Members of the Board will receive a briefing on the results to date and the consultation processes used in respect of the consultation on whether Leicester should have an elected mayor.
Minutes:
The Monitoring Officer was present to inform the Board of the processes used in respect of the consultation on whether Leicester should have an elected mayor.
The Monitoring Officer reported that the Full Council meeting on 19 November agreed to initiate a period of consultation on Leicester’s future model of executive arrangements. He stated that although the consultation period formally ended on Monday 6 December, further representations submitted in advance of the Full Council meeting on 9 December would be included.
At the time of speaking, the Monitoring Officer explained that approximately 750 responses to the consultation had been received, and that these were currently being verified.
The Board heard that a variety of consultation methods had been employed, and these included setting up a consultation page on the Council’s website, establishing a generic e-mail address for responses and the publishing of several articles in local publications and the Leicester Mercury. Furthermore, a number of responses were collated within face-to-face settings with particular groups of identified people. It was also explained that the consultation received extensive media coverage, and engaged with social media outlets such as twitter. Members asked whether letters and opinions raised within Leicester Mercury articles and comments posted on the Mercury website had been included in the consultation responses. The Monitoring officer agreed to investigate whether these had been included.
In comparison with other authorities, the Monitoring Officer was of the view that Leicester’s consultation had been relatively successful. It was stated that Sheffield and Leeds City Councils held consultation for 7 and 8 weeks respectively and gained no more responses than Leicester had. Blaby District Council undertook a 15 week consultation and received ten responses. Manchester City Council received roughly 3,000 responses but spent £60,000 on their consultation process. It was noted that Leicester had spent around £2,000.
Several comments were raised in connection with 750 responses amounting to a low overall response rate. The Monitoring Officer acknowledged that the figure was low as a percentage of the overall population of the city, but reminded Members that national government guidelines requested authorities to take reasonable efforts to conduct a consultation on new executive arrangements, and he was of the view that this had been achieved. Further examples were given of other authorities that received poorer responses rates during a longer consultation period, with other large unitary authorities such as Birmingham and Nottingham City Councils receiving no formal responses to their consultation.
In response to questions seeking clarity in respect of the verification process, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that computer I.P. addresses were being studied to identify possible abuse of the consultation mechanism. Members heard that some individual I.P addresses had generated more than one response but that this accounted for multiple occupants of a particular computer. It was stated that 212 responses had been received from the City Council’s I.P. address but that this accounted for responses from officers and those who had responded at City libraries.
The possibility of the Council being legally challenged around the length of the consultation period was questioned. The Monitoring Officer explained that every decision taken by the authority was open to the possibility of challenge but reminded Members of the government guidance to conduct a reasonable consultation and was confident that this had been undertaken, whilst keeping the costs to a minimum. He further stated that if this or indeed any other decision taken by the Council was judicially reviewed, then this legal process attached to it would incur thousands of pounds of expenditure to the Council.
Following a question in connection with how the views of the business community in Leicester had been incorporated, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Chamber of Commerce had consulted 457 of their Members and he was waiting on further information from them in terms of who exactly had responded. He also informed the Board that roughly 2,000 letters had been despatched to contacts on Ward Community Meeting Distribution List together with engagement with many voluntary sector contacts via Voluntary Action Leicester. It was requested that clarity be sought around whether the Leicester Asian Business Association (LABA) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) had been consulted. The Monitoring Officer agreed to investigate whether these organisations had been consulted.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that all members would receive a report that detailed the results of the consultation via e-mail tonight, and that this would also be despatched tomorrow to those that received a courier. Following a further query, he stated that this report would seek to differentiate between responses received by Leicester City Council residents and those that lived outside the City boundaries.
Several Members of the Board thanked officers for their efforts in carrying out the consultation and felt that attempts to consult in as many ways as possible had been undertaken. Several Members also felt that the response rate was pleasing.
Concern was raised around the late supply to Leicester libraries of materials that promoted the consultation, and felt that these should have been distributed sooner. The Monitoring Officer stated that this exercise took place as part of a later phase of the consultation in an attempt to engage as widely as possible, but acknowledged that this need could have been identified at an earlier stage. He confirmed that the poster had been displayed in several, but not all of the libraries within Leicester.
Councillor Grant was of the view that the consultation process did not cover a wide cross-section of the community, but felt that the authority had engaged well via digital methods.
Councillor Grant, seconded by Councillor Scuplak, proposed that Council be informed of the Board’s significant reservations regarding the consultation process. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.
RESOLVED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be asked to investigate whether letters and opinions raised within Leicester Mercury articles and comments posted on the Mercury website had been included in the consultation responses;
(2) That the Monitoring Officer be asked to clarify whether the Leicester Asian Business Association (LABA) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) had been consulted; and
(3) That Council be asked to note the comments of the Board in relation to the consultation process for the new executive arrangements.