Letter: I Was Not Being Cynical, GBC Should Treat Members of the Public Fairly

Published on: 25 Aug, 2025
Updated on: 25 Aug, 2025

Simon Higgins speaking at the full council meeting.

From Bernard Quoroll

former local government CEO and independent person at GBC

In response too: Former CEO Has Taken a Cynical View of Public Speaker Rules

Cllr Potter’s criticism of me and my comment about the Guildford Borough Council’s constitution deserves a detailed response, especially the assertion that my comments sometimes owe more to cynicism than accuracy.

The prime thrust of my comment in The Dragon was an invitation to Cllr Lucas to indicate whether, having used inaccurate information in his spoken and written replies to Mr Higgins’ heartfelt statement at the last council meeting, he now wished to give a different response. I thought that was a reasonable question.

Cllr Potter might have detected a hint of cynicism when I said that I thought I knew what his answer would be, because in another part of his reply, Cllr Lucas also indicated that it would be too expensive to disinvest under current contractual arrangements with Barclays, but it was not meant that way.

No contract lasts forever, of course so there may be an opportunity to reconsider the relationship in future which I understand will be in 2027. A response that the council would look again at all the circumstances prevailing then, might have offered Mr Higgins some consolation, given that Cllr Lucas also indicated how close he was in spirit to Mr Higgins’ concerns.

Cllr Potter ignored my substantive point and contented himself only by misinterpreting and then criticising my closing remark that there is room for looking again at the council’s constitution but also taking the opportunity to present me as “cynical”.

I should not be surprised. It is what politicians often do.

Cllr Potter is an experienced politician, so he of course knows how the constitution works. I have had the joy as a lawyer of rewriting complete constitutions, standing orders, rules of procurement etc., from scratch three times in different local authorities during my time at work, so can also claim to have some knowledge of the subject.

To explain myself and answer Cllr Potter’s criticism, I need to say more about GBC’s constitution. Remember first, that this against the background of the newly stated values of a council going through a renewal process which lists as a key value, listening to the views
of residents.

Rule 11.1 of the constitution says that a member of the public can make a statement on any matter in relation to which the council has powers or duties, or which affects the borough. A member of the public can also ask a question about any matter etc as before, but he or she cannot do both.

If he or she has chosen to ask a question, they can ask one supplementary question but only if it arises directly from the original question or the response to it. There cannot be any discussion of either a question or a supplementary question.

A statement means just that – the assertion of a set of facts, opinions or circumstances without more. A question is something designed to elicit facts or information. They are obviously not the same thing.

Neither option was in my view particularly helpful to Mr Higgins’ cause. But the council’s constitution requires Mr Higgins to chose one or the other within the same rule.

If he chooses to make a statement, then after three minutes, the matter ends. He has been heard to make the statement, but it ends there. If he tries to frame a statement as a question, he might get a second bite of the cherry but for him to ask an effective question, he probably needs to preface it with some kind of statement and find a way of avoiding the monitoring officer or chair calling it out of order.

But again, once he has received an answer, it also ends there unless someone with power to act within the council, decides to do something, having been convinced of the need to do so. (By comparison, if an elected member asks a question (Rule 12) any member of the council, can then move that the matter be referred without debate to the Executive or another committee for consideration which can in turn lead to a decision on the issue. But that privilege does not apply when a member of the public asks a question under Rule 11).

I attended the council meeting, not to follow the Barclay’s issue, on which I am not expressing a view but as something I do roughly once a year out of civic interest. I would have been able to follow the debate better had there been printed copies of the agenda in the public gallery, but GBC seems to have stopped doing that.

The reason I made a comment to The Dragon afterward is because I felt some empathy for another member of the public, whom I have never met, trying to make legitimate arguments in the face of an apparently unyielding bureaucracy.

Mr Higgins clearly felt ambushed. He commented to The Dragon later, that while he was required to provide GBC with his statement four days before the meeting, he did not have notice of the response before the meeting, so was unable to deal with inaccuracies in his statement. (I do not think that was strictly correct as the constitution does require a written copy of the response to be circulated in the Supplementary Agenda pack which is circulated shortly before the meeting. That requirement is in the Constitution, but Mr Higgins does not appear to have spotted it).

Some people will wonder whether this process really helps GBC to engage effectively with residents and vice versa. An assertion in effect that “those are the rules” without more might be thought to fall short of wholehearted engagement with residents.

Rules can be changed and should be when there is a reason to do so.

It is fair to say that procedure rules allowing for statements and questions do have a place in a local democracy but there are a couple of other procedures that might bear better fruit from Mr Higgins’ point of view.

He might seek to find a councillor willing to move a notice of motion in council (Rule 13), which triggers a full debate and the potential for motions (i.e. decisions). But that presupposes he can find a councillor willing to take it on and able to put forward the arguments with a degree of persuasiveness sufficient to satisfy Mr Higgins.

He might seek to use Part 4 of the constitution and gather a petition of more than 500 signatories, which under the council’s current rules would also trigger a debate in council at which motions can be moved. (Part 4 of the Constitution).

Indeed, he mentioned in his statement that he had already collected a petition earlier of some 740+ people, but I do not know its status and whether it meets the requirements of the council’s scheme. (GBC welcomes petitions but does not seem to have attracted many – according to its website, none in the current year and an average of about one a year since 2010).

The point I made as an afterthought in my comment was that it should be possible to ask one supplementary question or have a right of correction after the response to a statement had been given for both statements and questions.

On reflection, I think there is a more fundamental question. Does the GBC’s constitution, and the difficulty of navigating it in its present form, really amount to the kind of engagement with citizens that a council seeking renewal should want to achieve? (Many councillors in my experience enjoy the bearpit of a council chamber and challenging procedural rules but many members of the public are intimidated by it, however politely they are received).

For example, even a modest amendment which allows a councillor to move referral to the Executive or a committee following a statement or question by a member of the public, would provide better equality of arms.

And finally, an apology to readers for all this nerdy stuff. I make no apology however for the fact that I am a passionate supporter of local government, nor for pointing out, apolitically, when things might be done better, especially in the case of a troubled council, which under new professional management, seeks to become the model council that it could be.

That does not amount to being cynical or inaccurate in my book.

As to Cllr Potter, I was taught at school to go for the ball not the man, ie to argue on substance rather than personalise. Cllr Potter is clearly happy to go for both. He might want to reflect on why politics is in such a low state of repair with the public these days.

Editor’s comment: We have received a further response from Cllr Lucas. He said that GBC will not be reinvesting with Barclays once its fixed term bond ends in November 2027.