An overhaul of some of the Isle of Wight Council’s committees will see Conservative councillors in the majority — including on the scrutiny panel.
Previously, the corporate scrutiny committee had more opposition councillors than Conservatives, to ensure independent scrutiny of the work of the council’s cabinet in a reverse political proportionality agreement.
Now, 5 Conservative councillors will hold the majority in the scrutiny because a report to maintain the allocation of seats, including the reverse proportionality, was voted against by 4 councillors.
Cllr Geoff Brodie, of the 1957 Group and representative of Newport East, was one of those who voted against the recommendations, saying there had been no proper scrutiny of the council in the past 3 years. He said:
“Corporate scrutiny is allowed by the leader to pursue an agenda that is laid for them and is only allows to pursue certain elements of the council work.
“I don’t see the point of it to be frank, I think it is a waste of time — it is dominated by the cabinet members and the leader doing updates constantly. It is failing entirely.”
Cllr Brodie also wanted to see the regeneration scrutiny committee abolished and the health scrutiny committee to meet more frequently.
Cllrs Ian Stephens, Richard Hollis and John Kilpatrick also voted against retaining reversed political proportionality.
Cllr Hollis said the one thing he did not like on the committees was ‘grandstanding’ and ‘it seemed to have crept in’. He said:
“You should have an independent mind, you are not there to push a certain political agenda. Of course you think differently sometimes but you should be above that for the sake of discipline and organisation.”
Cllr Clare Mosdell, cabinet member for adult social care, public health and housing needs, said the committee should be the ‘critical friend’. She said:
“We have to remember it is there not politically point score of make those statements but to look at policy which is important for this council.”
After the decision was made to Cllr Karl Love, who has now lost his position on the corporate scrutiny committee said: “I do hope everybody realises the mess we are now in.”
Chair of the corporate scrutiny committee, Cllr Andrew Garratt, said the move was a ‘backwards step’. He said:
“It is a long-standing understanding when the majority of the people do not come from the administration side although there are conservative members who do challenge anyway.
“The legislation is pretty clear it should be a non-political type of body, but we are now stuck with other legislation that says we have to be proportional.
“I am now deeply disappointed Cllr Michael Lilley will lose his place as vice-chair, he has done tremendous work.
“I do think scrutiny has to be overhauled to beef up the [health and regeneration] committees, they do not meet frequently enough.”
So,.. a group of Conservative Councillors, scrutinising the decisions made by a group of Conservative Councillors,.. Isn’t that a bit like pupils marking their own home work ? (or perhaps more accurately, alleged criminals being judge & jury for themselves).
So now it’ll be a green light for the scheming Conservatives to make any decision they like & the scrutiny committee will just rubber stamp it!… what a Con (servative)
problem is, as is highlighted by the comments in the article – that the committee had become unfit for purpose and those on it, who were not of the party elected, were clearly vetoing things that shouldn’t have been and attempting to thwart processes because it didn’t sit with their political views and also just to frustrate the party in power.
Sadly, this type of committee is good on paper and woefully inadequate when in practice – because of the pig headed, self centred childish attitude and nature of those that are on the committee and not of the party in power.
ruined by those on the committee unfortunately – hence the change to what is in place now. You can only challenge the outcomes now and not the process prior to implementation.
The blame for this debacle lays squarely at the feet of the opposition committee members and their arrogance. They were warned.