Democracy Has to Be Seen To Be Done
It was Churchill who famously said that democracy was the worst form of government devised by man apart from all the others.
It isn't perfect, can be messy and cumbersome in its workings but it's the best we've got.
One of the fundamental principles on which our democracy is founded is accountability and transparency about decisions made in our name.
In his book "Ends and Means", Aldous Huxley takes 200 pages or so to illustrate two basic truths - that bad means are not justified by good ends and that when an enterprise fails, the roots of that failure can often be traced back to its having started in the wrong manner.
I recall about ten years or so ago when Liverpool City Council first set up scrutiny (then called select) committees, the initial view of senior officers was that such scrutiny related solely to the activities and decision making of elected members and there was no rationale for officers to be held accountable by such bodies. Given that nearly all such decisions were made by members based at least partly if not wholly on the professional advice given by those same officers, this was not a tenable position, not least because they were often exercising considerable delegated powers.
There has been kerfuffle recently about the new scrutiny arrangements of the activities and decision making of elected mayor Joe Anderson. I like to think that, even as a member of a different political party during nearly all the time we have known each other, I know Joe fairly well, not least because he was my opposite number for two years when I held the Council's education portfolio. He knows I have always had considerable respect for him, even when we were fighting like cats and dogs over various issues. Joe also knows my firmly held views against the principle of having an elected mayor and the lack of a local referendum, despite which he still invited me to serve on his recently created education commission.
However, the Mayoral scrutiny arrangements which have been set up look inadequate to me, not least because they are widely perceived as insufficient and as we all know, these days perception in politics is reality. I do wonder if one of the reasons for this may be based on officer advice when devising the new system. After all, acquiring an executive mayor usually results in greater exercise of delegated powers by senior officers who may not welcome a prospectively increased accountability index.
People may also question that Joe remains leader of the Labour Council group (although he is no longer a member of the Council) when it is envisaged that under a Mayoral system a significant part of all Council members role is supposed to relate to scrutinising the Mayor's strategies and especially his decision making. The relevant legislation expects scrutiny of decision making to take place after those decisions have been made, so it is not as if u-turns can be forced on the Mayor. However, effective post-decision scrutiny can often help inform better decision making in future.
It also does not look good that the Mayor apparently appointed the Chairs of all the other scrutiny committees, with those appointments subsequently endorsed by the Labour group. Under the previous administration, scrutiny chair and deputy chair posts were distributed proportionately amongst all political parties and those who were Liberal Democrats were subject to election within the group.
Joe says he has nothing to hide. As it happens, I believe him. My experience of Joe is that what you see is what you get. For his own sake, especially because Labour has such dominance of the Council with 74 out of 90 Councillors, he should give an undertaking that if the current arrangements continue to be publicly perceived as ineffective, he would welcome those arrangements being objectively reviewed and significantly amended after a trial period. We are in the early days of elected mayoralty in Liverpool and there are bound to be wrong turns made. Despite my opposition to having an elected mayor, we are where we are. For the city's sake I have no wish to see to see the mayoralty fail, but I believe the scrutiny system we currently have is in significant danger of becoming increasingly discredited with a consequent effect on the credibility of the elected mayor with the public.
Having a Mayoral public question time is a good idea and hopefully could go some way to improving accountability if the public at large embrace this opportunity. It may well prove not to be enough to allay existing concerns.
Democratic accountability has to be seen to be done. I believe the public would have even greater respect for him if he shows himself to be open to improved, more robust scrutiny mechanisms. Please think again Joe.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
If the mayor was to come up with an idea which was so good that everyone welcomed it then it would come into being.
On the other hand if the mayor was to come up with an idea which was so bad that no one wanted it then, under the current set up, it would come into being just the same.
This is very much a situation that depends on all ideas coming from one person being the best ideas.
Now if someone had the mayor's ear and were to persuade him of something then they would in fact be determining city policy without having gone through the inconvenience of standing for election which is not democracy.
With much controversy already over the likes of LDL and Peel then any decisions regarding either, even if ultimately good for the city, would be viewed how ?
Interesting post. I hadn’t realized that the idea of public scrutiny of the decisions made by elected members and officers was so recent, and am amazed that there was ever any doubt that officers should be held accountable for the decisions that they make. It certainly makes sense that officers may well advise a scrutiny system that prevents their being properly accountable, what is much harder to understand is why Mr Anderson continues to follow bad advice. And refuse to answer entirely legitimate and reasonable questions raised by members and stakeholders. Or explain the rationale behind some of the controversial and perplexing decisions that he has made.
If he is convinced he’s right, he can convince us, can’t he? Aren’t we entitled to an explanation? With FOI, auditors and leaks, things come out anyway. So why not save time, and face, by explaining more. With the mandate he has, Anderson could actually break with the politician’s tradition of never admitting mistakes, if need be. That really would be different.
On the question of officers, we need to get back to basics. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to seek to obtain value for money – and to demonstrate this. This is why we need civil servants and local government officers who are as able as their private sector peers – and getting this expertise is the reason why we pay these people substantial salaries, pensions etc. But if we cannot scrutinize how they perform – what they actually do, we have absolutely no way of determining if we are getting proper professional advice, value for money, etc. etc. This means proper independent scrutiny Not just presentations, summaries, but detail. Proper answers to specific questions. Rigorous policy and strategy.
But for the last two years there has not only been the impression that Joe Anderson was allowing unelected people to influence policy, with all that this implies, there has also been a concomitant attempt to promote the idea that proper rigour wastes resources, causes delays, etc. etc. Or isn’t modern, or dynamic, or some such tripe. But if this were true, then why would private sector companies “waste” resources in this way? They don’t base their business plans on platitudes and unverifiable assertions – so we shouldn’t either.
So, yes, please, think again.
Since drafting this posting I have learned that at last week's Council meeting, Joe Anderson announced that he had asked Liverpool University to carry out an independent study into a number of issues including current governance arrangements at the City Council. I believe that to be a positive step forward and one which should be welcomed.
The independent study doesn't sound as if it's about scrutiny - it sounds like a last-ditch attempt to avoid having to implement proper governance of LDL.
This is all in the original JVA, but has never been implemented - how about just implementing that? All of it. Properly.
And as for scrutiny, just make clear scrutiny panels can look at whatever they think fit, and implement the original proposal, a beefed up Oversight and Scrutiny Panel
..... then commission all the studies you want.
Surely the Leader of the Group should be elected by the Group and Joe wouldn't even have a vote.