Decision details

Whether to recommend to Council that Cambridge City Council return to the Committee system.

The committee received a report on the Localism Act and the Committee System, presented by the Democratic Services Manager.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.        The content was interesting, but lacked sufficient analysis of the implications (positive and negative) of reverting to a committee system.

ii.       It was noted that Brighton and Hove Council had only retained the committee system until relatively recently due to a loophole in the legislation relating to elected mayors. It was also highlighted that the executive model didn’t work well in councils where the administration had a small or a non-existent majority. 

iii.      The benefits highlighted by the London Borough of Sutton as result of their transition to a committee system were questioned. It was suggested that many of the highlighted benefits were already been delivered through the Area Committee system in Cambridge.

iv.      It was noted that all the councils that had transferred to date to the committee system were large authorities.

v.       The advantages of previous City Board, which had operated from 1973 through to 2002, were highlighted. It was explained the City Board provided political overview of all forms of decision-making including regulatory.

vi.          Disappointment was expressed that the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 had not been repealed and therefore precluded a reversion to the previous form of executive arrangements.

vii.             Clarification was requested whether the principle of a policy framework could be retained if the Council reverted to a committee system. The Head of Legal Services agreed to check the details, but explained that logically the principle of a policy framework would be removed, but that there was nothing precluding something similar being built into the committee delegations. It was agreed that officers would check the details and report back to members of the committee.

viii.           It was highlighted that Kent County Council had also recently adopted a hybrid system, which was similar to the model already operating in the city. 

ix.               It was agreed that the City Council wasn’t typical of other Councils, and that were many opportunities for all Councillors to actively participate in the development and influencing of the details of policy.      

x.                 With the possibility of there being a close political balance for the foreseeable future, it was suggested that the governance arrangements should be kept under review but at this stage no change was required.

xi.               The possibility of confusion on the part of the public was also highlighted, if it wasn’t clear where decisions were being taken.

xii.          Members were reminded that in the event of the Council resolving to amend its governance arrangements significantly, no further change would be permitted for five years without recourse to a referendum.

Resolved (Unanimously) to agree that no further work is required on adopting a different arrangement for scrutiny and decision making for the reasons set out in the committee report.