How long the Leader?

No sooner have all Councils which operate a Leader and Cabinet style of governance elected their Leader for a mandatory four year term of office than an obscure provision under the Localism Act 2011 throws that up in the air, writes Peter Keith-Lucas.

Originally, the Local Government Act 2000 gave Council the ability to choose the term of office of the Leader, but they automatically ceased to be Leader when they ceased to be a Councillor, three days after a local election. On that basis, the Modular Constitution recommended annual re-election of Leader, and included an appropriate item of business in the agenda of the Annual Meeting.

However, in pursuit of “strong leadership”, the last Labour Government promised Leaders the ability to appoint their own Cabinets and a mandatory four year term of office. In fact, when it came to drafting the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, it did not quite work out like that, as those councils which hold local elections by thirds or halves could only elect the Leader for a term running up to the next time his council seat was up for re-election. This produced a further complication, that, if a Leader were removed mid-term by resolution of Council, the new Leader could only be elected for the period up until their Council seat was also up for re-election. This might mean that a replacement Leader had to be elected for just six months, until the next local elections. In councils with elections by thirds or halves, it meant that one candidate for election as Leader might be able to be elected for a three year term where an alternative candidate, facing a re-election for their council seat in 12 months, could only be elected as Leader for a term of 12 months, so it could produce a pretty lop-sided election contest.

One other small change made by the 2007 Act was to extend the term of office of the Leader from the normal day of retirement, three days after the election, through to the election of the new Leader at Annual Council meeting, thus avoiding a fortnight’s interregnum when the Council has no Executive to discharge its executive functions. However, that did provide the oddity of Leaders who remained in office for a period despite having lost their council seat.

Now, the new Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (inserted by Sch.2 to the Localism Act 2011) and reg.2 of the Localism Act 2011 (Local Authority Governance Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2012 makes it clear that the Government is not going to prescribe the arrangements for fixing of the term of office of the Leader, but leave it to individual authorities. So, Council is required to make provisions for setting the term of office “as soon as reasonably practicable” after the regulations came into force on 30 March 2012. Until a Council does adopt new arrangements, the old four year term (or balance of four year term) arrangements continue to apply.

Does this represent a recognition that “strong leadership” comes not from legislation but from the ability to secure the loyalty of “followers”?

So, what arrangement should Council adopt? My personal view is that the mandatory four year term of office of the Leader was a mistake. The politics of a council or of the majority group on a council can change significantly over four years. Where a Leader no longer commanded support in Council or within their own group, the four year term required a very public coup d’etat in full Council, with blood on the floor of the Council chamber. It also allowed the minority parties to combine with the old Leader’s remaining supporters to keep him/her in office, but disabled, against the wishes of the majority within his own political group. In contrast, annual re-election not only gave the Leader the security of recent re-election, but also allowed for a polite and stage-managed transfer of power once a year, with the Leader handing on the baton to his successor in order to devote more time to his family and his roses.

Whilst some councils may have been able to adopt new rules from their May 2012 Annual Meeting, the need to hold a Council Meeting before the end of June to adopt a new Code of Conduct and arrangements for dealing with misconduct complaints offers a convenient occasion to amend the Council Constitution to take account of the new Regulations.

That just leaves the question of who volunteers to tell the current four year Leader that they will be up for re-election next May.

Peter Keith-Lucas is a partner at Bevan Brittan. He can be contacted byThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..