Agenda item

Nick Hughes, Committee Services Manager presented this report and made the following comments:

·  This report detailed how the Council made constitutional changes as the Council used a three-stage process that involved first presenting the change to the Constitutional Review Working Party, then taking the proposal to Standards before going to Full Council. The revised change would eliminate the Standards part of the process, to make it a two stage process;

·  The reason for these changes was to bring down the waiting times for these alterations to be put into action;

·  Other Councils in Kent have been used as a basis of comparison as they mostly used a two-stage process, with the exception of Swale who still used a three-stage process and Gravesham who take the proposed changes straight to Full Council;

·  Councillors were reminded that the Constitutional Review Working Party acted as a fully constituted Council committee.

Councillor Crittenden spoke under Council Rule 20.1 to put forward her concerns about the proposed changes. She recognised the need for the reduction in waiting times, however she brought up a situation in a previous Full Council meeting where an item got referred back to the Constitutional Review Working Party following a revolt from Councillors in the meeting itself. She raised concerns about reducing the rights of Councillors to ask questions and scrutinise the proposed changes and suggested an increase of membership of the committee. She left the CRWP with three questions to consider: How large was the CRWP membership in other Councils? What challenges do the Councils with the two-stage process face when recommendations are made to the Full Council? What was the interplay between these two factors?

Councillors made comments and asked questions as follows:

·  Councillors brought up the current situation in Tunbridge Wells where they have a two-stage process in place for minor changes, but for bigger changes, they stick to a three-stage process;

·  It was mentioned that the Constitutional Review Working Party doesn’t work the same as other committees in the Council and that it was difficult for back-benchers of the respective parties to put forward changes to the constitution itself. Councillors suggested that the membership of the Constitutional Working Review Party itself be expanded to increase representation and that the style of booked meetings be more frequent;

·  Officers informed Councillors that there were currently changes being made to the protocol where Councillors can suggest changes to the constitution which involved a new online form that they could fill in and submit to the committee. Officers went on to say that the current frequency of meetings was this way as the committee only needed to meet when proposed changes were put forward, but could look at revising this for the future;

·  Councillors felt that if the Constitutional Review Working Party was recognised as a full Council committee, then the name should be changed to the Constitutional Review Committee with an increased membership and involvement from the leadership of each party the Council represents;

·  Another suggestion was made to have one annual meeting every year, following the annual Full Council meeting for any changes and to lay out a work programme for the following year.

The Chair proposed, Councillor Austin seconded and Councillors agreed, that:

1.  The Council’s constitutional change process change from a three-step process (CRWP to Standards to Full Council) to a two-step process (CRWP to Full Council);

2.  That the membership be expanded in line with other Council committees;

3.  That the CRWP have an annual meeting to consider the future year’s work programme;

4.  That the CRWP change its name to the Constitutional Review Committee.