The Rise and Fall of Public Question Time

Timeline | Analysis of All Questions asked | Close or minimise this window to return to clause 4.16.9 main page

Meeting No. of Questions Notes
26-Apr-04 - Council agreed to introduce Public Question Time
18-May-04 -  
13-Jul-04 -  
20-Jul-04 None
 Question time introduced for first time but no questions were asked.
28-Sep-04 None  
09-Nov-04 None  
21-Dec-04 42 from 2 questioners List of 41 questions re Ponthir VC School closure and 1 question about erection of bus stop outside house in Pontypool.
01-Feb-05 many Pack of questions ref closure of Trevethin Community School and Ponthir VC School
01-Mar-05 1 Question ref Council Tax increase
22-Mar-05 None  
19-May-05 None  
30-Jun-05 None More democracy advocated, Public Questions to be allowed at Extraordinary Council Meetings
26-Jul-05 None  
20-Sep-05 None  
18-Oct-05 1+1 supplimental Question by group of young people from Pontypool Youth Council, Why no youth centre in Pontypool?
22-Nov-05 None  
28-Nov-05 None  
20-Dec-05 None  
13-Jan-06 None  
15-Feb-06 None  
10-Mar-06 None  
04-Apr-06 None  
18-May-06 None 2 meetings, no questions
29-Jun-06 None  
25-Jul-06 None  
19-Sep-06 None  
29-Oct-06 None  
21-Nov-06 None (on 20th Nov 06 Council Policy Development Seminar held, no minutes taken but according to the council the new clause as written as a result of this seminar.)
28-Nov-06 None  
19-Dec-06 None  
13-Feb-07 None  
09-Mar-07 None  
17-May-07 None  
28-Jun-07 8 All 8 questions from BLAST (Blaenavon Leisure and Swimming Troubleshooters)
18-Jul-07 11 All 11 questions from BLAST
31-Jul-07 2 Both questions were from the owners of Mineslope Cottages, Upper Cwmbran concerning problems with the granting of an Easement over Coucil land. (At the same meeting the addition of Clause 4.16.9 passed without discussion)
28-Sep-07 0 (1 rejected)

My question concerning Mineslope Cottages rejected under new clause

"Concerning the possible granting of an easement to the owners of Mineslope Cottages, Upper Cwmbran, does the Executive Member for Resources not feel that she would be better able to judge whether they have been treated properly by her officers if she actually met them or at least if she accepted their offer to show her their full correspondence file on the matter."

The queston was rejected uncer 4.16.9 (f) but after discussion via email it was rejected because it  "it relates to an individual’s personal circumstances" (e)

I was told that I was the first to have a question rejected under the new clause "but I would not be the last"

So the council have hardly been inundated with questions. Questions have only been asked at 7 meetings out of 34 or more in over 3 years. At a maximum allowed time per meeting of 20 minutes that makes a maximum of 2hrs 20 minutes of council meeting time has been allocated to Public Questions, that's 47 minutes per year or 4 minutes per meeting on average.

No councillor I have spoken to has objected to any of the questions asked to date, not one of them thinks the system has been abused or saw any problem with the system as it stood. None of them wanted this change or realised it was happening. One councillor thought public question time, when questions were actually asked, was too rushed and that more than 20 minutes should be allocated for this.

Clause 4.16.9 

4.16.9 The Mayor may reject a question if it:

(a) is not about a matter for which the local authority has a responsibility or which affects the area of the Authority;
(b) is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;
(c) is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the past six months;
(d) requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information;
(e) relates to an individual, group or business or the questioner's own particular circumstances;
(f) relates to a matter which is the subject of legal or enforcement proceedings or an appeal to a court or tribunal or to a Government Minister or the National Assembly or an ongoing investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman or relates to a decision which has been made by the Council in exercise of its regulatory functions in respect of which there are legal rights of redress;
(g) relates to the personal circumstances or conduct of any officer and Councillor or conditions of service of employees;
(h) relates to the activities and aims of a political party or organisation; or
(i) is a statement and not a genuine enquiry.

In addition the Mayor may rule that a question shall not be answered because the preparation of the answer would require the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time, money or effort.

 

Analysis of All The Questions Asked before Clause 4.16.9 | return to Timeline

Now lets look at the questions asked to date and see how 4.16.9 would apply to them....

All the questions on the closure of the schools could have been ruled out by condition (e) ie the questions
(e) relates to an individual, group or business or the questioner's own particular circumstances;
unless of course the questioner was nothing to do with the school(s), and the questioner's children did not go to the school and the closure of the school would not affect them in any way. Also if any appeal against the closure had been lodged at or even a letter sent to the National Assembly or some other body then questions could be ruled out under clause (f).

The question relating to the installation of a bus stop outside the Questioner's house could be rejected because it applied to the questioner's own particular circumstances or those of a group of neighbours.

The question on the raising of the Council Tax may well be outside the scope of the clause, but maybe if the questioner is a council taxpayer then it concerns the questioner's own particular circumstances, or is that stretching things a bit too far. (It probably depends on whether the council wanted to answer the question or not.)

The question from Pontypool Youth Council  would be ruled out because it relates to a group (of young people) and it also concerns the questioner's (and their co-questioners') own particular circumstances.

All the qusetions from BLAST could be ruled out because they relate to a group (of pool users from Blaenavon), and their own particular circumstances, ie they would have to travel to Pontypool to swim from now on.

The questions from the owners of Mineslope Cottages would be ruled out because they related to the questioner's own particular circumstances.

So the only question that possibly could not have been rejected by the Mayor (who always takes the advice of his officers) is the question about the raising of the Council Tax.

CONCLUSION Clause 4.16.9 effectively says "Questions can only be asked at the discretion of the officers"