JUST before the May council elections is a good time to ask questions of the prospective candidates. One question might be whether they are in favour of the cabinet system or the committee system for local government? Which system ensures that all councillors can be fully representative of those who elect them?

The cabinet system may be perceived to be an efficient and more speedy way to reach decisions but it means councillors who are not in the cabinet can find themselves left out in the cold with little to do and not always up-to-date with what is being planned.

Concern about this in Wiltshire was shown in a debate in October 2016 when an independent councillor brought motions about democratic accountability to Wiltshire’s full council meeting. Those on the floor of the chamber were concerned that the cabinet system means the rest have little to do and it then becomes difficult to get new people to stand. The cabinet members, on the other hand, were keen to show a strong defence of their position.

In planning matters there is the need for effective consultation and discussion in order to achieve the best solutions. Decisions about new roads and developments have a lasting effect on the areas and the people who live in them or travel through them. Consultation processes are built in through the planning process but in recent years there have been changes to some of the processes.

Whereas before, in Wiltshire, decisions went to full council for final approval, with an adjusted constitution, the cabinet has the power to make final decisions on some matters. With a clear majority, a party in power needs only make minimal reference to full council. Moreover, cabinet members who hold portfolios or are lead members, can take unilateral decisions on major issues, based on discussions with officers.

A few cabinet members hold multiple portfolios. This may make use of the multiple skills or expertise of individual members but it raises the possibility of conflicts of interest between the different portfolios held. Power is in the hands of a few.

Another change in the way new development is planned has been the introduction of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) which are made up of representatives from business, education, and in the case of Wiltshire, the Army, and the leader and one other cabinet member from each of the councils. Instead of funding for infrastructure coming from the Department of Transport through the local councils, it comes through the LEPs.

The Swindon and Wiltshire Local Enterprise Partnership (SWELP) and the Joint Economic and Strategic Committee (JSEC) have websites that record their activities but it is not known how much of all this is made known or discussed with non-cabinet members. In the complex world of contracts, agreements and financial justification surely a less closed system would be more democratic and accountable?

A third change is the apparent lack of independent checks and scrutiny internally. One committee that little is known about is the Joint Task Force for the SWELP and for JSEC which can scrutinise processes and decisions. It has been referred to for some time, but it is not clear where the public can find the details of its activities. How can people know where the checks and balances lie and use them effectively if the details are not available?

Voices are becoming louder and clearer about a perceived democratic deficit resulting from a system in local government that allows decisions to be taken by the few with very little known by councillors who are not in the cabinet or by the public before these decisions become a fait accompli.