Reform accuses Labour of 'stitch-up' in cutting scrutiny of city council decisions

[dutchman]

The Labour group and its leader have been attacked over changes to the way its decisions and spending are examined



Coventry City Council's Labour leader has been accused of a "political stitch-up" in making changes to the way the authority is held to account..

At the first meeting of the council after the local election, Cllr George Duggins set out plans to cut the number of people sitting on panels that check decisions. The council voted by 32 votes in favour to approve the changes, with 19 voting against.

The council has five Scrutiny Boards. These are for Business, Economy and Enterprise; Communities and Neighbourhoods; Education and Children's Services; Finance and Corporate Services; and Health and Social Care. The Green Party will chair two of these in return for giving their support to the Labour group, which lost overall control on May 7.

Cllr Duggins said the number of people appointed to each board will be reduced from nine to six and has made a further change that means only three councillors are required to be present when each one meets.

Coventry Reform group leader Jackie Gardiner told this week's first AGM of the new council it would mean "less scrutiny of the work of this council."

"It will reduce by precisely a third, denying 15 councillors the opportunity to directly question officers and Cabinet members about their work," she said.

Objecting to the new minimum attendance requirement of three people, she said: "Three! All those officers called away from their duties to be scrutinised by potentially just three councillors. What a shocking waste of officer time, and a shocking waste of the councillor expertise elected to this place

"So why is this proposed? Have the numbers of councillors elected to this chamber reduced? No, we still have 54. But 15 of them are no longer Labour. So, like all parties given to totalitarianism, scrutiny of what they do must go. Labour seek to reduce scrutiny by exactly the number of councillors they have lost.

"Coventry has voted for more scrutiny of what goes on here, but this administration chooses to misuse its power and hide from that scrutiny. Yet again, Coventry gets less for what it pays.

"In fact, why not let opposition parties chair all of the scrutiny boards, like they do in other councils? So that genuine objective scrutiny can take place. You know it's good practice. It's set out by the LGA, the local government association. What have you got to hide? Coventry suspects plenty."

Cllr Frank Beechey (Reform, Wyken) said: "Scrutiny is the cornerstone of the work we do as councillors. Our very purpose is to make sure that officers deliver value for money. However, these proposals are intent on avoiding scrutiny.

"How on earth can six members be as effective as nine? Where is the challenge? Where is the core principle of our role? How can it be that with 54 councillors, the same as before, that suddenly the workload is unmanageable? Nothing else has changed other than the Labour Party are doing whatever they can do to avoid any challenge to their empire. Yet it is not their empire, it's the empire of the people of Coventry, and they demand scrutiny, they demand value for their hard-earned money. "

Cllr Marcus Lapsa (Reform, Tile Hill & Canley) told Labour: "Things are not going be nodded through. They're not gonna be nodded through just because you want them. You have not got overall control. Yes, you won the most number of seats. We won the most number of votes, and we were in within 100 votes of another 10 seats.

"Now, the thing is, what we're looking at is a political stitch-up. And the thing is, the people of Coventry voted for change at this election, they sent out a clear message and they are tired of the same old politics, tired of the backroom deals and everything else.

"Scrutiny exists to challenge decisions, expose failures, and ensure a transparency for Coventry residents. Reducing scrutiny while striking political deals [with the Greens] sends out entirely the wrong message.

"This is not what people voted for. People voted for change. They voted for honesty, transparency and accountability."

Cllr Lisa Boyle (Reform, Bablake) said: "Why reduce scrutiny, unless you want fewer questions asked and less accountability? Scrutiny is one of the most important parts of local democracy. It is there to challenge decisions, examine spending, and make sure the administration is acting in the best interest of the Coventry people.

"Coventry deserves honesty, strong scrutiny, and councillors who are prepared to put the city first. I believe the people of Coventry will remember this decision when they vote next year."