Agenda item

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the chairman of a board or group any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

Councillor S Sheahan put the following question to Councillor R Blunt:

“Would the Leader agree with me that a great number of jobs in North West Leicestershire, particularly in the distribution sector, depend on this country's continued membership of the European Union and further, for us to continue to succeed and lead in this sector, it is vital that we remain part of the EU and argue a case for staying within it?”

Councillor R Blunt gave the following response:

“Cllr Sheahan is seeking my personal views on the EU referendum, however by asking his question in this chamber and addressing them to me in my capacity as Leader of the Council, I do not think it would be appropriate for me as some may confuse my personal views with the views of the Council.  What I can say is that clearly the referendum is very important and I will be encouraging everybody to vote and ensure that their views are registered”.

Councillor S Sheahan declined to ask a supplementary question.

Councillor D Everitt put the following question to Councillor T J Pendleton:

“I represent the Thringstone Ward and the boundary of the ward runs around and encloses the built up area of Thringstone and does not include the areas of countryside and woods that surround.  The people I represent in Thringstone will be affected by any developments that are proposed beyond their back gardens, however recent changes to the constitution have changed the planning rules preventing me as their Councillor from bringing forward the plans for consideration and resolution outside the boundaries. Although the development proposed may be controversial and detrimental to the people I represent, how has democracy been served by restricting the rights of the electorate from raising concerns in a democratic planning meeting?”

Councillor T J Pendleton gave the following response:

“The reason why this change has been brought into effect is to simplify the process, and to ensure that local Ward Members, who have the benefit of local knowledge and are elected to represent their own constituents, are able to use their judgement about whether to call a planning application to the Committee.

In the hypothetical scenario set out in the question, there is nothing to stop a member from speaking with the Ward Member concerned, if they think there is a valid planning reason for such a planning application to be considered by the Planning Committee.

Ward Members are ultimately responsible to their own constituents, and it would be anti-democratic for one Ward Member to interfere in how another Ward Member goes about representing the best interests of their constituents”.

Councillor D Everitt commented that he was disappointed with the response as his question was not intended to be political.  He added that there was a lot of disillusionment and this would make the situation worse when constituents found they were unable to be represented.  As a supplementary question, he asked if the Portfolio Holder agreed with him that this would create problems for applications on the fringes of wards, as the neighbouring ward member would not be aware of the application and would not be able to represent any residents not within their wards.  He commented that this was not simplifying things but making it worse.

Councillor T J Pendleton responded that he did not agree as he would expect members to communicate with their neighbouring ward members in respect of planning applications.  He stated that he believed in co-operation, not confrontation, and he would be pleased to represent fellow Councillors on any developments in his ward that would affect them if they had a particular planning reason.

Councillor N Clarke put the following question to Councillor R Blunt:

“Why were members of this Council denied the opportunity to exchange individual views on the merits or otherwise of the UK's membership of the EU and hold a vote on that question, within the traditional confines of a debate at Full Council?”

Councillor R Blunt gave the following response:

“Advice was sought by Cllr Sheahan on whether a motion regarding the EU referendum was within the Constitution and able to be put before this meeting.  The wording of the motion had not been finalised by Cllr Sheahan but the intention of it was to ask members of the Council to agree that it was important to NWL that the UK remained in the EU.  The Monitoring Officer advised Cllr Sheahan and the Chairman that such a motion would be improper and therefore should not be considered by Council.  The Chairman considered this advice and decided that the motion should not be accepted.

The reason that it was improper is that it was seeking to elicit a view from this Council on a matter which will be decided by public ballot.  The same reason would apply if a motion was put forward before a parish, district or parliamentary election which was seeking the Council’s view in support of a particular outcome to that election.

Further advice was sought by Cllr Sheahan as to whether the motion could be reworded to seek the views of members as individuals rather than the Council as a body.  Again, the advice from the MO was that would not be possible.  Members do not exercise individual decision making.  When members sit at Council, consider a matter and then vote upon it, the decision reached is that of the Council as a separate legal entity and body Corporate.  It is a single decision.  Advice was offered that a motion may be appropriate if it sought to highlight the importance of the referendum process and encouraged people to exercise their vote. This was not acceptable to Cllr Sheahan as it did not meet with his intention.

I am aware, as was the MO, when the advice was given, that other Council’s in the country and in Leicestershire have accepted similar motions at their Council meeting.  I cannot comment on what advice was given to them or how this came about.  I am confident that the MO gave the right advice to this Council, the chairman and Cllr Sheahan and I endorse that”.

Councillor N Clarke stated that officers were here to advise and guide, however elected members made decisions and obviously there was no political will or appetite to allow this debate to take place.  He added that elected members up and down the country, including at Leicester City and Leicestershire County Council, were being given the opportunity to debate this matter.  As a supplementary question, he asked whether the Leader agreed that the administration had denied the elected members of North West Leicestershire the democratic right of debating topical issues and in doing so has given the impression that we are somehow less worthy than other elected members.

Councillor R Blunt responded that he did not agree with this statement.