Agenda item

The Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee introduced the report which stood recommended  from his Committee, and sought Council approval to amend the Council Procedure Rules by increasing the threshold at which Members could request a full recorded vote on a Council decision.

The Governance and Audit Committee had recommended that the threshold increase from 2 to 8.

With the recommendation moved and seconded debate ensued with Members noting West Lindsey’s current threshold was considerably lower than other Lincolnshire Authorities.

Opposition Councillors expressed their disappointment, questioned the motive for the change, and suggested the benchmarking did not go far enough or offer a rounded picture. It was further suggested that a recorded vote was a democratic right and that the proposal reduced transparency, scrutiny and accountability, and had a more detrimental impact to smaller groups.

Opposition Councillors suggested that all votes should be recorded as matter of course, and that greater use should be made of the technology in place.  Again the motive for change was questioned  along with the robustness of the Governance and Audit Committee’s consideration. The Opposition Leader shared with the Chamber statistics, relating to the number of times a recorded vote had been used and the average length of Council meetings.

Opposition Councillors considered the increase was too large, and rather than an arbitrary  number, the threshold should be set at a percentage, and take account of those present at the meeting rather than the total number of Council Members. Following an exchange and clarity the following formal amendment was proposed: -

That the matter be deferred and referred back to the Governance and Audit Committee for them to consider a threshold set at a percentage level of those in attendance.

The amendment was duly seconded and further discussion ensued. Administration Members challenged the points that had been made, referring to the thresholds seen across other Lincolnshire Councils.  A Councillor’s right to request their individual vote be recorded remained unaffected and Members could use this right for each and every decision.

A request for a recorded vote on the amendment was made, with a second Member supporting that request, the amendment was put to a recorded vote, with votes being cast as follows: -

For:         Councillors Dobbie, Hague, Howitt-Cowan, Rollings, Young (5)

Against:  Councillors Bailey, Barrett, Bierley, Brockway, Brown, Bunney, Carless, Darcel, Fleetwood, Key, Lawrence, Morris, Mullally, Palmer, Patterson, Rodgers, Smith, Swift, and Westley (19)

Abstentions: (0)

With a total of 5 votes cast for the amendment and 19 votes against, the amendment was declared LOST.

Returning to the original recommendation, debate ensued and again there was political exchange regarding the merits and motive. The effectiveness and relevance of the benchmarking was again questioned with a further amendment moved, namely: -

That the threshold be amended to 5 as opposed to 8 as recommended.

The suggestion that scrutiny and transparency were being eroded  was strongly refuted, and again it was suggested Members could and should use their right to request an individual vote be recorded.

Members questioned the figures that had been quoted by the proposer of the amendment regarding the County Council, and which had been used as rationale for the amendment.  It was suggested  a like for like basis would actually be 7 members, not 5.  No alternative proposal was made.

With debate becoming increasingly political, the amendment was seconded.

Again a request for a recorded vote on the amendment was made, with a second Member supporting that request, the amendment was put to a recorded vote, with votes being cast as follows: -

For:         Councillors Dobbie, Hague, Howitt-Cowan, Rollings, Young (5)

Against:  Councillors Bailey, Barrett, Bierley, Brockway, Brown, Bunney, Carless, Fleetwood, Key, Lawrence, Morris, Mullally, Palmer, Patterson, Rodgers, Smith, Swift, and Westley (18)

Abstentions:  Councillors Darcel(1)

With a total of 5 votes cast for the amendment, 18 votes against, and 1 abstention the amendment was declared LOST.

With no new points being raised,  the original motion was put to the vote, and again two Members requested that the vote be held by way of recorded vote.

Votes were cast in the following manner: -

For:         Councillors Bailey, Barrett, Bierley, Brockway, Brown, Bunney, Carless, Fleetwood, Key, Lawrence, Morris, Mullally, Palmer, Patterson, Rodgers, Smith, Swift, and Westley (18)

Against:  Councillors Dobbie, Darcel, Hague, Howitt-Cowan, Rollings, Young (6)

Abstentions:  (0)

With a total of 18 votes cast for the motion, and 6 votes against, the motion was declared CARRIED and on that basis it was: -

RESOLVED that the recommendation from the Governance and Audit Committee be accepted and that the threshold at which Councillors can request a full recorded vote against a Council decision be amended to eight members, and that Council Procedure Rule 14.4 be amended accordingly to reflect this decision.