Agenda item

To note the responses to Motions which have been presented to previous Council meetings.

a)    Response to the Motion from Councillor Jeff Brooks – Item 1 Delegated Officer Decision 6 January 2021

b)    Response to the Motion from Councillor Erik Pattenden – Item 9, Executive Agenda 17 December 2020

c)    Response to the Motion from Councillors Adrian Abbs and Steve Ardagh-Walter - Item 8, Executive Agenda 17 December 2020

d)    Response to the Motion from Councillor David Marsh - Item 10, Executive Agenda 17 December 2020

e)    Response to the Motion from Councillor Richard Somner – Item 21 on this agenda

f)     Response to the Motion from Councillor Martha Vickers – To be responded to as part of the 2021/22 budget papers on this agenda (Item 18).

Members were asked to note the responses to six Motions set out in the agenda which had been tabled at previous Council meetings.

As the motions had been discussed and responded to at either the Executive or via a Delegated Officer Decision it was not proposed to revisit the discussion on items (a) to (d) at this meeting.

Item (e) would be discussed as a separate agenda item and a response to item (f) had been included in the budget papers and could be discussed during that item.

Councillor Lee Dillon stated that in terms of the public being able to follow the documents it would have been useful to treat the Motions as had been the case with (e) which had been included on the agenda. He wanted to raise the issue that some of these Motion were lengthy and yet they had not been debated in the Chamber. Due to the referral process they had all been delegated to Part II meetings or meetings which were controlled by the Administration rather than the Council as a whole. He specifically referred to item (b) from Councillor Erik Pattenden in relation to the safer schools Motion. This had originally been tabled at the budget meeting in 2020 but it had taken until December 2020 for the Executive to respond to it and it was now being noted at Council. The Liberal Democrat group felt that the Council should be speedier in terms of a response and that debate should be had prior to Members making a decision.

Councillor Martha Vickers referred to her Motion (f) which it was proposed would be responded to as part of the budget papers where it could be seen that the Motion had been rejected. On the breaking news today it was stated that the Government had actually accepted the content of the Motion and that they would be making the £20 uplift in Universal Credit permanent. She felt that it was a shame that this Council had not been part of that lobbying process. She felt that it was disrespectful to the residents of West Berkshire, to herself as an elected Councillor and it was not democratic.

Councillor Jeff Brooks agreed with the comments already made. He himself had submitted a Motion which had been referred to the Executive but he now noted that it had been taken as a Delegated Officer Decision on 6 January 2021 with no debate. When a Motion had been submitted, and due to a political reason, was passed down to Officers to determine with no further debate, it was a disgrace.

Councillor Erik Pattenden confirmed that Motion (b) was the Safer Schools Motion and he was also disappointed that it had taken a whole year for the Council to hear the response to it. He felt that there were serious issues with the democratic processes of the Council.

Councillor Adrian Abbs referred to Motion (c) and stated that this Motion had been brought forward through cross party support via a Conservative Member. It had taken six months before it was then taken to debate and it did not feel right.

Councillor Steve Masters agreed with the comments made by the Liberal Democrats. There seemed to a deficit in the democratic process and this needed to be looked at as a Council to ensure that members of the public had confidence in the system.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Motions had been dealt with on each occasion in accordance with the Council’s Constitution which also reflected the legal framework and stipulated that certain decisions were by law reserved to the Executive. Therefore, if a Motion was submitted that was related to an Executive decision then it had to go to the Executive for determination. The Constitution also permitted those who had submitted Motions to attend the Executive meeting to have that debate. This meant that further debate would not take place at the Council meeting. The Monitoring Officer therefore felt that there was a framework in place but the Constitution Review Task Group was currently reviewing the Constitution and the concerns which had been raised were being looked at through that group.

Councillor Martha Vickers highlighted her experience and the fact that no debate had taken place.

Councillor Steve Masters stated that it appeared to be very difficult to get a Motion discussed at full Council and it seemed that there was very little appetite for scrutiny and perhaps this was something that could be considered by the Constitution Review Task Group.

Councillor Jeff Brooks referred to his Motion which had been taken by a Delegated Officer Decision. He would like to know what the outcome of those discussions had been as he did not think that it had been published in the public domain. Sarah Clarke responded that the Delegated Officer Decision referred to the speed limit review and the CIL matter had not as yet been determined and would be going to the Executive.