Agenda item

To consider proposed Council Procedure Rules.

The Sub-Committee considered the first tranche of the draft Council Procedure Rules, covering arrangements and activities taking place before Council meetings. It was noted that further tranches would address matters arising during meetings, including petitions and recorded votes.

The draft had been developed with reference to arrangements in comparable authorities, with the intention of balancing opportunities for Member participation, scrutiny and transparency with the need to ensure that Council could conduct its business effectively within the available meeting time.

It was noted that the proposed deadline for urgent questions had been amended from one hour before the meeting to lunchtime on the day of the meeting, recognising the practicalities of identifying appropriate officers and preparing a response.

Concern was raised that detailed feedback previously submitted by Members on motions, questions and wider meeting arrangements had not been reflected in the current draft. It was acknowledged that this had been omitted in error and it was confirmed that the previous feedback would be revisited and taken into account in both the current and subsequent drafting of the Procedure Rules.

Members discussed introducing provision for Member statements on local ward matters, similar to arrangements operating elsewhere. There was broad support for the principle as a means of enabling Members to highlight matters of local relevance without initiating a wider debate.

Discussion suggested:

• statements should relate to a local or ward matter;
• each statement should be limited to two minutes;
• there should be no right of reply;
• advance notice should be required;
• consideration should be given to a maximum of five statements per meeting, providing an overall allocation of up to ten minutes; and
• an appropriate and transparent mechanism would be required if the number of requests exceeded the available places.

The positioning of Member statements within the agenda and the overall time allocation would be considered further alongside the other proposed meeting time limits.

Members discussed the proposal for the Leader to make an announcement of up to three minutes and whether provision should also be made for opposition/group leaders to respond. Views differed on the extent of any provision. Some Members considered that a formal right of reply was an important element of democratic accountability and scrutiny, while others highlighted the need to protect sufficient meeting time for the Council's substantive decision-making business. There was support for considering a defined and time-limited arrangement for Leader and group leader contributions, potentially within an overall allocation of approximately ten minutes. It was agreed that this should be considered further in the round with the other proposed meeting time allocations.

The Sub-Committee considered the proposed arrangements for questions submitted by Members. There was general support for retaining the ability for a Member to submit up to three questions, rather than limiting each Member to a single question. To ensure fairness:

• each Member's first question would be taken before second questions;
• second questions would similarly be taken before third questions; and
• Members submitting multiple questions should indicate their order of priority.

This was considered to provide a fair opportunity for different Members to participate while retaining the existing overall limit on individual questions.

Members discussed the proposed deadline of five clear working days for submitting questions. While recognising the additional time officers may require coordinating accurate responses across the new organisation, there was concern that five clear working days could prevent Members from submitting questions arising from published meeting papers. A four clear working day deadline was supported as a compromise, with the potential for this to be reviewed once the new Council's arrangements had become established.

Members considered whether supplementary questions should be restricted to the Member who submitted the original question. There was support for retaining the ability for other Members to ask a relevant supplementary question, recognising its role in supporting scrutiny and accountability.

Members agreed in principle that:

• supplementary questions should arise directly from the original question or response;
• the Chair should ensure that supplementary questions remained relevant;
• the overall process for each question, including supplementary questions and responses, should be limited to a maximum of three minutes; and
• this time would form part of the overall allocation for Member questions.

The Sub-Committee considered whether opposition and group leaders should receive priority when Member questions were taken. Following discussion, Members considered that the clearest and fairest approach would be to retain the order in which questions were received, particularly as each Member's first question would be taken before subsequent questions from the same Member.

Members discussed the proposal to reduce the overall allocation for Member questions from 45 minutes in the interim arrangements to 30 minutes.

There were differing views. Some Members considered that retaining 45 minutes was important to support scrutiny, while others considered 30 minutes more appropriate, particularly during the early operation of West Surrey Council when significant substantive business was expected to require consideration by Full Council. The possibility of placing Member questions later in the agenda was also discussed, potentially allowing additional flexibility where the Council's substantive business was completed early.

No final position was reached on the overall time allocation, and it was agreed that this should be considered alongside all other proposed meeting time allocations.

Members discussed the existing allocation of up to 30 minutes for public questions and supported public questions remaining towards the beginning of the meeting, recognising that members of the public should not be expected to wait until the end of a potentially lengthy Council meeting.

There was support for introducing a maximum number of questions that could be submitted by an individual member of the public, with three suggested as an appropriate limit.

Members also discussed how very similar or repetitive questions might be dealt with, including the potential for closely related questions to be grouped for the purposes of providing a response. The overall arrangements would be considered further as part of the review of meeting timings.

Members discussed whether motions should be subject to a word limit.

While the current arrangements provided for a limit of 200 words, Members considered that 300 words could provide an appropriate balance between allowing sufficient explanation and avoiding unnecessarily lengthy motions.

The proposed arrangements for supplementary questions, including a limited response time, were also supported.

Members identified an inconsistency in the draft concerning the number of Councillors required to request an extraordinary meeting, with references to both five and ten Members. It was explained that five Members was consistent with a number of comparable authorities, although Members considered whether a proportionate threshold might be more appropriate for a Council of 90 Members. There was support for exploring a threshold of 10% of the Council's membership.

The process was explained in full e.g. where the required number of Members submitted a valid requisition, the Chair would be asked to call an extraordinary meeting. If the Chair refused or failed to do so within the specified period, the requesting Members could cause the meeting to be called, with Democratic Services supporting the necessary arrangements.

Members requested that, when the provisions relating to recorded votes were considered in a future tranche, specific consideration be given to retaining the existing ability for an individual Councillor to request that their own vote be recorded.

The wider arrangements and thresholds for requesting a full recorded vote would be considered at that stage.

The Sub-Committee recognised that the Council Procedure Rules would continue to develop and that the arrangements agreed for the establishment of West Surrey Council would not be fixed permanently.

It was acknowledged that the new Council was likely to have a particularly significant volume of business during its initial period of operation. Members therefore supported taking a pragmatic approach initially, with the opportunity to review the Procedure Rules once the Council's operating arrangements had become more established.

Officers would take the comments made during the meeting, together with the Member feedback previously submitted, and reflect these in the next iteration of the Council Procedure Rules.

In particular, further consideration would be given to the overall allocation of meeting time, including:

• public questions;
• Member questions;
• Member statements;
• Leader and group leader contributions;
• motions; and
• substantive Council business.

This would enable the Sub-Committee to consider the arrangements collectively and achieve an appropriate balance between effective scrutiny, Member participation, openness and transparency, and the efficient conduct of Council business.