It is extraordinary that this Thursday as millions of people vote in local government elections they will only be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to electoral reform for the Westminster Parliament but not for council elections.
Of course, the parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have long discarded the first-past-the-post system of electing their members. Scottish and Northern Ireland local authority elections are also not held under the FPTP system. The same is the case for directly elected English local authority majors. So why does this week’s referendum not also include a question on the local government electoral process?
The arguments in favour of introducing the Alternative Vote (AV) for elections to the Westminster Parliament apply as much to local government. It is vital that council candidates have to fight for every vote; can claim to represent at least 50% of those who actually vote (and ideally of the ward that they represent); and that in parts of the country where one political party is dominant there is a greater opportunity for opposition members to be elected to ensure that the council is more representative of its residents – the electorate.
Indeed, there is a case for going further (as I would contend there is in respect of the Westminster parliamentary elections) and introducing some form of proportional representation for English local government elections – perhaps based on AV-plus in order to maintain the vital relationship between the councillor and her/his ward.
Ever since the last New Labour Government legislated to change the internal governance arrangements of local authorities with indirectly elected leaders (strong or otherwise) or directly elected mayors, cabinets, and overview and scrutiny arrangements there has been a failure to adequately address the role of councillor as local representative.
The current emphasis on localism and the introduction of ‘community organisers’ provides the opportunity to revisit the importance of the ward councillor. This should never be seen as a secondary role to that of leader and/or cabinet member. It is the core of our representative system of local government. Above all it is political.
In England we have fewer elected councillors per thousand residents than most of our European neighbours. Admittedly, we often have the complexity of two or three tiers of local government representation especially in the shires. The role of community councillor is critical. It should involve a community leadership role with the councillor working closely with local voluntary and community organisations to understand local issues, concerns and aspirations, building community capacity and ensuring fairness with particular regard to access to local services; listening to and communicating with local residents; acting as a conduit for those residents with the local authority and other public bodies, the utilities and others whose activities impact on the community; resolving issues on behalf of individuals and organisations in the ward; and being the community’s voice in the town or county hall.
This is a significant role. It requires time, resource and support. It has to be respected by the council’s political leadership, its officers, other local public bodies such as the NHS and police, and those organisations contracted to deliver public services.
To fulfil this role a councillor has to be able to build her/his relationship with local residents; to have the necessary time and access to support and information; and above all represent a ward of the size where she/he can be visible and accessible – and in turn can themselves access.
These conditions point towards smaller rather than bigger wards. There would be merit in moving to more if not entirely single-member wards in order to build that direct relationship and ensure clear accountability for the councillor to her/his electorate. Such an arrangement would be enhanced if the elections were based on either AV or AV-Plus – the latter would also enable the council to have some members who took a wider role though such a system could raise issues about local community representation if some members did not represent wards. This has to be debated.
In her or his scrutiny role a councillor should be able to draw directly on the experience of her/his ward and its local residents, businesses, and voluntary and community organisations. Of course, all councillors would wish to take a pan-authority view too. The councillor’s role on overview and scrutiny is vitally important. It should be recognised as such by members and officers. It has the power to shape future policy and practice in the authority and across a range of local public and business organisations. It has to be focused on place not institution and it has to have its foundations in the democratic legitimacy of councillors.
There is often much talk about the desirability to enhance the calibre of councillors. Of course, there is a need for councillors who are capable of providing political leadership to large and complex organisations; and to hold the executive and professionals to account. There is equally a need for councils to reflect local demography, ethnicity and gender balances. It is also essential that there are councillors elected who want to champion their wards and to be active in them. There is little merit in a council being comprised solely of those who want to hold a major portfolio – though all members have community and ward responsibilities. This is not a matter of professional qualification but of elected authority and legitimacy.
The political parties could review their own selection processes and criteria to ensure that the electorate has the opportunity to vote for potentially excellent councillors. In order to re-enforce the relationship between ward and councillor some form of open primary would add credibility to the candidate selection.
There is very much a case for reforming local governance – a constitutional position for local government; primaries for selecting candidates; some form of electoral reform for electing councillors; strengthening the community leadership role of every ward councillor; moving to single member wards; and enhancing the importance and remit of overview and scrutiny.
Whatever the outcome for the parliamentary voting system, we must now start a longer and more comprehensive debate about local democracy and the political system that underpins it.
John Tizard is director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships (CPSP@LGIU)
