A few weeks ago something happened in Crawley which I think is quite important and significant.  I was waiting to see what the local papers said about it or what anyone else said about it, but the response has been non-existent, so if nobody else is going to comment on it I shall have to do so myself.

The event was the first 'State of the Borough' debate at Crawley Borough Council.

For years the Tories have been saying we should have one. I have never quite seen why it should be such a high priority for the council.  I can see that it would be a good thing for anyone who is interested in how the town is going to be able to sit down and watch a debate by those in charge of how the town is going, and join in, but there are two obstacles to that happening:

1. Not many people seem to be interested. Not interested enough to actually take part anyway.  The attendance was not great and many of those who did attend were councillors, ex councillors and other people who probably know what is going on anyway.
2. The borough council actually has control of very little which goes on in the town.  Granted it is in charge of some things which are of great importance to residents (planning, waste collection) but it has no control over other things which are of equal importance (crime, health, education).  A state of the borough debate which was organised by the local strategic partnership might be more valid, though equally poorly-attended.

These and other reasons are probably why the Labour group resisted calls for such a debate in the past, along with a suspicion that the Tories just wanted a platform to criticise the council which did not have the limited topical agenda of council meetings or the small audience of full council meetings. 

OK. That was fairly negative, so why did I start by going on about how significant it was?  Well it was not for the content, which was dull and predictable, but for the fact that the meeting was broadcast on the Internet.  I only heard about the event from seeing something about it in the Crawley News on the day it was happening.  In fact I read about it about half an hour before the start time.  (This might explain the poor attendance)  I was not so excited by the prospect that I wanted to miss my dinner and rush across to the Hawth theatre, but I was interested enough to call up the website.

I have long been of the opinion that council meetings and even committee meetings should be broadcast.  This is partly because it gives greater access to those meetings, enabling us all to see what our elected representatives are doing on our behalf, but also in the vain hope that they will carry out their business in a more orderly manner if they know it is being broadcast and recorded.

I can't really see why local cable companies can't be persuaded to carry such things as a community service but apparently its a non-starter.  The increasing ubiquity of broadband access has now made webcasting worthwhile, although some authorities have been doing it for a long time.  While I was still on the council I found out about Camden's webcasts and decided they were a good thing. In fact I watched one of their planning meetings and got some ideas which I never had the chance to put into practice.

Right now there are still only a few authorities which routinely broadcast their proceedings – Camden, East Sussex,  Epping Forest, Hull, Lancashire, Mole Valley, and South Oxfordshire (also Parliament, the LGA and the Welsh National Assembly) but it will become more common in the future.

It is a brilliant idea, and can be very useful if properly implemented.  Often you can call up the video of a meeting and in an adjacent panel have the agenda listed so you can jump to particular agenda items.

The list of benefits could also include an end to council meetings being shifted to alternative venues on the rare occasion when they actually generate some interest – although when that happens it does mean that the meting can actually be heard since any venue you can think of has a better sound system than the town hall.

The council chamber has a capacity for about 70 in the public gallery.  When 100 people turn up they get crammed in, or overflow to the chamber itself which can interfere with the meeting. When more turn up the meeting gets postponed and shifted to the local theatre or the leisure centre, with the justification that the public have a right to attend council meetings.  I do wonder what would happen if 50,000 members of the public decided they wanted to attend a debate – would the council hire Wembley and bus everyone up there?

How much better to have the whole thing available online?  Anyone unable to view it could have access to computers in the library or kiosks in the town hall to watch it after the event. Lets face it, Parliament often attracts a lot of interest but they never move proceedings elsewhere because th public gallery is full. 

The only drawback to the whole thing is cost.  Is a time when we are told that spending must be reduced the right time to start introducing new events and facilities which have a significant cost? Or does it mean that weshould recognise that you can't move forward, improve services and introduce new ones and still cling onto a dogmatic obsession with lower taxes?

Having been to the public gallery for a few council meetings I can confirm that the public really cannot hear what is going on. In the state of the borough debate I could hear every word.  In that respect it is an improvement.

So how about a compromise?  Accept the fact that webcasting is a good thing but don't rush into doing it in a half-arsed way: just make sure that the specs for the new town hall include cameras and a decent sound system integrated into the chamber, and maybe even a committee room. And then make sure that all meetings in the new building are broadcast.

EDIT: after all that i forgot to link to the actual debate which is still available in the archive.