SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. This Report follows dialogue with the Leaders and members of the political groups on the Council. It is recommended that this is debated by Full Council and changes incorporated into the Constitution where necessary.

BACKGROUND

2. In Summer 2002, meetings were held, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Council, between representatives of the Political Groups and Senior Officers. The purpose of the meetings was to explore ways in which the meetings of the Full Council could be further developed.

3. A number of ideas emerged from this informal debate which have been, again informally, further developed in the intervening months.

4. Although there are some statutory provisions which govern meetings of the Full Council these are relatively small in number. During 2001, the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Act 2000, gave further direction as to the role and purpose of the Full Council meeting under modernised decision making structure. There remains however, a high degree of flexibility within those structures and it is a matter for each Local Authority to adopt rules and practices which reflect local circumstances, history and culture.

5. The fundamental requirement is that the Full Council contributes to the overall objective of efficient, transparent and accountable decision making to achieve the purposes and goals of the Council.

Ceremonial

6. Although the format of a formal procession of the Chairman behind the mace, with prayers immediately proceeding the meeting, is well established it is, and should be, a process at the discretion of the Chairman. There appears to be no widespread support to develop further ceremonial aspects in relation to the Council meeting although there is some support for considering re-activating ceremonial traditions outside of the Full Council meeting (for example a Civic Service). This is beyond the scope of this paper, and must thus remain a matter primarily for the Chairman of the Council.

Holding To Account

7. Full Council is responsible for ensuring the Executive is held to account. It does this principally through the activity of Select Committees to which it delegates this function.

8. It is suggested that the practice of standing items on the Full Council Agenda calling for reports on Select Committee Chairmen is unnecessary. The Full Council does not need to receive such regular updates and there is a danger that this is repeating debates held within the Select Committee. There is also a perception that these reports are of limited use. It is suggested that the role of Full Council as the final and highest forum for holding the Executive to account is best, the existing rule enabling Select Committees to make recommendations to the Full Council in a similar and parallel format to the recommendations which are received from the Executive. Where a Select Committee wishes to make a recommendation to the Full Council it can do so as a discrete agenda item.

Regulatory Committees

9. Similarly, Regulatory Committees discharge functions on behalf of the Full Council. It is unnecessary for there to be regular reports from the Chairmen of these Committees so long as there is a mechanism available for the Committees to refer issues and make recommendations where they decide it is necessary to do so. It is therefore proposed that the regular reporting from Regulatory Committee Chairmen should cease and that the rules are amended to allow for recommendations to be made in the same way as is proposed for Select Committees.

Questions from Members of the Public

10. Although sometimes appearing to be less productive than they could be, there is general support for the principle and practice of public questions. In order to avoid difficulties, particularly for Officers who are unable to speak to defend themselves, it is proposed that simple additions are made to Council procedure rules so that the Chairman has robust tools to direct public questioning along productive lines. Such standing orders could usefully include the following:

· Questions should not name or identify individual service users, members of staff or members/staff of partner agencies.

· The Chairman shall prevent any question which in his/her opinion would be inappropriate for the Full Council.

Questions from Members

11. The Constitution currently provides for Members to ask questions relating to policy or budget. It is clear that many questions which Members seek to raise relate to matters which are operational rather than to policy or budget. There is a reluctance to enforce the current procedure rule for fear of creating an impression of lack of openness and a reluctance to answer questions.

12. Nevertheless there is clear support for the principle of questions only being in order if they relate to policy and budget. Portfolio Holders are frequently unable to answer operational matters having to defer the question for a written answer or rely on draft answers from Officers. This tends to consume a disproportionate amount of time given the limited significance of many of the questions, arguably creates an unfavourable impression and fails to stimulate a high level debate about policy and budget.

13. It is suggested that rather than offer the Chairman a stark choice between accepting and rejecting questions from Members, a parallel procedure, modelled loosely on written answers given by Ministers in the House of Commons, is developed. This would mean that the Chairman could decline to accept a question for answering orally at Full Council, but direct instead that a public record of the question and written answer is maintained alongside the record of questions answered orally at Full Council meetings. This procedure could also allow a mechanism for the Chairman to log some questions more appropriately dealt with at meetings of the Executive, Select or Regulatory Committees. Again a public record would be kept so that the questioner and other interested parties could ensure a public answer was given in the most appropriate forum. It is suggested this mechanism apply only to questions received in writing, as at present.

Policy Debates

14. The Constitution currently provides for elected Members to set down motions for debate and also provides for an annual state of the Island debate. These devices are not being used to maximum effect. It is therefore suggested that for each municipal year a programme of debate is planned in advance. There are a number of criteria against which useful subjects for debate could be planned. Given the increasing strategic focus of the Council, one suggestion is, at every second meeting of the Council, the relevant Member of the Executive will initiate a debate on one of the six themes within the Corporate Plan. A number of other models are possible, each of which will have pros and cons. These may include occasionally drawing lots in order that non-Executive Members may initiate debate, providing a specific occasion for Opposition debates or inviting partners from within the community who are not Members of the Council, through a sponsoring Member, to initiate debates (developing the model trialled in relation to the Island Youth MP in the Autumn of 2002).

15. A related suggestion is encouraging members of the public or representatives of the community/partners to speak during such debates. This would be a departure from current practice where only Members of the Council are entitled to speak during a debate and would require an amendment of the Council Procedure Rules.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

16. The functions of the Full Council meeting are probably not best analysed as services, however, the proposals set out above are designed to ensure more efficient, transparent and accountable decision making and are entirely consistent with theme 2 of the Community Strategy – Improving Access to Services and Facilities.

CONSULTATION

17. The proposals have been widely debated by elected Members, particularly across the Political Groups. Members may wish to undertake a public consultation exercise, perhaps through the pages of Wight Insight or the Citizens Panel. Such consultations have, in the past, been less rather than more successful in terms of igniting public interest and securing useful intelligence.

18. The view of the Monitoring Officer is that no discrete consultation is required.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

19. The changes discussed in this paper will incur no identifiable cost beyond those associated with updating electronic and print copies of the Constitution.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

20. The Legal context is set out in paragraphs 5 and 6.

OPTIONS

21. Full Council may determine to adopt one or more of a number of changes to the constitution.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

22. Consensus is that although Full Council operates generally reasonably well and is an improvement on past practice, there is considerable room for further improvement. To fail to take the opportunities to develop and improve the delivery of the role of Full Council is to miss the opportunity to subtly but visibly improve the quality of debate and the extent and quality of engagement with stakeholders and the community. Although difficult to quantify, this will inevitably, impact both on the perception of the Council and on the quality of services delivered.

23. Any developments must not be at the expense of existing good practice and the approach of evolution rather than revolution tends to minimise this prospect.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Members take the opportunity to debate the issues set out in this paper and determine which improvements to incorporate into the Constitution.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

24. Isle of Wight Council Constitution

Contact Point : Mike Fisher, ( 823102, e-mail: [email protected] or John Lawson, ( 823207, e-mail [email protected]

MIKE FISHER

Chief Executive Officer and

Strategic Director Corporate Services

SHIRLEY SMART

Leader of the Council

JOHN LAWSON

Head of Legal and Democratic Services

and Monitoring Officer