Object

Representation ID: 18571

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Dudley specific consultation]

Concerns relating to the scrutiny process


When the Labour group on the Future Council Scrutiny Committee proposed a special scrutiny exercise to examine the BCP proposals in public and this received cross party support, we were hopeful that we would have a robust and fair process that combined all the best features
of scrutiny as described by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, specifically accountability, transparency and involvement (of the public). Regretfully, the exercise failed on all three counts.


Accountability
The Labour group expected to see a clear demarcation between witnesses and scrutineers and Hansard style recording of proceedings throughout. This did not materialise.


Transparency
The Labour group also expected the committee to be able to call on independent expert witnesses in each of the themes the committee agree to examine to maximise the information and range of opinions available. This too did not materialise and instead the Council appointed it’s own officers to respond to questions.


Public Involvement
The Labour group also expected the public forum be structured to ensure voices of the most vulnerable/controversial sites were
considered, especially green sites and other sites that have been difficult for residents to locate and about which there is little information and for residents to be able to get satisfactory answers from independent
experts if Council officers and leading politicians were unable to provide them. Residents did not get this opportunity and not all questions received a satisfactory response.


Some attendees, who were considered experts representing areas of concern openly admitted at the meeting that they were not the right people to answer the most basic of questions posed by the scrutiny committee.


The initial special meeting of the BCP was also poorly chaired, the public section was unstructured and dominated by the Cabinet Member and by all accounts an example of how scrutiny should not be conducted. Following the meeting, the Labour Group wrote to the Chair of the Committee to suggest improvements and to seek assurance in respect
of subsequent meetings. This letter is attached as an appendix.

To date there has been no response to the letter from either the Chair of
Vice Chair.


In addition, at the Future Council meeting held on 8 September, there was a commitment given to hold a minimum of 2 special scrutiny meetings to examine the BCP. However, the second meeting held took place 5 weeks after the first, albeit with the vice chair chairing the meeting, and just 5 days before the consultation ended. This gave the impression there was never any intention by the administration of enabling time for 2 meetings or enabling the scrutiny to be completed in time to hear from the ten or more independent experts that the Labour group had identified and who would have properly informed residents as they make their responses ahead of the closing date.