Communities for local Government

The Councillors’ Commission published its recommendations - 61 of them - on 10 December in its report entitled Representing the Future. Chaired by Dame Jane Roberts, the Commission has put forward a wide ranging and bold set of recommendations which provide much food for thought.

In the next few months we will be debating the Commission’s ideas and we want to hear from as many as people as possible before we put together the Government’s response.

Whether you are an elected member or someone who might be considering the role, your opinions are important to us.

• Which are the recommendations that should be taken forward?
• What are the challenges and who should tackle them?

Tell us what you think.

Emma Hagan (moderator)

I successfully took a political restrictions case as a local government scrutiny officer to the Independent adjudicator and was granted exemption from political restrictions on the grounds:

That 7 Scrutiny Reports, I was responsible for out of over 100 scrutiny reports by other officers over a 3 year period, did not constitute given regular advice to committees. The reality for scrutiny officers across the country is that their reports are subject to amendment by more senior officers and it is the more senior officers who should be restricted not scrutiny officers.

I welcome the proposals to lift the salary threshold and remove the restrictions on canvassing but I am concerned that relative low level scrutiny officers like me who draft some reports that are subject to amendment by more senior departmental officers could still be caught by the phrase 'Politically sensitive roles are: those directly giving regular advice to the Council', as are my scrutiny colleagues at the moment.

It is wrong that my fellow scrutiny officers are denied their political freedom and human right to free speech and this might be the last chance to change this unjust legislation so that only the most senior officers are restricted which is line with other countries and Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.

'perhaps the most clearly articulated case is that presented by SOLACE, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and

Senior Managers, which regards the existing framework as " .crude and inconsistent . disproportionate and unreasonable" and argues for the introduction of a more flexible and sensitive framework which retains restrictions only for the most senior officers and for the rest of the workforce, treats political neutrality and professional conduct as management issues, to be ensured through the contract of employment.'

I hope that Ministers will consider this view again before they respond with legislation to the proposals published by the Councillors' Commission and that the restrictions are lifted for all officers below Head of Departments and Ministers stick to their commitments that have been made since 1998 and paticularly on the 10th March 2004 (Hansard deputy prime minister's questions).

The bottom line is:

That Council employees have a duty to be neutral at work but in your own time you should not have your human rights denied by disproportionate anti democratic political restrictions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Ian Scott

The idea that the CEHR sets 'targets' is undemocratic and that the country's last vestige of democracy adheres to it is shameful. The CEHR does not have proper representatives of Eastern Europeans, because the CEHR is really the old CRE, and is really not about providing equality but providing justifications for using public funds to uplift non-indigenous people into positions of power.  I would vote for a bme male if I thought  he was going to empower all my community, however the evidence is that BME politicians tend to favour BME empowerment above the whole community.  This is a political ideology not democracy.

Councillors can stand at any election with only a few other signatories and they can come from the commonwealth and Europe and the UK now.  The idea of targets is based upon nothing substantive as the majority of the boroughs and the census do not collect baseline information, so for example, the Outer Hebrides has a fairly homogenous and closed community, and if one were to consider them and create census material on them, then one would see that they are limited in achieving access to judges positions and to high office.  The recent Equalities Review stated that the BME groups had almost reached their targets in employment and positions of power but those groups such as elderly in employment, disabled and women ...well "not in our lifetime".  I would say there will be no further movement due to the targets set by the CEHR that do not consider that their targets are about empowering non-indigenous people and not empowering the poor, the ill, the old or the needy.

This is undemocratic and we should oppose any further "representation", unless it is a dramatic change of heart by this government and allows proportional representation at the ballot box.  We will be ruled and administered by people for whom their is no necessity for them to adhere or to learn the basis of fair play and good governance.  If  that were the case then  we should have the opportunity to vote on what a councillor will do for ALL of our community and not what a quango like the CEHR run by ministers who are not egalitarian, thinks we should have to endure as our governance.  Increased representation by the artificial and illogical definition of 'minority' is undemocratic and in practice has not led to better governance.  Just look at the scale of complaints to the London Government Ombudsman.

I saw recently a member of the Lords who is disabled.  I saw her campaigning for disabled access to taxis in London and saying how its been 12 years of legislation and still no movement...I don't think that the fascist politicians (ministers included) even thought twice about appointing  her and not Trevor Phillips (again)...afterall she is a woman, she is disabled and she is non-BME.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it should be easier to become an independent councillor i.e. some kind of support available. I would be very interested in the role, being active in the community and a voluntary sector leader, but I cannot nail my flag to the mast of any political party. I would not know where to start campaigning as an independent but I could offer much to my local community as a councillor.

I agree with Vix.  I too would like to become a local councillor but in a city dogged by political in-fighting it would be almost impossible to get involved without party support, so I stay clear.  In my role as community worker there is nothing that turns off the public more than party policitcs - it offers nothing to doorstep issues and is frequently the cause of lack of local action.

 

Skoot

Slippery slops and all that.  How much help? what type of help? where does the money come from?  If you have not yet been elected you have no backing from the electorate and it is therefore a bit much to expect them to help you get elected. 

Although I am a Conservative party member and a Conservative councillor, the vast majority of the effort is yours and yours alone.  You don't need any machinery behind you as whatever you spend comes out of your own pocket, is limited by the rules and is very closely scrutinsed, this is not the USA!

We have a long tradition of independent councillors in South Holland and as far as I can see the only thing that holds them back is a lack of cohesion when it comes to the bigger issues.  Personally I struggle to see the relevance of the vast majority of national political thinking when it comes to district councils and to be honest I think the local party political activists feel the same.

Yes, it could be useful to have a group of people to help push leaflets through doors, but you don't need a party machine for that.  If you think people will vote for you, then at least some of those must be willing to help you campaign.  If not, then perhaps you need to rethink your strategy.

We seem to be straying beyond the issue of what would encourage people to become elected members, into what doesn't.  Worse still, there seems to be some suggestion that it is party politics that somehow prevents 'independents' candidates from standing for election. 

However, if the comments of Vix are to be accepted and people on the 'doorstep' really are turned off by party politics, then surely the exact opposite is true.  An independent candidate who claims no party allegiances should prove to be a very strong contender.

Any attempt to blame those of us who happen to belong to one party or another, is just a way of seeking an excuse for not standing.  At the very local level, it is often the case that national party politics has little relevance, as the stranglehold central government has on local government means virtually no flexibility exists for the vast majority of us to show any real local flavour.  The best you can do is work for the benefit of all the people in your community, whatever their personal politics.

The real weakness of having a majority made up of independents and therefore 'in charge' is that there is often little in the way of consensus on an issue especially if that issue is at all controversial, contentious or likely to be unpopular.  Under such circumstances, independents are likely to avoid the difficult decisions by hiding behind their independence.  When this happens on a regular and long term basis, you get an ineffective, directionless council that is run by the officers (as always nature arbours a vacuum).

So, please don't use party politics as an excuse for not standing whilst at the same time blaming it for all the woes of local government.  However, if you do stand please be true to yourself and not afraid to standby unpopular but necessary decisions that might need to be made from time to time - you owe that to the people who voted you in.  As always you represent the interests of the bigger organisation (district, borough, etc) and ALL of the taxpayers first and then your ward - anything else is just populist politics and that's even worse than party politics.