52
Andrew Weavers, Monitoring Officer, introduced the report which provided information on the Cabinet and Leader model, the Committee System model, their advantages and disadvantages and the history of political management arrangements at the Council since 1972.
The Council had operated the Committee system model from 1972 until 2001 when, in the wake of the Local Government Act 2000 and a subsequent consultation process, the Council had adopted the Leader and Cabinet model. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 had required local authorities to reconsider their political management arrangements and introduced the ‘strong leader’ concept, investing the leader with executive powers. The amended Leader and Cabinet model was again chosen following a public consultation.
The Localism Act 2011 reintroduced the option for local authorities to adopt an updated version of the Committee system model, and it was noted that any decision to move to a Committee system would be based on that model, rather than the original 1972 version.
The Panel were notified that all but three local authorities in Essex operated the Leader and Cabinet model. Assurance was given that the Monitoring Officer keeps the current constitution and management arrangements under review and recommends any changes which they feel to be beneficial.
The Monitoring Officer explained the differences and similarities in the committees that are found in the two different models of management arrangements. Under the Committee system, service committees took decisions that were made by Cabinet or Portfolio Holders operating under the Cabinet and Leader model. The Cabinet and Leader model incorporated a statutory duty to operate an oversight and scrutiny committee, whilst this is optional under the Committee system model (if opted for, it holds the same powers as under the Cabinet and Leader model but operates as a committee of Council).
It was highlighted that a major benefit of the Cabinet and Leader model was the expedited decision-making which could be carried out, especially if a scheme of delegation to individual portfolio holders had been opted for. Authorities which did not opt to adopt such a scheme required more frequent meetings if they are to consider all executive decisions and still avoid a slowing of their executive decision making. It was stressed that decisions under this model still needed to be taken in line with the principles of openness and accountability, allowing opportunities for challenge where necessary.
The roles of the Policy and Public Initiatives Panel and task and finish groups at the Council were described.
The Monitoring Officer advised that, in his view, the current political management arrangements were fit for purpose and helped the Council in achieving timely decision making. It was, however, open to the Panel to consider what recommendations they might wish to make.
The Panel were informed of the preparatory work which would be necessary in the event that a change to adopt the Committee system model were to be considered by the Council. A significant amount of officer time and resource would be needed to scope and explore such a move, and the cost of this could not be estimated until initial plans and details are first set in place to guide this work. Should such a move be proposed, there would be no statutory duty to consult on a change to the Council’s political management arrangements, however it was the Monitoring Officer’s strong advice that public consultation should be carried out before deciding upon such a change.
It was noted that adoption of the Committee system model would necessitate a review of councillors’ allowances.
Councillor Tim Young attended and, with the permission of the Chairman, addressed the Panel to pay tribute to Alderman Ken Cooke and his work and contribution to Colchester, and to speak on the Cabinet and Committee models for political management.
Councillor Young informed the Panel that he had had experience of both systems whilst serving as a councillor at this Council. He noted certain drawbacks of the Committee system model, including slow decision making, inefficiencies, not always getting to the heart of issues, committees splitting on party lines and the greater power of officers to set agendas. The system did involve more members in decision making, but did not necessarily give wider experience or power to councillors.
In comparison, Councillor Young posited that the Cabinet system was preferable, but that improvements could be made in the way that the Council operates this system in Colchester Borough. One example given was a recommendation that the operation of the Scrutiny Panel be strengthened and operated more in the style of a select committee, giving backbench councillors more power and involvement. It was noted that the Licensing and Planning Committees provided opportunities for backbench councillors to gain experience of decision making and the exercise of powers. The Committees currently in operation were working, but Councillor Young gave the view that their operation could be further improved.
Commencing the Panel’s deliberations, Councillor Arnold explained that he had requested that the different forms of political management arrangements be discussed following requests from Colchester’s High Steward, Sir Bob Russell, that the Council consider whether to return to using the Committee system model. Sir Bob was a former councillor who had served for many years on the Council and had experienced the Committee system model.
Councillor Arnold clarified that he was not advocating a return to the ‘old’ style of Committee system but had concerns at some of the effects of operating under the Cabinet and Leader system. These included a perceived lack of transparency and information sharing regarding actions by the administration, as evidenced by recent work conducted with Citizens’ Advice, of which opposition councillors were unaware, and by a perceived lack of information on the North Essex Garden Communities Project. Much work had been carried out by portfolio holders without backbencher councillors being informed. This made it more difficult for backbench councillors to hold the administration to account and to properly conduct scrutiny of decision making.
Councillor Arnold ventured that there was now less briefing on portfolio holder actions and reduced opportunity to question members of the Cabinet, with the ‘Questions to Cabinet Members’ item now at a lower/later position on the agenda for Full Council meetings, which could give the impression that it is seen as being less important.
It was argued that the Committee system model allowed new councillors an opportunity to learn processes, get to know officers and build relationships. The current Cabinet model was described as preventing this, with decisions often being discussed in private Leadership Team meetings and only given minimal discussion in the ensuing public Cabinet meeting. In comparison, the Committee system ensured that decision making occurred in public and allowed for greater transparency.
The Panel discussed the report and the views proffered. A Panel member gave the view that the current Cabinet and Leader arrangements were more positive for allowing quicker decision-making, although there could be difficulties. Support was given for the suggestion that the Scrutiny Panel should play a bigger, more activist role, including an increase in call ins by councillors.
A Panel member stated that their experience was that members of Cabinet were open to discuss issues with, and provide information to, councillors from all political groups, and that councillors should request this if they wished to discuss any matters under consideration by the administration.
A further member of the Panel, through their personal experience, agreed with the view that the Committee system that had previously been in operation was somewhat vague and slow to operate.
Building on this, another Panel member gave their experiences and noted that there had been successes under the previous Committee system, such as the completion of a full property audit, and the establishing of the Colchester Women’s Refuge, and that wider discussions had been possible on issues and decisions. However, the member viewed any potential move to a future Committee system as being expensive, requiring a torturous process, and be difficult to produce a system which commanded support across the Council Chamber. This led to the suggestion that the Cabinet and Leader model should be retained, but with improvements, such as a strengthened Scrutiny function, greater information sharing with backbench councillors and more transparency around executive decision making.
The Chairman summarised the positives and negatives which had been ascribed to the two different types of political administrative arrangements possible for the Council to operate. The Committee system model was generally seen as less efficient, could provide more involvement for members but also could potentially put more power into the hands of officers. The Committee model was seen as being more transparent and enabling decision making and discussion in public, however a return to this model was seen by some members as being expensive and complex.
The Cabinet and Leader system had strengths and drawbacks, but the potential for a more active and activist Scrutiny Panel was highlighted and recommended. More transparency from Cabinet and better communications with councillors and the public were also recommended, alongside the provision of better opportunities for councillors to question Portfolio Holders. Decision making could be explained more fully to councillors and the public, with more information to be provided to opposition groups on the Council, especially with regard to the Council’s commercial bodies and partnerships.
The Monitoring Officer summarised the themes raised as relating to three key issues of transparency, communication and scrutiny. He noted that, regarding North Essex Garden Communities Ltd, the minutes of their Board meetings were published on the company’s website. The Monitoring Officer also notified members that Full Council can move and approve a motion to change the order of Council meeting agendas, to have questions to Cabinet Members occur earlier in meetings.
The Panel were informed that the current Scrutiny Panel possessed all due statutory powers, and it was suggested that the Panel should explore and exercise the powers which it already possessed, including the making of more recommendations. A Panel member raised concern that the scheduling of items for Scrutiny Panel consideration currently appeared to be heavily officer-led, and that the Scrutiny Panel needed to be more assertive in laying out its work programme.
The Monitoring Officer agreed that transparency of Portfolio Holder decision making was an issue that had been identified and asked if the Policy and Public Initiatives Panel may wish to make a recommendation regarding this. A potential change could be to revive briefings of the Scrutiny Panel by Portfolio Holders. Members agreed that this could be a positive way to give backbench councillors an opportunity to learn more about each portfolio.
The Panel discussed the budget-setting process for the Council and agreed that it would be beneficial for training and briefings for all councillors on the budget process would be desirable and would allow for effective scrutiny of budgets and the proposal of meaningful amendments. More training would result in better debate and challenge. One member noted that it was currently possible to ask for officer assistance in understanding subjects such as budget setting, however it was agreed that additional training sessions would be a positive thing.
RECOMMENDED to CABINET that the Cabinet and Leader model of political administration be retained, subject to the following enhancements: -
(a)
Additional training and briefings on the budget setting process, to be provided for all councillors.
(b)
Cabinet to bring a motion to Full Council to decide whether to raise questions to Cabinet Members up the agenda.
(c)
Cabinet to acknowledge the importance of the Scrutiny Panel and advocate that the Panel exercise their powers to a greater degree, produce more recommendations and be assertive in their role as a ‘critical friend.’
(d)
Cabinet to request that the Scrutiny Panel consider re-introducing regular Portfolio question and answer sessions.