Open letter to Local Government Minister James Brokenshire MP concerning Barnet Council gagging residents

Dear Mr Brokenshire,

I am writing to you in your role as Secretary of State for Local Government. I am a resident of the London Borough of Barnet As you may be aware, the new administration of Barnet Council has recently changed the rules governing engagement between local residents and council committees.

Barnet Council previously allowed up to 30 minutes for residents statements and questions at council committee meetings. This allows local residents to exercise a degree of scrutiny over council business. The council required questions to be submitted three days before the meeting and would publish a list of written answers on the day of the meeting, allowing residents to submit a supplementary question, should they not feel their question had been answered appropriately. In the case of multiple residents asking questions, each was invited, in turn to ask a supplementary question, ensuring that, within reason, everyone got a turn. If time permitted, this may allow several residents to ask several supplemental questions, as it would round robin until there were no more questions or no more time.

There was no limit on the length of questions submitted or the number of questions that a member of the public could ask. The new rules state

1. Questions and comments should be amalgamated; it is perfectly possible to raise a comment as part of a question.  The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100.

2. Questions/comments should be raised under the current rules for questions.  This means that the council and lead officer would have notice of the question/comment before the meeting and would therefore be in a position to amend the committee report (if necessary) to include a relevant matter raised in the question/comment, if not currently within the committee report.

3. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item.  The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee.  No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service.

The logic for the changes is as follows (as described in the relevant council paper)

In a recent 5-month period (1st September 2019 to 1st March 2019) a total of 598 questions were submitted by residents to theme committees (see list here), the Audit Committee and the Constitution & General Purposes Committee. From the total, one resident submitted 165 questions (28%) and another 111 (19%), with a further four residents submitting between 19 and 48 each. 79% of the total number of questions are submitted by 10 residents. The right of residents to raise questions and make comments at committees has become used to a degree which is officer resource intensive and requires limitation to achieve savings.

Enabling residents to attend meetings, ask questions, create petitions and raise issues at residents’ forums is an important element of the council’s governance arrangements. Residents should be able to understand how the decisions that affect them are made. However, the current arrangements in relation to public questions has resulted in senior officers spending a significant amount of time responding to (or coordinating responses to) questions from a small cohort of individuals. It is estimated that the time-cost of responding to public questions is around £42K per annum. Members are requested to consider whether this is an appropriate use of council resources and whether another arrangement may reduce the requirements on officers to provide responses to questions whilst maintaining resident’s rights to ask questions. 

What the council has not stated is that in this period, there have been significant issues with both the annual audit and the contracts managing council suppliers, which clearly warrented a high degree of scrutiny, by several residents with backgrounds in audit and contratcs. The individual mentioned, who submitted 165 questions in this period is a recognised expert in this field, who has previously been complimented by the former head of the Audit committee for asking questions that helped improved council governance. Furthermore, the former Local Government Minister, Lord Pickles, complemented the 'Armchair Auditors of Barnet' (referring to some of the individuals referenced above) for their diligence in holding Barnet Council to account and ensuring value for money is delivered.

It is matter of public record that questions from local residents secured an inquiry into council procurement, following questions regarding Metpro, an unlicensed security contractor for Barnet Council, that has resulted in at least £2 million savings since 2012. As such, the £42,000 referred to would seem to represent rather good value (assuming there have been no other savings identified by the rigorous questioning since 2012, which I believe to be highly unlikely).

I have many concerns. I believe that openness and transparency is vital to retain trust in local government. The new rules will favour organised pressure groups, Trades Unions and other societies etc that have large memberships, over ordinary residents. These groups can mobilise individuals to ask numerous planted questions and give scripted supplementary questions. Anyone familiar with Barnet, knows that this is exactly what will happen and that the £42,000 savings will not emerge.

The 100 word limit makes it virtually impossible to frame a detailed technical question for a committee such as the audit committee, in regards to the annual council audit. Do you really think that it would assist the administration in running the council, if a resident who has a background in Audit notes multiple errors in the draft audit report, cannot raise these matters with the committee? It would also seem to me that with a 100 word limit, detailed, sensible questions will be impossible and that all we will see is a succession of people from pressure groups grandstanding with sloganistic and banal questions that will elicit no useful response.

I have spoken to several Conservative Councillors who are privately very unhappy with the new rules. One told me that the councillors should respect residents rights to hold the council to account, even if some are politically motivated. I would have thought that the fact Barnet has 10 residents who regularly ask detailed questions should be celebrated rather than stifled.

I respectfully ask you to consider the issues I've raised. I am sure we both agree that public engagement in public life should be encouraged. Barnet Council has a new leader and I am sure that he would appreciate some support and wise council from an experienced minister, who might assist him in seeing that there is a bigger picture here.

Regards
Roger Tichborne