A second example of the long-standing problems surrounding scrutiny in English local government has emerged in the North East – this time at Newcastle City Council – following the weaknesses revealed in Tees Valley in recent years.
Daniel Holland of the Local Democracy Reporting (LDRS) reports an outcry from opposition councillors in Newcastle over proposals for reform put forward by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS).
A review of scrutiny in Newcastle by the CfGS recommends:
- banning opposition party councillors from asking questions at cabinet meetings;
- scrapping the finance and budget; climate change; and economy, jobs and skills scrutiny committees;
- disbanding the 26 ward committees;
- holding meetings of the remaining scrutiny committees six times per year rather than 10 and limiting their agendas to only two or three items per meeting.
The LDRS reports that councillors are “seething” over the recommendations, but the CfGS, a charity, says its aim is always to improve the culture and practice of scrutiny in public bodies where it gets involved. It declined to comment on the Newcastle case specifically.Councillor Colin Ferguson, leader of the council’s Liberal Democrat opposition, warned that the review “decimates accountability, erodes scrutiny and centralises decision making away from our communities”.
He added: “We are dealing with the debacle of Urban Green’s [responsible for the city’s parks] collapse, pressing questions about how the council has come to own the Crowne Plaza hotel with debts of £39.5m, and cross-party agreement to instigate an independent inquiry into the political governance culture at the Civic Centre. Newcastle City Council needs more accountability, stronger governance, and deeper engagement with scrutiny, not less.”
The Green Party’s Councillor Nick Hartley said that scrapping a dedicated climate change committee, which the CfGS deemed “unnecessary”, would send “the wrong message”. He said: “At a time when misinformation is everywhere and trust in politics is low, we should be strengthening the spaces where real, practical progress can be made – not shutting them down.”
Independent Councillor Marc Donnelly told the LDRS “It is the death knell for democracy in Newcastle. It is taking power away from the people and placing it into the hands of a very small few in the council. It will lead to less scrutiny, less debate and less discussion. Unfortunately, I can only think of the worst-case situation – what are they [the council] hiding?”
The CfGS review, reports the LDRS, says that cross-examination at cabinet meeting can detract from the core purpose of the meeting and might easily lead to confusion for public and other observers; the finance and budget scrutiny committee’s functions could be split between other existing panels; and that fewer, more productive meetings of the remaining scrutiny committees would achieve more and have greater impact.
The LDRS also points out that as Labour no longer has an overall majority on the council, there would be questions over whether the Labour administration could command enough support to vote through any such changes if it wanted to pursue them.
Independent and impartial
A spokesperson for the Labour group on the council told the LDRS: “This was an independent review, with all members given the opportunity to take part and contribute fully. The Labour group will meet to consider the recommendations and decide how to proceed.”
The council told the LDRS that the CfGS review presented impartial advice that would not necessarily be implemented. A spokesperson confirmed that the review would be subject to debate at its constitutional committee in May but that any substantial changes would require the approval of the full council.
The spokesperson added: “We commissioned an independent report as part of our review of the Newcastle Charter to seek impartial, expert advice on how our democratic processes could be improved. This ongoing review, which all members have had the opportunity to help shape, aims to help ensure that our structures and practices reflect a modern organisation, that democratic processes are open and transparent, with effective democratic decision-making processes in place to make the best use of everybody’s time.”
The warning from Tees Valley
The CfGS has been involved in advising Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) since last year, when the independent Tees Valley Review set up by the Conservative Government found issues of governance and transparency that needed to be addressed and that a number of decisions did not meet the standards expected when managing public funds. The finding led the present government to issue TVCA with a Best Value Notice this month (April 2025).
It was not only – but mainly – the mayor, Lord Ben Houchen, who was responsible for Tees Valley’ problems; scrutiny has been weak there since at least 2019, as previously reported by North East Bylines. Houchen reluctantly resigned as chair of three mayoral development corporations, including the flagship regeneration site at South Tees, following the Best Value Notice.
National problem
There have been problems at a national level finding a meaningful role for backbenchers ever since the Local Government Act 2000 replaced their work as members of executive committees with a new scrutiny role, which scholars realised 20 years ago was demotivating. There was more than a hint of this lack of enthusiasm in the fact that only 31 of Newcastle’s 78 councillors took part in a CfGS survey on the subject.
Michael Gove, former Local Government Secretary, set up the Office for Local Government (Oflog) to strengthen the scrutiny of local authorities but it was closed by the present government in December 2024.
Statutory guidance published by the Conservative Government last year states that: “The role that overview and scrutiny can play in holding an authority’s decision-makers to account remains fundamentally important to the functioning of local democracy.”
The English Devolution and Accountability Framework says it “acts as a safeguard against unethical behaviour, inadequate performance and poor value for money for the local taxpayer by placing a focus on transparency and scrutiny.
“It will ensure that local councillors are empowered to provide effective scrutiny through a new Scrutiny Protocol. And that local media and residents are able to hold leaders and institutions to account with accessible information about the role and performance of their leaders through plain English guidance and published outcomes showing the progress areas have made.”
Highest standards of advice
A spokesperson for CfGS told North East Bylines:”CfGS is a charity that works with authorities to support them with their governance and scrutiny arrangements, to deliver the best possible decision making and accountability. In more than 20 years working with local government CfGS has developed a reputation for the highest standards of advice and support to councils, and other democratic institutions.
“In all our work, we look carefully at the often very different situations authorities find themselves in with respect to their governance and scrutiny. That includes working with combined authorities, local authorities and other institutions – all of which have different governance and scrutiny arrangements.
“Some fundamentals apply nonetheless: Good scrutiny is not just about the volume of visible activity labelled as ‘scrutiny’, but the quality of the work that overview and scrutiny carries out, when scrutiny takes place, the impact it has on the decision-making process, and the culture in which it is delivered.
“As a result, our recommendations respond to the specific requirements that we find within different contexts. And recommendations about the function of specific committees, their remit and how they address the work of the council are likely to vary significantly.
“In all cases, our recommendations are designed to try to deliver the best possible scrutiny and governance to improve the quality of decision making.
Comment
It seems probable that there has been a misunderstanding between the City Council, opposition councillors and the CfGS over what the recommendations would mean for transparency, accountability and democracy in Newcastle. The CfGS is a charity whose role is to enhance governance and scrutiny, promote transparent decision making and cultivate effective governance cultures.
If it has prompted genuine fears among opposition councillors – as it evidently has – that its proposals would sound the death knell of democracy at the Civic Centre, then it will have done so unwittingly, perhaps clumsily.
Members of the constitutional committee will meet in May to consider the CfGS review, and if any substantial changes are to be made they will go to the full council. There may be some sense in some of the CfGS suggestions. Perhaps, for example, cross-examination by opposition councillors at cabinet meeting does distract from the core purpose of the meeting and lead to confusion for public and other observers. If so, alternative arrangements acceptable to all parties should be made rather than banning such questioning altogether.
The committee and all councillors should keep cool heads, accept whatever wise advice the CfGS can offer and reject proposals they believe would not be in the interests of good local governance. No one wants to see Newcastle follow the same scrutiny road as Tees Valley.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
