Agenda item

Policy and Resources Committee

To consider proposals in relation to the holding of meetings over the coming period.

Minutes:

 

(Deputy Catherine McGuinness)

8 April 2021

Audio-visual Participation in Formal Meetings

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 together with restrictions on gatherings and travel in Spring 2020, the Government had introduced temporary emergency measures (the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020) enabling local authorities to undertake formal decision-making meetings virtually until 6thMay 2021.  Virtual meetings had introduced more flexibility, helped to facilitate greater public scrutiny and aided Members and officers in conducting business more efficiently; however, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had confirmed that these measures would not be extended beyond 6th May 2021 and that local authority meetings would not therefore be able to continue virtually or in a hybrid format.

 

Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 covered public access to meetings, agendas and reports, the inspection of minutes and background papers, etc. and applied to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority and police authority. Without the modifications introduced by the 2020 Regulations the legislation prohibited formal meetings taking place virtually. This meant that in order to participate in discussions and vote on decisions or recommendations, Members must be present physically at the meeting at which the matter is considered.  The legislative framework did not apply to informal meetings such as call-overs and working parties.  The Court of Common Council had in the past voluntarily chosen to apply Part 5A to all its formal meetings including those with non-local authority and non-police authority functions. The need for public access to meetings in accordance with Part 5A was referred to in Standing Orders No. 4 and 32 but the Standing Orders also give the Court and its Committees scope to disapply those provisions in respect of non-local authority and non-police authority functions.   Notwithstanding the fact that committees can, if they so choose, change the way the legislation was applied, the Committee was of view that rather than leaving this to individual committees and addressing the issue in a piece-meal manner, any change is best dealt with holistically, with a corporate, policy, decision being taken and applied across the board.

 

The Chair, introducing the report, proposed two minor amendments to recommendations 4 and 5, to reflect more accurately the decisions of the Policy & Resources Committee in respect of the proposed delegation to officers nominated by the Town Clerk, the inclusion of the Court, and to require the bringing forward of chairmanship elections for committees with local or police authority functions.

 

Amendment – That:-

·           recommendation 4 be amended such that the words “a committee or sub-committee” be deleted and replaced with the words “the Court or its Committees” and the words “or other officer nominated by him” be inserted following the words “Town Clerk”; and

·           recommendation 5 be amended such that the first sentence be deleted and replaced with “Where necessary, Committees exercising local and police authority functions be requested to bring forward the process for the election of Chairs and Deputy Chairs so that the elections take place before 6th May.”

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

Members proceeded to debate the report as amended. During debate, the following positions were expressed:

·           A Member expressed their significant concern in relation to aspects of the proposals, observing that the paper proposed effectively to circumvent the current law requiring physical meetings through the use of mechanisms which placed final decision-making in the hands of unelected officials. The Member outlined their doubts that this process would survive the scrutiny of the courts in respect of planning or licensing matters and added that it should not, in any event, survive the scrutiny of a democratic organisation.

·           Several Members also argued that the proposed approach sent the wrong message to the wider City, one of timidity and hesitancy, when at the same time the City Corporation was proclaiming that the City was open and was advocating for visitors and businesses to come back. Reservations were expressed as to how the Corporation could on the one hand tell others they should return whilst not doing so itself and it was urged that such mixed-messaging be avoided, with the Corporation having the confidence to lead from the front in returning to business-as-normal.

·           Other Members suggested that it was highly unlikely that City businesses were waiting to see what the City Corporation did with its own staff or meetings before coming to a conclusion as to their own arrangements. They argued that the Court should consider what was best for the Corporation in terms of decision-making and transparency thereof, observing that the proposals represented a sensible and pragmatic attempt to navigate through the very difficult position imposed over the short to medium-term by the Government’s decisions in this area.

·           Members also observed that a large proportion of staff and Members were not yet vaccinated and that the pandemic was still very real, urging caution in respect of the potential risks of exposure. It was noted that Government advice remained to work from home where possible and, in any event, as people did return to the office, social distancing requirements meant that most would not be in the office the full working week for some time.

·           A Member commented that it was likely that many business would cease to have employees in offices full-time following the pandemic, with increased working from home arrangements. As the business world evolved, the Member urged that the Corporation should endeavour to keep pace and not hold exclusively to the idea of meeting in person, as this might be somewhat self-destructive in terms of its ability to operate in a modern and effective fashion.

·           With reference to social distancing requirements, a Member observed that a fully physical return would lead to difficulties in terms of attendance at larger meetings, as it would not always be possible to accommodate all Members in the available space. This would have the undesirable effect of a two-tier system which excluded some Members from being able to attend and participate at meetings. Conversely, the proposals here represented a pragmatic solution which gave all Members an equal opportunity to participate.

·           A Member urged that exploratory work be undertaken to look at other City venues beyond the Guildhall that might be used for physical meetings, where there was a larger space footprint so as to accommodate greater numbers with social distancing arrangements in place.

·           It was also observed that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government had suggested powers should be delegated to the executive to allow for decision-making to continue unimpeded in the interim; what was proposed here was much more democratic in that it allowed for debate and Member scrutiny in a public setting in the interim period.

·           Several Members reflected on the need to place a “sunset clause” on the interim arrangements proposed, whilst also keeping measures under review and revisiting the position if and when restrictions were eased.

 

Amendment – That, in recommendation 4, the words “For the time being, while certain restrictions are still in place” be deleted and replaced with the words “Until Thursday 7 October”.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

The Chair of Policy and Resources spoke to close the debate, observing that many other councils faced the same challenges in trying to find a solution at this difficult time and arguing that the proposals represented a practical way forward for the City Corporation.

 

Resolved – That:-

1.     Members should continue to have the flexibility to participate in Court and committee meetings remotely, when exercising non-local authority and non-police authority functions.

2.     For non-local authority committees, Part 5A of the Local Government Act be retained to enable public to continue to have access to meetings and public papers and, in order to retain the ability to meet virtually or in hybrid format, the City Corporation continues to apply Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 as if they continue to be in force after 6thMay 2021.

3.     A change to the wording on the title page of non-public committee reports which relate to the Common Council’s non-local authority and non-police authority functions be authorised to make it clear that Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 is being voluntarily applied.

4.     Until Thursday 7th October 2021, it be agreed that formal local and police authority business be dealt with via a Covid ratification process, i.e. by holding an informal virtual meeting in the first instance to ascertain the general view of the Court of its committees, with the public being given access to the informal meeting to maintain transparency via live streaming and recording.  A formal decision, which accurately reflects the mood of the informal meeting, can then be taken by the Town Clerk, or other officer nominated by him, who is hereby given delegated authority to formally approve such decisions pursuant to s.101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.

5.     Where necessary, Committees exercising local and police authority functions be requested to bring forward the process for the election of Chairs and Deputy Chairs so that the elections take place before 6th May. This could be done via a special, one item meeting if necessary, using the current balloting arrangements. This way the elections will not require ratification under the Covid decision making process.

6.     All Members (elected or otherwise) who need to return to Guildhall for face-to-face meetings should be encouraged to undertake regular lateral (rapid) flow tests prior to coming into Guildhall in the same way staff, who have to attend the workplace to perform duties that they cannot do at home, are being encouraged to do.

7.     Any decision take by the Court this day be communicated to external co-optees and other non-CoCo Committee Members.

8.     The Town Clerk be authorised to make such amendments to Standing Orders and related corporate governance documentation as is required to give effect to the above decisions.

Supporting documents: