Rather than just sit around waiting to find out whether or not Sir Stuart has had a gagging order imposed on those involved in the Terry Dixon trial, we should maybe take a look at other areas of local government where the elected councillors paid to represent the people would actually rather they just shut-up.
Middlesbrough Borough Council has a body called an ‘Overview and Scrutiny Panel’ (OSP) Nothing odd there, they were introduced under the 2000 Local Government Act. Their function and purpose is explained here.
Now, at the moment, here in Middlesbrough, the problem of asbestos in council and Erimus housing is something of a ‘hot potato’ (which probably makes it even more dangerous!). There’s some debate about what has been done to remedy the problem, how much money has been paid to whom, how long ago it was paid and how little progress has been made in over a decade. On hearing that the issue was being ‘called-in’ by the OSP, local man Dennis Lane attended the meeting, as something of an expert in the field.
By and large, our OSP are Labour Party nodding-dogs, in place to give some sort of credibility to our ineffective and wasteful council. Imagine, if you will, being in a position to hand-pick the people whose job it is to monitor your behaviour. You too might employ your mates (or in the case of the council, your party brethren) in the knowledge that they’ll look the other way or, when called upon to actually scrutinise something, ensure that there are enough of your mates on the panel to simply nod it through.
Anyway, back to the meeting. Information was read out which was at odds to some original historic information and Dennis Lane challenged it, asking the chair of the panel, cllr Jan Brunton (Labour) for permission to speak on the subject. Cllr Brunton denied Dennis the opportunity, telling him that ‘this is a business meeting’.
Now, if you click here, you can see the bit about ‘Engaging with the Public’, which includes this little nugget:
“Use of Witnesses – Members also spoke with a variety of experts who attended panel meetings to assist the panels in making informed decisions about a topic.”
Yet, when a local expert on the subject of asbestos asks to contribute to the scrutinisation of an issue concerning asbestos in council and housing association stock, he’s denied the right by the chair. Furthermore, none of the panel moved to ask Mr Lane to explain his background, knowledge and the basis upon which he thought it pertinent to offer his insight. At best, we have a Scrutiny Panel incapable of scrutinising their own procedural performance and at worst, we have a Scrutiny Panel prepared to nod through anything that MBC do and avoid awkward yet pertinent questions to be raised.
At best, cllr Brunton is being paid an allowance of £6000+ to chair meetings she is incapable of running within the constitution. At worst, this is a deliberate attempt to keep something quiet, in order to keep happy the people who appointed her to the post for which she is paid her £6000+ ‘allowance’ (and can, therefore, remove her from the post if they’re not kept ‘happy’).
More interestingly, what is it that Dennis Lane knows that cllr Brunton doesn’t want to wind up in the minutes of one of her meetings? After all, it’s difficult to deny knowledge once that happens?!