rejected

·         A request for cross-party support for the original amendment

·         That the majority of motions usually came from the opposition and that Mr Harrison’s amendment was too prescriptive

·         Acknowledgement of the option to refer motions, however, using this option created a ‘back-up’ of business for later council meetings

·         The proposed recommendations agreed that there should be no cap on the number of motions but that there should be a time limit

·         The importance of retaining the Chairman’s discretion.

After the debate on Mr Skellett’s amendment, the recommendations of the Constitution Review Group were put to the vote with 56 Members voting for and 15 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

Therefore the amendment was carried.

Mrs Watson’s amendment was tabled. She proposed deleting recommendations (1) to (4) and to reducing the number of signatures required to trigger a debate in the Council’s Petition Scheme from 10,000 to 3,000.

Mrs Watson said that she considered that the threshold for signatures in the Council Petition Scheme was still too high and would continue to prevent residents par-taking in County Council meetings. She also considered that the role of the full County Council meetings was for cross-party debate and to share ideas, which would be curtailed if the new recommendations were agreed.

This amendment was ruled as not valid.

Therefore, Members were asked to vote on the revised recommendations, as agreed after Mr Skellett’s amendment, with 56 Members voting for and 15 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

Therefore, it was:

RESOLVED:

That the following recommendations to be effective from the next ordinary meeting of the Council:

1.       There should be no cap on the number of motions set down for debate at Council meetings but a limit of one and a half hours for the total debate on motions, subject to the Chairman’s discretion to waive the time limit if it is  deemed the matter is of particular importance.

2.       There is a presumption that original motions will normally be taken in the order in which they are received but second motions submitted by any Group will be added to the end of the end of the list of first motions submitted by each Group or by an individual Member, in a similar manner to which the Council deals with Member questions. Third motions will follow and so on.  However, in the event that the number of motions received deems it unlikely that they can be debated within the time limit the Chairman has the discretion to determine the order in which they are debated following consultation with Group Leaders and others as appropriate, being mindful of the political balance of the Council and the need to ensure fair representation for all political groups.

3.       There is a presumption against having original motions at the statutory Annual General Meeting (May) and the Annual Budget Council Meeting (February).  Motions may be accepted at the Chairman’s discretion however, discussions must be contained within an indicative time limit of 45 minutes in total. This is to take account of any emerging or urgent issues deemed to be of sufficient importance to discuss at these two Council meetings.

4.       That the Council’s Standing Orders are updated to reflect revised time limits to apply to speeches, as detailed in Annex B of the submitted report.

5.       The Council’s Petition Scheme be amended to set the threshold for a petition to trigger a debate at Council at 10,000 signatures, as set out in Annex C of the submitted report.

6.       The Chairman’s role is to ensure that the debate on motions is fully heard but is not unduly repetitive and the debate is not prolonged unnecessarily.

7.       That the new arrangements for motions should be reviewed after one year to judge their effectiveness.

8.       That a full review of Standing Orders is undertaken in relation to accuracy and ‘points of order’ by the end of 2015.

9.       That the Council’s Standing Orders are updated to reflect the change in legislation to state that a recorded vote must be undertaken when the vote is taken for setting the annual budget.

10.     That the Constitution Review Group continues its work for a further year under the chairmanship of the new County Council Vice-Chairman, once elected.

11.     That the Member Development Steering Group considers further training for Members on the procedural aspects of the Constitution.