Agenda item

To enable Council to consider the operation of political proportionality rules in allocating seats on Committees etc. to Non-Aligned Members.

 

To enable Council to then choose one of the three available options which will be implemented with effect from the Annual Meeting of the Council on 25 April 2017.

The Council had before it a report of the Corporate Director (Corporate Services) which sought to enable Council to:

 

·         consider the operation of political proportionality rules in allocating seats on Committees etc. to Non-Aligned Members; and

 

·         then choose one of the three available options which would be implemented with effect from the Annual Meeting of the Council on 25 April 2017.

 

Council was reminded that the political proportionality rules that applied in allocating seats on Committees etc. were set out in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and applied only to political groups and not non-aligned Members.

 

It was reported that Members had requested clarification on this and therefore Officers had reviewed how the political proportionality rules applied in allocating seats on Committees etc. to Non-Aligned Members (i.e. Members who wee not a member of any political group on the Council). This was also in the light of the fact that six Members were not a member of any political group which equated to 10% of the Council’s total membership.

 

Following that review Officers had put forward three options for Members to consider, namely:

 

Option One – Maintain the Status Quo

 

This Option was an alternative approach that departed from Section 15 of the 1989 Act and could only be implemented in strict accordance with Section 17 of that Act i.e. only if no Member of the Council voted against.

 

This Option would see the Council continue its current practice of including the Non-Aligned Members in the initial calculation and allocate seats to them as if, in effect, they were a group in themselves. At the present time this would equate to 10% of the overall seats on Committees etc.

 

Appendix A to the Report of the Corporate Director (Corporate Services) set out an example of how, based on the current information, such a calculation would look for the Annual Meeting of the Council in April.

 

Option Two – Do Not Include The Non-Aligned Members In The Initial Calculation

 

This Option was an alternative approach that departs from Section 15 of the 1989 Act and could only be implemented in strict accordance with Section 17 of that Act i.e. only if no Member of the Council voted against.

 

This Option would see the Council not include the Non-Aligned Members in the initial calculation or allocation of seats but would instead see the Non-Aligned Members assigned the remaining “left-over” seats once the Political Groups had taken their allocations.

 

Appendix B to the aforementioned report set out an example of how, based on the current information, such a calculation would look for the Annual Meeting of the Council in April.

 

Option Three – Do Not Include The Non-Aligned Members At All

 

This Option complied with Section 15 of the 1989 Act.

 

This Option would see the Council not include the Non-Aligned Members at all and the initial calculation would be carried out as if the Council had, in effect, 54 Members and not 60. Therefore, no Non-Aligned Members would receive any Committee seats unless they were unilaterally donated by a Group Leader. This would need Council approval.

 

Appendix C to the above-mentioned report set out an example of how, based on the current information, such a calculation would look for the Annual Meeting of the Council in April.

 

Members were made aware that, in preparing the three examples, Officers had assumed that UKIP would win the St James Ward By-Election. This was based solely on the fact that the late John Hughes had been elected for UKIP in the St James’ Ward at the Council Elections in May 2015. Obviously the figures would be recalculated in the event that another Party won the By-Election.

 

Having considered the three options together with the advice of the Head of Governance and Legal Services & Monitoring Officer:

 

It was moved by Councillor Stock and seconded by Councillor Talbot that Option One (Maintain the Status Quo) be approved and implemented with effect from the Annual Meeting of the Council on 25 April 2017.

 

Councillors Everett, Scott, Parsons, Miles, Griffiths, Fairley, Porter, Stephenson, I J Henderson, Broderick, Calver, G V Guglielmi and Bray all addressed the Council during the debate on Councillor Stock’s motion.

 

Councillor Stock undertook, in his capacity as Leader of the Council, to write to the Prime Minister to urge the Government to undertake a review of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

 

Councillor I J Henderson asked that, in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 18.4, a record of the vote on Councillor Stock’s motion be taken.

 

Accordingly, the result of that vote was as follows:

 

Councillors For
Amos Baker Broderick B E Brown J A Brown M Brown Callender Calver Cawthron Chapman Chittock Coley Cossens Fairley Fowler Gray Griffiths G V Guglielmi V E Guglielmi Heaney I J Henderson J Henderson King Land Massey McWilliams Miles Nicholls Parsons Platt Poonian Scott Skeels Jnr. Skeels Snr. Steady Stock Talbot Turner Watling White Winfield
	Councillors Against
	Bray Everett Porter Stephenson Watson   Councillors Abstaining   Bennison Bush Davis Hones Khan Newton Pemberton Raby Whitmore   Councillors Not Present     Bucke Ferguson Honeywood Yallop

Councillor Stock’s motion was declared LOST as the requirements of Section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 had not been met insofar as at least one Member of the Council had voted against.

 

It was then moved by Councillor Stock and seconded by Councillor G V Guglielmi that Option Two (Do Not Include The Non-Aligned Members In The Initial Calculation) be approved and implemented with effect from the Annual Meeting of the Council on 25 April 2017.

 

Councillors Porter and I J Henderson addressed the Council during the debate on Councillor Stock’s motion.

 

Councillors For

Councillors Against

Councillors Abstaining

Councillors Not Present

 

Amos                          Everett                             Bray                                   Bucke

Baker                          Hones                             J A Brown                           Ferguson

Bennison                    Pemberton                      Gray                                    Honeywood

Broderick                    Porter                              Watson                               Yallop

B E Brown                                                          Whitmore

M Brown

Bush

Callender

Calver

Cawthron

Chapman

Chittock

Coley

Cossens

Davis

Fairley

Fowler

Griffiths

G V Guglielmi

V E Guglielmi

Heaney

I J Henderson

J Henderson

Khan

King

Land

Massey

McWilliams

Miles

Newton

Nicholls

Parsons

Platt

Poonian

Raby

Scott

Skeels Jnr

Skeels Snr

Steady

Stephenson

Stock

Talbot

Turner

Watling

White

Winfield

 

Councillor Stock’s motion was declared LOST as the requirements of Section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 had not been met insofar as at least one Member of the Council had voted against.

 

Council was advised that, as Options 1 and 2 had both failed to meet the statutory requirements, Option 3 (Do Not Include The Non-Aligned Members At All) would, by default, apply with effect from the Annual Meeting of the Council on 25 April 2017 as this Option complied with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

 

Council noted the foregoing.