The constitution sets out how, among other things, council meetings are run and how many committees there are. There has recently been a review of how this works, and the proposals have raised concerns. The reforms include changes to how questions can be asked at council; how much information the council’s cabinet members have to give council; and a reduction in the number of scrutiny committees, the place where councillors can ask detailed questions about the council’s performance and plans.

The council’s Constitutional Committee is the “guardian of the Council’s constitution” and has been overseeing these changes. I joined the committe in July because I could find out more about the issues it covers and speak up for residents’ interests. I’m very concerned by what I’ve found out about how this committee actually works, and how much is done in secret.

I was unable to attend the meeting on August 12, which wasn’t in the schedule when I joined the committee. I was concerned to find out that this additional meeting was agreed at an ‘informal meeting’ in July of which there is no public record. I do not think it appropriate that a council committee has informal, un-minuted meetings. 

My objections to the changes in Council procedures

I set out my concerns about the changes in an email to committee members (my comments are in italics):

Proposals

4.1 The refined recommendations are:

Changes to City Council:

• Notice of Motions to appear on the agenda in order of relevance to the council, city, national interest and international issues so debate on issues within our purview are prioritised.

Who decides the relevance of motions and what is and isn’t in our “purview”?  Councillors are elected representatives of the city’s residents and, if they think a motion is worth debating, that should be respected.

• Notice of Motions to roll over a maximum of two times and then be voted on without discussion rather than continuing to roll over.

Why? It should be up to the councillors proposing and seconding the motions to decide this.

• Public questions to appear on the agenda in order of relevance to the council, city, national interest and international issues so debate on issues within our purview are prioritised.

Who decides the relevance of questions and what is and isn’t in our “purview”? Members of the public have the right to ask Council questions and, if there is not enough time for all questions, the answer is to allocate more time for questions.

• Cabinet portfolio reports to be replaced with Cabinet statements covering current key issues, achievements and forward looking, followed by Member questions. Cabinet portfolio reports (and Cabinet statements) will no longer be considered by scrutiny committees in advance.

This reduces scrutiny of Cabinet and further reduces the role of Council.

• Committee are asked to provide further steer on the duration of discussion at City Council and the process for submitting member questions. This will be reflected within the final report to City Council.

I think the time for discussion should be longer and the process for submitting member questions should be made easier. The current arrangements appear designed to protect the administration from challenging questions.

• Delete the Climate Change Committee from our formal committee structure. Scrutiny will take place through the most appropriate scrutiny committee (currently Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee), including an annual report on the Net Zero Action Plan.

I am concerned about over-burdening the Overview and Scrutiny Coordination Committee, which already has a challenging agenda. If the council is serious about its net zero commitments, then an annual report on the Net Zero Action Plan is insufficient.

• Quarterly non-political city-wide forums, hosted by the council and partners with rotating venues.

Newcastle City Council is a democratic body that is supposed to be accountable to residents. A ‘non-political forum’ in not accountable. The suggestion that something can be ‘non-political’ is debatable and suggests a contempt for the democratic process and democratic representatives.

• Delete ward committees from our formal committee structure.
  – Current resources to support ward engagement will continue including that from the Communities Team and attendance by relevant officers.
  – Annual committee meetings can still take place in a format agreed by ward members, with support provided as needed. These will no longer include a formal element, such as the election of a Chair.
  – Ward budgets are not impacted.
  – This commitment will be reflected in the Charter.

Ward Committees are the only means for residents to formally raise concerns with their representatives about city issues and council services and for councillors to formally record their concerns about those issues. Removing ward committees is an attack on the democratic process.

• Delete the Voluntary Sector Liaison Group from our formal committee structure.
  – The VSLG has reviewed its role and remit and recommends future liaison with the voluntary sector continues through informal settings with new terms agreed with sector partners

Liaison through informal settings is not transparent or accountable.

Even if I thought the proposals were reasonable, I would be opposed to any proposals being taken forward before the conclusion of the independent investigation into governance, which has yet to begin.

I also have concerns about the confidential minutes from the March 26 meeting. These cover a section of the meeting that was not open to the press and public. I think that the issue discussed, since it could have financial implications for residents, should have been discussed publicly.  I note that there is a reference to the proposal being ‘revenue neutral’. If that  means no additional cost, then that claim seems to be at odds with information that is publicly available on the council’s website.”‘

The committee agreed to put the changes to council and they were debated at September’s Council meeting. I spoke and voted against them, as did the other independent councillors and the Greens but the Lib Dems supported Labour and they were agreed.

What has the impact of the changes been?

So far, at the October Council meeting, a councillor was not allowed to ask a question because it wasn’t about a topic on the Cabinet Statement. The November Cabinet Statement contained very little on future plans, despite that being the justification for the change from Cabinet reports, but, when it was queried at council, councillors were told that was allowed.

I have tried to raise concerns about the impact of the changes at the last two meetings of Constitutional Committee but have told that I am not allowed to until it is on the agenda…