While the report does not attack the idea that there are too many councillors, it gives no support to such a view and recognises a reduction could run contrary to its views on the importance of the representative role. 

The commission stresses the value of public participation, but not as a replacement for the role of the councillor.

The emphasis is, rightly, placed on the role of the councillor as the link between the authority and its citizens, a role enhanced by public engagement.

To see the report as a collection of separate recommendations is to misunderstand it. The commission recognised there was no simple solution to the problems it faced. There had to be a wide range of steps taken if local government was to attract more candidates to stand as councillors and that they should be more representative of society generally. 

The proposals can be grouped into three aims designed to:

l increase public understanding and appreciation of the role of local authorities in general, and the councillor in particular, so more of the public would be interested in becoming councillors
l encourage local authorities and political parties to launch campaigns to stimulate people to come forward as councillors, particularly from under-represented groups
l ensure authorities give support to the roles of councillors, reducing their burden of work and ‘making it easier for busy people to be councillors'.

Two proposals should be loudly applauded. The first is for authorities to opt for elections to be held by the single transferable vote, the system of proportional representation already adopted for local government in Scotland. 

If the aim is to make councils more socially representative, we should at least ensure they are politically representative. We would introduce STV generally, but the commission's option would be an important step. 

The second is the recommendation for legislation to remove any doubt that councils have the right and the duty to promote local government and the role of the councillor. Some authorities have doubts about their right to act in this way.

The main proposal we disagree with is the limitation on councillors' terms of office. The term limit proposed is five terms or 20 years, which may seem long, since councillors could stand again at the next election after their term expires, and it would affect less than 9% of councillors, although that figure raises the issue of why a limit is necessary. The proposal is wrong in principle. The electorate should be able to make their own choice, not to have choices denied them by legislation. If they want to choose a councillor who has been one for 20 or thirty or more years, they should be free to do so. At other points in the report the commission proposes to reduce the constraints barring local government officers standing as councillors, thus increasing the number of potential councillors. 
Why then create new barriers for others?

The proposal would have unanticipated consequences. It is not uncommon for councillors to be elected as leaders only after they have served 16 or even 20 years. This period can be because their parties have been out of power for much of that time, or because there have been existing leaders, or because experience is being gained, or the councillor has only recently been able to reduce other commitments. The proposals could mean the potential leader would have to leave the council before becoming leader, or after serving only one term. 

If the commission's other proposals had the desired effect, a number of councillors would be elected in their 20s, and could have to stand down in their 40s, at a younger age than many of the other councillors – a strange outcome. 
The proposal is directed at a non-problem. Young people and other under-represented groups are not being denied places on councils by long-serving councillors. The problem is not lack of vacancies, but that candidates are not coming forward to become councillors. Turnover of councillors has been more than 30%. 

Lack of vacancies is not the problem. Choices about who should be elected should be made by voters – not by legislation. 

George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV