Robin Hambleton
This article was first published by Local Government Chronicle on 8/12/25:
Ministers should recognise the evidence for retaining the committee system as an option for local government is overwhelming, writes emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.
In August I wrote for LGC defending the committee system of local government in England.
As I showed, there is international evidence demonstrating the success of committee systems in numerous countries. Indeed, most cities in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s top 10 liveable cities in the world operate with a committee system.
On behalf of LGC readers I asked then local government minister Jim McMahon to provide evidence to justify his startling suggestion that the committee system in English local government should be abolished.
We are still waiting, so I now invite Miatta Fahnbulleh, the new minister for devolution, to provide answers to the three simple questions I posed in August:
- What detailed research has the 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 the department carried out on the performance of the committee system in other countries?
Last month the government tabled minor amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. These will allow a handful of councils that have adopted a committee system recently “to continue to operate this governance model until the end of their existing moratorium period”.
This is not good enough.
Preserving flexibility
The extensive evidence submitted to the bill’s public bill committee – by councillors, community groups and concerned organisations – in support of retaining the option to use the committee system is illuminating.
The Local Government Association expressed concerns regarding the powers central government is hoping to acquire to impose governance structures without local consent.
It argued, correctly, that all councils currently have the option to move to a committee system if they and their communities feel it would be beneficial for local decision-making, and that this flexibility should be preserved for future authorities.
It proposes that clause 57 – the one proposing the abolition of the committee system – should be deleted from the bill.
Analysis of the extensive evidence presented to the bill committee reveals five main reasons why the committee system should be retained as an option for all authorities.
First, many submissions note that history suggests clause 57 is wrong both in principle and in practice. The committee system was introduced into English local government by the Municipal Corporation Act 1835. This legislation recognised the importance of moving away from closed municipal corporations towards bodies that would be far more accountable to local citizens.
Just about all the achievements of English local government in the last 190 years have been achieved by councils operating a committee system of local government. To do away with this model – one that has established a lengthy and incontrovertible record of successful achievement – looks like thoughtless vandalism.
Catastrophe
Second, as committee member Sian Berry (Green), explained in remarks to the committee on 23 October, a key strength of the committee system is that it can improve the quality of decision-making.
By drawing, in particular, on Sheffield City Council’s cross-party submission she explained how the evidence shows that the committee system can:
- Foster greater collaboration across political groups
- Overcome party political tribalism by focussing on areas of agreement, not antagonism
- Improve the culture of the council, with officers and councillors focussing on what is best for the city
- Include all councillors in the decision-making processes of the council
- Deliver improved outcomes for residents.
Third, and this topic was neglected by the committee, the leader and cabinet model can lead to catastrophe. Sheffield Green party councillors are alert to this matter because they have had to live through the ‘Sheffield tree disaster’.
In their evidence, they explained that while it might be that the Leader and Cabinet model, with fewer checks and balances, can lead to faster decision-making, it can also enable entirely misguided decisions to be taken without serious challenge.
They quote the independent report into the controversy that “while a strong leader cabinet model with fewer checks and balances arguably gives authority to get things done, it can also, as in this case, enable the wrong things to be done without serious challenge”.
Fourth, who should decide how local governance is organised – ministers in Whitehall or local people?
The submission by the It’s Our City campaign, a grassroots citizen-led effort to strengthen local democracy in Sheffield, speaks to concerns expressed by citizens in Bristol and elsewhere.
In both Sheffield (2021) and Bristol (2022) referenda have been held in which citizens have opted for a committee system of local governance. Bearing in mind the bill is supposed to energise community empowerment it is self-evident that these referenda should be respected.
Learning ground for councillors
Fifth, the committee system provides an excellent learning ground for newly elected councillors. It provides opportunities for new, and less experienced, councillors to develop their knowledge of policy making and build up their political skills.
We should all be thinking about how to bring Gen Z citizens into local political leadership. A council with a committee system of local governance can offer new councillors, on election, an immediate democratic voice in decision-making.
Ministers have an opportunity, right now, to respect the concerns that the LGA, many local authorities and many citizens have expressed about the super-centralising clause 57. It is a simple and cost-free proposal to remove clause 57 from the English Devolution & Community Empowerment Bill.
The alternative is for ministers to be remembered as the people who, without any evidence, discarded 190 years of wise and inclusive civic leadership in England.
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:
Bristol Civic Leadership Project 