CHAPTER 5
Relationship to the party group1. INTRODUCTION
The group system is not confined to members elected as representatives of political parties, but is operated, to one degree or another, by all councillors. Independents and councillors elected on a platform other than that of a political party, such as a local action group or citizens/community organisation, will find familiar the activities of party affiliated councillors when acting in groups. What will be different is the degree to which party groups cohere in public, the disciplinary mechanisms available to them, and the existence of written standing orders when compared to independent or citizens/community organisations. Whilst what follows focuses on the activities of political party groups, it is nonetheless of value and interest to councillors not affiliated to a national political party.
The overview and scrutiny (Overview and Scrutiny) function raises a major challenge to the primacy of the political party group in local government decision and policy making. Our research found little obvious evidence of a whip being imposed on Overview and Scrutiny members from any of the parties. But, as one member reported in interview: ‘We don’t have a whip in scrutiny, but the chief whip attends scrutiny meetings and reports back to the group on what people have done’! It is clear that many members are taking time to adjust to the idea of Overview and Scrutiny as an independent process of policy development and review – independent, that is, from the role of the party group. Moreover, the concept of holding to account an executive (or policy committee) comprising of party colleagues and undertaking searching and critical assessment of their work, requires a change in political culture and approach for many members.
Overview and Scrutiny provides members with the opportunity to develop a new style of working, one that is less driven by firmly entrenched party opinion and point-scoring, rather based on a process of exploration and deliberation of a range of policy options. That is not to say that Overview and Scrutiny will not be the place for intense political debate and the expression of different political philosophies, beliefs and approaches to the business of representation and council affairs. It is to say, however, that party affiliation will simply be another point of reference in that debate, rather than the only point of reference. The evidence suggests that members are faced with achieving a difficult balance act between open, public deliberation in Overview and Scrutiny settings, whilst maintaining a clear party identity and cohesive party approach to the conduct of council affairs. Copus (2001) has outlined a number of questions groups should address when seeking to achieve that balance.
Table 23 Overview and scrutiny: questions for the party group
How can we be more sophisticated in the use of the whip and party discipline – at what stage and when is it appropriate to impose a whip and on what sort of issues?
How can we develop a positive relationship between the party group and its members who are involved in scrutiny – how can the group support scrutiny rather than block it?
How can the group encourage public deliberation and policy debate within the council chamber, and in the wider public arena, such as the media?
What can be done to improve opportunities within Overview and Scrutiny, the council and outside, for councillors to act as representatives of their wards or divisions, and the communities and individuals within them?
How can the group contribute to the development of the council’s community leadership role?
How can the group conduct its activities in such a way as to positively contribute to openness and transparency in local political decision-making, particularly in Overview and Scrutiny?
How do we transform the current primacy of the party group as a decision-making forum to enable Overview and Scrutiny to develop its full potential?
What changes are needed to the intensity of group loyalty necessary to maintain a consistent and distinct political approach to council business, but without stifling debate or restricting a councillor’s ability to articulate community opinion and express their own views in public and Overview and Scrutiny?
Source: Copus,C., It’s My Party: The Role of the Group in Executive Arrangements, LGA, London, 2001, p.3.
Party groups across the country will answer these questions differently, but they do provide a starting point for groups seeking to adapt to the realities and requirements of the new political dynamics ushered in by new council constitutions.
2. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY ACTIVITIES
Our evidence suggests that groups have recognised two distinct Overview and Scrutiny activities their members undertake: policy development and scrutiny of decision-makers. Groups are taking a different approach to these two facets of the Overview and Scrutiny process.
First, policy development. Here some groups have recognised the need for an exploratory and deliberative approach to this work and further, that members need a freer hand in the open forum of an Overview and Scrutiny meeting than in a traditional committee. As Overview and Scrutiny is not making decisions in the same way as an old committee there is less need to adhere to strict party lines and decisions previously agreed in private group meetings. It is the process of voting for something to happen in committee that, among other things, often led to members voting in party blocs. Many members reported to us that Overview and Scrutiny meetings were freer and more flexible than committees and achieved greater cross-party consensus than committee for the simple reason that they did not have to vote to make a decision, rather, where required to explore and discuss issues widely. Moreover, the group can see the Overview and Scrutiny process as a valuable part of its own policy development, having access to a range of evidence and witnesses that the group simply does not have, or indeed want. As one councillor commented: ‘I’ve suggested we have our group meetings after Overview and Scrutiny, not before’!
Secondly, when it comes to scrutiny of the executive or policy committees, party groups are faced with the prospect of public disagreement, questioning and challenge, between colleagues of the same party. Moreover, it may involve public criticism of party colleagues that are members of an executive. Our evidence suggests it is the issue of scrutiny of decision-makers that many groups find problematic and that the group was still the place in which such scrutiny was conducted with real vigour and robustness.
Yet, public scrutiny of decision-makers does not spell the end of party unity or a cohesive approach to the government of our localities. It requires members to ask searching, challenging questions, to conduct public deliberation and to suggest alternatives to their colleagues, which is after all what happens in private group meetings anyway. It is not that questioning and challenge of party colleagues in itself spells party division, but the fashion and manner in which it is conducted. Open, challenging and critical debate are the ingredients required to re-engage the public in local politics and government; closed, solid ranks of party groups speaking and voting as one, more than anything, turns the community away from its representatives.
Our research found that many members, across the party spectrum, stressed that Overview and Scrutiny was not whipped. However, it is clear from the examples we have seen that Overview and Scrutiny has yet to develop its full potential in terms of non-partisan policy debate and in holding decision-makers to account. Evidence exists to suggest that many members operate under a self-imposed whip, minimising the potential for inter-party public debate and challenge. Moreover, the temptation to revert to a strict adherence to group policy and to group cohesion was too great for some members. In addition, minority groups sometimes saw Overview and Scrutiny as an opportunity to attack the ruling group, particularly when scrutinising the decision-makers. As a consequence, majority members responded by protecting what they saw as ‘their’ executive (in such forms), and the familiar party-driven debates took place – which solved or re-solved little.
Whilst it is understandable that minority groups will want to oppose and challenge the ruling group, and members of that group will be moved to defend it, if this is all that Overview and Scrutiny does, then considerable potential is being wasted. Councils need inter-party exchange, open debate, the floating of alternative solutions, challenge and party dynamics; members, however, must question the appropriateness of much of the artificial nature of party exchange and assess the spirit and culture within which it is conducted. Moreover, members must approach Overview and Scrutiny, in its policy and accountability modes, driven by the needs of good governance rather than party advantage.
3. OVERCOMING COMMON PITFALLS
During the research we found examples of a number of common (but, in the context of party politics, understandable) pitfalls, that occurred, across party and council, when it came to the tension existing between group unity and cohesion and the processes of Overview and Scrutiny.
Whilst these pitfalls were widespread and existed across the political parties, our research did discover a number of cases where groups had developed a more flexible and cooperative approach to the role and processes of Overview and Scrutiny. Indeed, many members did not see Overview and Scrutiny as a threat to the group, rather as a valuable tool for policy development and a way of encouraging cross party working where that was appropriate. We also discovered a number of cases where scrutiny chairs, from the major parties, were prepared to take a leading role in challenging decision-makers including their party colleagues. Moreover, in those authorities where scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs had been shared between the parties there was evidence of close and positive working relationships between chairs and vice-chairs coming from different parties. Indeed, in such cases the chairs and vice-chairs often worked on a shared agenda within their own party groups to pursue a particular Overview and Scrutiny line.
Table 24 Examples of common pitfalls: the group and overview and scrutiny
Dealing with politically contentious issues in group and blocking debate in Overview and Scrutiny
Wrongly timing consideration of policy issues in group, thus imposing an implicit if not explicit whip on members in Overview and Scrutiny
Members in Overview and Scrutiny failing to explore an issue in too much depth, preferring to take the issue to group to assess the group’s position first
Members operating a self-imposed whip in Overview and Scrutiny
Reluctance amongst members to challenge an executive consisting of their own party for the sake of group unity
Portfolio holders given an ‘easy ride’ by Overview and Scrutiny, or actively protected by party colleagues, to ensure group cohesion
Collusion between portfolio holders and scrutiny chairs to ensure Overview and Scrutiny agendas are ‘comfortable’ for the executive or policy committee
Shared chairs is one way in which to encourage greater co-operative working between party groups. There is a danger however, in that the majority group may see it as a means to bind the minority group, or at least key players within it, to the ruling administration. Thus, diluting public challenge and criticism of the administration’s policy by the minority group(s). Indeed, some evidence of such an effect was found during the research. Moreover,
Shared Chairs: Examples
Camden’s constitution commits the Council to the objective of cross-party chairing in proportion to the political balance of the Council. In pursuing this objective, the Overview and Scrutiny Commission has appointed three opposition members to chair three of the seven scrutiny panels set up since September 2001, which is in fact more than the political balance equation demands.
Two out of Sheffield City Council’s six scrutiny boards are chaired by a minority party member. Where a chair is from the majority party, the vice-chair is from the minority party and vice versa.
The chairs of Leicester City Council’s scrutiny committees are drawn from all three parties on the Council.
Leeds City Council has six scrutiny boards. Four are chaired by the controlling Labour Group, one by a member of the Conservative Group, and one by a member of the Liberal Democrat Group.
The chairmanships of Bracknell Forest Borough Council’s four select committees are allocated according to political proportionality.
In Chichester District Council the three policy review committees are chaired by the main opposition group but vice-chairs are drawn from the majority party.
The chairs and vice-chairs of the London Borough of Hounslow’s scrutiny panels have been drawn from minority and majority parties.
One chair and one vice-chair of the five scrutiny committees which operate in Darlington Borough Council are drawn from the opposition.
Opposition members chair two out of the five overview and scrutiny committees which operate in East Sussex County Council.
Carlisle City Council has established three overview and scrutiny committees and a Scrutiny Management Committee. Each of the three political groups on the Council holds a chair of one of the three committees; whilst the controlling group also chairs the Management Committee.
Bristol City Council shares the chairs of commissions between the three parties: three are taken by the majority group, but the opposition groups have first choice of the chairs; chairs and vice-chairs of commissions are held by members of different parties.
it was also found that majority groups did not simply offer a chair or vice-chair to the minority group(s) and accede to their nomination. In some cases, the majority granted chairs or vice-chairs to specific individuals from the other groups, whether those groups want that member to hold that, or any other position. Thus, what starts out with the potential to develop inter-party co-operation and positive working relationships can actually be yet another example of party political manipulation.
We also found examples of majority groups accepting, without public question, the nominations for chairs and vice-chairs made by the minority group(s). Yet, the whole business of shared chairs is difficult for some members to consider – as one councillor commented: ‘I didn’t fight and win an election to hand power over to that lot!’
Party groups, of all affiliations require certain new approaches to council affairs, if Overview and Scrutiny is to both be an effective part of the policy review and development process and to play its role as the key check and balance on the activity of decision-makers. The examples in Table 25 indicate some of those new approaches.
Table 25 Party groups and the conduct of overview and scrutiny
A more flexible timing of group consideration of policy issues – linked to Overview and Scrutiny activity
Greater use of policy debate within the group at various stages of policy development – without imposing a whip
The whip sparingly applied to major policy issues or manifesto commitments – some issues left without a whip imposed
Overview and Scrutiny conducted by members with knowledge of the group’s position, but not bound by it
Group meetings used to offer advice, suggestions and support to Overview and Scrutiny members
A formal recognition by party groups that it is Overview and Scrutiny that has responsibility for holding the executive or policy committees to account
Development of a culture which encourages members to explore issues, rather then be seen to support a party line
Group seeing itself as a deliberative body
Agreement to sharing of Overview and Scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs between groups
Being prepared for members to undertake some policy development work with members from other groups
Creation of a culture where members see the group as one of many points of reference in the work of Overview and Scrutiny, rather than as the prime and only point of reference
4. CONCLUSION
Overview and scrutiny demands a new style of working and a new approach to the conduct of council affairs and politics. A demand to which groups are responding in various ways and at varying paces. The creation of an open, deliberative, challenging and inclusive culture within Overview and Scrutiny and the wider council depends on how party groups conduct their business and the degree of loyalty and cohesion they expect from their members. Change is needed, but this need not be obtained at the expense of maintaining clearly identifiable party identities within the council. Such clear party identity is a necessity if citizens are to use local elections to hold an administration to account for its action or inaction. The approaches outlined in the box above will enable groups of all affiliations, and none, to maintain a clear and distinct political identity and unity, whilst ensuring Overview and Scrutiny reaches its full potential as vital element of a modernised council.
Published 17 October 2002
Return to Local Government Index
Return to Home Page
Web site terms