Agenda item

The Presiding Member invited Councillor Mogford, the Chair of Democratic Services Committee to present the report.

Councillor Mogford presented to Council the recommendations of the Democratic Services Committee regarding Standing Orders under Part 4: Rules of Procedure of the Constitution regarding Questions at Council to the Leader of the Council. Whilst Councillor Mogford was the current Chair of Democratic Services Committee, this item was considered by the Committee before his appointment at the AGM in May.

Council was requested to approve and adopt the amended Standing Orders under Part 4: Rules of Procedure of the Constitution.

At the Council meeting on 24 January 2023, it was resolved that Democratic Services Committee consider Standing Orders in place under Part 4: Rules of Procedure of the Constitution, regarding Questions at Council to the Leader of the Council.

The current Standing Orders under Part 4: Rules of Procedure do not reference any specific provision regarding the role of the Deputy Leader in Leader’s questions, including Leader’s announcements, on such occasions when the Deputy Leader is deputising in the Leader’s absence at Full Council meetings.

Clarification of the requirements of the Deputy Leader when deputising for the Leader in full Council requires a new Standing Order to confirm the correct rules of procedure concerning Leader’s announcements and Leader’s questions.

In addition, at their meeting on 27 January 2023, members of the Democratic Services Committee wished to debate the time limit for Leader’s questions under the same Standing Order 4.2, as they felt that the time allotted did not afford a sufficient opportunity for Opposition members to ask questions of the Leader in Council.

The Democratic Services Committee debated potential options and proposed that the Standing Orders make provision for the Deputy Leader to make Leader’s announcements as part of their deputisation duties at Council.

The Committee also recommended that the deputisation role for the Deputy Leader at Council did not require answering Leader’s questions at Council, citing the existing provision in the Standing Orders for submitting questions to be answered by the Leader outside of the Council meeting; for example, through Standing Order 4.8 Formal Questions at any other time.

When considering Questions to the Leader, the Committee recognised that Newport City Council took a unique approach to Leader’s questions at Council meetings whereby questions did not have to be submitted in writing in advance like other Local Authorities in Wales.

The Committee recommended that some elements of Questions to the Leader remained the same; questions could still be asked of the Leader at Council without submitting the full question in writing beforehand, and the total time for Leader’s questions remained at 15 minutes.

The Committee recommended that the Standing Orders be amended to state that supplementary questions to the Leader should be submitted in writing following Council, instead of being asked verbally at the meeting as a follow-up.

The Committee considered that this would provide a fairer opportunity for more Councillors to submit questions that would be addressed by the Leader in Council. 

Councillor Mogford therefore asked that the Council consider and approve the recommendations from the Democratic Services Committee concerning Standing Orders, and for the revised Standing Orders to be published under the Council’s Constitution.

Councillor Hourahine moved the report.

Comments from Councillors:

§  Councillor M Evans wished to move an amendment to the proposal in the report, which was to restrict the time allotted for answers to the Questions for the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Members to two minutes.

Councillor Morris agreed to second the amendment.

§  The Presiding Member reminded Councillor Morris that he was referring to protocols from many years ago, and it was important to have open debate in the Council Chambers.

§  Councillor Whitehead agreed with Councillor Morris and mentioned that questions could be raised at any time outside of Full Council.  Councillor Whitehead also hoped that the Leader could respond to questions in future in a much shorter timeframe to afford other councillors the opportunity to speak.

§  Councillor K Thomas informed colleagues that the Democratic Services Committee recognised that councillors needed ample opportunity to speak and receive a response and that it was the supplementary questions that were taking up the time; removing the supplementary questions would allow more councillors to put questions to the Leader.

Councillor M Evans asked for a point of clarification on whether the Democratic Services Committee gave the option that less time should be given to the Leader to respond to questions at Council. 

§  Councillor D Harvey suggested that this was the reason why supplementary questions should be submitted in writing, to make sure that more councillors could ask questions.

§  Councillor Al-Nuaimi spoke to the amendment and was surprised that the amendment was moved. Councillor Al-Nuaimi considered that two minutes was not adequate for the Leader to provide a detailed answer and therefore voted against the amendment.

§  Councillor Reynolds echoed Councillor Al-Nuaimi’s comments as there may be a complicated question would need a complicated answer and therefore voted against the amendment.

§  Councillor Corten clarified that this was debated at length by the Democratic Services Committee and considered that there are ample options to ask a Question at Any Time. Councillor Corten went on to say that the Leader would need more than two minutes to answer a meaningful question, and this was not good enough for members of the public.

§  Councillor M Evans spoke on the amendment and mentioned that it was an opportunity to shorten the question and allow for more councillors to speak.  This would ensure that all members of all parties had an opportunity for a swifter debate and therefore hoped that the amendment would be supported.

Councillors were invited to vote on the amendment.  The amendment was lost, and the Presiding Member asked were there any questions from councillors on the substantive motion.

§  Councillor Mogford wanted to be clear that the removal of the supplementary questions was a removal of the clarification to answers on the primary questions. Councillor Mogford gave an example of a supplementary question raised to the police earlier regarding e-bikes and the supplementary question was on Twitter.  Councillor Mogford felt that removing the supplementary was replacing quantity over quality.

§  Councillor Evans spoke against the substantive motion and considered that the Deputy Leader should be able to answer questions in the Leader’s absence at Council. If there were questions that the Deputy Leader could not answer, these could then be put in writing. The simplest answer would be to extend Leader’s Questions to 30 minutes. Councillor Evans felt the proposal was regressive.

Presiding Member advised that the supplementary could be put in written form for everyone to see.

§  Councillor Hourahine asked for a closure motion vote to be taken to end the debate for the substantive motion and recommendation be taken. Councillor Harvey seconded that the vote be taken.

§  Councillor Morris advised that the next item should be a vote on whether the vote should go through.

§  Councillor Evans requested that a recorded vote be taken. 

At this point, five councillors were required to come forward in support of a recorded vote to close the motion.

Councillors Evans, Morris, Mogford, Sterry, Reeks and Jones put themselves forward in support of the closure vote.

The Presiding Member invited Councillor Mogford to speak.  Councillor Mogford requested that the vote be taken on the recommendation as outlined within the report.

Resolved:

That Council approved and adopted the amended Standing Orders under Part 4: Rules of Procedure of the Constitution.