Agenda item

This report updates Members on two decisions taken since the last Council meeting which are required to be notified to Members in relation to constitutional changes to give rise to virtual meetings and an urgent executive decision in relation to financial support to Freedom Leisure, both due to COVID-19.

Members considered and noted the Freedom Leisure report, presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that at the time of the decision concerning Freedom Leisure, he held the position of Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and before any decisions were made with regard to Freedom Leisure he had lengthy discussions with the Legal Team at the Council, before he approved the non- call in facility that had to be taken in a very timely manner.

·         Councillor Booth, added that the debate that took place with regard to Freedom Leisure at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee  meeting on 8 June 2020 can be viewed on You Tube.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Connor and members AGREED to note the decision taken under special urgency in relation to financial support  to Freedom Leisure due to Covid 19.

Members considered the Constitutional Amendment report presented by Councillor Boden

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Booth stated that he has read the changes to the Constitution and expressed the opinion that whilst he appreciates that due to the pandemic there needs to be a new way of working he has concerns that some of the changes that have been introduced such as not allowing public speaking or petitions will stifle the democratic process. He added that the virtual Planning Committees have enabled members of the public to make representations, and therefore, members of the public should be able to present at meetings of the Council.

·         Councillor Booth commented that some members may recall that a motion had been discussed previously at Council, where consideration had been given with regard to holding meetings of the Council virtually.

·         Councillor Booth stated that the report states that political parties will have to vote against motions in the Constitution, which he is concerned to read. He also questioned what the review period is for these amendments. Councillor Boden stated that with regard to the review period, the legal requirement for the remote meetings lasts until the 7 May 2021.

·         Councillor Boden commented that there was significant concern at many authorities with regard to the practical way to facilitate questions and petitions. Councillor Boden expressed the opinion that, progress has been made with virtual meetings taking place over the last few months and therefore he would like to discuss this further with Councillor Tanfield and Councillor Booth to review whether further changes can be made.

·         Councillor Booth asked whether this can be reviewed within the next 3 months. Councillor Boden stated he will be happy to review this on an ongoing basis.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he also has concerns with regard to page 49 and 8.1 with regard to the submission of motions, where it states that ‘Members will have the ability to submit motions to Council as set out in the Constitution. In order for the Motion to be accepted, the Member submitting the motion will need to provide the Monitoring Officer with evidence that it is time critical’. He stated that if an elected member has a motion to be considered why should they have to prove it is time critical? He expressed the view that the report needs to be reviewed in time for the next Council meeting and he added he will only be supporting the report, if the time critical element is removed.

·         Councillor Boden stated that the rules were put in place at the end of March, when there was a great deal of concern as to whether the technical abilities were in place in order to hold meetings remotely and in the last three months meetings have been able to be conducted in a satisfactory manner. He added that the paragraph that Councillor Sutton has alluded to at 8.1 is an item which he would like to review and to have removed. 

·         Councillor Boden stated that he has already stated that he will meet with Councillor Booth and Councillor Tanfield, and added that Councillor Sutton can also attend that meeting to review the documents. He added that he is reluctant to make any changes immediately, as it may reflect on other elements of the document being ratified today.

·         Councillor Boden expressed the opinion that in light of the fact that the comment could impact on the next meeting of Full Council, he asked Officers whether they could clarify whether there was any reason why the second sentence of 8.1 could not be removed immediately without any detriment. He added that if there was any concern then it would have to be delayed to the next meeting of Full Council in August.

·         The Monitoring Officer, Carol Pilson, stated that there are two options available as outlined by Councillor Boden. Firstly, Councillor Boden has given an undertaking to review the rules and, therefore, she could utilise her powers between this meeting and the next Council meeting for those changes to be ratified at the meeting on 6 August. Alternatively, if Members wish to remove the one sentence immediately, by moving an amendment on that one particular sentence it would not cause a significant issue.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he wished to move an amendment and thanked Councillor Boden for his consideration on the item.

Members considered the  amendment to the Constitutional Amendment report proposed by Councillor Sutton

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she supports the amendment to the document and added that she had attended a Cambridgeshire County Council Highways meeting, where motions and public speaking had been facilitated and suggested that officers may find it helpful to contact colleagues at the County Council to explore their operation of remote meetings.

·         Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that it is frustrating to have motions delayed however it is important to focus on time critical business as a priority during the pandemic.

·         Councillor Boden stated that following the guidance of the Monitoring Officer, he is prepared to accept the amendment of the removal of the second part of the sentence as detailed in paragraph 8.1. He added that there is an adequate way that the Monitoring Officer can make changes, which can then be ratified by Full Council.

·         Councillor Tanfield expressed the view that she is happy to support the proposal by Councillor Sutton. She added that we are all experiencing difficult and challenging times and the suggestion of looking at the method of operation for County Council meetings should be explored. She expressed the opinion that a regular review of the guidelines is welcomed.

·         Councillor Hoy stated that she does not support the amendment. She added that she would rather wait until the next meeting of Full Council and then decide whether changes are required.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Yeulett to remove the second sentence at both 8.1 of the Virtual Meeting Procedure Rules and 10.3 of the Council Procedure Rules which read ‘In order for the motion to be accepted, the Member submitting the Motion will need to provide the Monitoring Officer evidence that it is time critical.’ The amendment was APPROVED.

Members considered the remainder of the Constitutional Amendment report proposed by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Booth expressed the view Councillor Boden formulating a review of the Constitutional Amendment Report should be included.

Proposed by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the Constitutional Amendments be APPROVED.

(Councillor Cornwell declared an interest as his son is an employee of Freedom Leisure and left the meeting prior to the commencement of this item)