So far, all my deliberations have been to do with what I viewed to be an inadequate Consultation organised by Bolton Council prior to drawing up proposals for a change of Governance.
When I received replies from several Councillors to my round-robin e-mail, some of the comments they made suddenly brought to my mind a further, and probably a more important, point of contention.
These comments and the 'Amendment' to the motion put before the council on this matter, made it obvious that all the Councillors believed that the Government was the instigator of these changes and the Act left the Council with no choice but to change the way it was doing things.
The Amendment, submitted by Councillor David Wilkinson, read as follows:-
"That in approving this Motion, Council wishes to put on record that constant Government inspired tinkering with local democratic processes does nothing to improve Council performance and merely serves to erode local decision making.”
The comments included:-
" I agree with your sentiments but not your legal argument; in fact the Council last night unanimously passed a resolution regretting central government interference in the domestic political arrangements of the Council; ........................."
".......................... this was the least worst option legally available and was therefore unanimously backed by last night’s Council."
"....................... The real culprit in all this is the Government, who seem to have given little in reasoning as to why they suddenly want to change things................."
..................................................................................
Now consider the following three statements:-
1) The Consultation, drawn up by Bolton Council, in its various forms, states the following:-
"New National legislation - The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 - means the Council has to change the way it is governed by May of next year.........etc"
2) In a letter to Brian Iddon MP dated 17th November, Alan Eastwood states:-
"Under section 33(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended (by the 2007 Act), Councils must consider to change to a different form of Executive..........etc"
3) The Act itself (as amended) in Section 33(a) actually states:-
"A local authority in England which is operating executive arrangements may —
(a) vary the arrangements so that they provide for a different form of executive, and
(b) if it makes such a variation, vary the arrangements in such other respects (if any) as it considers appropriate. "
(The meaning of the use of 'may' is further re-enforced by Section 33E ( Proceedure to be followed) which states in Sub Section (1):-
"This section applies to a local authority which wishes to make a change in governance arrangements")
.........................................................................................................
Now the English language is very precise. The people who draft Acts of Parliament are experts at precise use of the language.
In the three examples above "Has to change", "Must consider to change" and "May (vary)" mean three completely different things.
It is inconceivable that Alan Eastwood, the author of examples 1) & 2) did not know this.
Further to this even 1) & 2) both authored by Alan Eastwood are inconsistent with one another.
............................................................................................................
So, the second point of contention, (as well as the Consultation/Guidelines business,) is that the Government didn't require or compel the Council to do anything. It merely amended the 2000 Act to provide the facility for the Council to change from one form of Executive to another if the Council so wished.
The Amendment put to the Council by David Wilkinson and duly passed alongside the Proposals by all the Members present, was completely pointless since, from my reading of the Act, the Government didn't inspire anyone to tinker with anything.
It confirms, in my mind, that the entire body of Bolton Councillors, by passing this amendment, were proceeding in ignorance of these irreconcilable differences in wording in the belief that the legal advice of Alan Eastwood was reflecting the requirements of the Act.
This is the same legal adviser who is adamant that the Guidelines don't apply to the Consultation.
So- what was the purpose - and who's purpose was it?
.........................................................................................
On the face of it, and at the very least, the Councillors have been misled.
The question is - by whom and why?
.............................................................................
The Consultation document tells the public that the way of governing has to change.
If, in fact it didn't, then the choices presented to the public for their views should have been three-fold
1) 'New style' Leader & Cabinet (with the leader having the same powers as an elected mayor would have) etc
2) Elected Mayor etc
3) Leave the damned thing as it is.
If I am right, then the public has been misled as well.
................................................................................
It is difficult not to arrive at the following conclusion.
An 'Elite' at the top of the Town Hall wanted to concentrate power in the hands of a small group - shall we say the leader(s) and their close advisors.
To make this change they had to go through the rigmarole of the famous two choices/ Consultation etc.
The Consultation was designed to create the minimum response which could therefore be, and was, easily ignored.
The backbench Members were easily convinced on the advice of the Director of the Chief Executives Office that to change was compulsory and that the eventual Proposals were the least worst option legally available
I am no more stating that I am right in this than I did in the matter of the Consultation, but the logic is there to see.
If I am right...........................................????????????????
Over to John Denham, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government who is examining the point about Consultation Guidelines and who may soon be examining the point of everybody being misled.
Paul
Next Blog - Secretive Leadership Courses paid for by you.
No comments:
Post a Comment