Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Crittenden. Councillor Owen-Hughes was present as a substitute for Councillor Crittenden.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form 

To approve the Minutes of the Constitutional Review Working Party meeting held on 24 September 2024, copy attached.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by Councillor W.Scobie and Councillors agreed that the minutes of 24 September 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Ingrid Brown, Head of Legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer introduced the item Licensing and Gambling Policy Statement, making the following key points:

·  The Gambling Act 2000 and the Licensing Act were discussed.

·  Both functions were considered non-executive, which means they fall outside the direct remit of the executive body.

·  There was some ambiguity in the council’s constitution regarding these legislative provisions.

·  A report was tabled proposing to clarify the ambiguity in the council’s constitution.

·  The proposal includes incorporating these policies into the policy framework, which ensures they are considered by Cabinet and subsequently by the Full Council for final approval.

Councillors commented and asked the following questions:

·  There was a query about whether further advice should be sought from the Licensing Board on matters which may arise.

·  It was noted that there was concern about bypassing scrutiny, particularly as decisions going through panels are not typically subjected to further scrutiny.

·  Councillors raised a comparison, noting that local plan policies are not typically taken to the Planning Committee.

Ingrid Brown responded with the following key points:

·  The Licensing Board’s role was to assist in formulating policy, not to determine or approve it.

·  It was expressed that while there is no objection to involving the board in policy development, embedding this requirement into the constitution was unnecessary. Instead, it was suggested that it should be established as a customary practice to first take policies to the Licensing Board before further consideration.

·  Officers would seek further advice from the Licensing Board on the proposed changes, and consider the implications of bypassing scrutiny and ensure appropriate review processes are in place.

·  It would be explored regarding establishing a customary practice of consulting the Licensing Board on relevant policies without constitutional amendments.

Councillor Everitt proposed, Councillor Britcher seconded and Councillors agreed the following recommendation:

“It is recommended that the Committee consider the following proposals: 1. To amend the Council’s constitution to include the Council’s Licensing Policy Statement and Statement of Gambling Principles in the Policy Framework as matters that must be decided by Full Council.”

Ingrid Brown, Head of Legal and Democracy and Monitoring Officer, introduced the report on Amendment to Councillors Code of Conduct, making the following key points:

·  Two key obligations were proposed within the report:

1.  Respect for all individuals: A general obligation to ensure respectful conduct.

2.  Non-discrimination against any person: Aligning with the council's duties under equality legislation.

·  The proposed obligations were congruent with the Local Government Association (LGA) Model Code of Conduct.

·  Concerns were raised that respect-related clauses in other districts have led to an increase in complaints.

·  Emphasis was placed on the need for EDI training for councillors to ensure understanding of equality duties.

Councillors commented and asked the following questions:

·  The phrase “promote equality” was seen as potentially burdensome and vague.

·  Questions about what specific “equalities” the council is obligated to promote, given the absence of clear national standards were raised.

·  It was proposed to substitute the word “promote” with alternative use of language, such as “advance,” which better aligns with legal terminology under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

·  Some councillors emphasised the importance of using language familiar to businesses, such as “promote,” while others highlighted the need for consistency with the law.

Ingrid Brown responded with the following key points:

·  The term “advance” was advocated for, as it reflected best practice and legal clarity.

·  It was highlighted that the council had liability for breaches of equality legislation by councillors, and stressed the importance of detailed training on public sector duties.

·  It was noted that there was limited enforcement powers under the current standards committee.

·  There were no existing provisions which required councillors to undertake equality training as a condition for serving on committees.

·  It was agreed that there would be a substitute from the word “promote” to “advance” in the equality obligation to align with legal terminology and best practice.

·  Officers would look into introducing regular training for councillors to understand equality duties and related legal obligations.

·  There was flexibility to revisit and adapt the obligations if future legal changes or external circumstances arise.

·  It was necessary to ensure that obligations remained consistent with the council’s broader responsibilities under the law and the Nolan Principles.

Councillor Scobie proposed, Councillor Britcher seconed and Councillors agreed the following recommendation:

“It is recommended that the Committee consider the following proposals:

1. To amend the Councillors Code of Conduct to include as a general obligation the requirement to treat Councillors, officers and members of the public with respect

 2. To amend the Councillors Code of Conduct to include as a general obligation the requirement to promote equalities and not to discriminate unlawfully against any person.”

Nicholas Hughes, Committee Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer, introduced the report on Motions on Notice, making the following key points:

·  The revisions aimed to make the motions legislation clearer and easier to follow, addressing areas of disagreement highlighted during the last council meeting. These changes are designed to streamline processes and ensure greater clarity in council operations.

·  The scope section within the report had been removed entirely and repositioned elsewhere within the document to improve flow.

·  Additionally, the Monitoring Officer’s responsibility to determine the validity of motions had been explicitly clarified.

·  For matters falling under cabinet responsibilities, procedures have been adjusted to ensure they are handled appropriately. For simpler council functions that do not require an officer report, these can now be debated on the same night they are presented.

·  The process for handling amendments had been refined. Amendments were to be suggested and returned to the council for final consideration. If an amendment is proposed during a debate and both the proposer and seconder agree, the council can adopt the amended motion without further debate.

·  Debating rules were also adjusted to streamline processes, particularly for motions amended with consensus, reducing unnecessary deliberation.

·  Changes have been outlined in Annex 1, with adjustments highlighted in a different colour for ease of reference.

Councillors commented and asked the following questions:

·  Concerns were raised about agreeing on the revised rules for motions during the meeting, with suggestions that it would be sensible to pause and conduct a cross-party discussion before making a decision.

·  Specific sections of the proposed revisions were highlighted as requiring further consideration:

·  3.6: A lack of clarity was noted, particularly in relation to motions such as the Local Plan motion, which might currently be ruled out of order.

·  3.8: Questions were raised regarding whether the constitution allows the council to debate motions on policy framework items. It was noted that the constitution does not outline what happens to these items, and further thought is needed given their substantive nature.

·  3.8: Concerns were expressed about how the mover of a motion is addressed, with minor edits suggested (e.g., “does not” instead of “doesn’t.”)

·  3.81: It was noted that motions not rejected, such as the Gaza motion, should not simply be excluded from coming forward again. The constitution should address this more explicitly.

·  Concerns were raised about motions requiring reports and whether amendments made at a later stage comply with council requirements.

·  Councillors suggested that during meetings, councillors should have the ability to take two amendments and incorporate them directly into a motion.

·  Furthermore, the alteration of motions that have already been scrutinized and reviewed by Cabinet was flagged as problematic. Amending these when they return to council requires further discussion.

·  A broader concern was raised about the differentiation in the constitution’s treatment of motions and amendments. It was argued that amendments should not require written notice prior to a meeting, as other agenda items allow debate and amendments to be made during the meeting.

Nicholas Hughes and Ingrid Brown responded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.