[Dave Mckenna]

I thought I could hear the Hovis music in the background...

[Nick Beale]

John Redwood's contribution: "I love the image of England in the 1960s, when I grew up, when independent and civically minded people were in local government ."

I can't imagine "Quadrophenia" striking much of a chord with him then!

[Matthew Garrard]

Slightly less entertaining if your ruling group has a manifesto commitment to restore the committee system.

[Nick Beale]

mgarrard Wrote:Slightly less entertaining if your ruling group has a manifesto commitment to restore the committee system.

... which should of course include a Performance Review Committee to look at all aspects of the Council's performance, form small groups to investigate topics in detail, visit service points, take evidence from interested parties and report with recommendations for improvement and new policy.

There can't be many people still working who remember these from the 70s, so you could even pitch it as "a new, enhanced and more rewarding role."

[Ed Hammond]

That's interesting Nick! If they're all so keen in going back to the past, though, maybe it really should be pitched as a return to tried-and-trusted traditional local government practices.

Maybe we should suggest going the whole hog - a return to typing pools, smoking in the office, wine at Full Council and knocking off at 1pm on Friday to have a boozy afternoon at the pub.

In all seriousness, we are planning some high-profile work to try to combat this kind of attitude (both nationally and locally) early next year. I can explain more to members of the National Forum at the end of the month, when hopefully we'll have a clearer idea of what our plans are likely to be. While the level of support for returning to the committee system is by no means as strong as is suggested by MPs, it does seem to be a strong - and growing - trend amongst some which is not, at the moment, being subjected to a coherent and strong challenge. We're hoping that we can provide that challenge.

[Dave Mckenna]

As mentioned in a previous post, a panel set up by the Welsh Assembly Government on the back of the councillor commission has recommnended a legal split between executive / non executive councillors - this seems to have gone down well amongst members here.

Perhaps the answer is to follow the cabinet system to its natural conclusion and introduce a support structure more along the lines of the parliamentary model - many people find the non executive role easier to grasp when it has independent advice and support (officers and members that is).

In other words, instead of defending the current arrangements against 'the good old days', it is better to argue that the changes haven't gone far enough and that a parliamentary system could work at the local level.

[Nick Beale]

Ehammond Wrote:(a) Maybe we should suggest going the whole hog - a return to typing pools, smoking in the office, wine at Full Council and knocking off at 1pm on Friday to have a boozy afternoon at the pub.

(b) ... While the level of support for returning to the committee system is by no means as strong as is suggested by MPs [it isn't] being subjected to a coherent and strong challenge. We're hoping that we can provide that challenge.

(a) surely there's a downside?

(b) I know it's hard to tell, but I was making a serious point! If you challenge, what will you defend - the status quo or selected aspects of it?

Does the maintenance of a strong scrutiny/investigative/self-criticism function within an authority necessarily demand the exclusion of 80-90% of the members from a decision-making role?

Are the current powers of non-executive members enough to persuade people that standing (or indeed voting) in local elections) is worthwhile? Are we seeing the rise in voter participation and candidate numbers that the original sales team said there'd be under "modern local government in touch with the people" ?

The present system doesn't impart background/contextual knowledge like serving on an "old" committee did. Do we have a trluy effective means of filling the gap? (Thesis: the better members understand background, the better equipped they are for scrutiny).

Could a challenge propose arrangements that would let all councillors play a significant part in decision making; enable them to become well informed through doing their actual work (not discrete "awareness sessions" etc.); and embody an effective investigative/policy development role?

[Ed Hammond]

Nick Beale wrote:

(a) surely there's a downside?

(b) I know it's hard to tell, but I was making a serious point! If you challenge, what will you defend - the status quo or selected aspects of it?

Does the maintenance of a strong scrutiny/investigative/self-criticism function within an authority necessarily demand the exclusion of 80-90% of the members from a decision-making role?

Are the current powers of non-executive members enough to persuade people that standing (or indeed voting) in local elections) is worthwhile? Are we seeing the rise in voter participation and candidate numbers that the original sales team said there'd be under "modern local government in touch with the people" ?

The present system doesn't impart background/contextual knowledge like serving on an "old" committee did. Do we have a trluy effective means of filling the gap? (Thesis: the better members understand background, the better equipped they are for scrutiny).

Could a challenge propose arrangements that would let all councillors play a significant part in decision making; enable them to become well informed through doing their actual work (not discrete "awareness sessions" etc.); and embody an effective investigative/policy development role?

I think you've hit on the point there - it's difficult to see whether we should mount a defence of the status quo or take a more progressive line.

(In terms of our plans, we are thinking about a general campaign around "accountability" of which a defence of scrutiny in local government would be a constituent part).

It could be that the least worst option in the medium to long term would be a state of affairs which looks more similar to the Parliamentary select committee model (as stated above), which would at least provide some level of financial independence and a higher public profile in the locality. This has been raised as a possibility before now - a partnership-based scrutiny function that would combine the roles and statutory responsibilities of the local authority scrutiny function, LINks, possibly police authorities and others. Presumably it would be financed through a council tax precept (!!). It is an idea that initially seems quite attractive but there is something about it that unsettles me...

I think that the issue of "contextualised" knowledge is crucial. Scrutiny has been deliberately marginalised in many authorities. The more officers ignore it, and the less it is integrated into the business of the council, the less effective it will be because members will feel increasingly that they are on the outside, looking in. I don't see any problem with a more formal role in decision-making - much more effective pre-decision scrutiny would help to tie the scrutiny function in with the Forward Plan and would force executives to take the function seriously. The challenge is in finding a solution that makes scrutiny more "relevant" while not sacrificing its independence.

[Dave Mckenna]

Nick Beale Wrote:The present system doesn't impart background/contextual knowledge like serving on an "old" committee did.

Doesn't it?

I hear this a lot but I wonder if there is any evidence for it.

Isn't access to information through email / online reports etc light years ahead of where it was then?

Can't members get the information they want through scrutiny or direct from officers?

Doesn't the party group system still operate in the same way and wasn't this always really the best way to get the inside track?

Does sitting in a room when an item is discussed necessarily add up to being better informed?

What is it exactly that was available then to committee members but isn't available now?

There may be case for saying that the non executive role is less influencial but I wonder if the idea that it automatically means that memebrs will be less well informed needs to be challenged.

[Nick Beale]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:

Nick Beale Wrote:The present system doesn't impart background/contextual knowledge like serving on an "old" committee did.

(a) Doesn't it?

(b) I hear this a lot but I wonder if there is any evidence for it.

© Isn't access to information through email / online reports etc light years ahead of where it was then?

(d) Can't members get the information they want through scrutiny or direct from officers?

(e) Doesn't the party group system still operate in the same way and wasn't this always really the best way to get the inside track?

(f) Does sitting in a room when an item is discussed necessarily add up to being better informed?

(g) What is it exactly that was available then to committee members but isn't available now?

(a) I don't think it does.

(b) I can only go on my impressions after an absurd number of years working in both systems but the DCLG's five-year research programme certainly found evidence that non-exec members (i.e. the vast majority) felt marginalised.

© The technical means are vastly superior, I agree. But see (g) below.

(d) They could, but how do they know that they want it in the first place?

(e) Probably, but I didn't really mean the "inside track", more "general knowledge."

(f) Oddly enough, it did tend have that effect over time.

(g) What the committee system provided was a reason for groups of members to meet regularly, in a forum which they felt duty-bound to attend most meetings of, to hear about and debate service developments. Maybe it was inadvertent but they learned quite a lot about a service after a while. Email bulletins, websites, awareness sessions and training events are more likely to be treated as "if I have time", I think. Members don't regard them as an obligation in the same way that turning up for meetings of (say) the Social Services Committee was.

I'm not claiming the happiest hours of my working life were spent in committee meetings - my job is altogether more interesting now - but the old system was not without its merits.