Brighton and Hove City Council has voted to scrap almost all committees and for most decisions to be made by members of a cabinet – a small team of Labour councillors from May.
The decision was made at a meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall last night (Thursday 28 March) with Labour in favour and the Greens and Conservatives against.
The two opposition parties urged Labour to put the change to a public vote in a referendum, in part because the change was not in Labour’s local election manifesto last year.
Opposition councillors also asked for a comprehensive communications plan to explain the changes including how they would affect decision-making but Labour voted down the request by 34 votes to 11.
The Green opposition leader Steve Davis said that the move to a cabinet system would “disenfranchise vast swathes of residents and community groups” and backbench Labour members.
He said: “This is a Labour group in a position of marking their own homework. Be wary of those who seek only power.”
Conservative leader Alistair McNair asked about openness and said: “What features of a cabinet system make it more democratic and transparent than the current one?
“In the cabinet system, everything will be decided in advance. There will be nice cosy discussions of items already agreed to behind closed doors.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey said that he had not noticed anything wrong with the current committee set up but abstained from the vote.
Councillor Earthey called for scrutiny along the lines of the bipartisan United States Senate oversight committee rather than the current proposal to organise them based on political proportionality.
The council brought in cabinet decision-making before but ditched it in 2012. Only four councillors from that time are still serving – Anne Meadows, Alan Robins, Carol Theobald and Pete West.
Councillor Meadows said that the cabinet system was undemocratic for the council and the public.
The Conservative councillor said: “(In committees) decisions can be changed or tweaked to ensure better results. In the cabinet, the decisions will be made behind closed doors.
“We are told cabinet meetings will be in public but what they don’t tell you is half the information will be in public. The information that informs the decision is closed to you and I.”
She was also concerned that members of the public who did not agree with the leadership would not be permitted to attend meetings.
Councillor West said: “I don’t buy this idea that the committee system is somehow inefficient unless by inefficient you mean open to discussion, challenge and representation of communities when decisions are taken.
“Cabinet systems aren’t more efficient, they’re less democratic and less likely to deliver sound decisions.”
Councillor Robins said that when the council moved from cabinet to committee 12 years ago, former councillors – Labour’s Gill Mitchell and the Greens’ Bill Randall – said that they hoped that the successes of the scrutiny system would continue.
He said: “I have heard the Greens say many times they want to be more involved. Here’s your chance.
“Embrace the scrutiny process and help guide and steer the decision-making instead of sitting on the sidelines poking your tongue out in a turquoise alliance with the Conservatives.”
Labour council leader Bella Sankey said claims that that Labour was “disenfranchising” voters or behaving like oligarchs were “dangerous dirty lies”.
She said: “As leader of the council, I spend every day – and many evenings too – meeting residents, listening to feedback, hosting surgeries, answering questions, being grilled by anyone and everyone as to our priorities, our policies and our vision for this city.
“I could not spend more time listening, being available, accessible and accountable – and indeed we are currently consulting on how we might expand public engagement and the visibility of our decision-makers.”
Councillor Sankey said that the cabinet system was the most common form of local government structure in the country.
The council plans to hold cabinet meetings monthly, with a forward plan of the business up for discussion published a month in advance.
Two committees – a “People Overview and Scrutiny Committee” and a “Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee” – would be able to review decisions.
Some committees will remain such as the Planning Committee, Licensing Committee, Audit and Standards Committee and the Health and Wellbeing Board. The council also plans to retain housing management panels.
The council has started a survey on public engagement which is open until Sunday 21 April on the Your Voice section of the council’s website.
It asks for views about ideas such as a question time, meet the cabinet events, citizen assemblies and other forums.
The scrapping of policy committees will require a number of teams of officials to be reorganised including the democratic services team. This is expected to cost £80,000 and will be funded by leaving several posts vacant.
The debate of balance between efficiency and inclusivity is always going to come up with these models of government. Both are viable, reasonable, and ethical. Anyone who’s not Labour is going to be against this because it formally locks out their marginalised views; although, I would gently argue this was already the case.
Having said that though, to avoid the “marking your own homework”, I would say it would be good for the opposition to have greater control in the scrutiny groups. Nothing keeps you on the straight and narrow than people who are actively against the current majority.
There’s nowt inclusive about a cabinet council Benjy boy. It’s all about EXCLUDING the electorate and any opposition. It’s a feck you cabinet. In a city which is supposed to be about being out of the closet.
On the other hand, cabinets provide a more streamlined decision-making process, often leading to quicker resolutions and clearer accountability – which are challenges you’ve personally been…passionate for the council to improve before. With this, you are, in fact, getting what you wished for.
Putting words into my mouth and then twisting them to your own ends is sinister behaviour to say the least Benjy boy. Perhaps you derive your inspiration from certain past world tyrants who ‘streamlined’ their rule by only allowing their own views and agendas to prevail. Oppositition was eliminated.
Your words Barry. Maybe you aren’t aware of what you’re saying. Again, I feel you need to bit to put a bit more thought into what you think you’re saying.
And the second you start using ad hominem arguments, you lose sight of any logical debate. Again, going in half cocked does you no credit, Barry.
“marginalised views”
Hang on Benjamin … remember that 55% of the votes last May did NOT go to Labour. It was the glorious British electoral system (mother of parliaments rah rah rah) that gave Labour their large majority, not the fact that most Brightohovites love them.
And then you have all the backbench Labour councillors (including any remaining lefties) who will be completely shut out. John Donne below may be a touch repetitive but what he says is right – this is a managerialist power grab by the Blairite wing of the Labour party. And if they were going to do that, the least they could have done was told the electorate first.
Blairite power grab. New Labour managerialism
Repeating the same phrase over and over again is what my parrot does. Try putting some meat on those bones, it’ll make for a worthwhile discussion.
Cllr Earthey protests against the cabinet council then has a complete failure of the cahoneys to vote against it???
Who the heck is really controlling these Councillors if they either can’t speak or can’t vote their own minds, even if they’re not a member of the whipped party? How dare they spend £80,000 of our money on this mafia style of council we didn’t ask for and don’t want, pretending it’s popular with other cities, when it will have been imposed just as undemocratically on those other cities and not resulted from the WIll of the people there.
Sounds like you’re justifying why we should switch to a cabinet style, rather than a committee if you’re not confident that the committee members, in this case Cllr. Earthey, will influence a decision anyway. Well, good news Barry, you’re getting what you wished for! I think you’re also conveniently forgetting there have been discussions about broader constitutional reforms, such as the House of Lords reform or introducing proportional representation for general elections.
To reiterate, putting words into my mouth and then twisting them to your own ends is sinister behaviour to say the least Benjy boy. Perhaps you derive your inspiration from certain past world tyrants who ‘streamlined’ their rule by only allowing their own views and agendas to prevail. Oppositition was eliminated.
Repeating an ad hominem. Try addressing the point I made.
Now get rid of the surplus overpaid ‘other’councillors. Next step no need for a Cabinet just have Isabella Sankey as elected Mayor.
In other councils with an elected executive mayor there are still councillors (none has ever had their number reduced) because there is still a level of business the Mayor and their cabinet (cabinet members are also councillors) can’t carry out such as planning and licensing decisions as well as the scrutiny work. The annual budget can only be approved by a meeting of the full council for example.
A backbench councillor gets an allowance of around £13.5k. For the amount of work they do that’s hardly being overpaid especially if they are on planning or licensing committee which meet far more frequently than any other committee of the council.
BTW if B&H were to move to the elected executive mayor model it would require a referendum.
“Councillor Earthey called for scrutiny along the lines of the bipartisan United States Senate oversight committee rather than the current proposal to organise them based on political proportionality.”
Cllr Earthy clearly has no idea about how the US Senate operates. Aside from a small number of administrative committees which truly are bipartisan because the issues involved aren’t political the majority party always has a majority on each of its departmental oversight committees in proportion to its overall majority.
Also its the law that membership of council committees is proportional to the size of the political groups.
Every year for the annual meeting the chief exec prepares a report on proportionality of committee memberships. And this also happens during the year if there are any changes in party memberships that affect that and membership will be adjusted.
I’m not convinced this is a good move. Less visibility on what they are doing and less input from the public (why remove deputations?). That’s before you mention the lack of cross-party collaboration and sheer power of the Labour majority council. It’s a recipe for disaster and all we can do is watch whilst they spend an unnecessary amount on it when they’re allegedly on the edge of bankruptcy.
But you have also argued against when the council make cuts, Emily, so which way do you want it? I know since you didn’t get your way, you’ve been critical of everything the council does, so I have to take some of your words with a heavy pinch of emotive bias.
I don’t share your pessimism on this change, because I don’t really see much of a difference. Minority political groups don’t really have a say already. However, I appreciate the need for an opposition scrutiny, that idea I can get behind.
I honestly think deputations are not worth the time taken for the most part. Rather the written word personally, it’s far more concise compared to some of the rambling I’ve heard. But that is my opinion. There are also plenty of other ways for public input, so I feel this is largely cutting out duplication.
Still, all eyes will be on this change, and I’m sure oppositions will be ready to attack the moment there is something disagreeable!
If the Greens or Tories had ever had a majority on the council they would have made this change themselves. And once it’s in place I’d give it zero % chance that they would change back to the previous system if they ever won a majority.
As for cross party collaboration remember the i360 loan was approved by the Greens and Tories collaborating.
Collaboration does not always mean the best decisions get made. It means lowest common denominator decisions.
The Greens led the switch back to a committee system from a cabinet system in 2012.
So much for your zero chance, then.
Not an April fool then?
Cllr Davis probably should speak to community groups first before claiming what they are thinking. It’s simple falsehoods like his that creates crying wolf syndrome within the councillors. Personally, it seems like a poor method to represent his ward effectively. Just my opinion.
…..absolute power corrupts sbsolutely. Remember this come the elections
It’s not absolute though, not by a long shot, Valerie.
Why is Bella Sankey always so attacking? She could have said that she understood people’s concerns and was happy to discuss them, or that she disagreed with them instead she talks about concerns being “dangerous, dirty lies”. She says she spends all her days talking to people and finding out what they want. She has never responded to a letter from me , or from any others I know who have written to her with concerns about this council’s autocratic behaviour. I support Labour – but not in Brighton.
Hmm – that group of long-serving council officers, middle-ranking and senior, whom observers have come to call ‘The Saboteurs’, must be congratulating themselves on how rapidly and easily they’ve managed to ‘capture’ this new and naive Labour administration!!
How so “capture”?
We’ve seen it before, with that unfortunate first year of a minority Tory administration when, for unclear reasons, their-then Leader (Cllr Brian Oxley, himself a former Local Gov’t officer) kow-towed to pressure (from where?) to introduce a Cabinet system!
When all his Administrations needed to do was to write a polite letter to the relevant Minister to say that, pending issue of the relevant secondary legislation in a few months, to activate the relevant parts of a Local Gov’t Act permitting the retention of a Committee system, the Tories proposed to minimise upheaval and expense by retaining Committee decision-making. With the informed knowing that any such decisions to which a legal challenge had actually been raised, rather that just threatened, could always be brought to a Full Council for 100% lawful ratification!
With their having gained such a thumping majority in last May’s elections it’s sad to seen the newbie Labour Cllrs shooting themselves in the foot, and to be doing so at a time, if they’ll just open their eyes and minds, they’d see many golden opportunities to make themselves by far the most loved, or the least despised, political party in our City?
Opportunities such as?
On a grand scale to work closely with the new Chief Exec for a major change of Corporate Culture right across our Council? From the long-standing ‘Hostile Environment’ towards us citizens and taxpayers, and even towards most of the Council’s own staff; by a return to the harmonious and conciliatory approach of the previous Hove Borough.Council – engendered by a truly professionally-qualified and competent corps of well-respected senior officers!
And there’s also many simpler actions Labour can take to win more kudos for the Party!
Such as, for Valley Gardens phase 3, to actually implement Labour’s apparently solemn promise, of just a few months ago, to re-think the high cost, and inefficient traffic design (deliberately intentional, as stated publicly by the former Director of Environment and Transport!), of the officer’s scheme, and to look very carefully at the many positive suggedtions, from well-intentioned local residents, for changes to the plans, to deliver a better scheme for less money!
But where are the signs that any such open re-think has ever taken place?
None at all, it seems? Even the very simplest of tweaks – let the Palace Pier roundabout remain for the first 12 months of the rest of VG3 becoming operational, to then see if the cost of creating a T-junction, with traffic lights, can really be justified etc?
At present it seems to still be an ‘officer’s scheme’ – probably contributing to quiet jubilation in the Town Hall that the old saying:
Officers rule, OK?
still applies to BHCC!
And how do ‘The Saboteurs’ in the Town Hall achieve such a high degree of control over how our taxpayers money gets spent (by them on their vanity projects, to get a better job elsewhere)?
In the Cabinet system, with perhaps only six or so Labour Cabinet Councillors putatively making decisions individually (mostly made for them in advance by officers!) there is a betrayal of the electorate, in that all who elected Labour Cllrs who are not in the Cabinet, and will be back-benchers, find that their chosen representative has become disenfranchised within the local Labour Party!
Yes, howls of protest are likely from the Labour seniors – but observers have seen something similar during the far too many years of the secretive ‘Leaders Group’!
Where deeply undemocratic horse-trading took place among the leaders of the three or so main Party groups.
With the result that, apparently, when a controversial proposal emerged, which rank-and-file Opposition Cllrs did not like, their leader told them to keep quiet because, as a quid pro quo, he’d got the Administration’s Leader to agree to something else, which that opposition Party wanted!
Thus, in the Cabinet system almost no concerns will be raised (against what are mostly officers proposals)
– all the more regrettable because such dissent is far more frequently constructive in nature, rather than only amounting to vapid party-political dogma, to make empty gestures of opposition!
One is thus left wondering to what extent Starmer, Blair, and Mandelson etc are aware of these anti-democratic rogue actions down here, which are far more likely to bring the entire Labour Party into disrepute, as opposed to burnishing its desired image of being the Party which can govern fairly and competently?
Or does the Labour top in London not even care ….?
for,
While Labour doing this without sticking in their manifesto is pretty outrageous, it won’t make a massive amount of difference for this council.
Where it could make a great deal of difference is after the next election. The cabinet system means that the largest party – whether or not they have a majority of seats – get to form the cabinet. This is completely undemocratic.
At the elections in 2027 we will probably be in midterm of a Starmer governnment and, fairly or unfairly, Labour locally will be getting blamed for all sorts of stuff. So they are likely to lose seats. But with the Greens on 7 seats and Tories on 6 it is hard to see either actually overtaking Labour (took 38 seats last May, from memory).
So this looks like a device to hang on to power when, morally and electorally speaking, it’s been lost.
Bearing this in mind, Sankey’s denunciation of ‘dirty little lies’ starts to sound all the more Trumpian.