Council deputy leader accused of wrecking plain language motion

Alec Doyle – Local democracy reporter

A bid to make a council spell out how much weight public consultations carry in its decision-making has been dramatically withdrawn after its proposer accused the deputy leader of “wrecking” the motion.

Liberal Democrat councillor David Coggins Cogan brought the Notice of Motion to make clear the role of the general public in Flintshire County Council’s consultations.

The authority often asks for residents views on matters from cycle network barriers to public toilets to the controversial Catholic super-school proposals.

Cllr Coggins Cogan said such consultations give the impression that public views will influence the council’s decision-making. But recent experience showed that was not always the case.

“This motion is about trust, it’s about whether residents can believe the Cabinet when it says it is consulting them.

“Our own reports tell us that good corporate  governance is founded on openness, inclusivity, integrity and accountability.

“Yet in recent years many residents have come to feel that consultations in Flintshire are something done to them, not with them. The Cabinet regularly undertakes public consultations, inviting residents, service users and community groups to express their views on proposed changes to services, policies and facilities.

“People take time out of their busy schedules to take part because their voices matter. The issue is does the Cabinet believe their voices matter?

“Recent consultations have produced overwhelming levels of public opposition or support for particular options, yet final decisions have not reflected the balance of those views. The most obvious example is the Catholic school closures, at a cost of £31 million over 50 years.

“We know that more than 2,000 responses were received and more than 95% of respondents opposed the closure proposal.

“When that kind of overwhelming response is set aside and Cabinet proceeds exactly as originally proposed, it is hardly surprising that people begin to question whether consultation is meaningful.

“This disparity risks creating the public perception that consultation exercises are conducted to justify pre-determined outcomes rather than to inform decision making – in other words they are a tick-box exercise.

“At the moment we invite people to take part without explaining,  in plain English, what weight their responses will carry. Residents deserve to know that before they take the time to contribute.”

Cllr Coggins Cogan proposed that all future council consultations on executive functions – those which are decided by Cabinet – include the following disclaimer: ‘The council is asking for your views, but you should be aware that it may seemingly disregard the outcome, even if an overwhelming majority of respondents take a particular view. This consultation is not a referendum. Past consultations have shown that strong public opposition or support for a proposal does not prevent the council from proceeding with its own preferred option.’

He added that the proposal did not bid the council to adhere to the majority view every single time, allowing them to continue to balance all the evidence and data in their decision-making. But it clearly and simply gave people what he called an ‘honest and upfront’ understanding of the impact their views would have.

Deputy Leader of the council Cllr Richard Jones – an independent – initially seemed to agree with Cllr Coggins Cogan’s motion, before proposing some changes.

“I agree with most of what Cllr Coggins Cogan has said,” he began. “I’m going to make an amendment because I agree with the sentiment and I think it is important to have a statement on there that shows consultees how decisions are made and what weight they would have.”

Cllr Jones’ alternative wording read: ‘The council is asking for your view but you should be aware that it will consider the outcome of this consultation together with all other relevant information at its disposal to result in a fair and transparent conclusion. It should also be understood that each element for consideration may carry more or less weight than any other element – the weight being determined for each element through discussion and verification of data during its decision-making process.”

Asked whether he would accept the amended wording, Cllr Coggins Cogan refused. As a result council voted on and passed Cllr Jones’ amended wording.

That decision drove Cllr Coggins Cogan to withdraw the motion – accusing the deputy leader of ‘wrecking’ it by defeating its core principle to explain the influence public consultations have in plain, simple language.

“I’ve got it written in front of me and I can’t understand it,” he said. “I’m going to withdraw it because in my opinion this motion has been wrecked by the amendment from the deputy leader.

“It specifically says in the motion ‘plain English’, I believe it is not plain English what has been proposed and voted on.

“If any person in this room can explain to me in plain English what that wording says I will give them £50. It doesn’t mean anything.”