Agenda item

Report attached.

Members considered a report of the Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services) on a review of the constitution.  The Council was required by law to have a written constitution.  The Council’s written constitution was reviewed regularly and a copy of the constitution was available on the Council’s website.

A review of the constitution was undertaken annually to:

(i)     ensure the constitution accurately reflected the Council’s political management arrangements; and

(ii)    ensure the constitution reflected changes to the law, staffing structures and best practice guidance;

As a result of the annual review, a number of amendments to the constitution had been proposed for approval as follows:

Council Procedure Rules

The Council Procedure Rules were the rules of procedure for Council meetings.  Proposed amended Procedure Rules were provided as Appendix 1 to the report, with the changes shown in red.  In summary, the changes were as follows:

• The Council had not appointed a chair of council business for some years, so the provisions relating to the same had been deleted;
• The Council had not operated a petition scheme for some years, so reference to the same had been deleted;
• It was proposed that members of the public should raise questions at Council via their ward councillor, rather than having the right to submit questions directly. However, it was proposed that more time be allowed for the submission of questions by changing the deadline to two clear days before the Council meeting;
• It was proposed that motions on notice would need to be signed by three councillors (i.e. a mover, seconder and one other), a reduction from the current five;
• It was proposed that an Altham Parish Council representative might speak at Planning Committee in respect of planning applications within the Parish of Altham provided the Chair of the Planning Committee gave consent.

Members would be offered training on the Council’s decision-making processes.  This would cover constitutional requirements, as well as legal requirements for sound and lawful decision making.

Councillor Zak Khan expressed concern about the removal of the facility for members of the public to submit question directly to the Council, as these often led to positive outcomes, such as in the case of the recent question about Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre.  He also queried why the petition scheme had been withdrawn as other authorties, such as Lancashire County Council, still operated a formal scheme.  He expressed a view that these changes were eroding democracy.

Councillor Judith Addison spoke in favour of retaining the public’s right to ask a question.  She expressed some concern about how a system of ward councillors submitting questions on behalf of residents would work in practice.  Issues might include public not knowing who their ward councillor was, lack of availability of the councillor(s) concerned, councillors not willing to forward questions to the Chief Executive and negative responses if not forwarding questions on.  Councillor Younis also spoke against changing the existing arrangements for public questions.  Councillors Shabir Fazal OBE and Judith Addison expressed concern that councillors could choose whether, or not, to submit a question received from a member of the public.

Councillor Pritchard noted that Lancashire County Council allowed questions to be submitted by the public.  However, she would be happy to submit questions on behalf of residents.  She had understood that the proposed change would allow a member of the public to submit a question via any councillor, not just through their ward councillor.  One advantage of the new arrangements was that a supplementary question could be asked arising from the public question or response.  Councillor Paul Cox clarified that the proposed wording at present did specify ‘their ward councillor’.  Councillors Melissa Fisher and Paul Cox spoke in favour of altering the original proposal to allow the public to submit a question to any councillor. Councillor Parkins noted that members of the public could still contact councillors directly with questions about Council services, without the need to await a meeting of the Council.   Councillor Aziz provided an example of a question that he had raised recently in the Council Chamber on behalf of a member of the public, which demonstrated how this system could work.

Councillor Whitehead asked about the reason for the removal of references to the petition scheme.  Jane Ellis, Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services), responded that the statutory obligation to have a scheme had been removed some time ago.  References to the scheme in the constitution were now obsolete.

Councillor Dad summarised by indicating that the changes proposed had been tried and tested in other authorities.   However, he acknowledged that an alteration to the wording was required in respect of public questions, to allow for questions to be submitted via any councillor.  With the consent of the meeting and the seconder, the Leader altered the motion so as to remove the reference to ward councillors in Rule A2, 2.2(vi) Paragraph 2, Sentence 2.

Resolved                                    -    That Council agrees to adopt the revised Council Procedure Rules attached at Appendix 1 to the report (with proposed amendments as shown in red), subject to the following alteration:

The replacement of Sentence 2 of Paragraph 2, at Rule A2, 2.2(vi), by the following wording:

“Members of the public wishing to ask a question must do so by asking a councillor to raise the question, although councillors are not obliged to agree to such requests.”