Issue - meetings

Report number DEM043 by the Access and Engagement Portfolio Holder.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

DECISION:

(1)    To adopt the new Petitions scheme as required by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(2)    To set the threshold for debate at Council at 5,000 signatures, and for attendance at Scrutiny Committee 2,500 signatures;

(3)    In view of the timescales involved, the detailed work of the Council’s petitions scheme be referred to the Engagement PDG for consideration. The Access and Engagement Portfolio Holder be granted delegated authority to agree the details of the scheme following the recommendations of the PDG;

(4)    The Constitution Committee to consider consequent amendments to the Constitution for recommendation to Council.

Members had before them report number DEM043 which set out a new legislative requirement for all councils to adopt a formal petitions scheme by 15 June 2010.  The scheme must also include a formal procedure for dealing with electronic petitions but this aspect of the legislation came into force at a later date on 15 December 2010.

The Government had produced detailed statutory guidance, including a model petitions scheme which the council could adopt or adapt to suit local circumstances.  In presenting the report, the Access and Engagement portfolio holder referred to the very short timescale the council had to implement this new duty.  The statutory guidance and implementation date had only been notified to the council on 30 March 2010.  The portfolio holder moved the recommendations contained within the report that the detail of this authority’s scheme be considered by the Engagement PDG and its recommendations be referred to himself as portfolio holder.  Subsequent amendment to the Constitution would be considered by the Constitution Committee before referral to full Council for approval.  The motion was seconded.

The debate opened with a member welcoming the introduction of a formal scheme to deal with petitions.  He was of the view that this was something the council should have been doing years ago as it was an opportunity for the public to get their views across and issues debated by the council.  Concern was raised at the proposed threshold of 5,000 signatures to trigger debate at council and 2,500 signatures for referral to the Scrutiny Committee requiring attendance by a senior council officer.  Some members felt that this was too high.  It was proposed as an amendment that the thresholds be set at 1,000 signatures for both counts.  The amendment received a seconder.  Following a vote the amendment was lost.  A vote then took place on the original motion which was subsequently carried.