Two community campaigners fear that new rules have made it harder for the public to lobby councillors in an informed way before policy decisions are made.
Brighton and Hove City Council brought in the new rules when it switched to making decisions by cabinet instead of cross-party committees.
Public questions and deputations have to relate to an item on the cabinet’s agenda which is due to published five working days before meetings.
But the deadline for deputations is eight working days before cabinet meetings – before the agenda is even published – even though they are expected to relate to an item on the agenda.
And, the campaigners said, anyone wanting to ask a public question will have a 48-hour window to send it in.
They said that another hurdle was that the council would no longer allow someone else to stand in for a member of the public who wanted to ask a question but who was unable to ask it themselves.
The rule changes have been criticised by two former election candidates, Adrian Hart and Laura King.
Their criticisms come days before the agenda for the first cabinet meeting is due to be published – on Wednesday 19 June.
The public will have two days to read the agenda and reports and decide whether they wish to ask a question and, if so, how to word it – and then submit it.
The council released a “forward plan” late last month, listing headings and a line or two about a dozen key decisions due to be taken by the new Labour cabinet.
But even some councillors have said that the forward plan was not easy to find on the council’s website.
Mr Hart said that one resident considering a deputation was unsure whether the specific issue would be on the agenda. He said: “It’s a huge effort for residents like her to find out the rules.
“Worse still, the council have started to insist that the person submitting a question has to be the person reading it.”
He said that this overturned the previous much fairer practice which recognised that many residents, such as working mothers, were not always available when meetings were taking place.
Mr Hart said: “All in all, it’s clear that public engagement in how our city is run is a very low priority for this administration.
“The new procedure for public engagement at cabinet is a muddle and getting answers from the council is exhausting.”
He added that the stated aim of “widening the possibilities for residents to participate” seemed like “just empty words”.
Ms King said: “It seems that all public questions now have to be based on meeting agenda items so the public can no longer raise their own independent questions about city matters which concern them.
“It seems there will be 48 hours or fewer to find/see the published council meeting agenda on the council website and then submit the limited public questions which can only be based on it, which is obviously completely unreasonable if so.”
She said that this did not comply with “the Nolan Principles of Public Life” or best practice, adding that “this council continually rewrites its own constitution to suit itself”.
Ms King was also frustrated that the changes were not subject to a referendum or contained in the Labour manifesto for the local elections in May last year.
The council’s website said that questions and speeches to meetings of the full council could be on any subject on which the council has the power to act but questions to the cabinet must be based on an item on the agenda.
The deputy leader of the council, Jacob Taylor, who is also the cabinet member for finance and city regeneration, said: “This is an exciting new era for the council and one which we believe will not only lead to more efficient and effective decision making, helping us deliver on the priorities of local people and businesses, but also see more residents actively engage in local democracy.”
Along with the cabinet, the council has introduced two overview and scrutiny committees, one for “people” and the other for “place”.
The Planning Committee, Licensing Committee, Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Health and Wellbeing Board and Audit and Standards Committee will continue as before.
The first cabinet meeting is due to take place at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Thursday 27 June. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
This council is a dictatorship.
They constantly silence people.
Just because it’s not illegal to have a cabinet council doesn’t mean those towns and cities which have a cabinet council wanted it or voted for it any more than we don’t and didn’t. Likely they have also had a cabinet council imposed upon them against their will just like we have, which is not democracy.
This is progress Barry! I’m pleased to see you taking on previous discussions. I’d argue that it is the standard setup with 95% of councils using this structure. I’d also ask a question: should every single aspect of the running of the council be put to a vote? Is that effective?
I will take your previous point about transparency and access to democracy for the public though, and the proof of this being challenged will be through their, perhaps ironic, consultations on how best to engage the city.
It’s not ‘progress’ if the public don’t want it and the council’s legal role is public servant with obligations of service, transparency and consultation under national law. This is the council going rogue against their public duties.
The public are the masters, not the servants.
I meant your personal progress, Barry.
How very patronising of you Benjy boy. Deflect from the actual subject – deliberate erosion of democracy by those elected to deliver democracy – and make it personal.
Not falling for that old chestnut. You need to have a word with yourself.
You really do sound like you’re not reading the whole comment. Maybe that’s my fault for not separating the two thoughts out further and making it more simple.
Arguing tu quoque doesn’t actually make sense here. I’m agreeing with you around ensuring ways to engage. Not everything is a criticism Barry!
Public questions and deputations are vital to democracy and making this harder cannot be positive.
What about if they were provided in a different form? How would you feel about that?
Why would Council Officers and Councillors waste public money and time doing what Ollie never asked them to do if they are doing their job and working for the public?
You have to ignore the engagement consultation that’s been taking place to make that question work. My answer to that would be the question is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a incorrect narrative.
People can still bring them to full council and scrutiny committees
Thankfully this is being called out publicly – if the council had its way, everything would be decided behind closed doors, at the exclusion of the public they claim to serve. This is then sugar-coated in a failed, disingenuous attempt to label it as fairer, efficient, necessary. They need to remember they are serving a wise, fierce and just public.
Another Labour power grab, funny how they failed to mention their plan to impose cabinet rule was nig even hinted at before the local elections.
“Listening Labour” – the whole thing stinks.
1. Bella Sankey runs the council like a dictorship, changing the constitution in the blink of an eye without consulting residents or putting it in the manifesto.
2. Labour force Keir’s mate Chris Ward in as the candidate in Kemptown, despite the wishes of local members
3. Labour’s candidate in Pavilion, Tom Gray, goes AWOL, not responding to invitations to hustings, running away from residents, and not responding to emails. Have seen multiple comments on his Facebook posts be deleted if people (politely fact check him).
There is no respect for residents in the way this current Labour lot are acting. It’s a joke, and sadly it’s residents in the city paying the price.
New Labour power grab. Be very afraid when they get their hands on the levers of power nationally.
Why has the first comment been deleted?
Headline should be “failed council candidates complain again”
Not sure why commentators here call it a Labour power grab? They do realise Labour have a huge, (voted for), majority after the May 2023 elections and be it cabinet or committee they could do what they want. That is democracy.
Labour won 45% of the vote city-wide, so more people didn’t vote for them than did. The large majority in terms of councillors owes to the unfair electoral system.
But that is the system, (which no one was proposing to change). That’s how FPTP works and often leads to a good workable majority. 45% was still double what anyone else acheived.
It’s Green, Lib Dem and Reform party policy to change the electoral system, and 80% of Labour members want it. But of course it’s not within the gift of a council to do that.
The reason the present Labour admin’s introduction of the cabinet system can be accurately called a ‘power grab’ is that 1) it was not in their manifesto, and whatever you think about it, it is a major change in governance and 2) it is likely to preserve their hold on office beyond the next election even if they lose their overall majority, since the biggest party gets to nominate the cabinet members.
That last point is the most offensive thing about it, and that’s why the right wing of Labour love it so much – because they don’t have to collaborate with any other party, which is the thing they appear to hate the most.
I agree with Clive on this. Yes Labour won the most seats at the last local elections in May 2023, but the majority of people in the city (55%) still voted for other parties.
What if some of the 45% who voted for Labour did so because of the pledges in their manifesto that they’ve now broken – like school closures, like closing Brightstart, like tehir promise not to use toxic weedkiller. I’m certain that had people have known these cuts and changes that Labour would push through once they were elected, they would not have received 45% of votes in May 2023 (albeit prob still enough for them to form the administration).
So far from Labour it’s been a pack of lies in their manifesto and a growing catalogue if broken promises, and the Cabinet move is a deliberate one to stop public scrutiny of their decision-making.
On FPTP – proportional representation is widely supported. It’s mainly just the two larger parties who oppose it because it’s in their own interest, as opposed to the interest of a healthier system which would allow for a Parliament that better reflects the mixed views of the country.
Like I said, the whole thing stinks.
More by-elections in the offing?
I know of at least three coming up which have not yet been announced. But at least they won’t be forced to complete with the GE. I wonder why Hannah’s husband is running Ollie Syke’s campaign in Brunswick and Adelaide since he stepped down as too busy last time. Planning on getting back in via the back door, Hannah?
BHCC have been cutting the public whom they are rumoured to represent a very thin slither of democracy for quite some time. I recall the Greens wearing masks to meetings 2 years post COVID as a ruse to stop public questions. It seems this has been Labours approach to further marginalise the voices of the community.
If they are not representing the men and women of. Brighton and Hove, it does beg the question what exactly is it they are doin)
It’s a bit of a flawed argument because there are plenty of mechanisms, including new methods, to participate. I feel represented.
Well you would feel ‘represented’ if you are are an insider at BHCC as your comments imply.
On the subject of the rest of us, all most of us see is taxation without representation and a council acting against us rather than for us on almost every item and breaching every code and rule in the process, including their own manifesto to get elected.
Yeah, you make that attack often, and it’s still as baseless as ever, I’m afraid Barry.
I simply make use of the systems available, rather than just make dangerously half-cocked narratives on a news websites, for example.
Several people have explained the flaw in your latter argument, and I feel we don’t need to retread old ground again.
Usual bluff and deflection from the no. 1 council apologist. Just call yourself ‘I’m alright Jack’ and stop pretending.
Laura King is a conspiracy theorist who spreads misinformation. Why on earth does this website keep airing her crazy views? As many people have pointed out, this structure is used in over 90 percent of councils in the UK. We need less bureaucracy in councils and this structure helps speed up decisions. The next good thing they can do is to cut up all the red tape around planning permission, but that requires a new government. The less the council panders to Nimbys and Laura Kings of this world the better.
Your nasty little smear says more about you than Laura King. It’s an inept party with a majority that cannot make decisions as quickly under the committee system, with its urgency provisions and delegations of power, as it can in cabinet. Cabinets may be common but so is shoplifting. Had Labour been honest enough to include the change, I feel sure it wouldn’t have dented their majority and there would then be fewer grounds for complaint.
Martine, you seem to be suggesting the cabinet council is just a mad conspiracy theory! If only. Link to your claim that 90% of councils run cabinet councils? Since when are Labour in the business of news suppression or telling B&H News what to write?
Of course Barry, here is the link to the structure of councils in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-structure-and-elections
Thanks Martine.
So where is it mentioned in your link that 90% of councils are cabinet councils?
We have watched local government spend increasing amounts of our money in trying to control our behaviour – with LTNs, ULEZ, 20MPH speed limits etc – as more and more councils fall into debt, while more and more councils introduce the Cabinet system, which further reduces transparency.
If you thought that it couldn’t get any worse, then you underestimate Starmer. A few more London type mayors would be the final blow.
“In 2020, Starmer tasked Gordon Brown with producing plans to “settle the future of the union” and devolve “power, wealth and opportunity” throughout the nation. Brown established a commission on the UK’s future which included Labour councillors, MPs, Peers, legal experts and academics.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/labours-constitutional-proposals?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR12aLka1T0gtxCRrRWC9n6xfig0UNfQHdvMmmDByzvEub1JeSC0GKd4eoE_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw
One way to avoid debating the facts is to call someone a Conspiracy theorist, or a right wing extremist. You would get more respect, by debating the facts.