Councillors walk out over ‘pre-prepared’ speeches in ‘shambles’ scrutiny meeting
Last night's meeting was dubbed a shambles as Reform Uk councillors read pre-written statements
By Nadia Lincoln, local democracy reporter
Opposition councillors walked out of a west unitary council meeting claiming pre-prepared speeches had been read out regarding a key housing homeless policy document that was under scrutiny.
The walk out happened last night at the call in meeting to discuss the new guidelines for how the Reform Uk run West Northamptonshire Council could possibly send households suffering homeless into private rental properties outside of the council area.
A cross-party call-in was requested by Cllr Sally Keeble, leader of the Labour group, over concerns that there was no limit on the distance people could be sent from their homes, with no requirement for their consent, and a lack of detail in the important papers.
Many of the concerns raised around the policy were acknowledged during the meeting by the council’s deputy leader and portfolio holder for housing, Cllr Charlie Hastie, who informed the committee that distinctive changes would be made to the document as a result of some of the points highlighted in the call-in under delegated powers.
This included removing a clause which said that the use of private housing would be the “primary route” in most homeless housing approaches. Officers said it would instead be clarified to say that it was a new tool to be used alongside other routes and assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Cllr Hastie also accepted that the financial section of the report could have been more detailed and provided more clarity that the PRS policy is not primarily financially driven, but is about reducing homelessness demand and reliance on temporary accommodation.
Housing officers also told the scrutiny meeting that out-of-area private sector offers would not be made without the individual’s consent. This is despite the approved policy document stating that consent is not needed to offer private housing, so long as there is a reasonable prospect that the accommodation will be available for at least 12 months.
‘A completely different policy’
Cllr Keeble made the point that some of the things that had been said during the meeting were entirely different to what was written on the paper and approved at cabinet.
“What we’re actually hearing now is a completely different policy,” she said, “If people are given a placement and they have to go for a review, if they then have to end up in court, they have to go by what’s on paper, what the words say.
“They can’t go by what’s said in a committee meeting.”
It was suggested that the decision be referred back to cabinet with a recommendation to defer the policy in order to undertake a full cross-party scrutiny process, look at further financial analysis, dictate a defined maximum distance for placements, and release further supporting documents referenced in the policy.
Cllr Farzana Aldridge (Lib Dem) added:
“The purpose of a call-in is not to delay decision-making or frustrate cabinet.
“Aren’t we better off giving it the time and taking it back [to cabinet] and doing the work? I recognise that it’s an important area, but [the policy] is insufficient at the moment, the paper that I saw has massive gaps.”
Cllr Hastie responded:
“The view of all the people here is completely opposite to what we hear from the officers. The whole policy is about looking after our residents to the best that we can do.
“The officers here are not in the business of making life worse for our residents.”
The vote
Cllr Ron Firman (Reform UK) supported the cabinet’s decision, appearing to read from a sheet of paper, saying:
“If we do not adopt a policy like this, we risk limiting the tools available to us at a time when pressures are clearly increasing.”
Cllr Cameron Emery (Reform), who also appeared to read from his laptop, saying he was satisfied with the policy and that he did not think a referral to cabinet was needed.
A proposal was made by the vice-chair of the committee to take no further action.
The vote was split between the Reform UK councillors on the committee advocating for no further action and the opposition members voting against. The deciding vote to do nothing was carried by the committee chair, Reform UK Councillor Hayley Adkins.
Immediately after the vote was carried, Reform UK members on the panel were accused by the opposition of reading from pre-prepared statements during the meeting.
Ahead of the last item on the agenda iterm, Conservative councillor Pinder Chauhan told the chair:
“We’re leaving the meeting because I don’t think there’s any point in us discussing the programme going ahead because everything just goes through anyway.
“This is not a proper scrutiny committee, it’s just voted on, it’s pre-prepared speeches and this isn’t a proper debate.”
Cllr Scott Packer, who is vice-chair of the meeting, replied:
“We’ve been here for two hours, we have debated this, we’ve listened to everything everyone has said.
“If you’re not willing to accept that, then that is your prerogative.”
All five of the opposition members on the panel and in the audience left the One Angel Square meeting room, leaving only Reform councillors and WNC officers to close the meeting.
‘A complete mockery of democracy’
Speaking after the meeting, Cllr Chauhan told the LDRS she knew “only too well” the impact that a policy can have after her own experience with homelessness during the 1990s when her parents lost their business.
She continued:
“The request made yesterday to the Reform cabinet was to provide a clear policy, with no room for confusion.
“All of the opposition parties expressed concerns regarding this policy, not to be party political, but because of the risk it could put families at. With the lack of transparency, families and individuals facing homelessness could be placed anywhere in the country.
“The meeting yesterday made a complete mockery of democracy. The reason I walked out of the meeting was that there is no point in having meetings where Reform councillors don’t think for themselves and put their residents first. Where there is no intelligent debate. Where decisions are being pushed through with no scrutiny.”
Reflecting on the outcome of the meeting, Cllr Keeble said:
“This was a complete farce. It leaves in chaos a policy that affects thousands of the most vulnerable local people.
“It is now completely unclear whether they will be forced into private sector housing, and whether they will be sent out of county. There are no criteria given for the council’s action and complete misinformation about the public’s rights.”
She also said the hearing “made a complete mockery of scrutiny”, which is supposed to be politically neutral.
“The decision was taken on the casting vote of the Reform councillor who chairs the committee, supported by Reform councillors who read out ready-prepared statements.
“Small wonder all the committee’s opposition members walked out.”
Cllr Jonathan Harris (Lib Dem group leader) also called the scrutiny meeting a “shambles”.
“The whole point of a call-in is to enable councillors to raise concerns over a policy or decision that has been taken by cabinet or council.
“Reform councillors often ask no questions and remain largely silent in committees – it was the same at this scrutiny committee. However, at the summing up stage, several Reform councillors read out statements which appeared to be pre-prepared.
“This is not scrutiny and undermines everything that the process is supposed to be about. Reading out pre-prepared statements clearly shows no independence. This seriously undermines openness, transparency and local democracy.”
‘Their response to losing the argument was simply to storm out’
WNC leader Cllr Mark Arnull, who watched the meeting from the public gallery, responded to the criticism saying:
“After two hours of scrutiny, where the opposition had every opportunity to make their case and put questions to officers and the cabinet member, it says everything that their response to losing the argument was simply to storm out. Residents expect serious scrutiny, not political theatrics when things don’t go their way.
“Much of the discussion wandered well beyond the actual call-in, which rather underlines the point. The real ‘farce’ here is the opposition now trying to attack Reform UK councillors for doing exactly what they were elected to do, prepare properly, understand the detail, and treat a serious issue with the seriousness it deserves.
“What followed online was predictable: a burst of synthetic outrage designed more for social media than for the people footing the bill.
“The reality is simple. This policy enables the council to meet clear legal obligations under legislation introduced in 1996 and left untouched by successive governments, including 13 years of Labour, when some of the very same voices now complaining were in or close to power.”