To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is 4 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The Committee was advised of the receipt of three Public Questions and three Public Statements.
Public Questions from Mr Alexander McKinstry
Public Question 1.
The report for Item 8 on tonight's agenda recommends adding a new rule to the Constitution - putatively, Procedure Rule 13.4.9, 'No member of the public may ask more than one question on any individual item of business'. What is the rationale behind this recommendation?
Response:
This recommendation will be the subject of full and open debate by the Audit and Governance Committee and at the Council meeting in November. The objective of this recommendation, if adopted by the Committee, is to ensure that the best possible use is made of the time available within the Committee meeting in which to receive public questions.
Public Question 2.
I see from Paragraph 43 of the same report that the proposed changes to the Constitution re public participation at meetings were 'discussed at length', and there was 'not a consensus ... on all the points raised'. Can the minutes of these meetings be released, as it'd be useful to know which councillors wanted to limit public questions, which councillors wanted acronyms to be part of the word count, and so on and so on.
Response:
Discussions at the Constitution Review Working Group are not made available publicly but the membership of this informal Group is made up of five members from the Audit and Governance Committee selected on a broadly cross-party basis. No decisions are made by the Working Group. The objective of the Group is to develop a set of recommendations for full and open discussion and debate at the full Committee. The Constitution review project is following a tight timetable to ensure that any changes are in place in good time for implementation ahead of the elections in May 2023 but members of the Working Group are unconstrained in how they contribute to the debate at the Committee and then again at the full Council meeting in November.
Public Question 3.
In the revised draft of Part 3A of the Constitution, also appended to Item 8, 2.4 allows the planning committee to 'receive and provide comments [on] pre-application planning proposals'. Can the Constitution also be updated to confirm whether members of the public will be allowed to attend and report on these meetings, and whether these pre-application meetings will [be] announced on BCP's website (or even known about)?
Response:
This recommendation will also be the subject of full and open debate by the Audit and Governance Committee and at the Council meeting in November. The objective of this recommendation, if adopted by the Committee, is to formalise within the Constitution the provisions within the Council’s Local Code of Best Practice.
If supported by Council, it will then be for the Planning Committee to determine the operational arrangements, although it is understood that the intention would be for these pre-applications to be included as part of the public agenda and therefore the access to information provisions would apply.
Public Statements (in order of receipt)
Public Statement 1
Public Statement from Mr Alexander McKinstry
‘When this Council's scrutiny regime was reconfigured back in May, we were told that 'the voice of residents ... [would] come shining through' in consequence. Limiting public questions, as proposed under Item 8, would achieve the exact opposite of this. It would reduce public knowledge; diminish accountability; and probably discourage public participation generally - why bother attending meetings if you're restricted to one question on a subject you hold dear? Finally, the proposal dilutes a public right, following no consultation with that public whatsoever. It is an anti-democratic manoeuvre, and I deplore it utterly’.
Public Statement 2
Public Statement from Mr Phillip Gatrell
REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION Current Section 11.3a) page 2-23:
CONTINUING MISSTATEMENTS IN MONITORING OFFICER’S (MO’s) FULL REPORTING DUTIES TO ALL MEMBERS UNDER SECTIONS 5 & 5A (S5 & S5A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & HOUSING ACT 1989 REGARDING CONTRAVENTIONS OF LAW & EVENTS OF MALADMINISTRATION
S5 & S5A clearly legislate each Member be informed of maladministration & actual & potential contraventions of law.
Contrary to S5 & S5A the Constitution wrongly omits reporting of actual contraventions to all Members.
Similarly regarding S5A & maladministration & potential contraventions arising from executive functions, the Constitution wrongly states they are reported only to the executive comprising Leader & Cabinet not to all Members.
The MO declines corrections on the invalid grounds of “interpretation” & “not all legislation” can be included in the Constitution - although few extra words are necessary.
To ensure transparent governance & accountability, I trust the Committee immediately recommends this fundamental law be correctly stated.
Philip Gatrell 25 October 2022
Additional Note
The Chief Executive, with the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee, made a statement to the Committee informing Members that Susan Zeiss, the Council’s Monitoring Officer, had responded to Mr Gatrell in very clear terms saying that her duties and obligations were to advise the Council and to support Councillors on matters of governance. There had also been extensive correspondence with Mr Gatrell and if he believed that he had the foundation for a claim against the Authority, or any of its Officers, he should raise this formally in order that it could be dealt with under the Council’s policies. The issues raised by him should now be brought forward through these formal channels and not raised through questions and statements to the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee advised that he had also emailed Mr Gatrell in similar terms and that a copy of his email had been circulated to the Committee.
Public Statement 3
Public Statement from Mr Phillip Gatrell
REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION Observations on proposed changes to Constitution with reference to Revised Sections 24 & 25 on pages 4-16 to 4-17 relating to Members’ rights to information in: LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS) (MEETINGS & ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2012
Following my correspondence concerning the previously withheld KPMG reports it is noted that –
- The above Sections are to be revised by, for instance, unifying the cross-references to clarify Members’ statutory rights to inspect documents in the course of their functions.
- Further review must be undertaken to remove remaining inaccuracies. For example:
25.1 - Delete “it contains Confidential or Exempt Information or” as this exclusion does not comply with the 2012 Regulations & insert instead the exclusion for “draft” - as opposed to final - documents.
25.2 - Delete entirely as redundant & also contextually incorrect with this Section’s reference to restriction for “any Key Decision”.
Philip Gatrell 25 October 202
Public Statement 4
Public Statement from Mr Phillip Gatrell
REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION Revised Section 13 page 4-42 et seq: CONCERNING THE PROPOSED FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT COUNCIL MEETINGS RESULTING IN A SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES TO THE DETRIMENT OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY & CATALYSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN GOVERNANCE & PERFORMANCE
Impacts for this Committee’s consideration –
- Public Questions & Statements for committees are limited to agenda specific items following changes in 2020.
- Entailing - regardless of urgent subject matter & committee relevance - Issues may not be raised when necessary; a position compounded by uncertainties regarding future agenda eligibility & potential long hiatuses between meetings.
- Proposed changes for committee meetings exacerbate this. For example: Stricter definitions of the already constraining 100 permitted words; an individual’s limit of one Question & one Statement per meeting; no public awareness of Issues if an individual is unable to attend a meeting but does not have a nominated speaker attending instead.
Philip Gatrell 25 October 2022
Public Statement 5
Public Statement from Mr Adam Sofianos (Read out at the Committee by Mr Alexander McKinstry)
Agenda Item 8 proposes changes to the rules around public participation in Council meetings. This includes the removal of the right to have an Officer deliver a question or statement on someone’s behalf.
This change would discriminate against workers, carers, and anyone else unable to attend Council meetings in person. It would further directly discriminate against disabled and neurodivergent people.
I am appalled by this prospect.
It’s essential that democracy can work for all people, not just a few. That includes the ability of people to question their leaders.
I therefore urge Councillors to reverse this inexcusable act.
Additional Note
In response to questions from the Committee, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Working Group confirmed that issues raised in the Public Statements relating to the Constitution would be referred to a future meeting of the Working Group for their consideration.