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:
Before responding to a series of Public Questions relating primarily to agenda item 9 (Review of the Constitution), the Chairman reminded the Committee that although responses would be provided, all the issues would be subject to discussion later in the meeting and that any recommendations from the Committee would be referred for decision to the Council.
The Committee was advised of the receipt of seven Public Questions.
Public Questions from Mr Alexander McKinstry
Public Question 1.
I note, with dismay, that the Constitution Review Group is looking to restrict public participation at meetings once again, and that should tonight's proposals pass full Council, residents will be limited to one question / statement only on any agenda item. These restrictions were rejected by this Committee in October, on multiple grounds including contravening Nolan Principles (openness, accountability), yet here they are again - with a new restriction, namely a 15-minute limit on public contributions. Why is the Group so determined to cap public involvement, when there is no public appetite for this and public questions have never been interminable?
Response:
It must be clarified that it not proposing to introduce new or change existing provisions relating to the time limit for public participation at meetings as is suggested.
The Constitution Review Working Group considered the existing arrangements in the context of the comments and feedback from previous meetings of the Audit and Governance Committee and Council. The Council is keen to promote and encourage a greater number of residents and other interested parties to attend and participate in the democratic process.
That being said, however, the existing arrangements, without a limit on the number of questions or statements that any one person may submit on an individual item of business, has given rise to individuals presenting multiple submissions on single items which could prevent others from making representations. To assist and respond to other concerns regarding the limitations presented by the restriction in length to 100 words, it is proposed that the word limit of a submission be increased from 100 to 150 words.
It should be noted, that there is no limit proposed to the number of agenda items that an individual may submit a related question or statement about.
Public Question 2.
One restriction being floated for the first time tonight is Rule 13.3.2, which is the most ominous I have ever come across in a local authority's constitution: "A protocol ... may make provision limiting the ability of a member of the public to speak on any item."
What exactly is the Constitution Review Working Group considering here? Is the Group seriously looking to impose lifetime bans on members of the public speaking at meetings and if so, do they have me specifically in mind?
Response
The changes proposed to Rule 13.3.2 seek to establish a better link between protocols adopted by the respective committees and the Council’s Constitution Procedure Rules. A strengthening of this relationship is recommended by the legal advisors following the planning case of The Queen (on the application of the Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Old Truman Brewery Ltd (August 2022). In this case the defendant Local Authority successfully defended a judicial review on a number of grounds including on the basis of provisions contained within the Constitution. On reviewing BCP’s Constitution it appeared that the relevant provisions were not in place and consequently they are now being proposed.
For clarity, it is not proposed to impose any additional restrictions on public speaking through this amendment.
Public Question 3.
How precisely will Rule 13.3.2 operate, if it comes into force? Presumably each committee will have its own protocols and procedures given the spirit of Section 13.3 but is it anticipated, for instance, that residents will be given fair warning if a committee is considering silencing them? Will the deliberations of committees, when they discuss possible or actual impositions of Rule 13.3.2, be carried out in public (or made public)?
Response
If any of the Regulatory Committees wished to amend existing protocols or introduce new protocols, I can confirm that these would be debated in formal meetings of the respective committees for which five-clear days' notice would be provided in accordance with the appropriate Regulations.
Public Question 4.
Finally, it is a sad fact that there are councillors who have been found guilty by the Standards Committee of bullying, treating people with disrespect, and /or bringing the Council into disrepute. What safeguards will be drawn up, then, to prevent Rule 13.3.2 from being abused by errant members? I can well imagine a rogue councillor looking to impose a speaking ban simply because a resident is particularly combative, or persistently critical of their political party. Perhaps that is the aim of Rule 13.3.2, as it does seem to have arisen out of nowhere.
Response
The use of words such as “guilty” and “rogue councillor” are unfortunate in the context of functions exercised by the Council’s Standards and Regulatory Committees. These functions are a statutory requirement and are carefully structured as a result. As stated previously, this provision simply provides the Regulatory Committees with a robust framework to approve relevant protocols. Any changes to existing protocols or the introduction of new protocols would require approval by the relevant committee, the meeting would be open to the public and the report published five clear days before the meeting.
Public Questions from Mr Daniel Parkin
Public Question 5.
The changes to the Constitution being proposed tonight include some familiar attempts at reducing public involvement at meetings. Notably, Rule 13.4.9 - "No member of the public may ask more than one question on an individual item of business." Though the Head of Democratic Services excludes this from Paragraph 31 of his report, this was seen as a major issue at October's meeting, with members of the public and councillors deploring its effect on transparency, accountability, public enlightenment and public participation generally. So why has this proposed restriction been reintroduced?
Response
As referenced in the response to Mr McKinstry, the Constitution Review Working Group considered the existing arrangements and the comments and feedback from previous meetings of the Audit and Governance Committee and Council. The Council welcomes public participation but wishes to increase the number of opportunities for as wide as possible attendance in addressing our meetings.
Feedback has suggested that a reason for submitting multiple questions was due to the constraints of the 100 word limit. If supported this will be increased to 150 words as previously stated.
Public Question 6.
Another public restriction being proposed tonight is Rule 13.27, which removes the right of reply of petition organisers. I find this particularly disturbing because at the debate on the petition to remove Drew Mellor and Philip Broadhead on 8 November, Cllr Farr ascribed the petition to "trolls", "sad little people" who "need calling out and exposing". Why then are you removing the petitioner's right of reply, which is only 3 minutes, especially when petitioners are facing that degree of hostility and provocation?
Response
The process for debating petitions over the last 12 months where the threshold has been reached, has demonstrated that in all bar one occasion, a formal motion was submitted by councillors which transferred the debate from the petition to the Motion from councillors. The debating rules for Motions is prescribed and these were found to be in conflict with the petition procedure rules. As a consequence, the petition organiser in each of these cases did not have the right of reply afforded to them. The proposed amended is a practical remedy.
Public Question 7.
Lastly, Paragraph 13 of the Head of Democratic Services' report refers to a recent High Court case and "the need to review a number of provisions in the Constitution impacted by the judgment ..." What was the case, what provisions were impacted exactly, and how?
Response
The case in question was The Queen (on the application of the Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Old Truman Brewery Ltd (August 2022). In this case the defendant Local Authority successfully defended a judicial review on a number of grounds including on the basis of provisions contained within the Constitution. On reviewing BCP’s Constitution, it appeared that the relevant provisions were not in place and consequently they are now being proposed.
As stated in response to the earlier question, the proposed changes will establish a better link between protocols adopted by the respective committees and the Council’s Constitution Procedure Rules.