Whilst most Councils tend to adopt an informal break during August, in an unusual twist, a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny management was called to discuss the call in of a decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Highways, Cllr Cheyne, and the Executive Councillor for Resources, Cllr Catton, to spend £578.5K on a Highway Drainage Scheme for Mount Lane in Kirkby la Thorpe despite there being a scheduled meeting of the committee next week when this could have been considered.
With a vast number of councillors being unable to attend due to the unexpected nature of this meeting (and those who submitted the call-in request being unable to sit as members of the committee), there were six substitute members in attendance. One of those who decided to approve this, the Executive Councillor for Highways, Cllr Cheyne, was also unable to attend, and so sent his Support Councillor, Cllr Wimhurst.
Typically, an Overview and Scrutiny would have a maximum of 10-12 people in attendance. This was clearly perceived to be quite an event at the Council. Including members of the press, there were 32 people present, including the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader of the Council and numerous members of the Executive.
It should be stated at the outset that this was not an attempt by the Lincolnshire Conservative Group to prevent action being taken on flooding, and we understand that this work needs completing. The call in request was submitted to ask for further information before committing more than half a million pounds to a project where only one house has been flooded in the last 10 years, when numerous other areas have experienced several properties experiencing internal flooding, why we are spending £67k of taxpayers money constructing a track for a farmer to use for the duration of the works that will remain in situ afterwards for their benefit, and to find out why Reform didn’t bring this item to a meeting for Scrutiny, which is the norm for a project of this cost.
It is essential to highlight several questions that remain relating to the scheme.
- Cllr Catton clearly stated that Officers decide what goes to Scrutiny. Although this statement was later described as a “mistake”, it remains a significant concern that the Reform Councillors initially believed this to be the case, raising the question: “Who is setting the direction of Lincolnshire County Council?”
- This item should have been referred to Scrutiny for consideration before the Executive Councillor’s approval. This would have negated the need for the call-in, as members would have been allowed to discuss this and obtain answers to the numerous questions that were related to this decision. Although the Chief Executive apologised for not taking it to Scrutiny, the Reform Administration appears to be unaware of the proper procedure for making such decisions, raising a question.
“Do Reform actually understand what their role entails now that they are in administration at Lincolnshire County Council?”
- The Conservative Group actually submitted the questions that we had relating to this application in advance, which we did not have to do, and did so out of courtesy to the Chairman of the meeting and the Executive Councillors for Resources and Highways. We were actually criticised by the Executive Councillor for Resources for providing the questions 24 hours in advance and told that we should have given more notice, an interesting approach given that constitutionally we did not have to submit them in advance and could have just asked them at the meeting. When questioned about how much notice Cllr Catton would like for questions that do not have to be submitted in advance, he was unable to answer.
“How much notice would Cllr Catton like to receive questions in advance of a meeting when we don’t have to provide any notice at all?
- A Reform councillor stated that he felt that the £67K spent to build an access track for farm vehicles for the duration of the works, and that would be left in situ for the benefit of the farm after the job was completed was “money well spent”, even though there were other tracks that could be used for farm vehicles and that HGV’s and cars would be allowed access during the works. A second Reform Councillor also made the point that if there were a track not to be built, there may not be co-operation from the farm for the works, despite it being the case that across the County, when works are undertaken, there may be disruption to residents and businesses, which is accepted for the wider gain.
The Leader, Cllr Matthews, also then decided to intervene in the debate and stated that he was comfortable with the money being spent on the track being put in place, despite a request being made from Conservative Councillors to look at whether any alternatives had been explored to the construction of the track to save the taxpayer £67k.
“Why has Reform decided that this particular farm warrants special treatment, and would Lincolnshire residents agree that this is money well spent?”
- Given that the Leader, Cllr Matthews, had decided to get involved in the discussion, he was asked about whether it is the opinion of the Executive that it is for Officers to determine what goes to Scrutiny for discussion. Despite numerous attempts for a simple “Yes or No” answer, Cllr Matthews refused to answer, and his response was to say that nothing had changed since the change in administration. This question therefore, remains:
“Do the Executive believe that it is for Officers to decide which decisions should go to Scrutiny for discussion?
- Towards the end of the meeting, Reform members also stated that they clearly valued pre-decision Scrutiny as they had chosen to retain it, and that this was an excellent learning curve for them. Our final question must therefore be:
“How long will Reform continue to use the ‘We’re new’ card as an excuse?”
To conclude, It will come as no surprise that the proposal for this to be referred back to the Executive Councillors for further consideration was not successful, despite securing support from all non-Reform councillors who felt that this decision had not been adequately scrutinised and warranted more consideration being given to spending £67K the track before the decision was implemented.