There has been much cynicism over the influence of party loyalties in scrutiny, yet, for councillors, the party remains a valuable source of support. Jessica Crowe considers the balance
One of the most contentious features of the operation of overview and scrutiny in local government since 2000 has been the extent to which councillors have been willing to lay aside partisan politics when acting as scrutineers.
In 2004, ODPM-funded research found that 35% of councillors attended party group pre-meetings before scrutiny sessions, with 32% believing they should.
The same research found that, despite government guidance stating that ‘whipping is incompatible with overview and scrutiny’ and recommending against it, 16% of councillors reported being whipped to follow a party line in scrutiny meetings.
Now, the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) has replicated the ODPM research with a quantitative survey of scrutiny councillors, and found some significant changes in councillors’ attitudes and the operation of scrutiny.
Three years on, only 22% of councillors are asked to attend party pre-meetings, and – most significantly – only 15% now believe political pre-meetings are appropriate. There has also been a small drop in the extent of reported whipping in scrutiny.
Other elements of our research found similar trends. For example, an increase from half to almost 60% of councillors now say the chairs of scrutiny committees should not be taken by the majority party. And this stated belief increasingly matches practice. Our 2007 survey of overview and scrutiny shows that almost two-thirds of councils now give some (48%) or all (16%) of their scrutiny chair positions to opposition parties.
These findings open up some interesting issues. The government guidance against whipping is often seen as a presupposition that party politics is somehow ‘bad’, and prompted councillors at a CfPS discussion in Birmingham last year to emphasise the importance of the political values which both motivate them and guide voters’ choices on polling day.
Research for the Councillors’ Commission found a similar dissonance. The general public dislike party politics, seeing it as a barrier to councillors acting freely and in the interests of the community, yet councillors who were members of political parties saw their political membership as a source of mutual support and camaraderie and an expression of their desire to make a difference for their community.
If politics is about anything, it is about priorities. Political values – given effect through the ballot box – provide the clearest basis we have for determining priorities for an area, allocating resources to one competing interest over another, and making strategic decisions about a community’s future. Does our research, suggesting a weakening of party dominance in the operation of scrutiny, indicate a weakening of politics overall? We think not. But it does suggest a growing recognition that, like everything, politics has a time and a place.
The CfPS principles of effective scrutiny emphasise the importance of scrutineers acting objectively and independently, as a ‘critical friend’, and focusing on improving public services.
The best practice evidence reinforces these principles, highlighting the value added to decision-making and policy development by evidence-based scrutiny, where councillors put aside preconceived ideas of what might work in favour of uncovering what does work, and learning from experience, including the experience of the public and service-users.
It is worth noting in passing that preconceived ideas are not unique to politicians. Scrutiny’s value equally comes from lay people challenging professionals’ preconceptions on the basis of local knowledge and common sense.
If honest scrutiny requires the opposition to admit that sometimes the ruling group – and officers – have a good idea, and the majority group – and officers – to accept that sometimes they get it wrong, is it the end of politics as we know it?
Surely not. But it is easier to say than to do, when faced with the reality of closely-fought elections and with the media always ready to pounce on stories of a ‘split’ or ‘U-turn’.
This is why CfPS is organising a unique, event next month, to explore these thorny issues in detail and provide an opportunity for scrutiny councillors – from all parties and none – and officers, who work in a political environment and need to understand these complexities too, to discuss practical solutions. For example:
l using small, task-and-finish groups not just formal committees
l doing more pre-scrutiny, before party-political lines are drawn
l choosing external topics to review which look beyond the executive’s performance.
CfPS’s report, The life of the party: How do party political groups impact on scrutiny?, will be launched at the conference, on 11 March, in London, and there are still places. See www.cfps.org.uk/ index.php/events n
Jessica Crowe is director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny
In 2004, ODPM-funded research found that 35% of councillors attended party group pre-meetings before scrutiny sessions, with 32% believing they should.
The same research found that, despite government guidance stating that ‘whipping is incompatible with overview and scrutiny’ and recommending against it, 16% of councillors reported being whipped to follow a party line in scrutiny meetings.
Now, the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) has replicated the ODPM research with a quantitative survey of scrutiny councillors, and found some significant changes in councillors’ attitudes and the operation of scrutiny.
Three years on, only 22% of councillors are asked to attend party pre-meetings, and – most significantly – only 15% now believe political pre-meetings are appropriate. There has also been a small drop in the extent of reported whipping in scrutiny.
Other elements of our research found similar trends. For example, an increase from half to almost 60% of councillors now say the chairs of scrutiny committees should not be taken by the majority party. And this stated belief increasingly matches practice. Our 2007 survey of overview and scrutiny shows that almost two-thirds of councils now give some (48%) or all (16%) of their scrutiny chair positions to opposition parties.
These findings open up some interesting issues. The government guidance against whipping is often seen as a presupposition that party politics is somehow ‘bad’, and prompted councillors at a CfPS discussion in Birmingham last year to emphasise the importance of the political values which both motivate them and guide voters’ choices on polling day.
Research for the Councillors’ Commission found a similar dissonance. The general public dislike party politics, seeing it as a barrier to councillors acting freely and in the interests of the community, yet councillors who were members of political parties saw their political membership as a source of mutual support and camaraderie and an expression of their desire to make a difference for their community.
If politics is about anything, it is about priorities. Political values – given effect through the ballot box – provide the clearest basis we have for determining priorities for an area, allocating resources to one competing interest over another, and making strategic decisions about a community’s future. Does our research, suggesting a weakening of party dominance in the operation of scrutiny, indicate a weakening of politics overall? We think not. But it does suggest a growing recognition that, like everything, politics has a time and a place.
The CfPS principles of effective scrutiny emphasise the importance of scrutineers acting objectively and independently, as a ‘critical friend’, and focusing on improving public services.
The best practice evidence reinforces these principles, highlighting the value added to decision-making and policy development by evidence-based scrutiny, where councillors put aside preconceived ideas of what might work in favour of uncovering what does work, and learning from experience, including the experience of the public and service-users.
It is worth noting in passing that preconceived ideas are not unique to politicians. Scrutiny’s value equally comes from lay people challenging professionals’ preconceptions on the basis of local knowledge and common sense.
If honest scrutiny requires the opposition to admit that sometimes the ruling group – and officers – have a good idea, and the majority group – and officers – to accept that sometimes they get it wrong, is it the end of politics as we know it?
Surely not. But it is easier to say than to do, when faced with the reality of closely-fought elections and with the media always ready to pounce on stories of a ‘split’ or ‘U-turn’.
This is why CfPS is organising a unique, event next month, to explore these thorny issues in detail and provide an opportunity for scrutiny councillors – from all parties and none – and officers, who work in a political environment and need to understand these complexities too, to discuss practical solutions. For example:
l using small, task-and-finish groups not just formal committees
l doing more pre-scrutiny, before party-political lines are drawn
l choosing external topics to review which look beyond the executive’s performance.
CfPS’s report, The life of the party: How do party political groups impact on scrutiny?, will be launched at the conference, on 11 March, in London, and there are still places. See www.cfps.org.uk/ index.php/events n
Jessica Crowe is director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny
