On 14 February this year, 19 councillors walked out of North Yorkshire Council’s (NYC’s) full council meeting in frustration at the way the leading party, the Conservatives, used their majority to effectively sign a blank cheque on targets in the council plan. It was proposed that the plan was approved with two sections to be filled in later. There was strong opposition, but the numbers made debate futile. The deal was already done.
This would never have happened under a modern committee system. Data held by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny shows that across England, about 30 councils currently operate such a system, including:
- Hartlepool
- Cheshire East
- Wirral
- Sheffield
In Sheffield, for example, campaigners successfully transformed the council from a leader-cabinet model to a modern committee system. In 2019, the It’s our City community group submitted a petition for a referendum, which was then signed by more than 26 thousand local residents. In 2021, the council held a referendum as mandated, resulting in a 65% vote in favour of the change. The committee system was introduced the following year.
Cllr Tom Hunt (Labour) says that as a result, “Nearly all committee decisions are unanimous and cross-party”. Cllr Angela Argenzio (Green) agrees: “The fact that most of the council’s financial difficulties have been debated and agreed, across party, before the crunch budget meeting on 1 March is a major achievement. This has never been achieved before.”
The leader-cabinet system
North Yorkshire has been governed by a leader-cabinet system since 2014. Under this system, the leader appoints an executive of 10 cabinet members who each head up a different area of responsibility. The executive makes most decisions during monthly cabinet meetings.
In theory, the budget and other major decisions are decided by the full council, made up also of Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Independents. But the reality is that votes are weighted in favour of the leading party.
In NYC for example, over 50% of the members are Conservative, despite the fact that they only secured 41% of the vote. Which means that, if decisions are pre-agreed by that party, 59% of people will not have fair representation. A recent statement by leader Carl Les would seem to confirm that decisions are pre-agreed: “We do have group meetings ahead of the council meeting (I believe all the other political parties do too) and we arrive at a consensus of opinion.”
The need for debate
So why debate, if the vote is already decided by the numbers?
Debate is held before a vote, which at least airs the views of all voters. Perhaps because the debate is academic, there is a lot of theatre and chitchat which is immaterial to the motion – paid for through the public purse.
This is why some of the UK’s more progressive councils are opting for a different system.
If we had a modern committee system, the plan would never have come to the meeting with sections missing. There would have been no big surprises and unreasonable last-minute amendments like the ones that led to the walkout. And the vice-chair would have been from a different party and might have better enforced the code of conduct.
Modern committee system
Councils are run by politically balanced committees. Each committee gets a mandate from full council to make decisions in its policy area, with chairs and vice-chairs politically proportionate. They don’t have to have scrutiny committees, but some choose to. The budget and other major decisions are still made by full council, but the process leading up to it is more collaborative.
Fans of the committee system say is it inherently more democratic, with big decisions being made by all political groups. It encourages balanced debate out in the open, rather than behind closed doors. And the debate has purpose, as decisions aren’t pre-determined by a majority party. But most of all, there is no abuse of power – because the power is shared.
Critics say that it can be slow and costs more money. But the learned experience is that the modern committee system is more streamlined, taking the best of the leader-cabinet system, and combining it with the best of the old committee system.
Legislation background to council models
The Local Government Act 2000 obliged all big councils to adopt a leader-cabinet model, separating decision-making and scrutiny roles. Then in 2011, the Localism Act gave all councils the choice of governance models. It stipulated that if a council wants to change its model, they must pass a resolution, lay out their new system and then publicise it.
North Yorkshire is desperate for a change. It’s hard for a party that’s been in power so long to escape the status quo and come up with fresh ideas. It’s nearly impossible for individuals from the leading party to stand up for what’s right when there is a party line. A change of governance would make all voices heard, bring parties together and take away the distraction of politics when making decisions, allowing our council to focus on the central issue: how can we make life better for this generation and the next?
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
