Are Continental Landscapes up to the job of looking after Brent's parks, estates and grass verges?

'Are Continental Landscapes up to the job?' is the question that the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee should be asking at their meeting on September 4th.

Continental Landscapes took over the contract for the maintenance of Brent's parks and open spaces, grass verges, sports grounds and council estate grounds from Veoloa. The contract is worth £17.6m over eight years. 

The Scrutiny review is of the first year of operation. 

From comments and complaints reaching Wembley Matters things are not looking good. I understand that Continental is about 50% under-staffed with lower wages blamed for failure of Veolia staff to transfer and general recruitment problems.

This of course raises issues around procurement and the pricing of the contract as well as its design. The company appear not to have realised the sheer size of the maintenance task with particular issues around the acres of grass verges and small green spaces, particularly in the north of the borough as well as common areas on council estates.

 

On the Kings Drive/Pilgrims Way Estate cut grass was left to turn into hay and the path between Saltcroft Close and Summers Close became overgrown and almost disappeared in places. After a complaint the cut grass was cleared from the path and the problem attributed to the rapid vegetation growth in the very wet Spring. Tall wet grass was more difficult to cut. My suggestion that perhaps the electric tools that Continental had introduced could not cope was rejected. 

Residents who supported the concept of 'No Mow May', letting wild flowers grow to encourage bio-diversity, became perplexed when it turned into 'No Mow' June, July and August. 

Is this really environmental care, cost-cutting, or just 'Can't Cope Continental'? 

Undoubtedly, the close mown verges of the 1950s were pretty sterile and typical of a suburban obsession with neatness, but residents point to the messiness of some streets this year.  Not many shared my excitement at some of the less common wild flowers that emerged. A particular issue is that litter, strewn across the verges and hidden in the tall grass, gets cut up into tiny pieces when the grass is evetually cut.

Sudbury

Church Lane, Kingsbury

 St Andrew's Road, Kingsbury

 

Salmon Street, Kingsbury (Between Fryent Way and Slough Lane)

Jaine Lunn has raised the issue of wild flower meadows and bee corridors in our parks that have not been maintained. Neglected they turn into fields where rampant thistles or stinging nettles dominate.  They need preparation and sowing as part of the maintenance process.

However, it is not always apparent what has been sown or just left to grow unhindered. The stretch of Salmon Street in Kingsbury, between Salmon Street and The Paddocks roundabout is an interesting case. 

The pedestrian path there on the Wembley side has recently been replaced with tarmac and cross-overs paved with brick (some of the large houses have two cross-overs). Equipment and materials were stored on the verges and new top soil brought in to remediate damage.

It is not clear whether the top soil contained all sorts of seeds or whether they were deliberately sown, but the result is pretty wild, and quite different from the previous grass verges:

Salmon Street poppies (since turned to seed and seed pods snipped off for culinary or medicinal purposes)

Sweet corn and tomato plants spotted here

 

Lots of Fat Hen in this patch

 

The officers' report for the Scrutiny Meeting will be published tomorrow and should make interesting reading.  Readers may wish to make representations to the Committee in writing or in  person and should write in the first instance to James Kinsella, Governance& Scrutiny Manager  Tel: 020 8937 2063 Email:  james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk

Will Brent Council decision on Scrutiny call-in disempower Labour backbenchers as well as opposition groups?

 

 The importance of scrutiny in a council with a massive one party majority was the subject of two debates at Brent Council Annual General Meeting last week.

In the first debate a bid to have at least the deputy chairs of Scrutiny Committees from opposition parties was defeated by the Labour majority with the Brent Council Labour leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, arguing that their election mandate gave Labour the right to hold all the positions.

The second debate was over a Labour move to curtail the right of the opposition groups, and its own backbenchers, to refer Cabinet decisions or Key Decisions to Scrutiny Committee for further decisions.

There had been a Labour move earlier this year to increase the number of councillors required to sign a call-in from five to 10.(There are 8 Opposition councillors in all) This was dropped and replaced by a more subtle change that requires the five councillors to be from more than one political party.

As you will see from the video above Cllr Muhammed Butt made no attempt to justify the change, either in his moving the motion or responding to the Liberal Dem amendment. It sas more a case of 'we are doing it, because we can.'

 So what was behind the change?

It is well known that Cllr Butt is not all that keen on criticism but what infuriated him and his colleagues was a Conservative call-in opposing the siting of a children's home in a conservation area.  LINK They claimed this showed a 'lack of respect' for a conservation area. The move was not supported by the Liberal Democrats but with five councillors the Conservatives were able to do it on their own.

Under the new proposals they would need support from the Lib Dems or Labour backbenches for such a call-in.

That one unpleasant episode should not be the basis for a significant constitutional change but the officers' paper quoted Centre for Scrutiny and Governance advice that was not cited by Cllr Butt in the debate:

Guidance was issued by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) in March 2023 which comments, in respect of requirements in call-in thresholds that the councillors involved should represent different parties, that “This can help to ensure that call-in’s reflect matters on which there is crossparty

concern”.

However, the CfGS had said that a call-in review should happen after an election and change of political control:

The guidance from CfGS is that requirements on numbers/types of members, bodies or persons requesting call- in’s should be clearly justified and reviewed following each election and after a change in political control to ensure their ongoing fairness and applicability as endorsed by the authority.

The proposal was not made after an election and there has been no change of political control for a very long time. There has been a change of Chief Executive.

 The paper concludes:

Arrangements across London are very varied, especially once the effect of political balance is taken into account. A significant number have arrangements that mean more than one party group must be in support of the call-in request.

 

The possible introduction of this requirement in Brent was discussed at a recent meeting of the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) but a consensus was not reached. Full council is therefore requested to make a decision on this issue.

So the whipped Labour majority was used to defeat the Liberal Democrat amendment which had stipulated:

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

(1) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

(2) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the

borough can be called in by any one councillor.

In answer to criticism that this would substantially increase the number of call-ins it is argued that there are are already guidelines in place that would ensure call-ins were legitimate. A call-in in the past has been refused on that basis.  LINK

 As Cllr Kasangra pointed out. the new rule  requiring more that  one party submit a compliant call-in request, also means that Labour backbenchers, however many may support a call-in would not be able to do so with Opposition councillor support.

There was such a call-in previously over plans for the Granville Centre in Kilburn LINK:

The call-in of the proposal to build housing on the Granville-Carlton site on the South Kilburn estate will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. The Cabinet's decision was called in by required 5 non-executive councillors in this case Cllrs Abdi, Chan, Hector, Pavey and Hassan.

An example of a Liberal Democrat - Conservative call-in was Altamira in 2022 which was not well-received by Cllr Butt. LINK

The change effectively means that any call-in must now be supported by both Opposition groups and, given their widely differing political perspectives. can we expect fewer call-ins in the future?

Is this good for democracy?

 

Lib Dems make AGM bid for Scrutiny changes to ensure 'healthy and functioning' governance

 Brent Liberal Democrats are making an attempt to enhance scrutiny in Brent Council with a raft of constitutional amendments to be put to the Annual General General Meeting of the Council on Wednesday.

Their first amendment to Item 7 sets out their case for Opposition chairs of Scrutiny:

Democratic scrutiny is a pillar of healthy and functioning governance. To ensure it is effective there should be a clear separation between Councillors who lead Scrutiny Committees and the governing party in the borough.

Changes made by the current Labour Administration in Brent to the way the two Scrutiny Committees are chaired and Vice-Chairs are appointed have effectively locked Opposition Groups from having a meaningful say in the way scrutiny is led.  This includes in the setting of the work programme for each of the Committees.

 

To ensure renewed confidence in the scrutiny process in the borough it is important that the two Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees in the borough are appointed from the Opposition Groups.

 

To safeguard the effectiveness and independence of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees we therefore propose the following change to Standing Order 49 relating to the appointment of Chairs for the scrutiny function:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (in order to emphasise the independence of Scrutiny from the Executive).

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 If that amendment is not approved they propose that Vice-Chairs are members of the Opposition Groups:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Vice-Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (reverting to the previous arrangements for appointments to these positions)

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 

 Under Item 11 Review of Call-in Arrangements where the Labour Group want to make any call-in subject to a rule that call-ins must be made by 5 councillors of more than one political group (See LINK for explanation) they submit the motion below:

 

Review of Call-In Arrangements

 

The replacement of the Committee System of decision making by Local Councils with a Cabinet/ Executive system was made by the Blair Labour Government.

 

The then Labour Government recognised that handing decision making power to a small group of councillors had to be balanced by a strong and effective scrutiny function.  As part of this there had to be a meaningful ability of any councillor or Political Group to call-in decisions for review.

 

To ensure effective democratic practices in the London Borough of Brent it is essential to ensure that:

 

1.         The Cabinet can make decisions based on sound information and advice; and

 

2.         That Cabinet and their decisions can be held to account through an effective scrutiny process.

 

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

 

(1)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

 

(2)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the borough can be called in by any one councillor.

 

(3)    That’s subject to the approval of (1) and (2) above the necessary amendments are made to Standing Order 14 (Call In of Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Officer Decisions) to reflect the change in arrangements.

 

(4)       To confirm, the current arrangements for review by officers of any call-in to ensure that it is relevant and justified will remain in place.

Brent Labour move to limit Opposition groups' call-in powers

Having apparently dropped plans to increase the number of councillors required to call-in Key and Cabinet decision for further scrutiny from 5 to 10 LINK, Brent Labour has come up with another proposal to be tabled at the Council AGM on May 22nd.

This time the proposal is that the number remains at five but must consist of members of more than one political group. As there are five members of the Conservative Group this means that a call-in will only be successful if also supported by the Liberal Democrats, or (very unlikely given whipping), some Labour councillors. The Liberal Democrats currently have three councillors so will not be able to call-in anything on their own.

As the Tories and Lib Dem differ on many aspects of policy it is likely that there will be fewer call-ins in the coming municipal year. It appears to be a deliberate political act as there are already safeguards in place to ensure the validity of call-ins.

The words in red below are the proposed changes.

I expect Brent Labour to again resist calls for opposition groups to be given a chance to chair or vice chair either of the Scrtutiny Committees.

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent Lib Dems launch epetition to defend democratic decision making

 From the current Kilburn Times

 

 Brent Liberal Democrats have launched an epetition on the Brent Council website LINK opposing changes in the number of councillors required to call-in key decisions by Brent Cabinet (or senior officers) for further consideration.

The proposal for 'close to '10 signatories is 2 more than the number of opposition councillors thereby requiring Labour backbenchers to also sign. Given Labour members are whipped this is is unlikely although any group of backbenchers can officially sign for a call-in.

 

 DEFEND DEMOCRATIC DECISION MAKING IN BRENT

We the undersigned petition the council to Oppose any changes to the required number of signatures to initiate a call-in (review) of Cabinet decisions and to support the continuation of democratic scrutiny in Brent.

 

Scrutiny is an important part of the democratic process.

 

When Brent's Cabinet is only made up of Labour Councillors, it is important that democratic scrutiny is possible by Opposition Councillors to request a review of Cabinet decisions.

 

The suggestion by the Labour Leader of Brent Council (Cllr Butt) that the number of Councillors required to initiate a review (call-in) should be raised to close to 10 would make democratic scrutiny in Brent impossible.

 

Started by: Councillor Anton Georgiou (Brent Liberal Democrat Council Group)

This ePetition runs from 07/02/2024 to 20/03/2024.

 

LINK TO PETITION

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

  

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.

 

As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.

 

To Debra Norman,

 

At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10. 

 

 Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.

 

  If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.     

                         

 Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent  - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.

 

I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.

 

I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.

 

I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.

 

EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK  (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).

Call-in on Thursday to hold Brent Council accountable for alleged errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts

The saga of the Barham Park Trust accounts continues on Thursday when the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee considers a call-in of the Council decision to approve the accounts because of alleged inaccuracies which could lead to reputational damage.

The call-in follows attempts by councillors to query and correct the accounts at meetings of the Trust Committee which is headed by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and composed solely of members of his Cabinet. LINK

 

The call-in has been made by opposition members. 

 

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt accused of having Scrutiny chairs 'in his pocket'

The Annual Meeting of Brent Council which had proceeded with its ceremonies as expected burst into life this week when it considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Council Constitution based on their interpretation of the 2017 recommendations of the  House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 'Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees '(Extract above) Link to full report.

 

Cllr Georgiou moving the amendment said that that there needed be a real and visible indpendent role for scrutiny and proposed that Scrutiny Committe recommendations should be discussed at Full Council, rather just Cabinet. Further, the Liberal Democrats felt that just having two scrutiny committees, unlike some other councils, meant that their agenda were too packed for effective scrutiny. They proposed a further 3 scrutiny committes to spread the load and make scrutiny more effective. Given the political makeup of the council 3 should be chaired by Labour councillors and the other 2 by a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative  councillor. The leader of the Conservative group backed the call.

 

 

 

Responding, Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt said that this was a Labour Council chosen by the people of Brent. Gesturing to his Labour colleagues he said that on his side of the chamber 'we have the people's choice', and went on:

I have two great Scrutiny Chairs who are doing a superb job...we have no need to make any changes.

The Liberal Democrats had not taken account of the expense and officer time need for 3 more committees when there were financial constraints. The Labour Group would oppose the amendment.

 

 

 

Exercising the Lib Dem's right of reply Cllr Paul Lorber said:

Thank you for the advert for democracy in the borough.

He then jumped on the possessive ' I ' that Butt had used and asked, 'Are they [scrutiny chairs] excellent because they are independent or because they are in your pocket? Which is it Cllr Butt?'

Addressing all the councillors he said that non-executive councillors all had a responsibility to ensure there was effective scrutiny:

If the leader of this council has 'my' chairs of scrutiny in his pocket there can be no confidence that the scrutiny process is independent and fair because of the words he used. Because of the words of the leader we now know that scrutiny is a rubber stamping of everything, a 'yes' to everything and no effective scrutiny.

 

Cllr Miller raised a point of order asking that the Mayor (chairing her first council meeting)  should make Cllr Lorber apologise for his 'unparliamentary' language but this was ruled out on a technicality by the council's legal advisor.

 

Cllr Kelcher, chair of the planning committee, raising another point of order/information said that the chairs of scrutiny were elected  within the Labour Group on a vote that excluded members of the executive. Therefore a misleading picture had been painted about their independence.

 

The motion was put to the meeting and lost with as far as I could see only Lib Dem and Conservative councillors voting for it.

 

A  futher Lib Dem amendment on  the 6 Brent Connects area suggested that Wembley being much larger that the two others should be split into 2.  In addition, reflecting the  political representation in the areas that one of the Wembley areas should be chaired by a Lib Dem councillor and the kingsbury and Kenton by a Conservative councillor.

That amendment was also lost so the 5 Brent Connect areas remain chaired by Labour councillors.

 

 

 Extracts from the House of Commons Report (LINK)

We have found that the most significant factor in determining whether or not scrutiny committees are effective is the organisational culture of a particular council. Having a positive culture where it is universally recognised that scrutiny can play a productive part in the decision-making process is vital and such an approach is common in all of the examples of effective scrutiny that we identified. Senior councillors from both the administration and the opposition, and senior council officers, have a responsibility to set the tone and create an environment that welcomes constructive challenge and democratic accountability. When this does not happen and individuals seek to marginalise scrutiny, there is a risk of damaging the council’s reputation, and missing opportunities to use scrutiny to improve service outcomes. In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures.

Our inquiry has identified a number of ways that establishing a positive culture can be made easier. For example, in many authorities, there is no parity of esteem between the executive and scrutiny functions, with a common perception among both members and officers being that the former is more important than the latter. We argue that this relationship should be more balanced and that in order to do so, scrutiny should have a greater independence from the executive. One way that this can be achieved is to change the lines of accountability, with scrutiny committees reporting to Full Council meetings, rather than the executive. We also consider how scrutiny committee chairs might have greater independence in order to dispel any suggestion that they are influenced by partisan motivations. Whilst we believe that there are many effective and impartial scrutiny chairs working across the country, we are concerned that how chairs are appointed can have the potential to contribute to lessening the independence and legitimacy of the scrutiny process.

 

The Centre for Public Scrutiny states that:

Legally, the Chairing and membership of overview and scrutiny committees is a matter for a council’s Annual General Meeting in May. Practically, Chairing in particular is entirely at the discretion of the majority party.

Majority parties can, if they wish, reserve all committee chairships (and vicechairships) to themselves ... the practice of reserving all positions of responsibility to the majority party is something which usually happens by default, and can harm perceptions of scrutiny’s credibility and impartiality.

 

Chairs from a majority party that are effectively appointed by their executive are just as capable at delivering impartial and effective scrutiny as an opposition councillor, but we have concerns that sometimes chairs can be chosen so as to cause as little disruption as possible for their Leaders. It is vital that the role of scrutiny chair is respected and viewed by all as being a key part of the decision-making process, rather than as a form of political patronage.

 

Newcastle City Council where all scrutiny chairs are opposition party members, states that:

This has taken place under administrations of different parties and we believe that it adds to the clout, effectiveness and independence of the scrutiny process; it gives opposition parties a formally-recognised role in the decision-making process of the authority as a whole, more effective access to officers, and arguably better uses their skills and expertise for the
benefit of the council.