How to run a Council - the case for change

THE PRESENT SYSTEM

Canterbury has what is called a ‘Strong Leader and Executive’ system. This was adopted in 2002 after the government of the day made all councils choose between this and having an elected Mayor. The Councillors elect the Leader, who then chooses the Executive members, and can throw them off the Executive if they don’t say the right things or vote the right way. Key decisions are made by this small group, and often in practice by just the one person.

IS IT WORKING WELL?

Having decisions made by a small group, or even by one person, is supposed to make for speed and decisiveness. In practice it produces the opposite. Decisions made without sufficient thought, without proper consultation and without proper debate, arouse resentment from local people. Instead of swift action we then get a long drawn-out battle which could have been avoided. We’ve seen this on issues such as the Westgate Towers traffic scheme and Kingsmead Field in Canterbury.

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The present government, in the Localism Act 2011, gave councils the option of changing back to the earlier Committee System. With this system, the Council forms a number of committees each dealing with a particular area of issues. All councillors serve on one or more committees, and the committees make recommendations to the full Council for it to approve.

WOULD IT BE BETTER?

No system is perfect. In any system, the largest party is able to have the final say. But a return to the committee system would have these advantages:

• Decisions would be more thoroughly debated – all the parties would be represented on committees
• Decisions would be informed by a greater range of knowledge and experience
• All councillors would have an input into the decisions
• Councillors would all build up their own expertise by serving on committees. At present the time and effort of those who are not on the Executive is wasted.
• There would be greater transparency – key information and the real reasons for decisions could no longer be the preserve of a small group or a single person.

HOW COULD WE CHANGE?

If we got enough signatures on a petition, the Council would be required by law to hold a referendum in which local people could vote to change to the Committee system. The number of signatures needed would be 5% of the electorate – at present that’s 5,611. If that target were reached by the end of 2014, it would automatically trigger a referendum in May 2015.

---

To find out more, visit the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District at:

www.CDCD.co.uk

---

Proposed cut in councillors could make a bad situation worse

The Shape and Health of our Local Democracy

Canterbury City Council is proposing to cut the number of local councillors in the district from 50 to 38.  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has just initiated a public consultation on whether to approve this proposal.  As residents, we need to consider the implications of such a drastic cut as they could be significant for the shape and health of our local democracy.  

The first question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the way in which decisions are made?

The Council's submission to the Boundary Commission claims that the current 'Strong Leader and Executive system' is well embedded in our local democracy and that the number of councillors should be reduced accordingly.   However, many residents would disagree with both this assertion and this conclusion.  Far from being embedded in our local democracy, the Executive System is becoming the source of increasing political disquiet.

The Executive system was introduced in 2002 as a result of a change in national legislation.   It was supposed to speed up decision-making and improve accountability, but its unintended consequences have included the creation of a small political elite; a lack of in-depth debate before decisions are made; and the effective exclusion of many councillors from the decision-making process.

Under the Localism Act 2011, we are no longer obliged to keep the Executive system, but a sharp reduction in in the number of local councillors could make it more difficult for us to introduce an alternative model as these generally require a greater number of councillors.  We, therefore, need to ask the Boundary Commission to assess the requirements  of other decision-making models, such as the Cabinet Committee system operated by Kent County Council, as this may be something which we would want to introduce in the future.

The second question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the ability of local councillors to represent the residents in their wards?

At present, each councillor represents on average 3,023 residents.  This is considerably higher than many other district councils.  If the number of councillors was reduced from the current 50 to 38, the average ward size would be 4,200.  If a further 780 new houses are built each year, in line with the objectives of the draft Local Plan, the ratio of residents to councillors will be considerably higher.  

Reducing the number of councillors to 38 is likely to reduce the ability of each councillor get to know their communities, listen to their concerns and represent their needs and interests.  Admittedly, some councillors currently do this much better than others, but it is the hallmark of any vibrant, healthy democracy.  A sharp reduction in the number of councillors is likely to decrease the capacity of existing councillors to fulfil this vital representational role.

The Electoral Review process provides us with the opportunity to have an active public debate on the shape and health of our local democracy.  We are unlikely to get a similar opportunity for at least another decade.  Let's not waste it! 

For more information, see: consultation.lgbce.org.uk  The deadline for the receipt of comments is: 6 August.

Comments should be sent to:

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Post: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG

Sian Pettman, Canterbury