Agenda item

Motions

By Marianne Fredericks

To consider a Motion, submitted by Marianne Fredericks, in relation to the establishment of a Working Party to consider aspects of the standards regime.

Minutes:

Motion – “That this Honourable Courtresolves to convene a Working Party chaired by the Chief Commoner to report to the Court as soon as practicable on how proceedings for breach of the Code of Conduct may be conducted without Members sitting in judgment on each other.”

 

Marianne Fredericks spoke to introduce the Motion, clarifying that its purpose was to attempt to address the longstanding concerns of Members in relation to the current Standards Regime, facilitating the move towards a new Regime which enjoyed the support of the entire Court She recognised that it would take time to consider this matter fully, which leant weight to the need to begin the process now. Noting the ongoing Governance Review being undertaken by Lord Lisvane, she observed that he was aware of this Motion and expressed her belief that this did not cause any conflict with his continued Review.

 

Through her introduction, and with the consent of the seconder, Ms Fredericks moved a minor amendment to the Motion clarifying the composition of the Working Party, such that it be chaired by the Chief Commoner and comprise six other Members elected by the Court of Common Council.

 

In seconding the Motion, Barbara Newman observed that 59 Members were signatories to the Motion which demonstrated the strength of feeling amongst the Court. She suggested that the Governance Review need not delay the action proposed and urged that the Working Party be established in order that the views of Members could be sought at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

For the sake of clarity, the Town Clerk confirmed that the Motion before the Court was now – “That this Honourable Court resolves to convene a Working Party, which will consist of six Members elected by the Court at its next meeting plus the Chief Commoner, and be chaired by the Chief Commoner, to report to the Court as soon as practicable on how proceedings for breaches of the Code of Conduct may be conducted without Members sitting in judgment on each other.”

 

Ann Holmes spoke in opposition to the Motion, on the grounds that it relied on false assertions concerning the Regime. She noted that the past twelve months had been dominated by general angst in relation to the specific area of dispensations and that, following a comprehensive review, the dispensations policy had now been revised and was more liberal in processing dispensation requests. She added that placing responsibility for determining Member complaints in the hands of officers or other external parties could cause reputational damage and imply that the Court was unable to manage its own processes.

 

Sir Michael Snyder also spoke to state that, whilst he agreed with the general thrust of the Motion, he could not support it as currently worded. He suggested that now was not the time to focus considerable resource on this issue, given the volume  of other more pressing matters for the Court of Common Council to address in the current context. Noting that Lord Lisvane was already considering the concerns raised in the Motion as part of the Governance Review, he ventured that the Court should await the Review’s findings before taking action precipitately. Sir Michael also queried the appropriateness of the Chief Commoner chairing the proposed Working Party, given that his views on the Standards Regime were already well-known and so could give rise to suggestions of a lack of independent or neutral stewardship.

 

Deputy Keith Bottomley echoed the suggestion that this was premature and urged the Court to refer the amended Motion to Lord Lisvane to consider as part of Governance Review, to see what further changes were necessary. He expressed his awareness that Lord Lisvane had already received many representations in respect of this matter and the initial Review findings were due to be presented to the coming weeks; given this, establishing a Working Party at this stage would be precipitate and the Court would be better served by considering the Review findings prior to agreeing any further action.

 

Amendment – “That this Honourable Court resolves that the Motion to convene a Working Party chaired by the Chief Commoner to report to the Court as soon as practicable on how proceedings for breaches of the Code of Conduct may be conducted, without Members sitting in judgment on each other, be referred to Lord Lisvane for full and comprehensive incorporation into the Governance Review.”

 

During discussion of the amendment, James Tumbridge suggested the removal of the words “without Members sitting in judgment on each other”, observing that a jury of peers could well offer the best protection to Member complaints being dealt with fairly, notwithstanding the challenges for Members involved.

 

Deputy Bottomley indicated his consent to this proposed deletion and Sheriff Christopher Hayward spoke to second the revised amendment. He highlighted that the current Standards Regime had diverted considerable resource to-date and that, whilst some reform was clearly needed, establishing a Working Party at this juncture would convey the wrong message at a time when the City was seeking to emerge from an unprecedented pandemic and the nation was on the verge of a recession.  He urged the Court to prioritise and focus its efforts on supporting businesses, the economy, and residents.

 

Mark Wheatley spoke in opposition to the amendment proposed by Deputy Bottomley.  Mr Wheatley stated that he was in favour of the original motion as amended.

 

In closing the debate on this motion, Ms Fredericks stated that she hoped that the Court would support a new Standards Regime to be proud of and that the public and Members have confidence in.

 

A Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative 74

ALDERMEN

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor, Russell, W.A.B.

Graves, D. A.

Luder, I.D.

Bowman, Sir Charles

Hailes, T.R.

Lyons, N.S.L.

Edhem, E.

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

Mainelli, Sheriff Professor, M.R.

Estlin, Sir Peter

Jones, G. P.

Parmley, Sir Andrew

Garbutt, J.

Keaveny, V.T.

Wootton, Sir David

Gifford, Sir Roger

King, A.J.N.

Yarrow, Sir Alan

Gowman, A.J.

Langley, S.

 

COMMONERS

Abrahams, G.C.

Graham., T.

Moss, A.M., Deputy

Absalom, J.D., Deputy

Haines, C.W.

Moys, S.D

Barr, A.R.M.

Hayward, C.M., Sheriff

Packham, G.D.

Barrow, D.

Hoffman, T., Deputy

Petrie, J.

Bennett, P.G.

Holmes, A.

Pleasance, J.L.

Bensted-Smith, N.M.

Ingham Clark, J., Deputy

Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy

Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy

James, C., Deputy

Rogula, E., Deputy 

Broeke, T.

Joshi, S.J

Sayed, R.

Colthurst, H.N.A.

Levene, T

Seaton, I.C.N

de Sausmarez, H.J.

Littlechild, V., J.P

Sells, O.

Doshi Smith, G.M

Lodge, O.A.W.

Shilson, Dr. G.R.E., Deputy

Dostalova, K.

Lord, C.E., O.B.E., J.P., Deputy

Simons, J.L.

Duckworth, S.D’O.

Martinelli, P.N.

Sleigh, T., Deputy

Dunphy, P.G., Deputy

McGuinness, C., Deputy

Snyder, Sir Michael

Edwards, J.E.

McMurtrie, A.S.

Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy 

Everett, K.M., Deputy

Mead, W., O.B.E

Tumbridge, J.R

Fairweather, A.H.

Meyers, A.G.D

Upton, W.

Fernandes, S.A.

Morris, H. F., Deputy 

Wright, D.L

Tellers for the affirmative – (Affirmative) Alderman Ian Luder and Natasha Lloyd-Owen (Negative).

For the Negative 37

ALDERMEN

Goyal, P.B., O.B.E., J.P

Masojada, B.

 

COMMONERS

Addy, C.K.

Fentimen, H.L.

Mooney, B.D.F., Deputy 

Ali, M.

Fletcher, J.W.

Murphy, B.D

Anderson, R.K.

Fredericks, M.B.

Newman, B.P., C.B.E 

Bastow, A.M.

Haines, Rev. Stephen, D.

Patel, D., O.B.E

Bell, M.

Harrower, G.G.

Pearson, S.J

Bennett, J.A., Deputy

Hill, C.

Pimlott, W

Boden, C. P.

Hudson, M.

Priest, H.J.S

Bostock, M.

Hyde, W.M., Deputy

Pritchard, J.P

Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy

Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.

Scott, J.G.S., J.P.

Chadwick, R.A.H., O.B.E., Deputy

Mayer, A.P.

Tomlinson, J., Deputy

Chapman, J.D.

Mayhew, J.P.

Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.

Durcan, J.M.

Merrett, R.A., Deputy

 

Tellers for the negative – (Negative) John Chapman and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark (Affirmative).

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Amendment to be carried.

Upon the Motion as amended being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

Resolved – That this Honourable Court resolves that the Motion to convene a Working Party chaired by the Chief Commoner to report to the Court as soon as practicable on how proceedings for breaches of the Code of Conduct may be conducted be referred to Lord Lisvane for full and comprehensive incorporation into the Governance Review.

Supporting documents: