Persistent problems are plaguing the new committee model at Bristol City Council according to councillors reviewing the new set up. Over the next few months a group will explore all the issues with how the council is being run, since the switch to the new governance model last May.
Eight policy committees, made up of councillors from each party, now run the council. Bristol voted in a city-wide referendum in 2022 to scrap the old mayoral system, and replace it with a committee model instead, used in a few other English cities and considered more democratic.
But eight months since the new system was introduced, there are several teething issues. These are being explored by the committee model review group, who met to discuss the problems and come up with potential changes.
One problem that persists is how members of the public can ask leading councillors questions. Sometimes, public questions and statements at policy committee meetings are blocked for being “vexatious” or defamatory.
Speaking to the review group, Suzanne Audrey, a prominent activist, said: “This needs a bit of tightening up because when you try to ask questions or make statements, it flashes up that you can be rejected or redacted. It’s a decision by the council and they don’t necessarily have to tell you why.”
Green Councillor Guy Poultney, chair of the review group, added: “There are two or three things, approaching the committee model review, that have come up again and again. The way that we do public forum is one of them. We need to look at how we do this process.”
Another problem is exactly what role some councillors should play. It’s unclear, for example, whether vice-chairs of policy committees should be a deputy to the chair, or challenge them when there is a political dispute and different perspectives on how best to tackle an issue.
Last month, Green Cllr Barry Parsons, chair of the housing policy committee, was unable to attend a committee meeting due to health reasons. So Conservative Cllr Richard Eddy, vice-chair of the committee, led the meeting instead.
However in other committees, like the environment policy committee, the vice-chairs are Labour councillors. They have often challenged the decisions suggested by leading Green councillors, which opens up a tricky conflict: deputising for a chair while also publicly disagreeing with them.
Green Cllr Rob Bryher said: “It gives access to the vice-chair of specific information, which is fine, I think that’s important. But if that vice-chair isn’t supportive of the chair, that’s problematic. Not just because the chair needs to be respected and they have to agree with everything, but because is that actually what a vice-chair role is? There’s a more fundamental question there.”
The most powerful group is the overarching strategy and resources policy committee, but this could soon be changed. Some complaints include that the committee has focused too narrowly on finances, at the detriment of wider policy questions. Others suggested that all of the policy chairs should sit on the committee instead of the councillors who currently do.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Andrew Brown, chair of the economy policy committee, said: “There is to some extent a disconnect between myself, as chair of economy and skills, and the strategy and resources committee. There is an element of overlap and they ultimately have responsibility over the budget envelope of my committee.”
Labour Cllr Kye Dudd added: “It should have a broader view of things. It’s a bit too narrow at the moment. There’s the question of how we manage our property portfolio. It’s being dealt with very narrowly on a financial question. That concerns me because I don’t think we’re making as much use of the property we own for other potential uses.
“We’re just looking at it from a very narrow financial point of view, because I think that’s what that committee thinks it’s there to do, rather than have a broader view. Potentially if we had chairs on the committee, we would get a broader view on things.”
Even how the committee model should work generally is in dispute. After the local elections in May, Labour councillors were invited to become chairs of some of the policy committees, but declined and said they would prefer to be in opposition and hold the Greens to account. Still, the Greens often say every councillor regardless of party is now responsible for making decisions.
Cllr Poultney said: “I don’t wish to open up a political debate or to be provocative. But I do think a lot of the discussion around chairs and vice-chairs, which is one of the huge things that has been raised over and over again, reflects two different visions of how the council works in a committee system.
“Is the modus operandi of the council one of total collaboration and openness between members, or actually, is scrutiny and accountability better provided by an opposition model – having an official opposition? I think that’s a legitimate question. The need for better scrutiny arrangements has been consistently raised since the beginning of the committee model.”
Under the new model, there is no regular scrutiny committee, as there used to be under the former system. Instead, each policy committee is supposed to scrutinise itself, in theory. When this doesn’t work, an escalation panel meets especially, to examine controversial decisions.
This has only happened once so far, after two council home construction schemes were suddenly scrapped. In October, Labour attempted to get the council to rethink the decision, affecting sites at Baltic Wharf and Hengrove Park, but failed to do so because they were outvoted by Green and Conservative councillors on the escalation panel.
Once the review is complete, the group will present their findings and any suggested changes to a meeting of the full council in the spring. Then, councillors could vote on switching how the new committee model works, to iron out some of these recurring problems. But a longer term review is expected to take place in the next few years, once the system has had a chance to bed in.