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 Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment
Services and Head of Paid Service |
SHIRLEY SMART LEADER OF THE COUNCIL |
|
|
|
|
JOHN LAWSON Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer |
|