Transcript

the webcast. Apologies for absence. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have apologies from Councillor Badger this evening. Councillor Cox. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got three apologies, one from Councillor Nelson, one from Councillor Buck and one from Councillor Evans. Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest? Councillor Marlone. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The appendices obviously refer to responses from people focusing on Leetown Council and I am a member of Leetown Council. Thank you. Any other decorations of interest? As chair of this meeting, I want to remind everyone present of the standards of behaviour and communication we expect of each other. This is part of demonstrating how we all support the seven Nolan principles of public life and the council's member code of conduct within our constitution. It is important that we are respectful and reasonable to one another. We may have disagreements about matters before and during the meeting but that will not prevent us from being courteous and respectful. This is between Councillors, between Councillors and officers and when we have any external visitors or members of the public. I will be expecting respect to be shown at all times. I have reflected on the proceedings of the last meeting when the standards of behaviour in the chamber was disappointing and I would emphasise the importance of Councillors being respectful, reasonable and courteous to one another. Points of order and personal explanations. I thought it would be helpful to remind all Councillors of the relevant standing orders relating to points of order and personal explanations at meetings of full council. If you want to raise a point of order or make a personal explanation, please ensure it falls within the criteria in standing order 20 as follows. Point of order, a Councillor may at any time raise a point of order but when doing so they must specify the rule or statutory provision which they allege has been breached. In case of a rule, the number and relevant paragraph and the way in which they consider it has been breached. Points of order are usually to indicate that a quorum is not present, that a decision required is beyond the power of the council, that a motion has not been seconded, non-compliance with a standing order, use of improper language. They are procedural in nature and not concerned with political views or the correctness or incorrectness of statements made. In terms of personal explanation, a personal explanation may only be made by a Councillor in the following circumstances during debate on an item before council. When they wish to correct a misstatement they have made or when they wish to correct a statement made about them by another Councillor or when they have been misquoted by another Councillor and wish to correct the position. I would emphasise that when a Councillor is making the point of personal explanation they are correcting a factual error and it should not be used as an opportunity to raise a new issue in debate or make a political point. I would also add that the standing order 20.5 manipulates that the ruling of the Mayor on a point of order or the right to make a personal explanation shall be final and shall not be open to debate. Election cycle change results. The council has before it a report of the Executive Director Strategy and Change requesting that consideration be given to the case for elections by thirds and whole council in all out elections and whether to continue with whole council elections after the whole borough election in 2026 following the ward boundary review. Councillor Cowan, please make your contribution and move your proposal please. Before Councillor Cowan does that Mayor please respectfully ask you to when you put your hand up to make a comment will you please leave it up until my Deputy Mayor has noted your name and acknowledged the fact. Councillor Cowan. Thank you Mr Mayor. In October 2023 council agreed to hold a public consultation to ask residents and partners how often they would like to elect their Councillors. The decision to consult was taken following a recommendation by the Local Government Association's Corporate Peer Challenge. That Peer Challenge highlighted to council opportunities for improvement. Changing the election cycle from thirds to whole council was one recommendation. This report sets out the legislation, the approach taken to presenting the options to members, how the consultation was designed and the engagement planned. Residents, partners and council staff's views, the financial implications and the position of the Electoral Commission, central government and their best value guidance. There are strong cases to be made for whole council elections as well as elections by thirds and I'm certain those cases will be made passionately this evening. The evidence presented in the report makes a clear and strong case for change from our partners and stakeholders however there was only a slight preference for the status quo from our residents. Should the council wish to change our electoral cycle after the whole council elections in 2026, the next election will be held in 2030. A two-thirds majority is required to make a change. This is a political decision and the results of the consultation are not binding. I therefore ask you to consider the research laid out in the report and to reach your own decision. Thank you. Councillor Gilbert, please second. I second, Mr Mayor. We now open the company thing for debate. Councillor Courtney. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Conscious of what you've just said in your preamble, I must respectfully be disappointed that the leader's given no indication whatsoever as to what his and his administration's view is. I would expect the leader of the council to give his view that we could consider given the advice and guidance that he has behind him. However, I will state that I will be voting to have all-out elections going forward. I think it's a very quaint, old-fashioned approach to have elections by thirds. Westminster seems to manage to have an election every four years or five years or so and the civil service managed to cope with that. I suspect our council officers can cope and would probably prefer stability that can be offered by elections that are all-ups. I think it allows for longer-term decision-making, budgets to be set on a multi-year basis and for things to be able to embed where those longer-term decisions are made. There are some financial savings that are disappointingly small, to be honest, but I still think they are financial savings nonetheless. And I do sympathise with the fact that some residents want to have more elections and more touch points with the council. However, I think we all know that approximately 70% of residents not voting in local elections goes to show that actually the vast majority of residents choose sadly to not take place in the democracy for local council, which actually has more of an impact on their day-to-day lives than Westminster, to be honest. So overall, I think it's the right decision for this council and I certainly will be voting to move to all-up elections. Thank you, Councillor Courtney. Councillor Wakefield. Yes, thank you, Mayor. This is quite a debate, really, because obviously, like me, an independent, I would obviously do what my residents want and I'm here to vote as independent for my residents. It's like a Brexit vote. The percentage is obviously on residents is 50.6% for thirds and 49.4% for all-up. Now, we know obviously within some unitaries across the council where they've had all-up elections, all the actual councils have been replaced. And then obviously it leaves knowing actually in the council with any experience whatsoever they know what they're doing. So sadly, there's lots of twos and fours, but I think we're going to stick with what the residents want. Obviously, our partners here and a lot of the partners that are on our list here that they've been obviously looked at or asked to represent and what they feel have been a lot of council actually developed people that are in there. The actual business is not being brought across the state, so what they prefer. So the majority, so I will stick with what my residents want and then we will go on the residents because I'm here for the residents. So I can remain at thirds. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wakefield. Councillor Aylen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I didn't know I'd be this quick in the queue. I want to basically echo what Councillor Wakefield said. We could have great danger of the whole council being new people, which gives all sorts of problems. And the importance of yearly elections with one fellow year is the fact that councillors get out and they meet people, candidates meet people, and we get loads of feedback. Also, if you have an election every year, councillors be working all that year. Once we get to four year elections, what's going to happen? Just do nothing for three years and the last year you do something because the election's coming up. It's very dangerous. Democracy would be going out the window for a simple change into four years to make it simple for who. I don't believe there's any economic saving because all the staff involved are paid for the council anyway, and there's probably a little bit of hiring halls, but the most important thing is it keeps this council, whatever party you are in, in contact with our residents. And yes, a lot of them don't vote, but they wait to knock on the door to have a go at you because they've been waiting. They won't, after four years, God they'd have a right go at us. But I will be voting against the four year plan because it takes away democracy, it takes away communication, and most of all it will take away determination for councillors to get things done, because they just sit for four years and then get them done. At the moment, before elections, everybody's trying to get things through to the benefit of the community. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Aylan. Councillor Moyes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The report is quite clear in that it says our partners and businesses support the four yearly elections 100%. All the partners want it because it gives stability and it gives their ability to plan ahead and know who they're working for, for a number of years. The officers want four years for stability, where you can actually put together a proper four year plan and be there to deliver it. The residents haven't really expressed either way, but if you read what they've said, a number didn't quite understand the third up elections and thought it meant you could remove a councillor earlier, and that's not the case. As we know, the LGA says it's best practice to go four yearly, and a lot of councils have moved that way over the reasonable years, over recent years. And the main reason is because of the stability. I just want everyone to think how you feel on election night. South End's been in the balance for a number of years, and as soon as these results are announced, what do we think? I want you to go into yourself and think, what do you really think? And if you win, you're obviously happy. If you lose, your mind immediately turns to, how can we get this back, usually next year? Then the whole year's spent thinking, what can we do to get this back? But if we knew it was a four year term, we would settle down. We would know this is four years, it is what it is, we have to suck it up. And then we might turn to focus on what's good for residents, and what's actually good for the city. We're having an all out anyway in 2026, and then if we vote in thirds, there'd be another election in 2028. But an all out in 2026, the next election would be 2030, and I think it makes sense to continue that for stability's sake. I do think voting for thirds is politically self-serving. There's people on my side as well as I guess other sides that vote for it because they like elections, they like campaigning, but that's not running a city. It's not proper. We have to really settle down and get on with this. I just ask you to look into yourself as to how you feel about what's important, the campaigning or the running of the city. And just like just said Councillor Wakefield, he said he wants to vote the way his residents vote. SS3 voted 61% for all up elections. So if he votes for the thirds, he's actually voting against what his residents want, which is a bit embarrassing. If your position is to vote with what your residents want, you will vote for all up. And I'm asking everyone to think carefully about what's happened here. Most of it all says all up is what the city wants. Lee has changed, has different numbers because of what's happening over in Lee Town Council. But I really want you just to think again, how do you feel the night of the election and what are your plans going forward from that? And if you're true to yourself, I think you'll realise that we all, including myself, turn our minds to what is wrong and how we can self serve to try and change the governance of the city again, rather than focus on natural governing of the city. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Moyes. Councillor McMillan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the arguments are finally balanced on this one. And that's reflected in the feedback, where those residents have responded were pretty much evenly divided. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have jumped at the chance of having all up elections every four years. However, last year's minority administration in this chamber ended up with a budget that was rejected. And could we afford to see what was effectively a weakened administration struggle on for another three years in until the next all up cycle. So that concerns me. And then I looked down the road at Lead Town Council, where they had an all up election also last year. And really what's going on down there, you couldn't make it up. It's like an episode of the thick of it. They've gone through three or I think maybe four town clerks in the last year. Several staff members have left or been suspended. The chairman is acting as proper officer, another Councillor is acting as the responsible finance officer. The meetings are chaotic. There's little or no financial information, allegations about fraud, which turned out to be unfounded, has caused huge reputational damage to that Council. We even had the, if it wasn't so funny, ridiculous situation where somebody at the Council called 999 because some residents were protesting outside with a banner. And then there was an allegation of criminal damage made because some sellotape was placed on a notice board. It's really, it's embarrassing. You know, Councillor Carty, I know you came to a meeting of some of those concerned residents and fair play to you for coming. I thought that was the right thing to do. And I thought everybody heard you with respect. Hopefully you went away from that meeting, understanding the concerns of those residents. Since then, we haven't seen a lot of progress. And I'm sorry to say that the one thing you did mention was hanging baskets and people are still waiting for those to go up, I'm afraid. So we haven't really seen a lot of progress there. And so it worries me that the damage that can be done if we have an all up election, and that goes on for four years. So I do worry about that. And I think on balance, I couldn't support this motion tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councillor McMillan. Can I just remind everybody, stick to the topic, please. Thank you. Councillor Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the main conclusion of this report is stressing about political stability and given a certain future. And whilst I think there appears from the report to be this solution in changing our electoral cycle, I do question if that is the solution. In South End, we have no overall control status that we've been in for a number of years. We've got numerous parties and non parties represented in this chamber. And it is because we are a fine balance at the halfway point of that overall majority point that is driving that instability, not our electoral cycle. And actually, the fact that we have during this period of no control, some gradual change, it actually gives a little bit more predictability to offices and businesses. You can see the trends that are happening. I'm pleased to see that this city is turning to labour. And that contrast with places that are on these all up elections, where you see these seismic shifts overnight, complete changes of the Council. Now, experiences speaking to those of Councillors and fellow councils with this, their first year is spent completely getting to grips. And the final year of the term is spent with the officers saying we can't change because the whole Council could change in a year's time. So actually, the doing only occurs over those two years. I think that by having the election in thirds, we are looking after the experience that we have within our Councillors. And by that, I mean, if you look at our cabinet, and you look at some of our members across the chamber that have served here for many terms, they can sort of go halfway in between, say, new Councillors terms and help and help it overnight, rather than foisting, say, cabinet responsibility onto completely new Councillors in their first year. And I think that this gives us better Councillors. I also think it ends up with us connecting more with the public. Yes, everyone should be out speaking to their lecturer all the time and having regular Councillor surgeries. But the reality is, is that most people engage with politics most when there is an election on. And that is when they have the opportunity to look through the literature, really understand what this Council is doing for the city and engage. And in particular, with young people. Now, we miss the boat with young people, they miss out on their first vote. And they're waiting for almost four years before they're casting their first vote, that could disenfranchise whole generations of voters. And there's two other benefits that this this report leans to, which again, I would question, as ever, I'm a fan of data. And when we look at the costs of these elections, it's very much just the cost of, you know, saving, having an election once a year for three years, and then missing one, what it's missing out is the cost of by elections in all up councils. Now, if you look at the councils that had all up elections last year, and how many by elections they've had, they've already eaten away any saving that they had going to all up from voting in thirds. And the reality is, that goes back to that experience point, because you've got a lot of new councillors all at once who suddenly realise this isn't for me. And equally return out. It doesn't drive up turnout, you look at Brighton, you look at midway all out elections that happened last year, both of them had lower turnout and south ended this May. So I will be voting against the proposal to move to an all out elections because I believe that staying in our current system is the best way to give stability, cost effectiveness, and value of experience that we've already got in this council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hyde. Councillor Collins. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to the leader for bringing the paper and the officers for their diligence, bringing the paper together over the last number of months. I'd like to share with this chamber my experience over the last 40 years being involved in politics in south end. I do feel that our frequent elections three out of four years is vital to keeping us communicating, talking to and meeting with our residents, our voters. It does avoid complacency in this place with the electorate. A balanced city like south end needs to be represented by all voters and their opinions as much as possible and as often as possible, while by voting in thirds, three years out of four, makes us listen to our voters and act for them. This means stability in this building, as two thirds after any election remain here to support the new council's oncoming to understand the policy and decisions that were made before that election date. I'm an old Ben Fleet boy and I used to live in Castle Point in my younger years and watching it go from blue to red every four years was quite dramatic, very dramatic indeed. I want to make sure that the power remains in members' hands as we go through elections and I think the only way you can do that is by having these third elections. By elections is a very good point. Chelmsford City Council has elections every four years, 2019 and 23 were there four years, but in feeding those two periods they've had four by-elections, another one in 19, two in 21 at different times and one in 2022. So I'm not sure the savings on elections actually is totally valid because in this city when someone has to leave for any reason under normal circumstances, I know that sometimes abnormal, but normal circumstances, they will normally wait for the next election date and that's what happens very effectively in south end. I feel this is the right way to go for our residents. It keeps us Councillors engaged with them, we experience that all the time and I would not want to change that. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Collins. Councillor Terry. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to make some comments about Lee because that's relevant, really relevant because they've got people in there for four years who are very, very unpopular. Indeed, Lee is close to my heart being a former Lee boy and I was in fact Chairman of Lee Resident Association before the inception of Lee Town Council and that was my gateway to becoming a south end city Councillor. I would say what price democracy. So there are some savings, but Councillor Courtney already said they're kind of modest and I've already raised this subject in this discussion with the Chief Executive because I think we suffer from an over protection from perder in this Council and I've raised that. Indeed, I've got some quotes here from a legal advisor. Unlike for ministers and civil servants, there is no clear guidance to local authorities on how they may or should act during the pre-election period. I believe it's almost like a two-month stop of everything and we don't need to do that. We should do far more during the perder period. It doesn't need to affect the running of the Council in the way it does and it's something I've asked the Chief Executive to look at. Is there a reason to do this just because others do? I say no. We have a thriving democracy and also importantly, we as a Council recently made revisions to the constitution in order to hand back a bit more modicum of control to the elected members so the elected members are in fact more accountable. I believe going this way will be a reversal of that and actually give power, nothing against the officer side, but I think this will be undermining what we were trying to achieve before. I apologise, but to say residents don't really know what they want, I think it's quite clear, although the vote is very close, I agree with Councillor Wakefield that if the majority, albeit a very small majority, has said they want to remain with a three-year cycle then I think that's what we should do. I've been around this Chamber a long time and I don't like the idea of having people foisted upon them for four years if they're not performing properly. I think that democracy needs to be able to speak out regularly. Yes, elections are hard work and as you get older they're even harder, but nonetheless it is a way to make sure that all the residents and businesses in this town can hold people to account for their actions. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Terry. Councillor Barrie. Thank you, Mayor. A lot of what I was going to say has already been covered actually. I said right at the outset of this that I could see the pros and cons on both sides, on both options, and then when it was to come to this vote that I would vote according to what most residents said they wanted. The consultation, unfortunately, compared to the number of residents in South End, the number of responses to the consultation was pretty low, but then again they always are, and this was on the higher side of what they are. So we haven't actually got the views of the massive majority of South End residents, but I think therefore we can only conclude that the people who didn't respond either don't care either way or are taking no particular view and don't mind either way. Small majority in favour of keepers we are, and I think we have to respect that even if it is only a small majority. The advantages have been outlined by Councillor Hyde, Councillor Collins, who repeated some of her points, and earlier on by Councillor Allen, I think it was, so I'm not going to repeat those. I'm going to be voting in accordance with what the residents have said and to retain the current system. I do like spending my time walking the streets, talking to residents. I don't particularly enjoy the campaigning side of things, but I'm quite content to continue doing that every year for three years, rather than having to do the four yearly sparkle and risk residents getting very fed up with the Council that they can't get rid of. There's also the point about people who are just turning 18, that Councillor Hyde made, having to wait four years before they can vote. I think that's quite an important one. So I was undecided for a long time. I've decided now I'm going to vote to retain the current system. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Barrie. Councillor Norman. Okay. Councillor Allen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Having an election just once every four years risks political instability and wild changes in direction, as 100% of the Councillors are elected once. At the moment, large projects require more consensus and benefit from continuity of Councillors not up for election. There is no statistical reliable data that proves the voter turnout is significantly higher in councils with all-out elections. At Braintree Council, for example, they received an average of 31% voter turnout in the last election. Under Thirds, Councillors are invested -- sorry, incentivized, sorry -- to work harder for residents as their party faces the election consequences sooner. This means greater engagement and accountability to the residents. Under all-outs, with -- well, Councillors will -- who do very little for residents, sorry -- we can see what happens at Leetown Council, for example. I know it's been covered, so I won't go over that, but that's what happens. Having elections three out of four years allows Councillors with urgent priorities to have a seat. Residents' priorities now are not at the same four years ago, and all-out systems of voting doesn't take this into account. The third system is more democratic as it allows independent candidates and those from smaller parties a fairer chance of winning representation in this chamber. We all benefit from the diversity of all voices. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Allen. Councillor Gilbert. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Mayor, at the moment, we are in the midst of a general election, and there's no doubt that people -- that this is an important moment for our democracy, and there's no doubt that after four and a half years, people are ready to express their views again. However, people would think that we were absurd if we were to suggest that the national government and the national parliament be elected three out of four years. Not only would government not be able to function, but I can state categorically that the public would not want that. People have said that there's a democratic argument for election by thirds. However, personally, I believe that actually the most democratic situation is where everyone starts on zero, not where people start going to an election where two thirds of the seats are already decided and can't change. Under election by thirds, it's entirely possible that you can have an election in circumstances where control of the council cannot plausibly change. Indeed, that was the case for my first decade in politics in Southend when the Conservatives had a largely unassailable majority. Having elections that cannot actually change anything is a great way to fuel cynicism in politics and disengagement from the electoral process. I would also observe that, you know, people mentioned the value of experience, and that's true. You know, I've got 16 years of experience. I like to think it counts for something. But ultimately, it's for the public to decide whether they want experienced councillors or whether they want a complete change. And sometimes there might be arguments for either. It's clear that the businesses, the partners that work with this council on a day-to-day basis and make really significant decisions about the future of the city and who are crucial for delivering prosperity and delivering better services want the stability that would come from all-up elections. At the moment, we have a state of affairs where for several months, a good few months of the year, it is practically impossible for the council to make any serious decisions. This is not good for the council. It's not good for our residents. And for an organization that provides vital services, exercises key legal responsibilities, and has a vital role in the welfare of our residents. And therefore, the most important concern for us must be what is best, what is the best system in which to run the council and provide the best services, the best opportunities for investment, and the best environment that we can. Having held a variety of posts in opposition and administration over the past 16 years, I say with absolute certainty that I believe that the system of election by thirds works against the interests of the council and the residents we are here to serve. Therefore, I shall be voting for a change to all-up elections. Thank you, Councillor Gilbert. Councillor Nevins. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Well, a week is a long time in politics, isn't it? You know, in four years is a lot longer. I've listened and heard the contributions across the floor today, and councillors of all sides make good points. This is about, as far as I'm concerned, about democracy and accountability. I much prefer to have the gradual change and skills not being lost. It gives opportunity, certainly, to mentor our colleagues in learning about the council. But it also keeps us connected to our residents. Not everyone has online accessibility or phones with data. Some of us try very hard, I'm sure, to find many different ways to reach people in community groups, in surgeries, but also by knocking on doors. In Milton, we have a high turnover and demographic change every year. So we have to reconnect with those people that can sometimes go unrepresented if we weren't knocking on their doors. This is about representation, and when we talk about campaigning or delivering, it's not either or. We can do both. We need to plan ahead, and what we need to do is have the courage of our convictions and what has been agreed previously in this council, and not to constantly change what has already been agreed by the majority of people that will still be here next time. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Neven. Councillor Galston. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've given this a lot of thought. Like Councillor Gilbert, I agree with a lot of what he said. With experience, you're able to look back on what has happened and what you think will happen in the future, and I've always thought this would never happen because to get a two-thirds majority on this I think would be extremely difficult, particularly as our residents are spread almost 50/50, and I think from the contributions that we've had this evening, it's fairly obvious a two-thirds majority is not going to be possible. However, I think it's right. The LGA peer review having recommended this to us, I think it's right that we take it seriously, it's right that we look into the pros and cons, and I'm of the view that you don't have to have an election every year to keep in contact with your residents. There's many, many ways you can do that and should do that, and we certainly do that in my ward. On the other side of the coin, we want the Council to have the best directors, the best officers, and to be able to work without perder every year, and I think that's the problem. Having perder for a month each year apart from one makes it very difficult in planning and in putting in the best reactions to what the City actually needs. So I'll be voting, in actual fact, having given it a lot of thought, I'll be voting probably in the minority to have it every four years. I look at the County Council, the County Council seems to manage pretty well having elections every four years, and of course as a unitary we're very privileged because we've got all the powers that the County Councils have got. People have been talking tonight about Leetown Council, which is a small parish council really. What we're talking about is South End City Council, which has always punished above its weight. We've always had a good team of officers and directors here, and I think they would have an easier time should we go for four-year elections, but I can see from the contributions we've had this evening that's not likely to happen, but I think it's absolutely right that we should consider it, and we'll see how the vote goes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Garstin. Councillor Anne Jones. Thank you Mr Mayor. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who did respond. I think broadly we were traveling in the direction that we would go with the majority, et cetera, that that would be the fair thing to do, and I haven't done the data analysis on the responses to see what weight I would give to those, but I just wanted those that responded to know that their voices have been heard. As Councillor Boyce said, how do we feel at certain times in election periods? I actually don't want to talk about how we feel. I'm talking about how those people feel, how those people feel all the time, and they're asking quite a lot from us, not just about political change in the order that we do things, but in the way that business is conducted generally. I also see that an awful lot of that is a need for the change in primary legislation. There are certain things that they've said. They only want us to do two terms, some people, which is fair enough, but then we'd have to change our mayoralty. We'd have to change the whole thing about our constitution. Is that a strong thought in the area? Do people really ask that of us? Lots of times it's said less people, you know, less people involved. So we have to ensure that we've responded to that appropriately. Some of the comments were absolutely wonderful. There was one particular one that said revolution will follow. It wasn't me that put that one in, but I mean sort of like it's every chance it could be somebody that we know, but that was a lovely thing for somebody to say because they felt strongly about it. They also talk about stability versus personality. And they talk about loyalty. They talk about recalling councillors that might have come to a different political view. And that's understandable because they felt strongly about it. They also felt very strongly about accountability. And there's a lot that says they don't feel that only the ballot box is about the accountability. So that does come back to our constitution, to standards and things like that. I know we're not being asked about that tonight. We are being asked to decide whether we should move into a new electoral system or continue with the status quo. And I think that we were going to deal with this earlier in this current annual year, but it's been, I mean we use the term political football, it's been pretty much drop kicked like a rugby ball into this municipal year. And there are lots of people that weren't part of that initial consultation, the initial sort of working up of the questions, et cetera, who are bringing different views to it. So that's going to change things. So I think also our communication with residents, it's key that actually we do need to work on that as well because on more than one occasion the LGA was mentioned as something which residents did not really understand why that was done, what the LGA stood for, and why they were telling us to do this in our area. So I think that our communication back to people does need to be better, our consultation with young people. Somebody said why are 16, 15 year olds involved in this? Well for me I thought that that was a no brainer, but some people involved in the consultation felt that actually that did not give the reflective view. So I've struggled with this for a number of years and I do listen to the wise council of colleagues, but I have come to a decision and it wasn't the one that I originally came to and I would come back and say thank you to all those who responded and their words and their thoughts and their beliefs which I will personally take on board. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Councillor Dowell-Jones. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was also split on this and it's been quite refreshing, I've come to this over an open mind tonight, listened to both sides of the debate. I think in an ideal world where there's an overall majority, a four yearly cycle is ideal. It does provide stability to the council and to officers so you know what's the next four years is going to come up and it allows manifestos to really deliver what they promise over a long term. I would be a bit more charitable to members across the Chamber, not just our side, all members, that if it was four years they would work for four years, not just for the last year leading up to an election. That's why we get into this, to not sit on our hands to actually do things. In terms of if we all got kicked out and the residents chose people that don't have the experience, well that's up to the residents. It's down to the parties to vet their candidates to ensure they're the right people, the right calibre and then it's down to the residents to decide who they want. Whilst South End has an overall majority, I commend Councillors Wakefield, Terry and Collins for wanting to remain in thirds. If it went to four yearly elections, you have greater power over the minority administration in determining things that you want. It is commendable you chose to remain in thirds, whether that is supporting the administration as you are now, but there's also power and because the budget was brought up, in derailing minority administration's budgets by voting with last minute amendments changing what the face of the budget was. So that power is there and it does terrify me that nothing can be done over four years if it was to go to four yearly elections. Over and above that though, listening to the pros and cons, what the residents want, I think I'll also be voting to remain in thirds today. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Jones. Councillor Faulkner-Hatt. Welcome. Thank you. I really just wanted to focus in on a point that was briefly mentioned about young people because it's no secret that turnout in young people and young voters is significantly low and they are completely overlooked a lot of the time in politics because of this and I think that it is something that I really need to bring to the attention because a lot of young people, as mentioned, could end up having to wait until they were 22 before they get their first vote with the four yearly system and this would not only prevent them from getting engaged with politics at that young age when they might still be in a schooling system where they're encouraged to go sign up to vote or where they're more susceptible to be able to be told that actually this is how we're voting and this is how you sign up to vote and being pushed into that, but when we are actually taking that away from them and making them wait four years, it can really have a severe impact on how much engagement the young people have with it. Also, when looking at, I mean, I myself am a young person that stood for council and I may not have had the opportunity with a four yearly election cycle because that opportunity presented itself because I had the yearly third opportunity and it is clear that young people are underrepresented in politics and there aren't enough young people standing for election and actually sitting here being able to talk in the position that I'm lucky to hold at the moment right now and I think that taking that chance away from a lot of young people that we've seen recently this time around in the election cycle across councils in this current year, there has been significant increase in young people that have stood for election and have actually been put into election. A lot of the people in the doorsteps that I've talked to were very happy to see that there was a young person actually coming up and standing for the opinions of the younger generation and I think that having four yearly cycle would completely withdraw that opportunity from a lot of young people and take away a lot of representation that we hold. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Faulkner-Hatt. Councillor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. I've really struggled with this one. It's been extremely hard weighing up the pros and cons because I can see pros and cons on both sides of all-ups and thirds. But on the all-ups, I find that it's good for the administration to get their teeth stuck into it and really work on projects and achieve something within four years. But also, like Councillor Jones said, it puts a bit of fear in me because a lot of damage can happen within four years and for the side that is not in administration, it can be rather frustrating sitting there and watching it happen. The other side of it is in our ward in SS9, the residents are also telling us that they want it kept at third because they want to be able to have councillors who are there for them and who will constantly be knocking on the door, helping them, even though we do do that. But there are some residents that they are fearful of who don't do that. And they think that if it's four yearly, the resident councillors will become lazy and not actually do what they are elected to do so. So it is actually a really tough one for me tonight. I agree with everybody in this Chamber. You've all got valid points and so, yeah, it's going to be tough. But a big part of me is saying that I have to do what our residents want. And in SS9, the residents would like us to stick with third. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Richardson. Councillor Nadame. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really appreciate the efforts and the time being put to prepare this report and recommendation. However, in my view, one-third local election system provides continuity and stability in local governance apart from boundary change which will be happening in 2026. This approach avoids replacing all councillors at once which could lead to the steep learning curve for new councillors and potentially delays in decision-making process. It ensures that experienced councillors with institutional knowledge can maintain ongoing projects and initiatives. Longer election cycles give elected representatives more time in office before facing reelection and could lead to compliancy and decrease sense of urgency to address the needs of their constituents. With regular elections, the one-third election cycle ensured that political parties and groups are held accountable to their constituents, allowing dissatisfied voters to express their concern and make changes through their electoral process. I will vote in a way which in my opinion will help maintain voter engagement and interest in local politics on a regular basis and the way voters have more opportunity to participate and have their voices heard, contributing to a more vibrant and responsive local democracy. Therefore, I intend to vote against the recommendation and in favour of that recommendation. So politically, South End has been a state of flux now for probably most of the last if not longer than the last ten years and that has led to a number of changes of administration. The debate opened tonight with Councillor Courtney talking about stability but having been a member under both systems, both of those authorities have had a number of multiple minority or joint administrations. Neither system guarantees political stability if the demographics or the mood of the populace are changing as they have done and as we've seen in South End. What also happens is whether it's under a one-third council or a whole council, there's no guarantee that if you end up in a political deadlock like we have that you don't end up with a council that's in limbo and if we change to a whole council elections, not just for one year but perhaps for four years, as other councillors have said, if you look at the evidence whether it's a whole council or a one-third council, neither have particularly high turnouts for local authorities and it may be that part of that is down to us in our failure to motivate the electorate but also sadly and from my long experience I think it's also central government's attitude towards local government that I've seen over a number of years. So on the balance, if I look at the report, my area where I live and represent is SS0. We had the second highest response rate but a very clear proportion of nearly 55% in favour of standard thirds so I'll recognise the response from my electorate and I'll state it with thirds. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Robinson. Councillor Burton. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Like Councillor Darryl Jones, I generally went into this not knowing which I was going to vote tonight and I've listened to the debate. I'm one of the councillors who loves elections and I love campaigning. I think anyone who knows me knows that so from a selfish level I prefer thirds but having served on the second cabinet I think I've got to look at the bigger picture and the bigger picture is as a city we've got some big projects coming up - Queensway, Seaway, Faucets - and I genuinely think that when we're going out working with partners us saying this is the political will and it will be the political will for the next four years, it's going to be more powerful and it's going to help us deliver those big projects. So I'm putting my personal love of elections to a side and I think, thinking of the city as a whole, I think having that four year time span will give us more clout when working with partners and we'll be able to get these things done, which we do need to do as a city, so I'm going to be voting to change that. Thank you, Councillor Burton. Councillor Mulroney. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I worked at Essex County Council for 20 years and in the legal department so very much involved with elections and yes, they were every four years but on large councils

• I can't remember how many councillors there were but more than we have - you don't tend to get huge swings and the nature of the county is totally different to the nature of South End. The county is heavily one way north of Chelmsford, slightly different south of Chelmsford. Now I'm living and working through a nightmare in Leigh and the future, for me, is for young people. We are a young city, the future is for the young. Younger hands than mine and I am mightily impressed by the young lady sitting in front of me because I think she makes an absolutely cracking case for the future for youth and they deserve to have their chances as and when they come, not have to wait for them and the calibre of her speaking in what is, I think, her first hearing was absolutely marvellous and I think if that's the calibre that we can get on this council, then they deserve their chance and I will be voting against All Up. Thank you, Councillor Maroni. There's no other indications. I would just like to say when I was leader of the council, I was in favour and tried to put through All Up elections which vowed. I believe what's happening at the moment with the electoral commission is that we're doing things the wrong way round. We don't know the size of the wards in terms of the boundary changes. We don't know the number of councillors per ward and maybe this part in terms of All Up keeping to a third should have happened after. We understand and know and know what our wards are and the number of councillors are. So, therefore, I will say personally I have changed my mind at this point in time that we stay as thirds because I believe we have not got the full picture to make what I will say a calculated decision going forward. Chief Isaac, will you please, Councillor Cohen, please sum up. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I proposed this or put forward this report stating that I believe that members would passionately make a case on both sides and I think that prediction has been borne out as true. There have been some fantastic points made on both sides. Seeing personally, I have seen a strong case for both types of electoral cycle. I agree with what Councillor Burton has said about the stability. From a cabinet point of view, it does make things more predictable for officers. However, this was a topic of discussion when we were recruiting a chief executive last year and it was one of the questions and I think our current chief executive gave a fantastic answer which is that your electoral cycle shouldn't make a difference to the way your organisation is run. So, whilst I accept the very strong points that have been made across the chamber by people of different political parties, I think we need to focus on the structures of our organisations and how the organisation is run rather than thinking that our electoral cycle is a panacea that is going to cure all of our problems. I think that there have been some really good points made in favour of thirds as well as in favour of all-outs. To answer the very first question that was asked this evening by Councillor Cornyn, what is the view of the administration, I believe that was set out when I introduced the report which is this is a political decision, there are cases to be made on both sides and it is up to the members of this chamber to decide what they want to do and I think as you have heard from different members of cabinet as well as members out on the floor that there are different views, therefore this is a free vote. No administration should be trying to inflict their individual will on the rest of the council, this is why we have a two-thirds majority for something of this nature so that it cannot be used as a political football. What I will say is I was going to start this evening probably in favour of all-outs because of the arguments that have been made around political stability, there are concerns around the turnover of councillors, thirds do allow us to retain organisational memory by having a slower changeover of councillors and I do believe that both systems give you equal yet different types of accountability. I believe this evening that I personally will now be voting in thirds and I will be doing so for one reason and that is the impassioned and eloquent speech of our youngest councillor who I think has made an incredible case for young people and it caught to mind this year's election when one of our local residents said that they wished to cast a vote for Maddie but unfortunately they had lost their photo ID and they couldn't get it replaced in time and they only realised they had lost their photo ID the day that it closed for them to get a voter authority certificate and they missed the deadline for that. They were unable to vote and they were devastated. Now in that case under an all-out system that young person would not be able to vote until they were 21 almost 22 years old which would be a tragedy and if you think about it if they had just missed an election by a couple of days because of when their birthday fell and then they'd had the same situation the first time they went to vote losing their ID they'd be 26 before they could get to vote. There are lots of things that can prevent people from participating in democracy and based on the strength of the argument made by colleagues here tonight and especially our youngest colleague I personally will be voting for thirds but I encourage every member to vote for what they feel is right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Cowan. I will now ask the Chief Exec to conduct a vote. Thank you Mr Mayor. So I just want to be really clear for members in terms of how the vote will work and what sort of numbers we would need to have. So following the debate the vote will be as follows to move to all our elections you will vote yes. Now tonight we have 46 Councillors in this room so we would need to have a majority of 30.66 in terms of getting two thirds so obviously we will be rounding that up to 31 so we will need to have 31 positive yes votes in order to move to all outs. So could you please start to make your votes. Okay we are now going to close the vote. So as I said we needed to have 31 in order to carry the vote and the results are 10 yes and 35 no so therefore the recommendation to move to all our elections is not carried. Please stop the webcast. [BLANK_AUDIO]