Members of the Isle of Wight council debated the proposals for a new form of governance at Wednesday night’s full council meeting.
Three options were on the table for consideration,
- retaining the current Cabinet system – moved by Cllr Dave Stewart (Con)
- a return to full committee system – moved by Cllr Bob Blezzard (Ind)
- a hybrid executive committee system – moved by Cllr Ian Stephens (Ind) (on the recommendation of the Constitution Review Working Party).
Readers may remember this subject came up at the September full council meeting, when it was agreed to defer any decision before consulting the public.
Majority vote for Hybrid Executive Committee
At Wednesday night’s meeting a vote was taken on all three options, with the hybrid executive committee system receiving the most votes, 24 in favour and 15 against.
The debate heard passionate speeches from all parties, lasting around an hour and half.
Recommendation from the Working Party
Leader of the council, Ian Stephens, kicked off the debate outlining the reasons behind the change to a hybrid system.
He told members that move away from a cabinet system was intended to include all members from across the chamber in policy-making decisions.
“It’s not the prerogative of ruling party to decide policy, we want to include everyone.”
Supported by top scrutineer
The move was seconded by Cllr Geoff Lumley (Lab), chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who condoned the hybrid version as ‘the best way forward’. He told members that for six and a half years he served under a ‘Cabinet dictatorship’ and had no real participation in decision making, adding that himself and other councillors outside of the cabinet having ‘little influence on policy’.
He went on to say that he’d been battling for six months to get rid of the legacy of ‘appalling bad scrutiny’ under the previous council where decision-making was ‘never really questioned’, adding some real outcomes were now being delivered.
Why break it?
Cllr Dave Stewart, as leader of the Conservative councillors led the proposal on retaining the current cabinet system.
He referred to the message from 115 responses to the public consultation, which saw the majority voting for the system to remain the same, the next biggest majority to revert to a committee system and the remainder voting in favour of the hybrid system.
“The council should be listening and thinking about that, even if we go in a different direction … What’s fixed, why are we breaking it?”
“Already a high degree of openness”
Cllr Hutchinson (Con) seconded the motion adding that he believed the council already has a high degree of openness and inclusivity under the present system, ‘working extremely well’.
He feared that changing the system would lose the existing scrutiny sub-committees and said he could see no value in ‘causing upheaval for no compelling reason’.
“Tinkering at the edges”
Cllr Blezzard said that although the issue would not resonate with the wider community on the Island – “who want to council to get on with it” – it was important to ‘get it right’.
He informed members that during the public consultation period, he’d visited town and parish councils across the Island, presenting his reasoning for a return to the committee system. A total of 15 councils responded, with one favouring cabinet system, two favouring the hybrid system, but 11 opting for a return to the committee system.
He argued that the other options would continue to have a minority of people making the decisions, with the hybrid option just ‘tinkering at the edges’.
His move was seconded Cllr Conrad Gauntlett (Con).
The open debate
Cllr Stubbings (Ind) spoke about the 115 people who had responded to the public consultation, adding that it constituted one tenth of 1% of the Island’s population.
“By any standard of statistical analysis, that would be considered to be not necessarily something that you would take into account.”
Cllr Barry (LibDem) who supported the hybrid system, told members that he’d worked through every type of system, cabinet, committee and select committees. With just four clerks being already ‘worked to death’, he said they’d need at least another six to run the committee system effectively.
He said,
“We’ve got to live within our means and we don’t have the means to operate within a committee system.”
Cllr Bacon (Ind) supported the hybrid system, saying,
“Opening things up is good. We’re not for breaking the system, we’re for improving it.”
“Not been thought through”
Cllr Whitehouse (Con) said he believed that abandoning the scrutiny sub-committees, in particular, the Children and Young People Panel, “had not been thought through”.
He said that he’d turned down a place as deputy cabinet member, because he would not be able to set policy and sit on the panel that scrutinised.
“We could not serve on those panels if we also wanted to be part of a Task and Finish Group on behalf of the Scrutiny Panel. It would be a) unethical and b) unconstitutional.”
He went onto say,
“We would be minded, I think I would have my group leader’s permission to say, to not to accept positions on any of those advisory panels.”
He finished by saying that vast amount of time and money was being wasted on “this non-issue”.
Cllr Stewart later confirmed that some members of his group had indicated that they would not serve on any of the Advisory Groups under the hybrid model. OnTheWight wrote to Cllr Stewart on Thursday asking which members he referred to, but have yet to receive a response.
“A good step forward”
Cllr Pitcher (UKIP) declared his support for the hybrid option, saying it was a step forward, with an inbuilt ability to be more robust.
Cllr Jones Evans (Con) said she was concerned about the disproportionate amount of power that the hybrid model would given to the chair of Overview and Scrutiny and that the recommendation ignored the results from the public consultation.
She finished by saying,
“Why are we wasting time on this, look at the funding gap, we are fiddling whilst Rome is burning.”
“Too complicated”
Cllr Whittle (Con) started by saying “We’ve made a really good system with what we’ve got already”, going on to say the new system is “too complicated”.
“We have opened up the council and it is working better, why do we want to reinvent the wheel?”
Cllr Priest (Ind) said he appreciated the wide-ranging debate on the subject and that it wasn’t a burning issue for the electorate.
He accepted the budget was going to be main focus but that the governance should deliver the most effective services within the resources
the council has.
“The fact that there will be an ongoing review of it will enable it to continue to improve and deliver the things that we share across this chamber.”
“Thoroughly irresponsible”
Cllr Seely (Con) told members that the issue was of ‘utter disinterest’ to the majority of residents on the Island. He called the hybrid model ‘unfocused’ and ‘unfinished’ saying it was ‘thoroughly irresponsible’.
Speaking to the Independent councillors, he said,
“You sound suspiciously like you’re being whipped, and as a good Tory, I mean that not in the pleasurable sense.”
He finished by adding,
“It is irresponsible of you to move to a different system with the (budget) pressures you are under.”
“Previous hybrid system worked well”
Cllr Kendall (Ind) reminded members that in 2000s the council had an executive and select committee system, which he said, “was essentially the hybrid system which worked well.”
The three options went to a vote with the results as follows:
Option 1: Cabinet
14 members voted in favour, 24 against and one abstention.
Option 2: Committee
Three members voted in favour, 31 against and five abstentions.
Option 4: Hybrid
24 members voted in favour with 15 against.
The approved model will now go back to the Constitution Review Working Party who will thrash out the finer details before heading back to full council for approval next year.
