Agenda item

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to consider motions on notice from Members.

(a)  Motion from Councillor Tait – to consider changing the constitution regarding political proportionality on Scrutiny Committees

(b)  Motion from Councillor Anne Clarke – the Whistleblowing policy

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Councillors were able to submit Motions on Notice for consideration at meetings of Council.  Two motions were submitted.

a)              Motion submitted by Councillor Tait - to consider changing the constitution regarding political proportionality on Scrutiny Committees

“Our current constitutional arrangements regarding proportionality can be found on page 147 of the constitution under item 4.5.2.

To date, it has been the case that whichever political party is in overall control of the Council, automatically is entitled to have majority representation on all scrutiny committees.

All key decisions are made by the Executive, which again is made up solely of members of the same party. So, if you think about it logically, it is like marking your own homework.

We all know how the party system works; it is not acceptable to vote against the party line, this carries the possibility of having the whip removed. I would argue that these group decisions could be carried through to scrutiny, if the majority of scrutiny committees themselves are made up of the controlling party.

Would it not be better to have a more balanced approach, by having committees made up of members with possible relevant experience or knowledge and broader/opposing opinions, rather than a majority group of likeminded, same thinking members?

The actual legislation regarding this matter is very loosely written and states: “that proportionality rules generally apply, however local authorities can choose to apply these rules for certain scrutiny bodies and local authorities can decide to disapply proportionality rules through a unanimous vote”.

It also states that scrutiny exists to challenge decisions made by the Executive, and surely this would be better achieved when led by opposition members rather than always requiring a majority of members from the controlling party?

Therefore, I put forward a motion for the Council to consider changing the current constitution regarding political proportionality on scrutiny committees, in favour of a more diverse arrangement. I therefore move that this motion is passed to the Standards Committee to be considered and debated.

During discussion the following comments were made:

·       The proportionality of Scrutiny Committees had not previously been raised as a concern by elected members and was not considered to be an issue with Labour group members.  The ‘whip’ had never been used and Scrutiny agenda papers were not discussed in Labour group meetings.

·       It was important that Scrutiny remained independent and some other authorities had opposition members chairing these committees.  Clarity was sought from the Monitoring Officer on the legislation relating to proportionality and political balance requirements for scrutiny committees.  It was suggested this could potentially be explored by the Standards Committee.

·       Due to the impact of political proportionality requirements there was an imbalance with one member of the Independent Group not having a scrutiny seat whilst some within the Labour group sat on more than one scrutiny committee.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the legislation was not clear but the legal default position was that on all committees, including scrutiny committees, the majority group should hold the majority of seats on each committee.  The Centre for Scrutiny and Public Governance had advised that any proposals for the political balance and proportionality rules to be disapplied would have to be a unanimous decision of Council and would be on a temporary basis.  Every time a change to scrutiny membership was needed then Council would need to vote unanimously again to disapply political balance requirements.

The Leader confirmed that discussions had already taken place to review the scrutiny committees before annual council next year.

Moved by Councillor Tait and seconded by Councillor Fritchley and following a vote the motion was lost:

For the motion :       13

Against the motion : 16

(b):     Motion submitted by Councillor A Clarke: the Whistleblowing policy

“The Whistleblowing Policy should be updated immediately and the correct procedures followed to ensure the staff that are raising concerns are supported appropriately and protected throughout the whistleblowing process.

The whistle blowing policy is a joint policy with North East Derbyshire District Council, it is no longer current and has not been updated since 14th April 2021. This policy is meant to be updated annually, it is not fit for purpose. It is apparent employees of Bolsover District Council do not feel confident in being able to follow the correct procedure in reporting their concerns and have resorted to highlighting issues anonymously due to fear of repercussions, which appears to be the case as the concerns are not being internally addressed or investigated. 

It is time that the current outdated policy was revised and bought up to date as a matter of utmost urgency and provisions included to protect those who wish to raised concerns of perceived malpractice or wrong use doing without fear of retribution or disciplinary action

The motion I propose is as follows: The whistleblowing policy should be updated immediately and the correct procedures followed to ensure the staff that are raising concerns are supported appropriately and protected throughout the whistle blowing process and this should be investigated.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor Tait.

The Leader informed Council that the Whistleblowing Policy had been reviewed in 2021 and every year since then by the Standards Committee.  On 24^th January 2022 it was changed from a joint policy with North East Derbyshire District Council to a Bolsover Council only policy.  It was then reviewed on 20^th February 2023, 29^th January 2024 and the last time was the 27^th January 2025. The policy had been reviewed annually and was considered to be fit for purpose.

The Monitoring Officer clarified that the Whistleblowing Policy was an internal policy for staff which could be accessed via the Council’s Intranet.  This year information had also been shared with all staff in relation to the policy and where to find it.

The motion was moved by Councillor A Clarke and seconded by Councillor Tait and following a vote the motion was lost:

For the motion : 9

Against the motion : 19

Councillor Smith left the meeting prior to consideration of the next agenda item.