To consider a number of proposed amendments to the Constitution relating to the Council Procedure Rules on Member Questions.

A report was presented by the Assistant Director Law Governance and Resilience about proposed amendments to the Constitution relating to the Council Procedure Rules on Member Questions.  The aim of the proposals were to harmonise the process with that for questions from Members of the Public.  The provisions for public questions included rules in respect of

·                     the order in which questions are dealt with

·                     the number of questions an individual Member of the public may ask

·                     a time limit of one minute for a supplementary question

In contrast the rules for Member Questions do not:

·                     contain a rule governing the order in which questions are dealt with

·                     contain a rule governing the number of questions an individual Member may ask

·                     have time limit on supplementary questions.  There is instead the general provision relating to the time allowed for questions as a whole which contains the provision: “The Chairman will decide the time allocated to each question.”

The Assistant Director Law Governance and Resilience suggested the introduction of a rule stipulating the order in which Member questions are dealt with, similar to that for public questions.  There was no provision for the Chairman of Council or anyone else to determine in what order Member Questions are asked.  He therefore proposed that they be dealt with in the order in which they were received.  He explained the current arrangements for grouping questions from Members and the public.  He also pointed out that a member of the public may submit only one question at any meeting of the Council but that there was no limit on questions from Members.  He asked the Committee to consider whether there should be a limit placed on the number of questions a Councillor may ask.  He also provided details of the arrangements that neighbouring authorities had in place to deal with public and Member questions and suggested that the Committee might wish to place a time limit on supplementary questions.

Members discussed the proposals and alternatives together with the wider issues about council meetings in some detail and made the following points:

·         the merits of having time limits at meetings of Council and the problem of Members remaining attentive when a meeting was unduly protracted;

·         there was a danger that items towards the end of an agenda for a meeting could be rushed because of the time limit – alternatively, if a meeting went on as long as necessary, there could be a tendency to expand into the time available;

·         a time limit on supplementary questions would be welcome, however, to keep Members to the point;

·         why shouldn’t the rules be different for Members when they were the elected representatives of the public?;

·         expectations of the public were for debate to be clear and informative;

·         there were merits in questions from Members being grouped into subject matter which would enable them to be dealt with in a more cohesive way ;

·         for many Members, Council was one of their few opportunities to take part in debate in front of the public and care needed to be given not to limit this;

·         there should be a limit of one supplementary question per item;

·         more than one supplementary question should not be permitted;

·         the current practice for disallowed questions on the order paper:- ‘question disallowed’. This was unsatisfactory and no reference should be made to disallowed questions;

·         the meetings and agendas needed to be managed carefully as Members could become frustrated when the debate did not flow;

·         the venue of the Shirehall was not conducive to good debate and the acoustics made it difficult to hear properly – more thought needed to be given to layout and the installation of a more adequate sound system.

·         if meetings continued into the afternoon, careful consideration needed to be given to a proper lunch break of at least 30 minutes. Ten or twenty minutes was inadequate for a long meeting, particularly for those Members having to travel a distance before and after it. It was not necessary for lunch to be provided but rooms should be made available for those Members who wished to make their own arrangements.

The Committee concluded that a time limit on supplementary questions would be advantageous and that questions should be grouped by portfolio.  Discussion centred upon a limit that should be recommended for the number of questions which could be asked by a Member. A proposal that three be allowed was lost and the Committee recommended that a maximum of two questions should be allowed per Member.

It was noted that the order of debate and the way in which matters were set out on the Agenda were prescribed by the constitution. The Assistant Director Law Governance and Resilience said, however, that he would prepare a report for consideration at a future meeting of the Committee about how matters were structured at meetings of Council and how the public was engaged.  In answer to a question, the Assistant Director Law Governance and Resilience gave assurance that rule 4.1.15.7 in the Constitution regarding supplementary questions referred to one question per Member and not per portfolio area.

The Assistant Director Law Governance and Resilience recognised that the current layout of the Shirehall was not satisfactory but that this was one area which was being considered by the Accommodation Strategy Group.  Proposals were being prepared for the creation of a civic hub based on Shirehall, Town Hall and a nearby building which would provide improved facilities for meetings.  The proposals would be submitted to Members in due course. 

RESOLVED THAT IT BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL THAT:

(i)               the Constitution provide that Member questions at Council be grouped by the Monitoring Officer according to the appropriate Cabinet Member portfolio and in the order in which they are received;

(ii)             the Constitution provide that there should be a limit of two placed upon the number of questions any one Councillor may ask;

(iii)              the Constitution provide that there be a time limit of one minute for a supplementary Member question; and

(iv)              the current practice of listing disallowed questions be discontinued.