Agenda item

Please note that the list of Motions is shown under item 22 in the agenda pack.

The Chairman indicated the revised order under which the Motions would be taken.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 22(f) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon regarding all members returning to in-person meetings.

The Chairman informed the Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Owen Jeffery and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“West Berkshire Council needs to return to a fully democratic process in its decision making as soon as possible which must include all 43 members being able to attend meetings in person in order to be able to cast their vote in line with the proper conduct of Council business.

 

Council notes:

 

·         The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 ceased in May 2021 which afforded councils the ability to debate and vote electronically.

 

·         Since that time West Berkshire Council has attempted a hybrid solution, allowing some members to attend in person and other electronically; and requiring (as the law permits) for all those voting to be attending in person.

 

·         The current Chamber, under coronavirus safety protocols, cannot accommodate all elected members, staff and public safely.

 

·         This Council is continuing to therefore operate with restricted numbers of members, including at full Council meetings. This action, whilst supported in the short term, prevents the full and proper interaction of all 43 Councillors representing their wards in vital Council decisions.

 

Accordingly Council resolves:

 

·         That all members will be able to attend every and any Council meeting with effect from, and including, the Council Budget meeting in March 2022.

 

Council officers will ensure that a suitable venue is available should there be capacity restrictions in the Market Street Council Chamber due, for example, to legacy safety issues”.

Councillor Owen Jeffery in introducing the Motion referred to the temporary special arrangements put in place by government for councils to conduct business via electronic means. When that had ended, officers proposed further temporary arrangements whereby a proportion of members would be in the Chamber and voting, with the remaining members being at home and unable to vote. Councillor Jeffery felt that officers had trimmed back councillor decision-making, and expressed dissatisfaction that these emergency measures which prevents back bench members from attending Council are still in place. The proposal gives two months for officers to facilitate council meetings in a suitable location, and to plan properly for the reintroduction of a fully representative and democratic debate with effect from the Budget Meeting.

Councillor Tony Linden stated that members have a democratic right to attend and vote at full council meetings but that he understood the limitations on the Council Chamber. Councillor Linden argued that additional funds should be spent to find alternative accommodation and that he is concerned whether the current arrangements could be judged as unlawful if challenged.

Councillor Claire Rowles acknowledged the need to learn to live with Covid but noted that circumstances had changed with the new variant. Councillor Rowles argued the need to be mindful of that, and of not putting elected members at risk. Subject to Covid rules and the new variant, Councillor Rowles believed that the Council should try at least to move back to face to face meetings, if appropriate at the time of the Budget Meeting.

Councillor Tony Vickers argued that there was no technical reason why a fully democratic process could not continue if the legislation was changed to allow hybrid meetings. Councillor Vickers stated that this Motion would incur costs, and suggested that the Conservative Group could speak to government colleagues to lobby for a hybrid solution.

Councillor Steve Masters referred to the support expressed for this Motion by the members of the Governance and Ethics Committee. Councillor Masters acknowledged the potential costs of securing alternative accommodation and the risks around Covid and any new variants but argued that there is a duty to offer a fully democratic process that all can be involved in. 

Councillor Dominic Boeck agreed in principle with the Motion but stated that he struggled with the idea of having a hard date by which all members should return to the Chamber given the current uncertainty about the extent of omicron variant.

Councillor Graham Bridgman expressed his disappointment that government had not brought legislation forward to support a fully hybrid situation, and also his concerns that the Motion made no reference to a budget. Councillor Bridgman rejected the idea that the Council is open to challenge on its decisions and stated how, in his view, officers had correctly advised on how to conduct hybrid meetings with legitimate votes. He stated that Covid safety should not be ignored, and that he could not support the Motion in the current way it was phrased.

Councillor Erik Pattenden stated that having a date of the Budget Meeting to work towards assisted in planning, and provided a means of looking forward and returning to the style of meetings that members would prefer.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the concerns expressed by other members regarding the hard date in the Motion of the Budget Meeting in March 2022. Councillor Macro highlighted that this is the most important meeting which every councillor should participate in, and that a previous meeting in a school hall had been webcast.

Councillor James Cole disagreed that the democratic process is not working and indicated that he could not support an un-costed open Motion like this.

Councillor Graham Pask indicated his wish to be back in the Chamber but highlighted that safety is paramount and a move to a bigger environment had to be costed. Councillor Pask supported the Motion in principle but not the detail.

Councillor Lynne Doherty disputed that officers were trying to trim back member control as they had worked hard to keep the democratic process in the hands of members. At any time control could have gone directly to the Chief Executive which had not happened. Councillor Doherty indicated that all members had received the opportunity to participate at this meeting, and noted that schools have health and safety measures in place too. Ways of working have changed in the post-Covid era, and there is also more public involvement in meetings now.

Councillor Adrian Abbs expressed his confusion over why councillors were being stopped from attending meetings in the Chamber.

Councillor Richard Somner indicated his support should an amendment to the Motion be proposed that it should be costed.

Councillor Jeff Brooks referred to a £4.6m underspend on the budget in the previous year as well as the £22m in reserves and argued that resources would be available to allow members to meet on a socially distanced basis. Councillor Brooks noted that key meetings in the past had been held in external premises and that the Motion would return Council meetings to normal.

Councillor Howard Woollaston agreed that all members want to be together for decision-making but stated that the omicron variant is an important health and safety issue. Councillor Woollaston stated his opinion that the current system in operation is working well as a temporary measure and indicated that he would not support the Motion. 

Councillor Owen Jeffery apologised for misspeaking regarding officer intentions but remarked that the Executive could have made arrangements for this some time ago. The Motion gives two months to put alternative arrangements in place, and Councillor Jeffery argued there was no reason why resources should not be dedicated to get all members together to agree the budget.

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Chamber and those attending remotely suggested that the passing of the Motion would not be supported.

 

The Motion was put to the vote of the Members present in the Chamber and declared LOST.

 

The Chairman proposed that the meeting be extended until 10.30pm. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks and duly approved by the members present in the Chamber.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda Item 22(a) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Claire Rowles regarding the promotion of civility in public life.

The Chairman informed the Council that the Motion, if seconded, would be debated at the meeting.

Councillor Claire Rowles proposed a minor alteration to the Motion to include noting that Council will take action when Members are victims of abuse, and that Members can request for personal information to be exempt from publication. Councillor Lynne Doherty, seconding, agreed to this minor alteration. The amendment was additionally approved by Members present. 

AMENDED SUBSTANTIVE MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Claire Rowles and seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty:

“The Council recognises the hard work that Councillors do to support their communities and believes they should be able to continue doing so without fear or intimidation. The Council also seeks to achieve greater diversity and inclusion across elected Members and particularly to attract more women candidates.

The Council is therefore committed to promoting civility in public life and supporting the well-being of its elected members. 

The Council agrees with the UK Local Government Associations’ Joint Statement on Civility in Public Life, which reads:

• “The intimidation and abuse of Councillors, in person or otherwise, undermines democracy; it can prevent elected members from representing the communities they serve, prevent individuals from standing for election and undermine public trust in democratic processes. 
• These harmful behaviours, whether occurring towards, between or by elected members are entirely unacceptable.”

This Council resolves to treat each other with the respect we all deserve, and to commit to disagree with each other in a polite manner, both in-person and online, in accordance with our Code of Conduct, and to offer support to each other when subjected to online abuse. The Council will take action when its elected Members are victims of abuse, including legal action where necessary and appropriate. Council notes that where a member considers that there is a risk of being subject to violence or intimidation, they can make a request to the Monitoring Officer that personal information be treated as a sensitive interest, making it exempt from publication.”

Councillor Claire Rowles, in introducing the Motion, stated that she had been prompted to bring it forward following the murder of Sir David Amess MP who had been kind, warm, civil to all colleagues, and respected the views of others. His untimely death had put a spotlight again on the threat to the safety of local representatives, and councillors should be able to do their jobs without fear and intimidation. The Motion asks all members to abide by the Code of Conduct, and highlights that they should always remind themselves to keep up those standards when going about Council business. Councillor Rowles acknowledged that the livestreaming of meetings had engaged the public more and that she would like to see this harnessed in a positive way. Greater diversity and inclusion across elected members is also aspirational but the confrontational approach to debates can be off-putting. Members should also support each other when subjected to harmful online abuse, and the Council should take legal action where possible if abuse happens. Personal security should not be compromised whilst speaking and listening to residents, and Councillor Rowles commended the Motion to members.

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Carolyne Culver and seconded by Councillor David Marsh:

“The Council recognises the hard work that Councillors do to support their communities and believes they should be able to continue doing so without fear or intimidation. The Council also seeks to achieve greater diversity and inclusion across elected Members and particularly to attract more women candidates.

 

The Council is therefore committed to promoting civility in public life and supporting the well-being of its elected members.

 

The Council agrees with the UK Local Government Associations’ Joint Statement on Civility in Public Life, which reads:

 

“The intimidation and abuse of Councillors, in person or otherwise, undermines democracy; it can prevent elected members from representing the communities they serve, prevent individuals from standing for election and undermine public trust in democratic processes.

 

These harmful behaviours, whether occurring towards, between or by elected members are entirely unacceptable.”

 

This Council resolves to treat each other with the respect we all deserve, and committo disagree with each other in a polite manner both in-person and online inaccordance with our Code of Conduct. Furthermore Council condemns the use of anonymous sock puppet social media accounts by councillors to attack each other or members of the public”.

 

In introducing the proposed Amendment to the Motion, Councillor Carolyne Culver             highlighted how she was seeking to strengthen it by stating that the Council does not accept councillors using sock puppet accounts (anonymous accounts) as they are not being transparent. Councillor Culver noted that it is an increasing problem around the country.

Councillor Dominic Boeck stated that he deplored the practice of anonymous abuse, but it should not be assumed that this behaviour was being instigated by councillors as there is no evidence. 

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the difficulty in proving who is behind an anonymous account, and that if it is found to be a member it would be a breach of the Code of Conduct. He would therefore not be supporting the proposed amendment as he felt it did not add anything.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that he would not correspond with anyone using an anonymous account and that he supported the proposed amendment. 

Councillor David Marsh stated his opinion that the Council would be ignoring a real problem if the proposed amendment to the Motion was not passed. Anonymous accounts are insidious and councillors should not have them.  They are used to make personal attacks to undermine and upset people, leading victims to not like using social media at all, and they should not be encouraged.

Councillor Jeff Brooks recognised the point that Councillor Culver was raising with the proposed amendment but felt that it would be grafting on an aspect already covered by the Code of Conduct which would overcomplicate the Motion.

Councillor Lynne Doherty indicated how she felt about smear campaigns and that she did not condone the use of sock puppets accounts, but that she would not be supporting the proposed amendment as it overcomplicated it.

Councillor Carolyne Culver argued that this was a simple amendment to strengthen the Motion and that not voting for it looks like the Council condones sock puppet accounts.

Councillor Claire Rowles argued that not voting for the amendment did not mean the Council condoned the practice. There are a number of issues on social media which can’t all be addressed, and to highlight one issue loses sight that the Motion is regarding the Code of Conduct generally. 

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Chamber and those attending remotely suggested that the passing of the proposed Amendment to the Motion would not be supported.

 

The proposed Amendment to the Motion was put to the vote of the Members present in the Chamber and declared LOST.

 

Councillor Carolyne Culver suggested that the Motion did not define what civility is (which is open to interpretation) and expressed her fear that the Motion might be used as a way to characterise debate and disagreement as something which is uncivil. Councillor Culver referred to comments made regarding her political party at a previous Council meeting and queried whether they would be regarded as uncivil given this Motion or the normal rough and tumble of debate. Members of the public had indicated that they had not liked the tone of the debate either and that it had discouraged them from wanting to stand for election. Councillor Culver questioned how this Motion would change anything, and said that members should think about tone and the language they use. Conducting themselves in a civil fashion would encourage diversity and increase the numbers of people standing for election.

 

Councillor Tony Linden noted that the Code of Conduct and its principles are not optional and raised concerns regarding the uncivil, rude and dismissive remarks that members receive via social media.

 

Councillor Jo Stewart expressed her support of the Motion and her belief that positive behaviour breeds positive behaviour. Were members to control their own behaviour then it would help to address issues in the Chamber, and disagreements could be had in a civil manner.

 

Councillor Martha Vickers referred to the negative position the media takes regarding politicians which has lowered their status. Most councillors are also generally civil to each other. Government has reduced the power of local authorities leading to people questioning the worth of getting involved, and so Councillor Vickers argued that this Council should fight any further powers being taken away. 

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks indicated his support of the Motion and remarked on the need for civility which was generally achieved in the Chamber more often than not. He referred to the rough and tumble of politics outside the Chamber, such as can be found on doorsteps, and for the need to make candidates aware of the principles.

 

Councillor Tom Marino referred to the previous statements made with regards to women and those from an ethnic minority background being put off entering politics by debate, and indicated his wish to avoid a narrative of bigotry of lower expectations. Anyone from any gender or background is as capable as another and to mention those specific groups being put off more than others starts to build that narrative.

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon indicated his support of the Motion and stated that both local and national politicians, when stating political arguments either in person or via social media, should expect opponents to put forward disagreement. However, personal intimidation and abuse is unacceptable. Councillor Mackinnon believed that it was a small step to start thinking of your opponents as morally wrong and therefore acceptable not to treat them with civility, but that it should be acknowledged that all members wish to do what is right for residents but with differing ideas as to how. 

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty agreed with the sentiment that all members have a duty towards one another, and highlighted how free speech and passion in debates should remain but with respect demonstrated. The Local Government Association has been reviewing the Councillor Code of Conduct which should go towards addressing the points raised by Councillor Culver in her proposed amendment to the Motion, and work being done on digital citizenship should help improve the conduct of people online. Members should lead by example, by treating each other with respect and civility, and Councillor Doherty thanked the councillors involved for their work on this and for championing this cause.

 

Councillor Claire Rowles thanked members for their cross party support of the Motion and the helpful debate.

 

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Chamber and those attending remotely suggested that the passing of the Amended Substantive Motion would be supported.

 

The Amended Substantive Motion was put to the vote of the Members present in the Chamber and declared CARRIED.

 

The Chairman referred to the Motions not considered at this meeting and which will be deferred to the next scheduled meeting of Council at which Motions can be considered.