Show evidence for committee system abolition

Robin Hambleton

This article was first published in Local Government Chronicle on 26/8/25: https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/robin-hambleton-show-evidence-for-committee-system-abolition-26-08-2025/

The government’s evidence-free proposals to abolish the committee system in English local government must be opposed by all those who care about local democracy, writes emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

In June, local government minister Jim McMahon announced proposals to abolish the committee system in English local government. 

Astonishingly, the minister offers no evidence to justify this unacceptable top-down intervention in the workings of our long-established system of local democracy.  

All we were told was that the committee system ‘can be unclear, duplicative, and wasteful, leading to slower, less efficient decision-making’.   

No evidence, just an assertion.

In fact, the evidence points the other way: the committee system has underpinned decades of remarkably successful practice in English local government, and international comparative research demonstrates that, right now, some of the best run local authorities in the world operate with a committee system.

Historical success

The committee system was introduced into English local democracy by the Municipal Corporation Act 1835.  This Act recognised the importance of moving away from closed municipal corporations towards bodies that would be far more accountable to local taxpayers (or ratepayers as they were then described).  

Think about it.  The committee system was introduced 190 years ago to strengthen local accountability, and it worked.

The historical record demonstrates, and this is incontrovertible, that English local authorities have, for close to two centuries, achieved startling progress in tackling in an imaginative way a very wide range of societal problems – in environmental health, economic development, housing, education, transport, culture, city planning and so on. 

In addition, elected local authorities have also strengthened the quality of democracy by expanding citizen involvement in decision-making in a remarkable variety of ways.

These achievements have been accomplished by local councils operating a committee system of local governance – literally all of them up until 2000.  Opponents of the committee system need to present evidence-based arguments explaining why these spectacular achievements of the committee system of local civic leadership are irrelevant.

International success

Critics of the committee system may claim that, while it clearly served society well in the past, times have changed, and the model is no longer appropriate or effective.  Wrong answer.

This is a false argument as the committee system continues to underpin the efforts of many local authorities in England, and countless successful local authorities in other countries.

In my international book Leading the Inclusive City I examine the performance of some of the most innovative cities in the world. 

Following five years of research I identified 17 cities and localities in 14 countries, that were widely seen as breaking new ground in tackling the growing challenges facing modern societies.

Some of the cities celebrated in my book have directly elected mayors – Portland, Oregon is a fine example. 

But ministers need to recognise the evidence shows that some of the best run cities in the world operate a committee system of local government.  Here are just a couple of examples.

Malmo

In these pages I have explained how the Swedish approach to local governance delivers far better economic growth than the UK.  More than that, it outperforms the UK on just about any social, environmental or civic indicator you can think of. 

All local authorities in Sweden operate a committee system of local government.

Let’s take one world leading example to drive home the point.  In 1994 the civic leaders of Malmo were faced with the economic collapse of their city, a slump that was rather like Liverpool’s.  The civic leaders had to come up with a radical shift from viewing their city as a ship building centre into something else.  The elected councillors accepted this challenge, and they established Malmo as a leading European eco-city.

Copenhagen

In June, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Copenhagen replaced Vienna as the world’s most liveable city.

Yes, you guessed it: like all other local authorities in Denmark, it has a committee system of governance. 

Its achievements are rightly celebrated because of its people-centric approach, the vital role of all elected local councillors, its focus on sustainability and its very strong commitment to citizen participation.  Additionally, Copenhagen has been recognised for its low crime rates and high levels of trust to the point that, in 2021, it was named as the safest city in the world.

My book explains how civic leaders transformed a car-oriented, polluted city into an eco-friendly place in which five-year olds can now cycle without fear around the wonderful city centre. 

Follow the evidence

I invite Minister McMahon to provide LGC readers with answers to three simple questions:

• What detailed research has your department carried out on the performance of the committee system of local governance in England?

• What does this research reveal about the evidence both for and against the democratic performance of the committee system?

• What are the findings of the research your department carried out on the performance of the committee system in other countries before you made your announcement on 24 June?

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, the University of the West of England, Bristol. 

His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020:

https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-19