To consider a report of the Constitutional Working Group from the Monitoring Officer

The Director of Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer provided a brief summary of the report from the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) with the objective being to improve the quality of debate at the Council meetings. The Committee were referred to section five of the report where the Constitutional amendments had been laid out. The Committee were also informed that the report had been to Standards Committee, who had agreed to the recommendations in section 6.3, and suggested one further recommendation in section 6.4 of the report. The Director added that point two of these recommendations had already been agreed by the CWG, with point two also expected to be accepted. The Committee were asked to agree the recommendations as set out by the CWG, as well as the additional one from Standards.

The Chair felt the Council meetings did need this piece of work undertaking and thanked the CWG for doing so.

Councillor Axford questioned why questions from Councillors even came to Council meeting and was more concerned that the meeting did not included questions from the Public. Regarding petitions, Councillor Axford asked whether residents could be assured that these would be publicised the same as if they were going to full Council. Finally, Councillor Axford asked whether it was discussed to limit the number of speeches during Motions.

Regarding questions, the Director responded that it had been discussed during a previous review, which felt that it brought transparency and was appropriate. It had been discussed by the CWG; however, it was felt that questions remained appropriate, with the first measure being to control the number of questions asked at the meetings. In terms of petitions, the Director and Monitoring Officer confirmed that the petition scheme procedure would be carried over, with every party being notified of petitions to ensure Members can attend the Executive if they would like. Several different options were considered around controlling the meeting, accepting that 30 second speeches were not effective, with the Director of Legal and Governance confirming that the recommendations were where the group had landed on this, with the intention that it would be reviewed in six months.

Councillor Coggins noted that the report was not circulated to the CWG before it was published. Councillor Coggins also noted that the moving of petitions and limiting of questions was to give more time for speeches. However, Councillor Coggins added that there was discussion that questions were being limited due to the number of questions related to casework and felt this had not come through in the report and asked if it could be added. The Director of Legal and Governance confirmed the report had not gone back to the CWG, however, the final recommendations had been shared. The Director recognised that the issue of casework questions had been acknowledged, with a discussion had about looking at the question and using a criterion to determine whether the question was suitable. However, it was agreed that it would not be fair on officers to make that decision, and as such agreed to limit the number of questions instead.

Councillor Coggins referred to section 5.3c which put a time limit and an order in which questions were asked and felt that this could limit the ability for the Green Party to ask questions. Councillor Coggins also noted that Standards was putting a limit of two questions per group and felt the time limit would be insufficient if each group made use of these. It was suggested that it could be changed to each group having answers to their first question, and then going back to the start for the second questions. The Chair agreed this was a valid point. The Director of Legal and Governance responded this could be taken back as a recommendation from Scrutiny. It had been suggested by Councillor Frass in Standards, however, it was agreed that with questions moving straight to supplementary, there would be sufficient time. The Chair asked if it could be reviewed following a trial process. The Director confirmed that there was a six-month review process.

Councillor Frass responded that he did discuss Councillor Coggins’ point during Standards and felt the Director had suggested that it might be difficult to monitor this if there was a variable number of questions from different groups. However, Councillor Frass suggested that if the number of questions was fixed, whether it would be a more straightforward recommendation.

On casework questions, Councillor Frass felt it was opposition group responsibility to represent the electorate with the emphasis being on Councillors to put on record the concerns of residents. Councillor Frass added that there was support at Standards not to limit topic of the questions that came, with casework questions often coming as a last resort.

Councillor Frass asked if there were any scope in formalising, tracking, and monitoring motions. Referring to Oldham Council, Councillor Frass asked if an annual report could be brought to a Committee to consider what had been achieved. The Director of Legal and Governance confirmed that a piece of work looking at how the Council sets up a motion tracker was underway. This wanted to ensure the validity of a motion, what areas had recently been considered, and to be able to follow up and provide a transparency on what action had been taken for all motions.

Councillor Hartley asked whether the Council was aware of which parts of the Council meeting was of most interest to the public and whether the CWG had any input from the public. Councillor Hartley raised his frustration with casework questions, however, felt the public might value that more as the function of Council. Councillor Hartley asked if there was any consideration of a written question procedure from Members rather than taking time at full Council.

The Director of Legal and Governance considered it possible that during the 6-month review, the interest levels could be monitored. The Director added further that the CWG consensus was that questions were valuable, but a time limit was needed. Regarding written question procedure, the Director informed the Committee that as part of the report which was to go forward to Council would include timescales. This would lead to all deadlines being moved forward and standard practice becoming that the first Member question is responded to prior to the meeting, moving straight to the supplementary. Over the six months, the supplementary response timeframe would be monitored.

Councillor Coggins referred to section 5.3c.3, placing order of parties on Political balance, suggesting that this should not be in the Constitution due to possible resignations or defections. The Director of Legal and Governance responded that this had been picked up, amended, and accepted by the CWG.

Councillor Taylor asked whether petitions moving to the Executive would still involve all cross-party Members being notified. The Director of Legal and Governance confirmed that it would.

Councillor Frass asked if the Committee wanted to refer back to the CWG the recommendation of having all parties receiving responses to their first question, in order of political balance, followed by second questions.

The Director of Legal and Governance suggested to start by taking a decision on the recommendations offered by the CWG, then on the Standards Committee recommendation. This could then be followed by Scrutiny putting forward its own recommendation.

The Chair moved to agree the CWG and Standards recommendations. These were both supported by the Committee. The Chair then asked what recommendation Scrutiny would like to make. The Director asked that any changes to the order of questions be kept to political party and balance.

Councillor Coggins injected that they felt the Green group would still be disadvantaged to having their second question answered, however, accepted that the recommendation provided a better opportunity for the group to have their first questions answered.

A discussion was then had between the Committee around the most appropriate amendment, and with support from the Director it was agreed that each group should have two questions, with each having a response to a first question in political balance order, then following that same order with the second questions. In the current make up of the Council this would mean; Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, followed by the second questions in the same order. This was agreed by the Committee.

            RESOLVED

1)    That the Scrutiny Committee agreed the recommended Constitutional Working Group changes, as laid out in the report.

2)    That the Scrutiny Committee agreed the additional amendment from Standards Committee, as laid out in the report.

3)    That the Scrutiny Committee recommend to Council that the constitutional changes be approved.

4)    That the Scrutiny Committee recommends that in the first instance, the Mayor shall invite each political group, in order of political balance, to ask a supplementary question to their original question and only after all political group have been invited to ask a supplementary question on their original question, shall the Mayor invite the groups to ask a supplementary to their original second question, again in political balance.