Australia's National Local Government Newspaper Online

Under scrutiny

The UK Experience by Malcolm Morley*

Councils in England, apart from the smallest Councils, operate on the basis of the political Administration forming a Cabinet that has executive powers. The Cabinet is held to account by a Scrutiny Committee consisting of Councillors from all political parties (internal scrutiny). Additionally, Scrutiny Committees can also review and challenge the policies, actions and inaction of other organisations (external scrutiny).

There is now a clear distinction between the Cabinet's role in making and implementing policies, and the role of non Cabinet members in reviewing policy and scrutinising Cabinet decisions. Council Scrutiny Committees have the power to summon members of the Cabinet and Officers of the Council before them to answer questions, and are able to invite other persons to give their views or to submit evidence.

The internal scrutiny role of Councils has struggled to become established. Where a particular political group has a dominant majority of Councillors within a Council, the motivation for the decisions of the Cabinet to be effectively challenged can be small. Similarly, as the result of a scrutiny exercise is only a recommendation for the Cabinet to reconsider a decision, internal scrutiny is often not viewed as effective. It is generally only the delay to the implementation of a decision or adverse publicity arising from the exposure of some mistake or oversight that is significant.

Where there is a significant Opposition, there has been a temptation for internal scrutiny activities within Councils to become political exercises. Cabinets have become irritated by delays to the implementation of decisions and Opposition parties have become frustrated by their lack of impact. An effective internal scrutiny function has generally only been achieved where an Administration has illustrated a willingness to be held to account and where the scrutiny role has been carried out positively rather than merely for political ends. In short, where the outcome of internal scrutiny has actually added to the effectiveness of the Council.

These difficulties in establishing effective internal scrutiny have been contrasted by the success of the role of Councils in scrutinising the policies, actions and inactions of other organisations which have an impact on their communities. This has particularly been the case where there has been a joint political approach to such scrutiny exercises.

Except where statutory provisions exist, Councils cannot compel other organisations to attend to give evidence to them. It is often difficult, however, for organisations to resist an invitation to attend. The scrutiny of external issues has lead to changes in policy and performance. Issues as diverse as flooding, access to NHS dentistry and the effectiveness of community policing have been undertaken.

While Council Scrutiny Committees do not have any formal powers to compel changes, the publicity from their activities can create a real pressure for change. Ironically it could be argued that Councils, as organs of local democracy and political organisations, are often at their most effective in representing the interests of their communities through the scrutiny function when party politics are put to one side and they have an external focus.

Internal scrutiny, however, remains a significant challenge.

*Malcolm Morley is Chief Executive of Harlow District Council and can be contacted via the Editor, email info@lgfocus.com.au The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of his employer.

The following articles are also included in this edition or go BACK to the main page: