A group set up to consider how Bristol City Council will be run from May next year face many major questions. After the next local election, the council will be run by a series of committees instead of a directly elected mayor, but it’s still far from clear exactly how this will work.
Questions include what powers a council leader will have, how the public can get more involved in decision-making, spreading power out of City Hall and across Bristol, who represents the city to the government, and how quick decisions can be made in emergencies.
After the referendum in May last year, 12 councillors have been meeting behind closed doors regularly to thrash out these details and hear evidence from experts. And on Friday, January 27, the committee model working group met for the first time in public.
Read more: Two new Bristol cycle lanes planned for key routes into city centre
One main question facing the working group is what role and powers a future council leader will have. Regardless of the future committees, the working group agreed that the council would need a single leader to represent the city politically, be a focal point for decisions, and negotiate with the government in Westminster. But how much power they should have remains up for debate.
As well as having less political power than the mayor, a future council leader would also be selected in a different way. Bristol mayor Marvin Rees and his predecessor George Ferguson were both directly elected by voters, but council leaders in most parts of the country are selected by a majority vote of councillors. This would allow councillors to boot out future leaders halfway through their term, if they were unpopular, while mayors must stay for the whole duration of their term.
Labour councillor Marley Bennett said: “There are advantages of having one person that central government or key stakeholders know they can go to. Sure, they might not hold the power of the current mayor, but it’s quite a common thing to have a leader as a focal point of contact. It’s really important to have that.
“And also for the public to understand who to go to for decision-making. The vast majority of Bristolians will not understand this necessarily, so they need to have that engagement with the city leadership, and having a leader will give that better accountability.”
Conservative Cllr Mark Weston added: “Under the new model, Bristolians at first probably won’t understand it, but as it beds in I think they will start to realise which committee and chairs you go to. I think that will change, it will be an educational experience for the chamber, as well as the public. But I do firmly think we need to have someone at the top who can go to the government, but that person is selected by the council.
“Under the old system with leaders and cabinet, there were times when we booted out even the largest party. The Lib Dems were the largest party at one point, they were booted out and Labour came in.”
But a future council leader should not be a “strong leader”, according to a key campaigner, and power should instead be devolved throughout the city. Mary Page led the It’s Our City Bristol campaign to scrap the mayoral position.
She said: “The key thing that 56,113 people voted either for or against was we did not want to be ruled over by somebody who thought they were our lord and master. We want a collaborative, consensual, modern political system that deals with the fact it isn’t a bilateral system any more. It’s not just the red and the blues. It’s a system that has varying perspectives from all across the city, and that means devolved government.
“It’s absolutely critical that the [working group] looks at how you do a parish council, or an area ward committee, or a citizen’s assembly. It’s about bringing more people in. I’m actually losing money by coming here today, I’ve had to decide whether or not to work. The public are not paid to be in the room; the mayor is paid over £40 an hour to be in the room. But the public gets nothing or loses money. It’s so important that the public gets a say and that their opinions are valued. That’s what the majority wanted: more engagement, not less.”
Members of the public can already come to City Hall and have their say when key decisions are made, but the current system is not perfect and will likely change after May next year. For example, each person who wants to make a statement at a cabinet meeting is given one minute to do so, before they are interrupted by the mayor and told their time is up. Under the new committee model, members of the public could have much more time to speak.
Green Cllr Guy Poultney said: “I’m feeling increasingly uncomfortable at full council at the sight of a packed public gallery, filled with people who have come all the way to City Hall to raise an issue, being counted down for 60 seconds to a red light, at which point they get cut off and told to shut up and go away.
“And if there’s too many people caring about something, they get less time and less opportunity to speak. Both full councils and these committees give us a degree of flexibility to listen to the public more. I think we would be crazy not to jump on that opportunity.”
Cllr Weston replied: “I understand where you’re coming from, particularly if you have a very troublesome issue and 200 people turn up. But we do at some point have to manage how that is because we have to make a decision. And at the moment in full council, it’s time capped. Public forum eats into the time for debate later on. If we have evening meetings starting at 6pm, I don’t think any good decision is made after 9pm — everyone is knackered, that’s a reality of life.”
Ms Page added: “I’ve been in that situation where you have just a minute, no hesitation, no repetition or deviation, and the hectoring and the lecturing of a 10-minute monologue from the mayor subsequently. Why can there not be a limit on members’ participation in return?”
Another question facing the working group is what committees should be created. As well as committees mirroring current cabinet positions — like education, transport, or finance — some say groups should be set up to represent certain parts of Bristol, with power currently too centralised in City Hall. This could mean new area committees or parish councils.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Tim Kent said: “We’ll have more committees spreading that decision-making out, and increasing the time for the public to come along and engage with us. At the moment, very few of the public come to scrutiny, because what is the point?
“Scrutiny commissions have no power. People go to the meetings where decisions are made. I think the one-minute limit is too short, people should be given two minutes. If someone is bringing a petition and speaking on behalf of thousands, they should be given a little bit more time.”
Under the current mayoral model, key decisions follow a strict process before getting final approval. These include any spending over £500,000, or a decision that will affect people living in at least two wards of the city. Officers take their proposals to be discussed by the Divisional Management Team, and then in a meeting by the executive directors. Cabinet members are then briefed and give their approval, before the decision goes to the mayor's office for sign-off, and then finally agreed during a cabinet meeting in public.
Some emergency decisions are taken more quickly, for example to respond to flooding. But the long process is supposed to ensure that public money is spent well, and council officers are given several opportunities to get a political sense-check on their proposals. One question facing the working group, however, is who comes to the committee-model version of cabinet member briefings. Options include committee chairs, or vice chairs, or the whole committee.
Labour members of the working group faced questions about how they balanced their commitment to setting up the committee model of governance, with criticism by others in their party of the new model. Earlier this month Mayor Marvin Rees claimed the committee model would “slow down progress” on tackling crises with housing and the climate.
Local resident Suzanne Audrey said: “For those people who were against having a committee system and are still in a position where their party has criticised the committee system, how are you going to balance that the committee system wasn’t what you wanted, now you’re here in this group? There have been comments made about ‘decisions won’t be made so quickly’.”
Labour Cllr Helen Holland replied: “I have been here a long time. When the system was changed to the executive and scrutiny in 2000, we just got on with it because that was the hand that had been dealt us. The Coalition government brought their referendums in for the core cities and Bristol voted to have a mayor [in 2012] and was the only city that did. Liverpool did it at the same time too but without a referendum.
“We got in with it because the interests of the city were always paramount. So this [the committee model] is the system we’ve been given, and I don’t think you will have heard me criticising it. The people on this working group want to create the best system that we can for Bristol.”
Read next
- Extinction Rebellion fix 'blue plaques' to Bristol landmarks in sewage protest
- Bristol City Council threatened with court battle over zoo car park plans approval
- Sprinklers for all tower blocks as Bristol City Council announces £97m fire safety measures
- Central Library could still relocate despite Bristol mayor's U-turn
- New charges at free Bristol car park slammed as 'discriminatory' as residents urge rethink
