As we mentioned earlier in the week, at Wednesday’s full council meeting, a motion to discuss the Economic Improvement Fund (EIF) was withdrawn from the agenda.
The subject was still raised in the Chamber though, when Calbourne Parish councillor, Jed Dwight, read out a question that he’d submitted in writing to the council.
What follows is a detailed report on what happened in the chamber, which will be followed by an additional article revealing Newport Parish Council’s EIF proposals and a statement from Cllr Lumley on Wednesday’s proceedings.
Disappointed at lack of Newport bid
Although his written question did not specifically state who he wanted to answer the question, when asking in person, Mr Dwight directed it to Cllr Pugh, saying, “My question is to the Leader of the council. Firstly, I would like to express how disappointed I was to hear that our County Town council, which benefits from a large precept and budget, and therefore would be more than able to put up match funding for money recently made available through the council’s Economic Improvement Fund, has failed to input any kind of bid – particularly as there are key economic issues in Newport.
“As a member of Calbourne Parish Council, it was difficult to come up with a suitable scheme for our area of small villages, which met the criteria. If the IW Council considers such a funding scheme in the future, would they be prepared to consider making such funding available to community groups and local organisations, and with some more flexible criteria for how it could be invested?”
Point of order called by Cllr Lumley
What followed was ten minutes of dispute over who should answer the question.
Cllr Pugh started replying to Mr Dwight, “I share your disappointment at the lack of proposals coming forward from Newport Parish council,” he said, “I know that some of the members in Newport have raised similar concerns, which contributed to the bringing of a motion to be taken,”
At this point, Cllr Lumley called a ‘point of order’. Although Cllr Pugh insisted that he should continue to answer, he was stopped by the Chairman.
Clarification sought on who should answer public questions
Thanking the Chairman for his “common sense approach”, Cllr Lumley asked for clarification of where in the constitution it stated that the Leader should answer a public question.
Cllr Lumley argued that there had been a breach of procedural rule 10 if he was not given the chance to respond, given that, he said, he had far more knowledge of the issue than Cllr Pugh. “Additional to that”, he added, “it’s factually incorrect.”
“Bring the motion back”
Cllr Pugh argued that the question had been directed to him, he told the Chairman that he would continue answering.
Cllr Williams replied, “Don’t tell the Chairman what to do. I’m not being funny when I say that, I’m going to keep order here.”
Whilst the Chairman conferred with the Monitoring Officer, Cllr Lumley called out, “You’re cowards, you can’t debate the motion? Bring the motion back. Cowards.”
Pugh refuses to answer the question
The Chairman then stated that he would allow Cllr Pugh to reply and then ask if other members wished to make comments. This was met with confusion by many in the chamber, who called out, “why?”
Cllr Pugh replied, “I’m not going to answer the question if I can’t answer in my own right the question addressed to the Leader of the council.”
No other members were given the opportunity to answer.
The Chairman moved on to the next question.
Subject raised again
However, discussions about the Economic Improvement Fund didn’t end there. The subject was raised again later during public question time, when Newport resident Adrian Nicholas asked a question.
“I’d like the truth regarding the Newport … (? sorry unable to hear a couple of words here). There were four sensible Newport proposals which Cllr Jones-Evans would have known about, as she is a member of the parish council and I’d like to ask Cllr Geoff Lumley to explain and set the record straight on the truth of this matter.”
The Chairman replied, “I have to say that questions don’t normally come to members, so which Cabinet member would you like the answer the question please?”
Point of order called again
Cllr Lumley called a ‘point of order’, “Can you tell me Chair where it says that all questions are dealt with by Cabinet, who know nothing about this issue, we want the truth in here.”
The Chairman conferred with the Monitoring Officer who referred members to the Constitution, page 85 paragraph 8, which reads:
If time allows, the Chairman will ask if there are any oral questions. People asking an oral question must state their name and place of residence.
Minutes of the meeting will record who asked a question, the subject matter and the Cabinet Member who responded. If the Cabinet Member is unable to provide a response at the meeting they may provide a written response at a later date.
She continued, “So it is clear that it is a Cabinet member who would respond under our constitution as it’s written.”
Pugh invited to respond
The Chairman invited the Leader to reply. Cllr Pugh said, “Clearly I cannot reply for Cllr Lumley, and I’m sure that what I will say is different to what his interpretation will be.
“All I will say is that my understanding is, and I’ve seen some of the notes on this particular matter, is that Newport PC did suggest a number of schemes to the lead officer, Chris Matthews, and the advice was those plans were unlikely to meet the criteria.
“I won’t say any more than that, I’m happy to ? an audit trail on that but I don’t want to be further accused in this chamber of making something which Cllr Lumley feels I don’t know enough about.”
Newport’s bids
Look out for our follow-up article (coming shortly) which outlines the various proposals from Newport Parish Council bidding for a slice of the Economic Improvement Fund.
