“There are formal scrutiny committees, but I would see scrutiny as being much broader than that. For me, the point of scrutiny is being able to make issues public… and encourage public scrutiny, encourage public pressure.”
This report outlines councillor experiences of scrutiny in local government. It paints a picture where scrutiny is undervalued and often politicised; it also shows ways in which councillors have been able to make a difference in taking an active scrutiny role.
We list some of the components of scrutiny in local government, and discuss the role of local government. We then present our findings in the following categories:
- Structures, which outlines barriers to scrutiny arising from political systems, austerity, privatisation, centralisation of power and the lack of independent regulation or scrutiny of the local government sector.
- Cultures, which shows how scrutiny efforts are hindered by devaluing and de-prioritising councillors’ training and support, seeing scrutiny as a threat to business as usual, cultures of avoidance and political party dominance combined with the isolation of the local government sector.
- Behaviours, which demonstrates the problematic effects of behaviours such as dishonesty, defensiveness, failure to speak up or challenge and hostility towards members of the public, but also how councillors respond to those behaviours in a constructive way.
As our previous research has shown, there is little capacity for scrutiny and challenge at all levels of local government, and a significant lack of openness and transparency. This is effectively excluding the public from holding power to account. We also recognise that councillors are clearly key to changing these conditions. There are many people who have committed years of their lives to the role of councillor, often at the expense of other paid work. Many work together with local campaign groups, and share a different vision of local government.
This report also makes recommendations, and while we would like to see these implemented across all local authorities, it is also worth pointing out that only a very few of them would need to be implemented centrally. We recognise the structural limits placed on local authorities. However, they also have autonomy to change many practices – and cultures – around scrutiny without needing to wait for central government guidance or legislation. The majority of these recommendations arise from examples we heard in our interviews with councillors who had found means of doing scrutiny better.