Agenda item

To consider the procedure for moving amendments at Council Meetings.

Councillor Oliver presented a report proposing changes to the Council’s procedure rules for moving amendments.  The report had been considered by Governance, Audit and Performance Committee on 8 February and 17 May 2018.  After consideration at the meeting on 17 May, the Committee had recommended the changes proposed in the report for adoption by the Council.   Councillor Oliver therefore proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Jones. 

Members discussed the report in detail.  Points were raised in relation to various aspects. 

Councillor Artus said he agreed with the recommendation, but considered there was a need for an omission to be clarified.  Whilst the report stated there was also the safeguard that, if the Council was of the view that it made sense to consider an amendment despite these rules, it could do so by majority agreement, this provision was not stated in the appendix. 

The Chairman said the Council could suspend standing orders.

Councillor S Barker asked what would happen if immediately before the proposed deadline the legal officer decided the motion was not fit.

The Assistant Director - Governance and Legal said he would encourage members to talk to him in advance if considering an amendment, to avoid the issue of submitting suitable wording at the moment before a deadline.  Members could speak either to him or to the Democratic Services Manager to avoid encountering procedural issues. 

Councillor R Freeman said he had served on the Council when its governance had been the committee system.  He had found the committee system to be more inclusive, although not so efficient.  He was concerned that this proposal further degraded the democratic practice at the Council.  Politicians engaged in debate, and last time a debate had taken place was on the motion regarding balloons.  In contrast, major decisions were not debated, but were taken by small groups.  He cited the decision on the local plan as an example, which he said had been taken by three executive members.  He said the Cabinet system was problematic and that his views had not influenced the executive.  The Cabinet system could be changed if enough people requested it by referendum. 

Councillor Hargreaves made a number of comments.  He said the recommendation was wider than that which had been considered by the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee, as recommendations followed different rules to motions.  The Committee had twice considered the proposal, and on the second occasion he had supported its adoption, but he had not appreciated the distinction regarding recommendations.  

The Assistant Director – Governance and Legal said the recommendations in the report to the Council were exactly those which the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee had approved for recommendation to Council. 

Councillor Hargreaves apologised. 

Councillor Ranger responded to a point Councillor R Freeman had made.  He said that it was incorrect to state that the decision to submit the local plan to the regulation 19 stage had been taken by three executive members.  The Cabinet had ratified the recommendation from the Planning Policy Working Group that it should proceed. 

Councillor Dean said there had been two recent occasions at Council meetings when there had been late efforts to put together the wording for an amendment, which had resulted in meetings appearing amateurish.  The recommendations before the Council this evening were to agree in principle an orderly approach.   If the time between the publication of an agenda and the meeting of Council was found to be too short, timings for an earlier publication date for agendas could be considered.  It was right there should be early dialogue with officers regarding the wording of amendments. 

Councillor Chambers refuted suggestions this council was undemocratic.  The Planning Policy Working Group was cross-party, and its meetings were open to all members.  He welcomed debate at meetings of the Council but it was important to make sure members could put forward amendments to motions or recommendations, but officers had to had sufficient time to ensure it was also circulated beforehand. 

Councillor Sell said holding group meetings earlier than the day of the meeting would give more time to consider agenda items, to enable members to consider any amendments and then to allow time for these to be circulated.  He did not agree that, if the Council was of the view that it made sense to consider an amendment despite these rules, it could do so by majority agreement, as this favoured the majority, and amendments might not be heard.  Members of the Council should hold the executive to account.  It was important, however, to get the facts right, and to talk to the relevant officer. 

Councillor Light requested a recorded vote.  She said the views of members other than executive members were ignored, and it was despicable to remove the only way in which other councillors had a voice. 

Councillor Artus said the Chairman had discretion to allow an amendment on the night.  He proposed the question now be put. 

A vote was taken as to whether to move to the vote on the recommendation in the report, and rejected by 14 votes in favour to 8 against. 

Councillor Howell said these were not radical suggestions.  The recommendations sought the opportunity to anticipate what members would say at a meeting, to enable the Council to work effectively.  He refuted any suggestion that in listening to non-executive members he did so only out of courtesy. 

Councillor Loughlin said she had not supported the Council’s move to a Cabinet system of governance, as she considered it disenfranchised councillors.  She agreed that the Planning Policy Working Group was democratic, but it only made recommendations to the Cabinet.  However, she would support the recommendations on the rules of procedure in relation to amendments to motions, as it was not professional or democratic to vote on an amendment which had only been seen for the first time a few minutes beforehand. 

Councillor Jones said he had originally been opposed to this recommendation, as during his 40 years’ experience of debating, he had been happy to consider late amendments.  However, from the discussion held at the meetings of the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee he could see the merit of looking at the procedure.  The report provided for a review of the effectiveness of the proposals after twelve months, and if there were problems within that period, an earlier review could be undertaken. 

Councillor Rolfe said he was proud that this administration listened.  This recommendation was not about the Cabinet system.  Carefully prepared amendments could enrich the democratic process, and he was fully supportive of the recommendations. 

Councillor Foley said he had no problem with asking for 48 hours as a courtesy, which was better for debate.  He was concerned, however, that circumstances sometimes might justify a late amendment after the deadline. 

Councillor Rolfe said the changes to the procedure rules allowed for such circumstances. 

A recorded vote was taken, the outcome being as follows. 

For the recommendation to adopt the changes to the Council Procedure Rules set out in the appendix to the report:

Councillors Artus, G Barker, S Barker, Chambers, Dean, Farthing, Felton, Foley, Goddard, Harris, Howell, Jones, Lees, Lemon, Loughlin, Mills, Morris, Oliver, Ranger, Rolfe and Wells.  

Against:  Councillors R Freeman, Gerard, Hargreaves and Light.

Abstention:  Councillor Sell. 

The recommendation was therefore carried.

RESOLVED  that the Council adopts the changes to the Council Procedure Rules as set out in the appendix to the report (appended to these minutes)