|
Memorandum submitted by Bring Back Democracy Campaign (LGPI 14)
1 The "Bring Back Democracy" campaign.
The "Bring Back Democracy" campaign is a non political group based in the London Borough of Lewisham which is campaigning for a new referendum to abolish the directly elected Mayoral system
The Bring Back Democracy Campaign is supported by all the main political parties in Lewisham including the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Conservatives, Socialist Party, LEAP (Local Education Action By Parents), Respect and UKIP, as well as some members of the Labour party. Campaign groups such as the Save Ladywell Pool campaign and the New School Campaign are also backing the campaign.
The aims and objectives of the "Bring Back Democracy In Lewisham" campaign are · to publicise the disadvantages of the directly elected Mayoral system · to campaign for a referendum to change the directly elected mayoral system of local government by organising a petition of registered electors to call for a referendum · to campaign during the referendum for a return to the option of a Leader and Cabinet elected from and by the councillors. 2 Lewisham Referendum 2001
The referendum in Lewisham was held on 18th October 2001 by postal vote. The referendum was called for by the local council not by a petition of local people.
The "Yes" vote was 16,822 (51%) and the "No" vote was 15,914 (49%). With turnout of only 18% this means that only 9.2% of electors actually voted in favour of introducing the new system
The result was controversial with the Electoral Commission noting that "the number of ballot papers which could not be included in the count because of invalid declarations was greater than the difference between the yes and no vote" and that "in Lewisham, representatives were concerned that the counting officer had not invited them to observe the adjudication of the doubtful ballot papers".
3 Local Elections Lewisham May 2006
In the local elections of May 2006, the Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Green and Independent candidates for Mayor of Lewisham all pledged that they would hold a new referendum on the post were they to be elected.
The Mayoral election results were as follows:
The Council election results were as follows:
We believe that these results indicate that Lewisham is a special case being the only council where there is a directly elected Mayor whose party does not hold an overall majority of councillors. In any other borough this council would be under "no overall control".
We believe this to be fundamentally undemocratic as the council remains under the control of one political party despite their councillors being in a minority.
4 The "One Way Street"
4.1 Local government Act 2000
Section 34 of the Local Government Act 2000 was designed to prevent a petition triggering a referendum away from a directly elected Mayor as it concerns petitions which ask "whether the authority should operate executive arrangements involving a form of executive for which a referendum is required".
A referendum is required to operate a Mayoral system but not to operate a Leader & Cabinet system, hence this clause only applies to petitions calling for a Mayor.
The "one way street" is reinforced by secondary legislation namely SI 2000/2852 and SI2001/760 which prevent electors from calling for a referendum to abandon the directly elected Mayoral system.
4.1.1 House of Lords debate of the "one way street"
In the the House of Lords, conservative peer Lord Dixon-Smith moved an amendment to change the clause He stated that "this amendment is tabled in order to enable local communities to have a petition and subsequently a referendum to cease to operate executive arrangements." and described the Act as a "one-way track into a cul-de-sac".
The response from the Government Minister, Lord Whitty, was "The noble Lord says that this is a one-way track. It is not, because the authorities can initiate a change in any system back to an alternative system."
He also stated that "There is, of course, the possibility that local people could petition the council for such a referendum, but afterwards it should be for the authority to decide whether to act on such a petition. It will have to judge whether public opinion is such that it would be right to hold a referendum to change from mayoral executive arrangements to different systems".
4.1.2 House of Commons debate on the "one way street"
Likewise, in the House of Commons Standing Committee, Tim Loughton Conservative MP tried to make exactly the same amendment namely to add the words "or cease to operate" to steer the government away from the "dogmatic one-way street of these changes".
He said that "If a petition can trigger a referendum in order to set up new executive structures, electors should have the right to petition for a reversal of such arrangements if they prove to be unpopular or unsuccessful."
Hilary Armstrong responded that "we do not accept that it should be possible for local people to force a referendum to abandon executive arrangements with an elected mayor through a petition".
She added "There is, of course, the possibility that local people could petition the council for a referendum to change the form of executive arrangements that the council is operating. Provided that five years have passed since the previous referendum, the authority will, of course, be able to act on such a petition."
4.1.3 Secondary LegislationWe understand that Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1003 The Local Authorities (Changing Executive Arrangements and Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001 is the legislation which provides for the Governments commitment to allowing local councils to call for a new referendum.
4.1.4 Our opinion of the "one way street"
The Bring Back Democracy campaign believes that it is undemocratic for the Government to provide the right for local people to petition in favour of a referendum to bring in a directly elected Mayoral system but not to allow them the same right to automatically trigger a referendum by petition to reverse that decision should the new system prove unpopular.
We believe that the effect of the Government's insistence that only councils (and not local people) can call for a referendum to move away from the directly elected Mayoral system is undemocratic.
Our petition wording includes the words "We also call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to amend legislation to ensure that a referendum to replace a directly elected Mayor with an alternative executive arrangement can be triggered by a petition of electors."
4.1.5 Lewisham Council Motion
As a result of the local election results described above, Lewisham finds itself in the unusual position of being probably the only borough in the country where sufficient councillors have made public their commitment to voting in favour of a motion calling for a new referendum to abandon the directly elected Mayor .
Groups such as the "Fair Deal" campaigners in Doncaster will probably be wholly unable to force a referendum to abandon their directly elected Mayoral system given that in all other councils the directly elected Mayors also command a majority of councillors.
5 Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Bill5.1.1 The "ten year between referendums" clauseThe Bring Back Democracy campaign is extremely concerned at the effect of proposed Clause 50 of the bill which states that "A local authority in England may not hold more than one referendum in any period of ten years" and that this amendment "applies to referendums held before, and referendums held after, this section comes into force". Interestingly there is no proposal to extend the existing five year gap in Wales.
The Bring Back Democracy campaign is concerned that this clause is specifically and deliberately aimed at sabotaging the work being undertaken by groups such as ourselves who are all working to the original 5 year provision.
We were also aware that Section 9 of SI 2001/1003 states that if a referendum is held which successfully calls for the abandonment of the directly elected Mayoral system then the "local authority must not implement the proposals until the term of office of the elected mayor under the existing executive arrangements ends".
This contrasts with the timescale for a change towards a directly elected Mayor which envisages a new Mayor taking office within 9 months of the handing in of a petition by 5% of electors (if the referendum passes the proposal).
Local councils cannot take a decision to hold a new referendum lightly. As stated by Lord Whitty above, local councillors must judge whether there is sufficient public demand for a change to the system before drawing up plans for a referendum.
Given that no change can come into effect until the end of the current term of office of the directly elected Mayor, our original plan was to collect a number of petition signatures equivalent to the 5% threshold mandated by Section 34 (1) (2) (b) of the Local Government Act over a period of approximately twelve months which would give local councillors clear evidence of support for a new referendum.
As the original 5 year anniversary has only just passed and each directly elected Mayor serves a term of 4 years this gave us a window of opportunity from 18th Oct 2006 (5th anniversary of referendum) until no later than 5th May 2010 (the end of the second Mayoral term of office) to call for a new referendum.
The Government's proposed change will not allow us to call for a new referendum until 18th Oct 2011.
Given that the Government appears to be reneging on Hilary Armstrong's commitment that "provided that five years have passed since the previous referendum, the authority will, of course, be able to act on such a petition.", by shifting the goal posts another five years ahead, we call on the Committee reject this Clause.
5.1.2 Mayoral veto of plans to abolish post
Section 33N of the new Bill prevents a council from bringing forward a proposal for a referendum unless the elected Mayor or leader has given written consent to the proposed change.
This really does seem to be a belt-and-braces way of preventing the local electorate from ever returning to the system of leader and cabinet if they have once opted for the Mayoral system and seems to us to be undemocratic and betray a lack of confidence in the will of the electorate. We hope that the Committee agrees and strikes out this whole clause.
6 Conclusion
We believe that the existing law on changing systems of governance for local councils needs to be made more balanced, by giving the electorate the opportunity to trigger a referendum in all cases by collecting a petition signed by 5% of the electorate.
We believe that it should be possible to hold a referendum to abandon a directly elected Mayoral system after a period of 5 years and that this period should not be extended to ten years,
We agree that the council should also have the right to bring forward a referendum.
We believe that it the time frame for changing from one system to another should be consistent, whether a Mayoral system is being introduced or abandoned.
We believe that a directly
elected Mayor should not have a veto
over whether a referendum can be held.
Electoral Commission Referendum Results http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/referendums/mayoralrefresults.cfm
Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1003 The Local Authorities (Changing Executive Arrangements and Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011003.htm
Electoral Commission Report on initial 16 mayoral referendums including concerns on rejected papers and failure to allow scrutiny of rejected papers http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/6172
Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 760 The Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2001/20010760.htm
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2853 The Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002853.htm
House of Lords debate on Local Government Act 2000 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo000302/text/00302-09.htm
House of Commons Standing Committee on Local Government Act 2000 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmstand/a/st000523/pm/00523s09.htm
Bring Back Democracy Campaign Website http://www.bringbackdemocracy.org.uk
February 2007
|