Birmingham Local Conservatives have today warned that Labour’s refusal to respect last week’s decisive no-confidence vote is a clear and dangerous signal that the party will not accept the democratic will of the council if it ends up in no overall control after the May elections. If Birmingham Labour refuse to accept a no-confidence vote, will they accept a hung Council?
Councillor Robert Alden (Con, Erdington), Leader of the Birmingham Local Conservatives & the Opposition, said:
One week on from the full council’s historic vote of no confidence in the Labour leader, it is now painfully obvious that Labour has no intention of stepping aside. This is not just arrogance; it is a further nail in the coffin of democracy in Birmingham.
If Labour will not accept the democratic decision of the full council now, what hope is there that they will respect the will of the electorate if the council is hung after May? The message to every voter is crystal clear: only a strong Conservative majority will guarantee stable, lawful leadership at the council. A vote for anyone else just risks letting Labour back through a hung council when they refuse to accept that vote as well.
As the second-largest party on the council, with a proven record of experience and the know-how to clean up the mess Labour has left behind, we are ready to get to work on day one. A vote for anyone else in May risks handing power back to Labour or creating yet more chaos and paralysis. Birmingham simply cannot afford another four years of Labour failure.
The Local Conservative Group has already raised the serious legal risk that any decisions taken while the Labour leader “squats in power” could be open to successful judicial review and saddle the Council with huge legal costs to pay.
Notes
The following is the sequence of events, and the relevant legislation and constitutional provisions that explain the position taken by Local Conservatives-
Ahead of the meeting
A notice of motion was submitted and published with the papers declaring ‘This Council believes that the Administration has broken Birmingham’
Two amendments were submitted ahead of the meetings from the Lib Dem and Independent Groups. These amendments added the words:
- “but we believe it can be repaired”, and
- The continuing bin strike, the Oracle mismanagement and the financial woes which have placed a heavy burden on Birmingham’s council taxpayers have cumulatively destroyed the trust and reputation of Birmingham nationally and internationally. Confidence in Birmingham City Council has been seriously undermined, and the only conclusion is for a change of the administration’s leadership at the May 7 council elections
At the meeting
At the start of the debate on the motions, a further amendment was submitted by the Conservative Group, which was handed to the City Solicitor and circulated in writing to all members present. This added:
- And therefore the Council has no confidence in the Leader of the Council
Localism Act 2011
Section 9I of the Localism Act 2011 provides that a local authority operating executive arrangements must ensure that its executive arrangements include provision for the appointment and removal of the leader. On removal of the leader it says:
9IA Removal of leader
(1)Executive arrangements by a local authority which provide for a leader and cabinet executive (England) must include provision for the council to remove the executive leader by resolution.
(2)If a council passes a resolution to remove the executive leader, a new executive leader is to be elected—
(a)at the meeting at which the leader is removed from office, or
(b)at a subsequent meeting.
The Act therefore requires that arrangements exist within the authority’s constitutional framework for removal of the Leader, but it does not prescribe the procedural mechanism by which such removal must be effected. The detailed procedure is therefore determined by the authority’s Constitution which is then binding.
Council Constitution – Amendments https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50068/how_the_council_works/283/the_city_council_s_constitution
Part B of the Constitution (Rules of Procedure) provides that:
• amendments to motions may be moved at the meeting;
• amendments must be proposed and seconded before being debated;
• amendments may be circulated in writing at the meeting; and
• if an amendment is carried, “the motion, as amended, shall take the place of the original motion.”
The amendment in question complied with these requirements:
• it was set out in writing and was handing to the monitoring officer and then circulated to members present;
• it was formally proposed and seconded and read out in full to the chamber;
• it was accepted by the Chair as being in order; and
• it was voted upon and carried.
Once carried, the Constitution is explicit that the amended motion becomes the substantive motion before Council.
Section 1.4(ii)(d) of Part B of the Council’s Constitution (Roles, Functions and Rules of Procedure) states
“The Leader of the Council will hold office until:
…
d) S/he is removed from Office by a resolution of no confidence passed by a simple majority resolution of the Council.”
Notice requirements
Neither the Localism Act 2011 nor Part B of the Council Constitution require specific advance notice for an amendment expressing no confidence in the Leader, nor do they prohibit such an amendment from being moved from the floor where procedural requirements are satisfied.
Accordingly, the procedural sequence was:
1. a substantive motion was moved;
2. a written amendment was proposed and seconded, along with two other amendments submitted in advance ;
3. the Chair ruled the amendments in order;
4. the amendments were carried;
5. the amended motion, including the expression of no confidence, became the substantive motion;
6. Council then voted on an amended motion which contained a resolution of no confidence and this was carried by a simple majority.
On the face of the Constitution, this constitutes a procedurally valid decision of Council.
Further, speeches on the night made it very clear that the intention of the amendment was the removal of the leader and there was no challenge presented to that position at the time.
If it is contended that the amendment was invalid, that contention would appear to require identification of:
- a specific constitutional provision prohibiting such an amendment;
- a rule requiring advance notice for a motion expressing no confidence in the Leader; or
- a specific ruling from the Lord Mayor, expressed to the chamber at the meeting that he was ruling it out of order.
In the absence of any specific provision or ruling in place at the time of the vote, the procedure followed appears to have fully complied with both the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Constitution. As a result, once the meeting concluded, the position of Leader became vacant. It will remain vacant until the council appoints a new Leader through a further resolution.
