Comment: A mayor would be better than a cabinet

Local Government Correspondent LAWRENCE MARZOUK explains that, despite attempts to make the new system as transparent as possible, the end of the committee system represents a sad day for democracy. He argues that, given the options, talk of a directly elected mayor should not have been ruled out so quickly.

The intricacies of political decision-making rarely spark mass protest.

So it was a surprise when thousands of people threw themselves into a debate on local government constitutions in 2001.

This was after a tussle emerged between those who wanted a Ken Livingstone-style mayor for Brighton and Hove and those who thought it would concentrate too much power in the hands of one person.

The argument framed the need for a balance between democracy and efficiency.

This has re-emerged today with the move from a committee to a cabinet system at Brighton and Hove City Council.

Democracy, in this case, won the day and the idea of an all-powerful mayor capable of taking unilateral decisions was binned.

But seven years on, following the intervention of the Government, the city council is being strong-armed away from its more democratic model to one not dissimilar to a slightly weaker directly elected mayor - without the election.

The Government has broadly argued that the new system will be improve efficiency, accountability and transparency, with little justification for these claims.

While confining power to one man or woman for four years may be more efficient, whether it improves people's understanding of how decisions are reached and ensures both politicians and civil servants are held to account is far from clear.

Last year councillors ruled out revisiting the option for a directly elected mayor but, given the system now being implemented, another look at the idea would have been sensible.

The balance between efficiency and democracy is clearly shifting, with a move away from voters' rights to influence policy towards streamlined decision-making.

And while a compromise must always be made between these two, the "strong leader" model retains many of the attributes that were fought by anti-mayor campaigners and precludes many of the benefits.

Beyond the technical and ethical arguments, the changes will have an impact on on-the-ground policies that will affect everyone.

Take, for example, the case of the park-and-ride scheme at Patcham .

This was defeated under the previous Labour administration after all other parties opposed it. Under the new strong-leader system, this decision would have been taken by a cabinet formed only of Labour members and would undoubtedly have been passed.

Instead of plans to build a new office complex at the former farm, the bulldozers would already be on site creating a transport hub for the whole city.

Whether the policy was right or wrong for Brighton and Hove is now irrelevant.

What is important to realise is that for the next three years, if the ruling party, now the Conservatives, wants to bring in controversial measures it will be able to, even if most councillors oppose it.

With 26 councillors, the Conservatives are by far the biggest party and a strong argument can be made that their vision has been selected by the electorate over other parties.

But the three left-wing parties - the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems - have 27 seats, which also indicates that half the city is keen on very different policies.

Until now, the Tories have retained control of the council with the help of the lone independent councillor, Jayne Bennett, and the absence of a coalition between the opposition parties.

But despite running the council, the Conservatives' desire to implement policy has been impaired at times by the simple sums of the committee system.

On many of the most important panels - including the powerful policy and resources committee - the Conservatives have been out-gunned by opposition parties when they have acted in tandem.

The merits of any particular party's policies is not under discussion, but it is clear that the committee system which we are likely to lose provides a far more democratic way of running a hung council by giving each group a fair share of power.

Under the new system, decisionmaking will be restricted to the leader of the council and his cabinet appointees, relegating the majority of councillors to the important but backroom role of overseeing and developing policy.

On transparency, hailed by the Government as a key argument for change, the new system also falls down.

Brian Oxley, leader of the council, has dedicated much time to bringing in as much openness to the system as possible.

But the inevitable result of a cabinet system is that most issues are ironed out in what would once have been called smoke-filled rooms.

Tough questioning of councillors and officers, political disagreements and a real debate before decisions are made will play a much smaller role.

From the experience of other councils, cabinet meetings become a set piece where decisions are rubber-stamped after thorny issues have been dealt with in private.

Time will be given for questions from both the public and councillors at cabinet meetings while overview and scrutiny committees will have the opportunity to dissect issues and propose new policies.

But this will not replace the kind of direct scrutiny and debate that is currently available.

No political party supported the change to the "strong leader"

system, so in that respect only the Government is to blame.

And Councillor Oxley has pushed for as much involvement from opposition councillors as possible, without handing over any of the real power to his political adversaries.

But the days of negotiated compromise between a range of political parties representing the spectrum of views are to end.

Although messy at times, the committee system was the best set up for a politically divided council.

What we will have is a hybrid which neither provides the accountability and efficiency of a directly elected mayor nor the democratic values of the committee system.

If politics is the art of compromise, this halfway house falls far short of being a masterpiece.

Is this the death of democracy or the chance to make quicker and better decisions?