Agenda item

A report with a revised draft submission, taking into account the comments made by the Electoral Review Committee at their meeting on the 7 February 2018, will be published as a supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor Richard Clewer, as Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, to present the report, included in the agenda supplement one circulated on the 14 February 2018, which sought approval of a draft submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on council size as recommended by the Council’s Electoral Review Committee.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer proposed, subsequently seconded by the Leader, that Council approves the draft submission on council size to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, subject to any minor drafting and consequential changes to be delegated to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee. It was noted that the draft submission, approved by the Committee, recommended that a council size of 99 members be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England; as that number was considered to be the most appropriate to enable Wiltshire Council (“The to provide effective and convenient local government within Wiltshire, taking into account the Council’s governance arrangements, its regulatory and scrutiny functions and the representational role of councillors, in particular in relation to the community area system.

 

In making his proposal, Councillor Clewer outlined that process and emphasised that the review was in the first stage where a submission was sought on the appropriate number of councillors for the authority and that the Commission would make its decision on the number of councillors before seeking views on the appropriate division boundaries He thanked the committee for their work and outlined the process undertaken by the committee in drawing up the proposals. He emphasised that the committee had started by gathering the evidence to establish the number of members required to effectively support the proper governance of the authority’s area, including the Area Board structure. He then explained how the impacts of different proposals were considered; the impact of the proposals on community area governance and effective scrutiny; how population estimates were projected and included in the review; and that some changes to division boundaries were inevitable whatever number was decided.

 

In making his proposal, Councillor Clewer suggested an amendment to the submission as follows:

 

At para 94 to delete the words ‘strong preference’ replace with ‘requirement’ to strengthen it.

 

This having been accepted by the seconder became part of the substantive motion.

 

The Chairman gave an opportunity for the group leaders to comment on the proposals.

 

The Leader thanked the committee for their hard work. She stated that she had spoken to the Boundary Commission and was reassured that the priorities of the review were good governance and an equality of votes; she emphasised that the council is relatively new and that the governance of the council remains, as it did at the beginning, a priority for the authority. She emphasised the need to retain single member divisions to retain strong community leadership.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn thanked the Committee for their hard work, and to his colleagues for developing an alternative proposal. He spoke in support of the need for single member divisions, but expressed concern that the committee proposals did not reflect changes made in other parts of the council to transform the way it works.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark thanked the committee and saw much to support in the proposals but will listen to the debate on alternative proposals.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers also emphasised the importance of political governance and spoke in support of the proposals.

 

Councillor Gavin Grant proposed, duly seconded by Councillor Clare Cape, that the amendments be made to the draft submission as outline in his paper published in supplement three circulated on the 19 February 2018. It was noted that the effect of this amendment was to propose a revised Council size of 86. In making his amendment, Councillor Grant stated that he felt the amendments were more in line with the information required by the Commission. He outlined where, in the course of the Committee’s debate, his view had differed from the other members of the committee. He emphasised his support for the local governance arrangements based on 18 area boards; how good governance and the scrutiny of the council would continue to be supported; the difference of opinion regarding the importance of the role of the portfolio holders; that whilst the commission is not concerned with the cost implications of proposals, the council should be; and that he believed that area boards can function with only three members where necessary as is currently the case with Tidworth and Pewsey.

 

The Chairman gave an opportunity for the group leaders to comment on the amendment.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn stated that he was more persuaded by the arguments for the amendment.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark stated that he could not support the amendment, and expressed concern that fewer councillors would result in greater workloads which would possibly put off younger and working age people from standing for election.

 

The meeting then debated the amendment:

 

Councillor Jonathon Seed spoke against the amendment and expressed concern that the amendment was not fully evidenced. He reiterated how the committee had reached its conclusions based on the evidence gathered.

 

Councillor Graham Wright stated that he felt that all members of the committee had contributed to the debate even where they disagreed, but that he would not be seeking to support the amendment.

 

Councillor Ian McLennan stated that he could not supported the amendment as it did not provide an adequate number of councillors to run the Council and to allow councillors to get to know their communities well.

 

Councillor Ian Blair-Pilling spoke in the support of the original motion and stated that he felt that this offered the most adequate capacity for good governance for the council.

 

Councillor Chris Hurst stated that he believed that people of working age were able to act effectively in the role, and that he felt the amendment was proportionate.

 

Councillor Clare Cape spoke in support of the amendment and felt that it was properly evidenced. She reiterated the need to offer an effective and efficient governance structure.

 

Councillor Chris William spoke against the amendment due to its impact on community area governance.

 

Councillor Philip Whitehead spoke against the amendment stating: that the cost of the proposals should not be considered; that the value of portfolio holders was clear; that the example of what had happened in other authorities was not entirely relevant; and his concern that the amendment would negatively impact on the area board model.

 

Councillor Ross Henning spoke in support of the area board model and felt that the amendment would not negatively impact on that model.

 

Councillor David Jenkins spoke in support of the amendment as it was properly evidenced.

 

Councillor Jerry Kunkler spoke against the amendment and referred to the reduction made to the number of councillors who had represented the former  the county and district councils , and that he would not support a further reduction as that could negatively impact on political representation.

 

Councillor John Thomson spoke against the amendment and that he felt that the area board model would be undermined by the amendment at a time where more engagement with the community would be required.

 

Councillor Jim Lynch spoke in support of the area boards and emphasised that they should be adequately staffed.

 

In response to the amendment, Councillor Clewer reiterated the difference in the governance model used in Wiltshire, and restated the importance for having the right number of councillors to support this model. He emphasised the impact of the proposed amendment to the area board model and the importance of electoral equivalence, and spoke against the amendment,

 

Having been put to a recorded vote, the amendment was lost and recorded as follows:

 

For the motion (16):

 

Cllr Bob Jones MBE, Cllr Brian Mathew, Cllr Chris Hurst, Cllr Clare Cape, Cllr David Jenkins, Cllr Gavin Grant, Cllr Gordon King, Cllr Hayley Spencer, Cllr Ian Thorn, Cllr Jim Lynch, Cllr Pat Aves, Cllr Ross Henning, Cllr Ruth Hopkinson, Cllr Stephen Oldrieve, Cllr Stewart Palmen and Cllr Trevor Carbin.

 

Against the motion (65):

 

Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE, Cllr Alan Hill, Cllr Allison Bucknell, Cllr Andrew Davis, Cllr Andy Phillips, Cllr Anna Cuthbert, Cllr Ashley O'Neill, Cllr Atiqul Hoque, Cllr Ben Anderson, Cllr Bridget Wayman, Cllr Christopher Williams, Cllr Chuck Berry, Cllr Darren Henry, Cllr Deborah Halik, Cllr Derek Brown OBE, Cllr Edward Kirk, Cllr Ernie Clark, Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe, Cllr Fred Westmoreland, Cllr George Jeans, Cllr Horace Prickett, Cllr Howard Greenman, Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling, Cllr Ian Mclennan, Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr James Sheppard, Cllr Jane Davies, Cllr Jerry Kunkler, Cllr Jerry Wickham, Cllr John Smale, Cllr John Thomson, Cllr John Walsh, Cllr Johnny Kidney, Cllr Jonathon Seed, Cllr Jose Green, Cllr Laura Mayes, Cllr Mark Connolly, Cllr Mary Champion, Cllr Mary Douglas, Cllr Matthew Dean, Cllr Mike Hewitt, Cllr Mollie Groom, Cllr Nick Murry, Cllr Paul Oatway QPM, Cllr Pauline Church, Cllr Peter Evans, Cllr Peter Fuller, Cllr Peter Hutton, Cllr Philip Alford, Cllr Philip Whalley, Cllr Philip Whitehead, Cllr Pip Ridout, Cllr Richard Britton, Cllr Richard Clewer, Cllr Richard Gamble, Cllr Ricky Rogers, Cllr Robert Yuill, Cllr Simon Jacobs, Cllr Stewart Dobson, Cllr Sue Evans, Cllr Sven Hocking, Cllr Toby Sturgis, Cllr Tom Rounds, Cllr Tony Deane and Cllr Tony Trotman.

 

The meeting then returned to the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Ian Mclennan proposed an amendment and referred to a paragraph that had been include an early draft of the submission considered by the Committee and suggested the following be included:

 

Therefore, the Committee does not see a situation where any division boundaries cross community area boundaries, and that the sole present example, Laverstock, Ford and Old Sarum, be adjusted to correct this.

 

Councillor Clewer stated in response that the Committee had considered this paragraph and had decided not to include it as the matter would addressed in the next stage of electoral review process.

 

Upon the advice of the Monitoring Officer, the Chairman determined that the amendment proposed by Councillor McLennan was not valid

, as this matter would be dealt with at the 2^nd stage of the electoral review, and as the inclusion of the additional text would effectively reverse the arguments made at para 33 of the draft submission where the committee determined that sound community boundaries may need amendment.

There being no further comments, and having been put to a recorded vote, the meeting resolved to pass the original motion as follows:

 

Resolved

 

To approve the draft submission on council size to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, subject to any minor drafting and consequential changes to be delegated to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee.

 

For the motion (64):

 

Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE, Cllr Alan Hill, Cllr Allison Bucknell, Cllr Andrew Davis, Cllr Anna Cuthbert, Cllr Ashley O'Neill, Cllr Atiqul Hoque, Cllr Ben Anderson, Cllr Bridget Wayman, Cllr Christopher Williams, Cllr Chuck Berry, Cllr Darren Henry, Cllr Deborah Halik, Cllr Derek Brown OBE, Cllr Edward Kirk, Cllr Ernie Clark, Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe, Cllr Fred Westmoreland, Cllr George Jeans, Cllr Graham Wright, Cllr Horace Prickett, Cllr Howard Greenman, Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling, Cllr Ian Mclennan, Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr James Sheppard, Cllr Jane Davies, Cllr Jerry Kunkler, Cllr Jerry Wickham, Cllr John Smale, Cllr John Thomson, Cllr John Walsh, Cllr Johnny Kidney, Cllr Jonathon Seed, Cllr Jose Green, Cllr Laura Mayes, Cllr Mark Connolly, Cllr Mary Champion, Cllr Mary Douglas, Cllr Matthew Dean, Cllr Mike Hewitt, Cllr Nick Murry,

Cllr Paul Oatway QPM, Cllr Pauline Church, Cllr Peter Evans, Cllr Peter Fuller, Cllr Peter Hutton, Cllr Philip Alford, Cllr Philip Whalley, Cllr Philip Whitehead, Cllr Pip Ridout, Cllr Richard Britton, Cllr Richard Clewer, Cllr Richard Gamble, Cllr Ricky Rogers, Cllr Robert Yuill, Cllr Simon Jacobs, Cllr Stewart Dobson, Cllr Sue Evans, Cllr Sven Hocking, Cllr Toby Sturgis, Cllr Tom Rounds, Cllr Tony Deane and Cllr Tony Trotman

 

Against the motion (15):

 

Cllr Bob Jones MBE, Cllr Brian Mathew, Cllr Chris Hurst, Cllr Clare Cape, Cllr David Jenkins, Cllr Gavin Grant, Cllr Gordon King, Cllr Hayley Spencer, Cllr Ian Thorn, Cllr Pat Aves, Cllr Ross Henning, Cllr Ruth Hopkinson, Cllr Stephen Oldrieve, Cllr Stewart Palmen and Cllr Trevor Carbin