Agenda item

Members were sighted with the draft Public Speaking Protocols which were established as part of a wider public participation scheme.

Detailed within the circulated report it was noted that one of the requirements of the Local Government and Elections Wales Act 2021, was that Local Authorities must establish ways of promoting and facilitating processes by which local people may make representations to the principal Council about a decision before, and after, it is made; each Council had the discretion in the way in which this would be taken forward.

Following the introduction of the Act, it was stated that Officers had been looking into the Councils democratic arrangements and public participation; there were various different elements that were going to be a part of this work, in order to involve the public more in the decision making process. Members were informed that the first proposal of this work was to introduce public speaking at various Council meetings; a draft Public Speaking Protocol had been developed (detailed in Appendix 1 of the circulated report) which set out the rules and regulations.

Officers provided further detail on the process and the protocol. It was highlighted that at the start of every meeting, there would be a period of time provided for members of the public to ask questions on the items listed on the agenda; the meetings in which this would apply to in the first instance would be the executive, decision making meetings including full Council, Cabinet and the Cabinet Boards. It was added that the public will have a forum in which they will submit their questions in advance of the meeting, and then receive the answers during the meeting. Officers explained that this was a pilot, and that the public participation scheme would be developed over time; there was also a need to engage with the public to identify what worked and what didn’t work.

Members were informed that Planning Committee and Licencing and Gambling Acts Committee had different protocols and regulations, therefore they were currently excluded from this process.

It was asked whether the public speaking in meetings element would be introduced into the Scrutiny Committees. Officers confirmed that the focus at this stage was to introduce the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions at the decision making forums, in which the questions would be directed to the Cabinet Board Members who make the decisions; Scrutiny Committees provided the opportunity for Members to question and raise issues on particular matters, therefore it was proposed that they be kept separate from this and that they continue to be Member led and driven. It was mentioned that there will be further refinements made moving forward with this, and from experiences there could be a need to change various elements; such as questions being asked in Scrutiny Committees in order to allow the Scrutiny Members to hear what was being asked. Officers explained there will be a flow of communication with the Members of the Scrutiny Committee, as they will be made aware of any questions that had been submitted by the public, to be asked in the Cabinet/Cabinet Board meeting; Members could then determine whether they wished to hear the answer to the questions, and if so, could ask to attend the Cabinet/Cabinet Board meeting.

Members expressed their concerns with the following clause detailed in the draft protocols; ‘the number of questions that an individual can ask in a municipal year shall be limited to two, with any further questions being accepted only at the discretion of the Chair’. It was highlighted that limiting the public to two questions per municipal year could prevent good, just questions from being asked and restrict the public participation in meetings.

It was noted that Officers had looked into the approach that other Local Authorities had adopted, and found that most had set a limit to 2/3 per person per municipal year. Members were informed that the Council wanted to encourage questions from the public, however were cautious of the process being hindered by similar types of questions being asked by the same individuals; Officers had tried to reflect this in the protocol. It was highlighted that if Members were of the collective view that they did not want to include a cap on the number of times a person can attend a meeting and ask a question, then they could implement this.

It was explained that the initial implementation of the public speaking protocol would be a pilot scheme that would be reviewed in 12 months to ensure that it remained appropriate or whether amendments were required to ensure the overarching aims of providing the public the opportunity to raise questions with members were being met. Officers mentioned that the review could be changed to 6 months if necessary; and that any other various formats could be considered.

A discussion took place regarding the wording of the clause. Various suggestions were made, and it was asked if the protocol could be trialled without a limit to the number of questions that could be asked, in order to set the right tone to the public; however, if regular problems were to occur, for this to be reviewed and potentially reverted to the original clause. It was mentioned that other elements of the protocol, such as the time limit set for questions from the public, could help to prevent the discussed concerns in regards to not having a limit.

In regards to the Chairs of the Cabinet Board meetings, it was confirmed that the role was usually agreed at the start of every meeting, and would be dependent on who from the Cabinet were in attendance; if questions were being received from the public for a particular meeting, Officers will need to ask who will be chairing it in advance of the meeting.

Members raised their concerns in regards to Cabinet Members determining which questions should or should not be asked from the public. Officers stressed the importance of a defined criteria, and stated that the criteria in which someone could reject a question, would be limited; there was a need to highlight as to when Chairs discretion can or cannot be applied. It was confirmed that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would include a clause to reflect this within the protocol.

It was agreed that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would amend the wording of the clause to reflect the views of the Committee, before the report was presented to full Council for consideration; the wording would not limit the number of questions that could be asked, however would provide the Chairs with an element of control if the questions weren’t contributing towards the effectiveness of the meeting.

Following consideration of the report presented, and the agreement to amend parts of the Public Speaking Protocol to reflect Committees view, it was resolved that:

(a) Members of the Democratic Services Committee consider the draft protocol for public speaking at Council meetings recommending any changes that they feel are appropriate; and

(b) Delegated authority be granted to the Chair of the Democratic Services Committee to agree the final draft for commending to Council on behalf of the Democratic Services Committee.