Coronavirus West Berkshire: Council votes to limit public right to speak in meetings
"None of us like restricting the right of the public to scrutinise the goings on of this council"
COUNCILLORS have voted to limit public participation in virtual meetings during the coronavirus pandemic.
Fears of eroding democracy were dismissed as West Berkshire Council said it had to put the measures in place to mitigate risks to its decisions because of technical issues beyond its control.
The changes include removing the public right to speak to remote council meetings, with the right being replaced with the ability to make written submissions.
Written submissions will be limited to no more than 500 words and must be submitted no later than noon, two days before the meeting.
The right to ask a supplementary question has also been removed, as well as presenting petitions, but e-petitions can still be submitted.
The measures follow Government regulations removing the legal obligation to hold meetings at a specified physical location.
But the rules state if a councillor “cannot hear or be heard by any member of the public entitled to speak at the meeting, the [councillor] will be deemed not to be in attendance at the meeting”.
They continue: “Therefore, if a member of the public speaking to a meeting could not be heard by the members of that committee, then no valid decision could be made as the members would be deemed to be absent from the meeting.”
Debating the changes in a virtual meeting on Wednesday, April 29, council leader Lynne Doherty (Con, Speen) said she hoped virtual meetings would allow more residents to see first hand the decisions made on their behalf.
Mrs Doherty said the council welcomed public engagement and was “not attempting to remove this engagement, but simply to do it in a different way during the current circumstances.”
She added that the changes would be kept under review and will revert back when things returned to normal, but, in the meantime, the measures were necessary to reduce risk to the council.
Questioning the changes, the leader of the Green Party, Carolyne Culver (Ridgeway) said: “I think in the current crisis public scrutiny of local government is even more important than ever.
“I fear that whatever the intentions of this council are the impression that will be given to the public is that the current crisis is being used as an opportunity to prevent members of the public exercising their existing right to attend meetings
“I fear that the public will interpret it as an undermining of democracy and exploitation of the situation that we find ourselves in.”
Ms Culver proposed an amendment to have the changes in place only for full council meetings, owing to time restraints.
But the amendment was not accepted as it would substantially change the motion.
Ms Culver said the potential difficulties could be overcome if people wishing to speak, which the council would know in advance, were able to dial into the meeting.
Saying she would abstain from the vote, Ms Culver said that voting down the changes would result in the council’s chief executive, Nick Carter, having the power to make decisions rather than elected councillors.
Conservative councillors for Hungerford and Kintbury James Cole and Claire Rowles both raised concerns about the impact the changes would have on planning meetings (see page 23 for more.)
Arguing for the changes, Ross MacKinnon (Con, Bradfield) said: “None of us like restricting the right of the public to scrutinise the goings on of this council.”
He said the problem arose from the regulations, which “had not been brilliantly drafted.
“We are not reliant on the council’s technical capabilities or expertise we are reliant on [the public’s] own broadband or mobile phone.”
Mr MacKinnon said the council would be leaving itself “massively wide open to judicial review and appeals and massive costs” without the changes.
“It’s a game of risk, it’s a game of balance,” he said.
“None of us like this, but I strongly believe this is the best solution to deal with all those conflicting matters.”
Supporting the changes, the leader of the council’s Liberal Democrat opposition, Lee Dillon (Thatcham North East), said they would be proportionate provided they were time limited.
He said: “The role of members being the ones to make decisions for me is a fundamental part of local democracy and if in a crisis situation public participation has to be limited, but their democratically elected members still get to make the final decision, then, for me and on balance, we believe we can support this.”
Mr Dillon said the Lib Dems did have concerns over planning meetings, but said they had assurances that the changes would be reviewed.
He criticised Ms Culver’s fears over public mistrust, saying “my real warning is that it will be if it’s language like that that’s used in the debate”.
“I think this is a way that allows the council to carry out its functions in a way that protects the council and therefore protects the public, because if it’s legal challenge and costs, it’s taxpayers’ money that is paying for it.
“We should support but carry on pushing for more change and that should include greater and wider public participation.”
The council’s three Green members, Mr Cole and Mrs Rowles abstained from the vote.
