Scrutiny of decisions at Liverpool Council is “unsustainable” and risks issues “falling through the cracks”.
A report by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) has found that urgent change is needed in the way members and officers at the local authority go about scrutinising decisions made at the Cunard Building. The findings of the CfGS come in the aftermath of last year’s Best Value inspection report that found weaknesses in Liverpool Council’s governance.
As a result, then Secretary of State Robert Jenrick issued the authority with directions in June 2021 to sharpen up its performance within 12 months. In consultation with the government appointed commissioners the CfGS was commissioned to undertake a root and branch review with a view to making recommendations to enable Liverpool Council to deliver Mr Jenrick’s instructions.
READ MORE: Girl, 12, taken to hospital with serious injuries after being hit by car
The findings from Ed Hammond, a national lead on scrutiny and governance matters, have proven to be pretty damning for the council. Mr Hammond said “scrutiny spreads itself thinly at Liverpool.
“The current situation is unsustainable, and a lack of overall focus means that there is a real risk that issues fall between the cracks.”
Mr Hammond’s report, conducted last December, identified that by trying to look in detail at most things in the local area “the scrutiny function ends up looking at nothing adequately, because limits of member time and officer resourcing makes members’ aspirations impossible to deliver.” Mr Hammond said the current approach delivers neither close scrutiny of council finances nor assurances that the council is improving in such a way that “protects the rights and interests of local people”.
It was said that a lack of clarity exists around the key roles scrutiny committees perform which leads to updates on matters that “while interesting, have little impact on the work of the authority, particularly on its improvement work.” Mr Hammond added that the workload of the council’s scrutiny committees is “exceptionally heavy, and has been for some years; this sits alongside a general high workload for councillors”.
He said that this reflects an approach to work whereby items are simply suggested for debate “without any sense of thought or reflection on whether or how those items ought to be discussed.” Mr Hammond added: “Many councillors recognise these various challenges in the abstract, but are unwilling to engage in the difficult choices that may need to be made in order for their time, and scrutiny’s work, to be more focused and prioritised.
“Change is, however, a necessity – scrutiny as it is currently carried out at the authority is unsustainable.” The report did identify that members are committed to scrutiny and alongside officers, are keen to see it do well.
In addition, “there are a number of examples of scrutiny task and finish work which appear to have been of high quality, and with the potential to make a meaningful impact. However, it is difficult to track through this impact by reviewing the extent to which recommendations have been implemented, and the extent to which they deliver real change.”
The CfGS has recommended a restructure of the committee system, reducing it to four from eight with a separate body to lead on performance review. These would be health and care, economy, environment and community, and corporate improvement.
A further report on this restructure will be drawn up for review in July, with the existing select committees to continue until at least that point, should the full council agree to the proposal when it meets next week.
