Democracy ‘at risk’ as austerity forces rethink of electoral cycle

Labour-led Hull Council, which has to save £48m over the next two years, is considering a range of cost-cutting proposals, including reducing the frequency of council meetings from 11 to eight a year, slashing the frequency of area committee to meetings from monthly to bi-monthly, scrapping printed agendas, and altering its election cycle from three every four years to one every four years.

The latter would see all 59 members of the authority elected together, rather than a third at each poll as currently happens.

The proposed changes are part of a Cost of Democracy Review, which aims to save about £200,000.

No figures for the savings achieved by cutting the number of meetings were available, but it is thought that fewer elections would save about £121,000, with “paperless meetings” saving a further £30,000, with the information being sent electronically.

But the proposals, which went before the overview and scrutiny management committee yesterday, are being fiercely opposed in some quarters.

Conservative group leader John Fareham, a member of the committee, proposed the changes to the election cycle, but dismissed the other proposals as “anti-democratic tosh”.

He said they were “mainly officer suggestions removing any frequency of democratic oversight and policy setting which seems a little unwise”.

He added: “All power in this organisation stems from members and so staff realignment in these areas seems maladroit – democracy is an absolute, not tailored by cost.”

The leader of the council’s Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Mike Ross, said his members also had concerns about the proposals.

On reducing meetings, he said: “There can be little justification in reducing those very committees that give local communities a real voice, such as area committees or scrutiny, which is there to hold the council leadership to account.

“It could lead to less accountability of the cabinet which would be bad for the city.

“Reducing the council meetings, likewise, does nothing for democracy and openness in this city.”

He described the case for altering the election cycle as “weak”, adding: “The ability to regularly vote in council elections means the residents of Hull get to hold the council to account at the ballot box.

“Also, the cost savings are limited given the other elections also held, be it general, European or police and crime commissioners.”

Another key council committee, the economy and regeneration overview and scrutiny commission, has voiced “significant and serious concerns”.

In its formal response, the commission said: “Members acknowledge the need to make cost efficiencies, however it is the opinion of this commission that this would result in a loss of democracy which will be irreversible.”

A report on the consultation of the review said the council faces a “significant challenge” to deliver a balanced budget over the next two financial years.

The council is facing budgetary pressures across all the services which it is responsible for and admits it cannot afford to maintain roads.

But it is not alone in considering major changes to the way it functions in an attempt to cut costs.

Last year it was revealed that the number of councillors representing a sprawling rural district in Yorkshire could be slashed by a third to try to curb costs and streamline democracy.

Ryedale District Council discussed plans to become the latest local authority in the region to pursue proposals to reduce dramatically the number of members.

Councils in North Yorkshire covering Selby and Hambleton have also considered plans for fewer members.