Councillor Joanna Biddolph spoke strongly during the borough council meeting of 18th July about the failures of Hounslow council's overview and scrutiny process during the 2022-2023 municipal year.
Thank you, Mr Mayor.
This annual report pretends that the overview and scrutiny committee fulfilled its role as it should. It also misses out crucial facts about the pre-cabinet scrutiny meeting that looked at proposed changes for roads in Grove Park, Chiswick, which did so much to damage the reputation of what should be a highly respected committee.
That meeting was not only a shambles of procedure, with the chairman not knowing the process despite a guidance note being sent to members, but it is also a fact that the chairman misled the committee by saying he had had “hundreds of emails” in support of the proposals. We found out later, through a resident’s Freedom of Information request, that he had received 75 emails – not “hundreds” – 74 of which I also received and only one of which supported the proposals.
That wasn’t all, though. The main committee was notable for asking shallow questions, fixed before each meeting, spontaneous questions being discouraged, whether by not allowing time for them or avoiding calling councillors who wanted to ask them.
Misleading the scrutiny committee should be enough to bar anyone from being a member, and they certainly should not be chairman again. Yet that is what has happened.
The pre-cabinet scrutiny meeting guidance note reminded call-in committee members – it applies to all scrutiny members – that they should be “offering challenge and critical support to the executive’s policy development function”.
Seeking to endorse policies we are supposed to challenge is not good for scrutiny. Nor is being party political. Challenging is not the same as opposing – yet the chairman seems to think it is. Up till last year, I had enjoyed being a member of a committee that brought both sides together with a common purpose – improving services. Several of us have said the same when discussing our part on this committee.
Other scrutiny committee members and panel chairmen have understood that, including you Mr Mayor. That role should be to shine a light on policies or processes that we know, from comments made to us, are not serving our residents or business ratepayers well.
A good scrutiny committee chairman encourages a deep investigation, one that gets as close to the heart of an issue as possible, always looking at it from the point of view of the people we represent.
Last year was marked by a reluctance to look in depth, a determination to draw a conclusion that avoids critical challenge, aiming instead to rubber stamp policies and practices.
This also happened when we looked at housing associations – a huge concern raised by many councillors over many years because of the many complaints we have had from residents about their housing association homes. The recommendation from committee members was that we should ask residents and housing association leaders to meet us. What happened? We had a fireside chat with housing association leaders, yes with pre-decided questions, accepting their soft soap comments about needing to do better about repairs (without making any firm commitments) and a request for an email address for councillors to use (matching what one housing association already does). No residents were invited.
It could not have been more ineffective, so much so that it is back on the agenda for this year. My expectations are not high. My confidence in the committee chairman to do better this time is extremely low.
At the heart of this is a diminution of respect for this committee by this council. Support from officers has reduced. We have lost excellent policy input and guidance. There appears to be a reluctance to prioritise scrutiny.
This year, I attended the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny’s annual conference. It was instantly clear that other councils’ scrutiny committees have a much greater level of respect and support than does ours. They take their scrutiny committee seriously. So should we.
Mr Mayor, if this report were to be put to a vote, I would vote against it. It fails to convey facts about the main committee’s work, the reality only being available through links to recordings not in the summary chart on pages 15 and 16. Ten of its pages are taken up by photos of its members – one photo to a page. This should not be about us and our egos. This waste of space seems to me to be a metaphor for the role of the main committee last year.
The main overview and scrutiny committee must do better this year.
