To receive questions relating to items of business on the agenda from members of the public or press who are present at the meeting.
Minutes:
The Chair explained that any questions must relate to items on the agenda. He understood that a number of people had attended to ask questions regarding the Palestine petition, unfortunately he had been advised to remove that item from the agenda because of its political nature, given the upcoming general election. The Chair did give his assurance that this item would be added to the first available agenda following the conclusion of the general election.
Councillor Tinsley felt that this had not been consistent in the run up to the local elections and queried if there was a difference was between local and national elections. The Monitoring Officer, Philip Horsfield, clarified that this topic had been excluded from any formal agendas before the local elections as well, so there had been consistency in the approach to formal meetings in both pre-election periods in relation to this topic. He noted that there were slight differences in the rules relating to national and local elections, explaining that he had emailed all members proving additional guidance on the rules regarding pre-election periods and he was happy to take questions from individual members either at the meeting or in writing.
A member of the public asked a question relating to the meeting linked to the advice received prior to the meeting. He had received certain documentation prior to the meeting explaining that the Palestine questions should not be asked at this meeting due to it being controversial or politically sensitive. He noted that the Board were also discussing certain financial inducements on the agenda prior to an election occurring. His question was that the Monitoring Officer was advising that it was controversial then it should not be done but also other things happening that they were told in the guise that they were given prior to the meeting which the Council had to abide by, which was ultimately that it must always be guided by the principle of fairness. It was crucial that any decision taken would then be seen as fair and reasonable by the public and those standing for office.
They were promised during previous meetings that they would be able to as questions about Palestine during this meeting and now they had been told they could not because of the general election. In the first Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) meeting they held they were told by the Councillors attending and by the Monitoring Officer that the law must be followed, and the Council was in purdah and certain provisions were agreed to. During the second OSMB meeting they were told they were still in purdah as it was one day until the local elections and informed that the Chief Executive and Leader had both declined to raise the Palestinian flag. He tried to indicate that there was a gulf of inconsistencies.
The Chair explained he understood where the speaker was coming from however the Council still had to conduct its normal business, which was what was being considered at the meeting. He noted that at the time the Leader responded to them during the Council meeting on 22 May 2024, he was not aware that a general election had been called at that time. The situation had changed from the conversations held during the meeting as the election had been called that evening.
The Chair again provided assurance that this item would be added to the first available agenda following the conclusion of the general election. The speaker thanked the Chair for that assurance but felt it did not answer the fact that there was a vast gulf of inconsistencies of when purdah is convenient the rules are followed and when purdah is not convenient its ignored and continue with political, controversial actions and he considered that this related to the consideration of the Financial report prior to the election. The Chair explained that the Council’s finances continued during the general election and the Council continued to operate. The items on the agenda were deemed non-political, the committee was a non-political committee. He confirmed that questions would be able to be asked at the next OSMB meeting during the 15-minute period set aside for public questions.
Another member of the public sought clarification about how OSMB operated procedurally. She queried how purdah was defined and the extent to which it was put in place and whether that extent was purely legal, discretionary, whether it was based on advice. The reason she asked those questions was that they had been chasing the Council for months, again and again, coming along to lots of meetings. They had engaged in good faith repeatedly and she had some questions which had arisen as a result of their engagement with OSMB. She noted that the Monitoring Officer was present and was certain he would be able to answer the questions. She explained she had been sent some pre-election period guidance, which considered what could and could not be done by OSMB during the period. One of the points was that the Council was allowed to discharge normal Council business even it was controversial. She asked how the petition did not qualify as normal business when the review was already finished with only the recommendations to be considered, indicating similarities between the petition and the financial budget.
She felt that from a procedural perspective they had followed every process needed and should have culminated in the item being presented during the meeting. She queried how the item did not qualify as normal Council business. One aspect of the pre-election period guidance concerned her, which stated ‘ultimately you must always be guided by the principle of fairness. It was crucial that any decision taken would be seen as fair and reasonable by the public and those standing in office.’ She felt the decision not to consider the petition at the meeting did not qualify as fair and reasonable because they had been repeatedly promised that it would be considered at this meeting.
The Chair reiterated the statement made to the earlier speaker that at the time assurances were provided during the Council meeting a general election had not been called, as this was called later in the evening, which changed the situation. The Monitoring Officer stated that the guidance also said that the Council should note engage on any publicity on controversial issues or report issues or proposal in such a way that identify with groups of people. This issue was live and was live in many constituencies nationally. It was reasonable for the Council to assume that it was a live election issue. He indicated he was happy to engage with the speakers outside of the meeting to explain his reasoning in more detail. The speaker noted that the guidance indicated was regarding publicity, publicity was any communication, in whatever form addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public. The recommendations being passed through were not addressed at the public or a section of the public, they were addressed to the Council so sought clarification as to how it qualified as publicity.
Councillor Yasseen clarified, as a member of the sub-committee who considered the petition, that community representative group had wanted to understand the procedures throughout the process with regard to what happened next. She felt that there could be a wider debate for OSMB to consider the pre-election period guidance to ensure clarity in the guidance. The Chair indicated that this could be added to the work programme for consideration over the next three to four years however this would need to be done through the agreement of all members on OSMB.