Newcastle councillors are passionately committed to their wards but sometimes fail to think strategically, an independent report has found. Council meetings can turn into a talking shop with opportunities for showcasing, grandstanding and political point scoring. Scrutiny is variable in quality and in need of reform.
These are some of the further main points to emerge from the report on city council governance by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) reported in North East Bylines on 26 April. The CfGS report will go to the council’s constitutional committee on 13 May, and any procedural changes it recommends will be placed before the full council for a decision.
The CfGS is a charity which exists to promote better governance and scrutiny, both in policy and in practice. Its Newcastle report offers a rare insight into how councillors think about and go about their work.
First the good news
“There are many positives and commendable aspects of Newcastle City Council’s governance,” says the CfGS report. “Its members [councillors] and officers [paid officials] are especially committed to the success of the city, the wellbeing and aspirations of residents and the fortitude of the council.
“As councillors doing their duty in committee or in their wards, there is a detectable passion and commitment. Members have good core knowledge and understanding of their wards and the prominent issues. In committees, they work hard to achieve good outcomes.” But:
Councillors
“There is a widespread belief that the sum of the parts could be greater and deliver more overall. During our conversations and observations, we noted that at times some members’ focus seemed disconnected from overall council priorities. The preference of ward issues over strategic direction can often distract and divert attention for committees and members.
“The Council Plan 2024-2027 should give councillors a stronger focal point and bring a consistent, collective understanding of the council’s purpose and goals.”
Councillors say they need more training and development. There is said to be a level of fatigue as the demands on councillors and their time have increased, and balancing the responsibilities of the role with other commitments is challenging. Some load lightening or smarter working and support might help.
Councillors receive a lot of information, but still at times feel that they are not adequately informed or have sufficient access to what they might consider useful material. Some find the volume, and often complexity, of information too much to digest. It’s a perennial issue in lots of councils, says the CfGS.
Strategic input is said to be a challenging area for many councillors, some of whom often prefer to dwell on operational detail and community issues rather than discussing and trying to influence policy and strategy, which would have greater impact.
Attendance at meetings is described as generally acceptable and in some cases very good. However, the CfGS noted five vacancies on the Economy, Jobs and Skills Scrutiny Committee and at its January 2025 meeting, taking into account of vacancies and recorded absences, there were just five members present out of a recorded total membership of 12.
Scrutiny
One of the most important roles of backbench councillors is to scrutinise decisions of the cabinet – the council’s executive. This is an area of activity, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000, which has long been regarded as dissatisfactory and has been at the heart of the problems of governance at Tees Valley Combined Authority, as well documented by North East Bylines.
The overall assessment of scrutiny at Newcastle by the CfGS is that its impact and value-adding activity is variable. Some committees perform better than others and councillor contributions are noticeably weak in some committees. “There appears to be a lack of consistent understanding about the role of scrutiny, but sadly, this is not uncommon.”
It adds: “Our observations and evidence-gathering suggests that a comprehensive refresh of the scrutiny structure would be timely and advantageous in giving the council and councillors a new, potentially more impactful and exciting approach.”
North East Bylines has previously reported specific CfSG recommendations for improving scrutiny, including scrapping dedicated scrutiny committees for finance and budget; climate change; and jobs and skills.
Other changes now apparent are to integrate housing within the heath and adult social care scrutiny function, now that Your Homes Newcastle is an inhouse council function; and to create a new scrutiny committee dedicated to children, families and education, such are the large, complex, high risk and high spending issues involved.
City Council
“During the course of this review,”, reports the CfGS, “we found few advocates for the way city council meetings work, and the outcomes meetings achieve. Members expressed confusion, frustration and at times exasperation.
“We observed council meetings online and it is clear that members care and are passionate about the issues concerning the city. But they also frequently feel prevented from constructive engagement by a less-than-ideal set of procedures which at times can seem controlling rather than enabling…there is a clear appetite for change.”
Some business is reserved for the full council and cannot be avoided – election of leader, core strategic plans, budget and medium-term financial plan, constitution, committee chairs and wider committee appointments and appointment of chief executive and other statutory officers. But after that work is done, says the CfGS, a council meeting can become a showcasing, grandstanding or talking shop or a place to politically score points.
This leads the CfGS to recommend a small reduction in the number of full council meetings from eight per annum plus the annual general meeting to sevenplus the AGM. Some similar councils hold even fewer – in Liverpool it is just four including the annual and budget meetings.
Ideally, says the CfGS, full council meetings are an opportunity to listen together to residents’ issues, and a place to discuss, to be held to account for the big strategic issues in which the council is involved, and to hold set-piece debates on issues of citywide interest to residents where the council has direct control or sufficient, realistic influence with partners or other organisations.
But as is the case in many councils, the full council meeting in Newcastle is the “live theatre” where political differences can be exercised, and members value the opportunity to challenge and debate.
Motions to council
There is widespread frustration among members, says the report, regarding how motions are selected for debate. There is currently a backlog of motions, and some will never be debated. A reset is needed, with agreed criteria for a suitable motion.
“This has its challenges,” says the CfGS. “Some members feel that motions should be of interest to the citizens of Newcastle and within the purview of the council, but others could and do argue that issues exist which are of interest to citizens and where the council could in some ways have influence and voice, if not direct power.”
As a starting point for debating this, the CfGS recommends Peterborough City Council’s model. Motions must be relevant, meaning they must be about:
- matters directly within the council’s statutory functions or responsibilities, or
- be within the reasonable scope of the council’s UK sphere of influence and where its relevance would normally be acknowledged as relevant, or;
- issues of significant relevance to the local area or community as they relate to the council, city and its residents, or;
- topics that align with the council’s strategic plans or objectives.
Public engagement
“We observed good public participation with individuals and community representatives addressing the council and making constructive arguments, statements, petitions or appeals,” says the CfGS.
“It is recognised that whilst there is great democratic value in the whole council listening to the public addressing it with their issues or concerns, there is also scope for this provision to be stretched and potentially exploited. There are rules in place to prevent this as much as reasonably possible.
“There are many examples and models for this. CfGS can again help to signpost good examples. However, it should be accepted that perfection is rare and persistence to try to get public engagement working is essential.”
Conclusion
“Newcastle’s democratic structure is essentially sound,” the CfGS concludes, “and members and officers are able to operate effectively, but with some limitations…There are clearly, which many have acknowledged during the process of this review, areas which cause frustration, inconsistency in understanding and application, or are unnecessary.
“This presents opportunities for positive change, development and where necessary, streamlining or consolidation. We have made clear recommendations based on our evidence gathering and using the professional assessment of CfGS. We have also included advice on areas that we highlighted for further consideration or will need to be considered in the current revision of the Newcastle Charter.”
Comment
We have seen in Tees Valley how badly things can go wrong when scrutiny is weak. Newcastle is nowhere near that situation, and it is to the council’s credit that it commissioned the CfGS to conduct the review of its governance reported here. But nor is the city council without its problems, and it must take this opportunity to address them and make any positive changes necessary. Turning a blind eye would be the worst thing to do.
The CfGS report goes to the council’s constitutional committee next week; it should make a serious start on debating the issues. If it needs more time, so be it, But action to implement improvements must follow within a reasonable period.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
