Agenda item

Councillor Thomas Dyer, Leader of the Opposition, proposed the following motion:

‘That the Full-Council of the City of Lincoln Council calls upon both political groups, senior officers and itself, to fully review the Council’s scrutiny and decision making process.

That a member and officer working group be established to conduct the review, with an ambition to implement the new procedure by May 2022.

That the guiding principle of this review be to increase both the transparency and effectiveness of the Council’s decision-making process, ensuring that members are given the opportunity to scrutinise policies, whilst reviewing which decisions should be made by the Full Council and Executive and which are officer delegated decisions.’

Councillor Dyer, in proposing the motion, questioned whether the current process was the most democratic and effective way of making decisions. He cited recent examples of Executive decisions which, in his view, had undergone no pre-decision scrutiny with Call In being the only alternative option by which to scrutinise and hold the decision-taker to account.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Christopher Reid, Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Councillor Ric Metcalfe, Leader of the Council, welcomed the opportunity to review the ways in which things were done if there were reasonable and well-founded reasons for doing so. He was of the view, however, that the proposition as set out in the motion did not represent well-founded reasons to justify such a review or highlight the value of carrying one out and was actually based on assertions that were incorrect. Councillor Metcalfe reminded members that the jurisdiction of Full Council in the Constitution had not changed whatsoever as a result of the abolition of the committee system in 2000. It remained the same supreme decision-making body of the Council that it had always been in respect of the authority’s policy and budgetary framework.  He reminded members that scrutiny committees had the power to make direct referrals to Full Council on any matter they saw as necessary.

In terms of the Call In procedure providing limited opportunities for scrutiny, although Councillor Metcalfe could understand Councillor Dyer’s disappointment in respect of a recent Call In that had been considered by the Select Scrutiny Committee, he felt it was wrong to imply that the Committee’s hands were tied when considering Call Ins. He highlighted that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had recently, through statutory guidance, re-emphasised that scrutiny should offer constructive challenge as a critical friend, be undertaken independently, amplify the voice of the public and be aimed at driving improvements. It was therefore not an opportunity to enter into political point scoring, which he felt had occurred at the previous Select Scrutiny Committee meeting. Councillor Metcalfe was of the view that the Council’s scrutiny committees currently in place were doing an excellent job.

Councillor Edmund Strengiel said that if any member felt as though inadequate scrutiny was taking place they were quite right to bring the matter to the attention of Council. He did share a concern in respect of decisions going through officers without proper scrutiny and questioned whether the Executive was being used as a rubber-stamping mechanism. Councillor Strengiel highlighted that the motion solely sought a review and said that if the outcome led to greater levels of transparency it could only be a good thing.

Councillor Hilton Spratt in relation to the independent nature of scrutiny reflected that committees were composed based on the political composition of the Council, which he accepted fully. However, he questioned how independent members of an authority could really act on scrutiny committees when part of such a large majority. He asked whether consideration could be given to offer the position of Chair or Vice-Chair of scrutiny committees to members of the opposition, which he felt would be seen by third parties as the committees themselves facilitating a more independent role. This was the case a Lincolnshire County Council, who’s overarching Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee was chaired by a member of the opposition. 

Councillor Jane Loffhagen was of the opinion that lines were becoming crossed as part of this debate between political campaigning and scrutiny. She emphasised that scrutiny should be non-political and, in her experience, said that all members at the City Council took the opportunity to challenge and ask questions at meetings of scrutiny committees irrespective of their political group.

Councillor Ron Hills reflected on the current structure which had been in place for some time. In terms of the Performance Scrutiny Committee in particular, having been a member and chaired the Committee previously, he said that it ran extremely well, was always impartial and fed recommendations through to the Executive. However, in respect of the Select Scrutiny Committee and Call In, he questioned its meaningfulness based on the fact that, as far as he understood it, a Call In had never been referred back to the Council’s Executive for reconsideration of a decision. He agreed with the motion on the basis that it was only seeking to look again at the procedures in place to ensure they were fit for purpose.

Councillor Gary Hewson agreed that the scrutiny function should be carried out on the basis of being a critical friend which, as Chair of the Performance Scrutiny Committee, he believed scrutiny committees at the City Council did. He reminded members that scrutiny committees had no decision-making powers and could only make recommendations. Councillor Hewson referred to the recent Executive decision which was called in and considered by the Select Scrutiny Committee and was of the view that it was given a fair hearing and made the point that the specific decision in question could have been made by officers under delegated powers. In line with the current structure and procedures, there would always be opportunities for any member to call items in and hold decision takers to account, which was their entitlement. 

Councillor Lucinda Preston agreed that the City Council’s practice of scrutiny was not political and that meetings were rigorous, providing opportunities to ask questions and challenge.

Councillor Christopher Reid stated that the motion was not seeking to highlight what was right or wrong with what was currently in place, it was just seeking to see whether they represented the right way of doing things. He said it was naïve to think that the way in which things were historically done was the right way to do things and that there was nothing to be lost to undertake a review. As a County Councillor, he felt that there were things in place at the County Council which the City Council could implement to improve its scrutiny function. He highlighted pre-decision scrutiny as an example which he said was much more significant at the County Council.

In voting on the motion, it having been proposed and seconded, the motion was lost.