DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Paper to All Nine Councils

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Paper to All Nine Councils AGENDA ITEM NO 9C COUNCIL MEETING 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Title : Mayoral Remuneration Report of : Members’ Remuneration Independent Review panel Recommendation That Members consider the recommendations of the Panel in relation to the level of remuneration for the elected mayor, the deputy mayor and cabinet members. Summary The Panel was tasked with recommending an appropriate rate of remuneration for the elected mayor. It was also asked to consider the level of allowance which should be paid in respect of the deputy mayor and other cabinet members in a mayoral system of governance. Following the commissioning of a review by the consultant, Dr Declan Hall, details of which are appended, this report recommends the remuneration which might be paid for these positions. The significant issues in the report are: Set out below. Consultation Party Leaders and Whips. Responses from the Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat Groups are attached at Appendix A. Background 1. The Panel was convened under the Local Authorities (Member Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003. These regulations, which arise out of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 require all local authorities to set up and maintain an advisory Independent Remuneration Members‟ Allowances Panel to review and provide advice on members allowances. All councils are required to convene their allowances panel and seek its advice before they make any changes or amendments to their allowances scheme and they must pay regard to the Panel‟s recommendations before setting a new or amended allowances scheme. 2. The Panel was asked to make recommendations as to the level of remuneration for the forthcoming elected mayor (to be elected on November 2012), their appointed Deputy Mayor and for Cabinet Members. This follows the referendum on 4th May 2012 where the electors of the City of Bristol supported the proposal to change the city governance arrangements from that of Leader (appointed by the Council) and Cabinet to a directly elected mayor and cabinet model. 3. Dr Declan Hall, consultant on member remuneration, who has previously been commissioned by the Panel to assist with its major reviews of remuneration policy, was asked to produce a report/briefing that reviewed the remuneration of the posts of elected mayor, deputy mayor and other cabinet members in the 15 other English mayoral authorities i.e. what was the national picture, are there any discernible patterns etc and provide options for the remuneration of these posts. This would enable the Panel to make a more informed recommendation in line with its statutory responsibility to provide advice to the Council, before it makes a final decision on setting the remuneration of the newly elected mayor, and their appointed deputy mayor and other cabinet members. 4. Dr Hall‟s review also looked at other comparative roles, insofar as the evidence is available, that have been taken into account by other mayoral councils and reviews when reaching their recommendations and decisions on the appropriate level of remuneration for their elected mayor, deputy mayor and other cabinet members. The review showed that English mayoral councils each retain the ability to set their own levels of remuneration. For elected mayors in particular, a discernible basis of remuneration has emerged leading to a surprisingly narrow model of mayoral remuneration. This pattern was not repeated when it comes to the remuneration of deputy mayors and other cabinet members, as the size, responsibilities and workloads of these other executive post holders is much more variable – and largely dependent on the outlook of the elected mayor. Approach 5. The document at Appendix B (sent electronically to members and available on the Council website) is Dr Hall‟s full report. In this he has: Examined what an elected mayor will actually mean for the governance of Bristol and the powers which a mayor will exercise, in particular “soft” powers. Presents the national picture on mayoral remuneration Discusses the approaches which might be used in reaching a conclusion about what the mayor‟s remuneration should be Considers the level of remuneration which might be paid to the deputy Mayor and other cabinet members which the mayor may appoint. Panel’s deliberations 6. The Panel had a wide ranging discussion. The following is a summary of the main issues: It was difficult for the Panel to make a recommendation without knowing how the elected mayor intended to carry out their role and the sort of powers that they would exercise directly The role which the elected mayor performed in other cities was not necessarily the same as the role which a Bristol mayor would perform A lot depended on how the mayor would deliver their “soft” powers, in terms of influencing and persuading and how could this be recognised. There was no mechanism for taking into account the mayor‟s performance in delivering their role when setting remuneration There may be value in reviewing mayoral remuneration again at a later date, once the mayor had been in post for a while, and when it is clear how their role is being delivered. Whatever figure was suggested initially, most mayoral councils appeared eventually to be setting pay for mayors within the narrow banding of £60 – 69K ie around the level of a MP‟s salary It was noted that it was the view of some members that mayoral remuneration should not exceed the level of that of the Leader of the Council. Should that be so, then Bristol would be very much at the lower end of the “league table” for mayoral pay, which may not present Bristol well in terms of it being a leading English city. 7. The Panel‟s conclusions and recommendations are set out in the paper attached at Appendix C Summary of recommendations 8. The recommendations of the Panel are as follows : That the elected mayor of Bristol should be remunerated in line with the current MP‟s salary ie £65,738 The Deputy Mayor should be remunerated at 62.5% of the Mayor‟s salary (ie retaining the current relationship between the Bristol leader and deputy leaders salary) thus £11,146 basic allowance plus a SRA of £29,670, so £41,086 total. There should be no change to the SRA of other Cabinet members Political Group Opposition Leaders in the current scheme should become “Political Group Leaders” in the new scheme and as currently, leaders whose groups occupy over 10% of seats on the council should continue to be remunerated at current rates of SRA. (NB : assuming the Mayor isn’t also a political group leader, then there will be one additional group leader SRA payable from November 2012) The Panel assumes that the position of Assistant Executive Member will cease from November 2012 under mayoral governance. Other options considered The approach originally envisaged by the Panel was to remunerate the incoming elected mayor at the rate currently paid to the Leader of the Council, and then to review mayoral remuneration when it was clear how that office holder intended to deliver their role. This approach was rejected by party leaders who asked that a review be undertaken immediately, in order that the remuneration could be agreed prior to the mayor taking up their post. Risk assessment No risk assessment has been undertaken Equalities impact assessment Not applicable. Legal and Resource Implications Legal - The Council has a duty to have regard to the views of its Panel before it determines the rates of remuneration for the elected mayor and councillor allowances. Financial – The costs are containable within the existing approved budget (Service Manager, Corporate Finance) Appendices Appendix A - Comments of political groups on mayoral pay Appendix B – the IRP‟s report to Council Appendix C - Dr Declan Hall‟s report on remuneration for the elected mayor, deputy mayor and cabinet members (NB : in the interests of paper economy, the full report of the IRP consultant (Appendix C) is not being circulated with this report but is available for inspection on the Council’s website.) Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 Background papers : None APPENDIX A Remuneration for the Elected Mayor Liberal Democrat Group Response to the Independent Members’ Remuneration Panel Although the position of elected Mayor is a new one in Bristol, and there are aspirations by some for it to become a much higher-profile and more significant role than the current Leader of Council, in the short term at least the responsibilities of the Mayor will remain the same as the Leader. In light of this, the Liberal Democrat Group believes that, in the first instance, the Mayor‟s allowance be set at the same level as the Special Responsibility Allowance for the Leader – i.e. £40,473 per year. This amount specifically excludes the £11,416 basic allowance currently paid to the Leader in addition to the SRA. The basic allowance is paid to all councillors in recognition of their basic role and the work that they do as members of the authority and on behalf of their constituents. For the Mayor, there is no equivalent function being performed. They will have no responsibilities, such as committee membership, as a member of the authority (with the exception of being the Mayor, for which they will receive an allowance) and they will not have the same representative and advocacy function as a councillor has for their ward. As a Group, we have always been clear that the adoption of an elected Mayor for Bristol should not lead to the creation of a new highly-paid political „fat cat‟ position. Therefore, we believe that setting the Mayor‟s allowance to the same level as the Leader‟s is fair and reasonable, particularly given the current challenging economic circumstances.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Agreement for London
    Devolution Working Group A New Agreement for London September 2015 Devolution Working Group Darren Johnson (Chair) Green Len Duvall (Deputy Chair) Labour Andrew Boff Conservative Caroline Pidgeon MBE Liberal Democrat The Devolution Working Group The Fiscal Devolution Working Group was established by the GLA Oversight Committee in December 2013. In response to policy developments, at its meeting of 20 November 2014, the GLA Oversight Committee amended the title to the Devolution Working Group and agreed the following amended terms of reference: • To consider London’s case for further devolved services and taxes in the context of developments including the Scottish referendum and the devolved model of service provision announced for Manchester; • To progress the case for further devolution to London by developing practical solutions to unanswered questions including how additional powers and yield from any localised taxes could work in terms of the roles and responsibilities of GLA and London Boroughs; and • To develop draft position statements for the Assembly’s consideration on issues related to the potential further devolution of powers to London Government and any potential changes to governance arrangements within London Government and to take the lead in promoting the Assembly’s agreed views on these matters. Contact Richard Derecki Email: [email protected] Contact: 020 7983 4899 2 Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham Council
    LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM COUNCIL Report title The Council’s Budget Framework 2019/20 – The Mayor’s Final Revenue Budget Proposals and Council Tax Setting Proposals Date of Meeting 18th February 2018 Lead Officer and Simon Little, Interim Head of Finance Strategy contact details E: [email protected] T: 020 33737549 Director, Job title Mike O’Donnell, Interim Executive Director of Financial Sustainability Lead Member Cllr Terry Paul, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services Key Decision? Yes / No The Council has a statutory duty to set a balanced and deliverable budget for the financial year 2019/20 by midnight on 10 March 2019. Exempt Yes / No Grounds: information & Grounds Wards Affected All Appendices A. 2019/20 Budget (if any) B. Details of Savings Proposals C. Details of Pressures D. Summary Capital Programme E. Detailed General Fund Capital Programme F. Detailed HRA Capital Programme G. Council Tax Setting H. Overview & Scrutiny Report and Cabinet Response to Recommendations I. Fees and Charges J. Equalities Impact Assessment K. HRA Equalities Impact Assessment L. 2018/19 Period 9 Financial Monitoring M. Feedback from the “People’s Budget” Forums N. Monitoring Officer Advice on the Budget Setting Report 1 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This budget is the first opportunity for Mayor Fiaz and her Administration to demonstrate to residents of Newham how the priorities set out in the manifesto endorsed by 73.4 per cent of voters last May will be funded and implemented. 1.2 Since the Mayor was elected in May 2018, officers have been engaged in transferring her manifesto promises into a delivery programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Suburbs
    Strong Suburbs Enabling streets to control their own development Dr Samuel Hughes & Ben Southwood Foreword by Ben Derbyshire Strong Suburbs Enabling streets to control their own development Dr Samuel Hughes & Ben Southwood Foreword by Ben Derbyshire Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Pamela Dow, Andrew Feldman, David Harding, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, David Ord, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, William Salomon, Peter Wall, Simon Wolfson, Nigel Wright. Strong Suburbs Policy Exchange has led the debate on empowering communities, winning support for development, and creating beautiful popular homes. The Government supports enabling communities to set their own rules for what developments
    [Show full text]
  • Social Integration Strategy
    SOCIAL INTEGRATION STRATEGY. WE ARE NEWHAM. CONTENTS MAYOR AND LEAD MEMBERS FOREWORD 4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND NEWHAM’S COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE FOREWORD 5 1. WHAT IS SOCIAL INTEGRATION? 6 2. THE LOCAL CONTEXT 9 3. KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIAL INTEGRATION STRATEGY 12 4. CORE NARRATIVE 13 5. EVIDENCE 16 6. OUR APPROACH 30 7. MEASUREMENT AND INDICATORS 32 2 Social Integration Strategy FOREWORD Social Integration Strategy 3 MAYOR AND LEAD MEMBERS FOREWORD The new Social Integration Strategy for Newham is a step change The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on many of the long- in the way the Council will be approaching issues of equality for standing health and economic inequalities that face many of our our residents; and supports the health, wellbeing and happiness residents in Newham, exacerbating the disadvantage they endure. they experience so that their quality of life is improved. Our That’s why the new Social Integration strategy compliments the new social integration strategy will be the driver to build a more Council’s ‘Towards a Better Newham – Covid-19 Recovery and cohesive, united and fairer borough, where 72% of our residents Reorientation’ strategy which was published in July. Combined, are from Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority communities. According they will drive the necessary changes required to help us address to the last census, Newham is also one of the most religious the inequality and disconnection that persistently burdens too London boroughs and its diversity is also reflected in our religious many of our residents. identities, so understanding these identities are important factor in our approach to social integration.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham
    LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham “Newham has a young, vibrant and diverse population that enjoys doing things together. Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is somewhere that new and existing residents should be proud to come to, as well drawing visitors every day from across London and beyond. It is a fitting legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.” LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney "Hackney residents will now be able to enjoy even more of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, with new sporting facilities, more open green space, easy access from Hackney Wick to Stratford and the recently-opened Aquatics Centre on our doorstep. I'd encourage everyone to visit the sporting facilities, green trails and places to eat and drink while finding out how the landscape has changed since 2012." LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of Tower Hamlets “The Olympics and Paralympics gave us a fantastic opportunity to showcase the best of our borough - its colourful history, diverse character and extensive tourist attractions. We benefited from the Games too. We had significant investment in our leisure centres; a host of arts, cultural and sporting opportunities were delivered on our doorstep and thousands of jobs were created for our residents. “The opening of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a fantastic additional resource for east London. I am delighted that the Games legacy continues to benefit Tower Hamlets and provide new resources and experiences for our residents. “ WEST HAM UNITED FC Karren Brady CBE, Vice-Chairman “The full re-opening of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park marks another major milestone in the regeneration of this part of east London following the hugely successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Future of NHS at Risk After Sale of Newham GP Practices to US
    FREE Issue 5 | May 2021 @newhamvoices /NewhamVoices @newhamvoices www.newhamvoices.co.uk We need to Youth Voices Our Heritage: invest to combat Special: It’s my Shops, Docks violent crime Page 3 life let me live it Page 13 and Factories Page 15 Future of NHS at risk after sale of Newham GP practices to US AIDAN WHITE said Phil Edwards a leader of the © Sylvie Belbouab Newham Save Our NHS group. ewham is at the centre of a He said the loophole opening growing storm over NHS pri- the door to transfers of this kind Nvatisation fears following the came in 2004 with the launch of transfer of GP care for thousands of the Alternative Provider of Medical local patients into the hands of an Services (APMS) contracts for GPs organisation controlled by a giant that introduced the possibility of American health corporation. their practices being sold on to A top-level meeting with health other companies. care regulators has been organised Stephen Timms, Labour MP for East this month to find out how this Ham, told Newham Voices: “We have takeover was “nodded through” to be clear about what is the basis for earlier in the year, without any this decision, and if there are grounds public consultation. for blocking such a transfer.” Local doctors, councillors and He will take part in a meeting campaigners are calling for a between the responsible oversight thorough investigation into the move body, the Newham Clinical that affects thousands of patients in Commissioning Group, and Stratford, Manor Park, Canning Town councillors and the campaign and North Woolwich and up to half a group Newham Save Our NHS million patients receiving GP services which will ask searching questions in London and around the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission
    Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission: Public Engagement Findings Findings from face to face engagement sessions which took place in Newham between 13-24 January 2020, and from online engagement between 13 December 2019 to 26 February 2020. This report sets out what people in the London Borough of Newham said during engagement events and an online platform as part of the Democracy and Civic Participation Commission, with some ideas and recommendations they have for the council. We have sought to represent what people said and concluded as faithfully as possible without adding our own analysis or interpretation. Acknowledgements: Thank you to everyone who was involved in helping us access peoples’ views through the engagement sessions. In particular, thank you to all the wonderful people we met, who were so forthcoming and kind in sharing their thoughts, feelings and ideas. Youth centre workshop Better democracy, everywhere The Democratic Society Limited is a non-profit company limited by guarantee, registered in England with number 5785839. Registered office 28 Fourth Avenue, Hove. The Democratic Society is an international non-profit association registered in Belgium as The Democratic Society AISBL. TVA BE 0677.558.361. Siège Sociale/Hoofdkantor 107 Avenue de la Brabançonne-laan, 1000 Bruxelles/Brussel. The Democratic Society (Demsoc) works for more and better democracy, where people and institutions have the desire, opportunity and confidence to participate together. We work to create opportunities for people to become involved in the decisions that affect their lives and for them to have the skills to do this effectively. We support governments, parliaments and any organisation that wants to involve citizens in decision making to be transparent, open and welcoming of participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Starosta V Obecním Zřízení
    Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Právnická fakulta Monika Fuksová Starosta v obecním zřízení Diplomová práce Olomouc 2011 Já, níţe podepsaná Monika Fuksová, autorka diplomové práce na téma „Starosta v obecním zřízení“, které je literárním dílem ve smyslu zákona č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, dávám tímto jako subjekt údajů svůj vědomý a dobrovolný souhlas ve smyslu § 4 písm. n) zákona č. 101/2000 Sb. o ochraně osobních údajů a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, správci: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Kříţkovského 8, Olomouc 771 47, Česká republika ke zpracování osobních údajů, v rozsahu: jméno a příjmení v informačním systému, a to včetně zařazení do katalogů, a dále ke zpřístupnění jména a příjmení v katalozích a informačních systémech Univerzity Palackého, a to včetně neadresného zpřístupnění pomocí metod dálkového přístupu. Údaje mohou být takto zpřístupněny uţivatelům sluţeb Univerzity Palackého. Realizaci zpřístupnění zajišťuje ke dni tohoto prohlášení vnitřní sloţka Univerzity Palackého, která se nazývá Informační centrum Univerzity Palackého. Souhlas se poskytuje na dobu ochrany autorského díla dle zákona č.121/2000 Sb. Prohlašuji, ţe moje osobní údaje výše uvedené jsou pravdivé. „Prohlašuji, ţe jsem diplomovou práci na téma Starosta v obecním zřízení vypracovala samostatně a citovala jsem všechny pouţité zdroje.“ V Olomouci dne 25. června 2011 ……………............................ Monika Fuksová 2 Tímto bych
    [Show full text]
  • New Model Mayors Democracy, Devolution and Direction Nick Hope and Nirmalee Wanduragala
    New Model Mayors Democracy, Devolution and Direction Nick Hope and Nirmalee Wanduragala www.nlgn.org.uk New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think tank that seeks to transform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities. NLGN is publishing this report as part of its programme of research and innovative policy projects, which we hope will be of use to policy makers and practitioners. The views expressed are however those of the authors and not necessarily those of NLGN. © NLGN January 2010 All rights reserved Published by NLGN Prepared by NLGN First floor, New City Court, 20 St. Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS Tel 020 7357 0051 . Email [email protected] . www.nlgn.org.uk New Model Mayors Contents 3 Contents Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 5 1 The case for directly elected mayors 8 2 Reinvigorating democracy through open mayoral primaries 21 3 Devolution and greater incentives for mayoral leadership 33 Conclusion 53 4 New Model Mayors Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the elected mayors and chief executives who provided their comments and insights on an earlier draft of this report that went out for consultation. We are grateful to those in the NLGN team who provided constructive feedback and support throughout the writing of this pamphlet. We would also like to like to extend particular thanks to Belinda Moreau-Jones for her intellectual input and research support. The views expressed, however, are those of the authors and any errors or omissions are, of course, our own. New Model Mayors Introduction 5 Introduction The New Local Government Network has been a strong proponent of directly elected mayors for over a decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Results 2006
    Local Election Results 4th May 2006 Andrew Teale Version 0.10.1 August 22, 2010 2 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS 2006 Typeset by LATEX Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2006–2010. The author grants permission to copy and distribute this work in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. This file is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Contents Introduction and Abbreviations6 I London Boroughs8 1 North London9 1.1 Barking and Dagenham.......................9 1.2 Barnet................................... 11 1.3 Brent.................................. 14 1.4 Camden................................ 17 1.5 Ealing.................................. 20 1.6 Enfield................................. 23 1.7 Hackney................................ 25 1.8 Hammersmith and Fulham..................... 29 1.9 Haringey................................. 31 1.10 Harrow................................. 33 1.11 Havering................................ 36 1.12 Hillingdon............................... 39 1.13 Hounslow............................... 42 1.14 Islington................................ 44 1.15 Kensington and Chelsea....................... 47 1.16 Newham................................ 49 1.17 Redbridge............................... 53 1.18 Tower Hamlets............................ 56 1.19 Waltham Forest............................ 59 1.20 Westminster............................... 61 2 South London 65 2.1 Bexley.................................
    [Show full text]
  • London Legacy Development Corporation Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21
    LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2020/21 STATEMENT OF DRAFT UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS Page 1 of 152 Table of contents Chair’s foreword ......................................................................................................................... 3 Chief Executive’s statement ....................................................................................................... 4 Members of the London Legacy Development Corporation .................................................... 10 Narrative Report ....................................................................................................................... 16 Land ownership ........................................................................................................................ 22 Statement of Responsibility for the Accounts .......................................................................... 41 Independent Auditor’s Report to the Members of the London Legacy Development Corporation .............................................................................................................................. 42 Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement .............................................................. 43 Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................... 45 Movement in Reserves Statement ........................................................................................... 46 Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Civic Participation Commission's Final Report
    NEWHAM DEMOCRACY AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION XXXXXXXX COMMISSION FINAL REPORT Delivered by www.newhamdemocracycommission.org CONTENTS Foreword 4 Executive summary 5 Introduction 10 SECTION 1: THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL CONTEXT 13 1.1 The local context 14 1.2 The national context 18 SECTION 2: THE MAYOR & THE GOVERNANCE OF NEWHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL 19 2.1 Governance systems: the available choices 21 2.2 Roles for Mayors 23 2.3 The Mayor as “first citizen of the Borough” 26 2.4 The Mayor’s relationship with full Council 26 2.5 The Mayor, good governance and democracy 28 2.6 A unique and distinctive Mayoral model for Newham 30 SECTION 3: AREA & NEIGHBOURHOOD GOVERNANCE 33 3.1 What we understand by “area governance” 34 3.2 Components of effective area working 35 3.3 Structural models for area working 40 3.4 Making it work: a structure to develop area-based working across Newham in context of the Newham 43 Mayoral model SECTION 4: PARTICIPATORY & DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY 45 4.1 Background 46 4.2 Understanding what we mean by effective, meaningful public participation 50 4.3 Ways of working to develop more deliberative democracy 53 2 Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission SECTION 5: CO-PRODUCTION & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT 57 5.1 Co-production 58 5.2 Use of co-production in regeneration 63 5.3 Building up the skills and capacity within the council and community on co-production 67 5.4 Empowering communities, and working with the voluntary sector 68 SECTION 6: DEMOCRACY, DATA & INNOVATION 69 6.1 An “Office for Data, Discovery and Democracy” 70
    [Show full text]