Thoughts on the Council meeting held on Friday 15th July 2011
By Cllr Liz Chave; It’s Our County; Three Elms, Hereford
NB: Herefordshire has 58 Councillors; the Conservatives are in the majority with 30, as one of them is the Chair, it leaves them with a voting majority over all of one. It’s Our County have nine Cllrs with one Green in their group making them the biggest opposition party of ten. Lib Dems have 3, Labour 1 and the Independents (not a political party) are a group of 14.
For those of you interested in the workings of the Council chamber I have written a short account of a long meeting. To begin with, I asked for voting numbers to be recorded and comments to be properly attributed in future minutes –the Chairman said she would sort this out. We shal see. Then came the two Notice of Motion, the first proposed by It’s Our County, the second, with IoC support by the Independent Group.
First Notice of Motion on Overview & Scrutiny: That the Chair of scrutiny be changed from Harry Braemar a member of the ruling Conservative Party to a member of the opposition
The public who were present appeared to like what was being said by opposition members, judging by their applause (they were reprimanded by the Chairman – perhaps for their engagement in democracy??!)
Those in favour of the motion expressed concerns about
• disregarding the recommendations in the 2008 Review of Overview and Scrutiny – which urged a phased implementation
• the public perception of scrutiny
• the ability of the new model to actually hold the executive to account.
Cllr Liz Harvey (IoC) proposing the Motion, reminded Council that this was about small “p” politics – action for the people, though it was unclear how the public could be involved at times. “If scrutiny is to be non-political, why put a member of the administration in the Chair?” she asked.
Cllr Graham Powell (Cons) expressed concerns that so few councillors and members of the public attended the Overview and Scrutiny meeting on Monday. (It was later pointed out that some councillors and members of the public are effectively excluded from day time meetings by virtue of needing to work for a living!)
Cllr Edwards (Ind) observed that the function of scrutiny is to “hold the executive account” – he now sees “a weaker scrutiny process” and “no opportunities for better outcomes for Herefordshire”.
Cllr Robertson (Ind) urged the need to improve public perception on this matter. Cllr Morgan hoped said we should “worry less about the process”. Cllr Price saw “no evidence that someone in opposition makes a better chairman”. Cllr Kenyon likened some of the process to “a game show” – which upset the Chair. He asked the public who were present to respond to the motion with a “clap-o-meter”, noting that Conservative comments were only generating Conservative applause.
My contribution to the debate: “In the scientific community, scrutiny is called “peer review”. Having come up with your theory, you test it thoroughly, attempting to refute it yourself, modifying it as necessary, and repeating this process until you’re sure it stands. It is then subjected to peer review, where your rivals test it and attempt to refute it.
A cabinet that truly believed it was making decisions that were right for the people of Herefordshire would surely have no fear of allowing the “Opposition” to scrutinize those decisions. What are you afraid of?”
John Jarvis (Cons) responded he had “nothing to fear” – yet he still won’t do it, though he claimed he “wanted whole council opportunities in policy making”. Actions speak louder than words, he said, at the last Council meeting. He also claimed opposition chairing was “outdated”. He did state clearly his intention “to review all roles at the end of the year”.
Cllr Woodward (IoC) pointed out that the new system excludes many of the 58 councillors from being involved in the scrutiny process.
Cllr Phillips (Cons) highlighted the “importance of scrutiny”. His move to vote was over-turned, and the debate continued.
Cllr Matthews (Ind) stated “you cannot scrutinize yourself” and pointed out again that other authorities don’t try to.
Cllr James (Lib Dem) pointed out that with less than a third of the electorate voting, “we are the anoraks” and one third of that third were imposing their will (by Tory actions) on the county. “This will come back to haunt you” he warned.
Cllr Attwood (Ind) suggested the matter was one of principle, as well as good practice and being seen to be open and transparent (something Cllr Jarvis (Cons) claims to want for the Council).
Cllr Lloyd-Hayes (IoC), seconding the Motion, stated that best practice is an opposition chair for scrutiny, and declared the current arrangements to be “flawed…..and not democratic”.
Cllr Liz Harvey (IoC), summing up, wondered why change the system, wasn’t the old one working?
The Motion fell, 25 votes for (all the opposition), 26 against (all the Cons) and 2 abstentions.
The Second Notice of Motion asked for discussion on voluntary salary reductions for senior members of staff.
Speakers urged that ALL options had to be looked at when savings were required.
Cllr Jarvis (Leader; Cons) declared that senior officer pay was “broadly in line with national averages” – sadly this is not reflected for most other people, where Herefordshire’s average wages are generally much lower. He expressed an intention of getting the best for every penny we spend”. Several Conservative councillors wanted a delay in doing anything to allow the government to respond to the Hutton Report and the Localism Bill to make progress. (I note that in cases of pay, it is always easier to look at those receiving more in their pay packet and make comparisons, rather than look at the rather larger numbers of people receiving – and managing – on considerably less! These people should read “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett as a matter of urgency!)
Cllr James (Lib Dem) urged Council to “get away from the idea that by paying big money you get better people” and reminded us that thousands of people aren’t just contemplating a percentage reduction in their income, but losing their jobs entirely. I think Cllr Hamilton (Cons) implied that senior staff get paid more to fire others, and that Herefordshire didn’t look good on an officer’s CV, being more like to end a career than help build it. Surely he can’t have meant that! (And I personally have nearly always managed to be highly motivated, despite never earning more than £16K a year).
Concern was expressed about changes in contracts, terms and conditions for officers. Cllr Lloyd-Hayes (IoC) pointed out that a number of officers in the past had proved to not be up to the job, despite high financial rewards. She hoped Herefordshire was seen as a choice for “lifestyle and beauty, – not as a stepping stone”.
Cllr Kenyon (IoC) was anxious that the Council should not be seen to do nothing on this matter, and Cllr Woodward (IoC) stated that those with the lowest wages are being asked to pay more, and wondered “are we all in this together?”
The Tory mantra of paying enough to attract the right people continued, which made me wonder if the only possible reason for moving to Herefordshire was to receive a fat pay packet (another matter I’ve clearly failed on!)
Cllr Seldon (Ind) asked Council to understand that what was being asked for was discussion on the matter, suggesting that thus we could be ready to implement any changes demanded by the Localism Bill, once enacted, quickly.
Cllr Johnson (Cons), seconding an amendment, felt he was seeing “gesture politics” with no good argument for the original motion as it stood.
“They really don’t understand, do they?” declared Cllr Matthews (Ind), “all we’re asking for is an exploration”. People living on £8k, or £9k or £10k a year “expect us to address this issue”.
The amendment put forward by Cllr Jarvis (Leader, Cons; that the issue be delayed until after the Localism Bill) was won, 27 votes for 23 against and 1 abstention. Considering that the original motion had lost its impetus by the amendment, I abstained from voting for it as amended.
The Leader’s Report (John Jarvis, Cons)
Cllr Phillips (Cons) was clearly rattled by my concern that the budget was only balance by borrowing – he said the borrowing was from “earmarked reserves” – which doesn’t make sense, if you’ve earmarked it, you intend to spend it on that particular thing! All authorities borrow, he said (an argument that everyone else is doing it to isn’t that good when what you’re doing isn’t such a great idea! And anyway, isn’t it debt that’s got us ALL into this trouble in the first place?!)
Cllr Jarvis (Cons) has promised me a written response to my enquiry about whether there had been a 25% reduction in costs as well as management – I observed that reducing people but paying more might not mean a reduction at all! Cllr Jarvis also gave Cllr Lloyd-Hayes (IoC) a clear assurance that intends to review the overview and scrutiny arrangements in 12 months time (despite differences in each’s understanding of the word “democracy”!)
Cllr Jarvis also gave an assurance of looking more closely at necessary and suggested changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Provisions in the Constitution, a number of issues having been briefly highlighted.
After thought: here is a quote or two from “The Spirit Level” which seems sort of relevant.
“As wartime leaders knew, if a society has to pull together, policies must be seen to be fair and income differences have to be reduced.” (p233)
“Further improvements in the quality of life no longer depend on further economic growth: the issue is now community and how we relate to each other” (p 254)