Thursday 28 September 2017

PROBE BECAME A COVER-UP, IT IS CLAIMED






 City council    and an 
alleged
http://www.enr.com/ext/resources/archives/images2/2009/01/090114-50a.jpgfarce of scrutiny
The most sensational stories from Westminster come from the work of select committees it may be said, as small groups of MPs and members of the Lords on these committees probe and scrutinise what the government of the day is up to as it runs the country.

These sensational stories often are a sure sign that a select committee is doing a good job and has unearthed some scandal or abuse.

Actually, a good job is what these select committees do most of the time. So it is no surprise that some years ago the then government decided to extend their work to the town halls of Britain so that local government could form their own “select committees” and also benefit.

Sadly, things did not always turn out like that in one town hall, is now claimed. And instead of exposing wrongdoing, the “select committee” in that town hall, Carlisle, is accused of doing exactly the opposite by helping to cover up the work of an organisation which the committee was meant to scrutinise.

(The organisation is the  Liverpool-based Riverside Housing Association which is the biggest landlord in the city with 6,000 homes.)

This is very serious stuff. And a complaint about the alleged scrutiny that became a cover up has been lodged with Carlisle City Council by a city tenants` group, Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation which publishes this blog and has a long record of campaigning against Riverside dating back to 2002.

The Federation`s letter of complaint is published below.
In the letter, the Federation claims that long before all this alleged cover up is alleged to have taken place the Federation helped the then enthusiastic council to launch its own “select committee”. It was called the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Sadly, that council enthusiasm started to wane and enthusiasm soon changed to hostility. So much so that the Federation was recently accused by the council of using the Panel as a platform for its own propaganda.

The accusation was outrageous and unworthy of the council.

But ironically, another change was underway after the council started expressing troubling concerns about Riverside.

The latest change is an historic transformation in the situation. The campaign by the Federation against Riverside over the past 15 years is now seen to have been largely justified.

Many of the Federation`s concerns expressed over those years are  now being voiced by individual councillors and are also reflected in a recent council report.

Here is the letter, which is addressed to Mr Jason Gooding, the council`s Chief Executive:

“The Federation at its monthly meeting on September 21 discussed your council`s report to the September 7 meeting of the Economic Growth Scrutiny Panel and I was asked to write to you.

You will be aware that since the housing stock transfer in 2002  the Federation has been very active in attempting to hold Riverside to account and make it more transparent.

To that end, approaches were made some years ago to your council, led by the late Mr  Tom Johnson a former mayor of the city who was then Chairman of the Federation. Talks were held with your then Scrutiny Officer aimed at facilitating Federation oral questions about Riverside at meetings of the Community Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

During those talks, your Scrutiny Officer explained that at the time the Government wanted local authorities to develop scrutiny machinery based on the parliamentary select committee system.

At that time no such scrutiny machinery existed within your council and it was suggested that the planned questioning of Riverside was a start along the path wanted by the Government.

After those talks, the Federation decided to go ahead with questions to the Panel. These questions, limited in number to two or three for each meeting, were duly submitted and answered over several years at panel meetings, then held once or twice a year.

(The Audit Commission on more than one occasion questioned the Federation about details of this involvement with your council and sought the Federation`s views on the matter.)

From the Federation`s viewpoint, the panel questioning was a far from satisfactory exercise for reasons I do not wish to detail at this stage.

But what must be said is that the council` interest in the Federation`s participation has declined from being very enthusiastic at the outset to being openly hostile recently when the Federation was accused by a senior official of using the panel as a platform for propaganda. This accusation was deplorable and unworthy.

And what can also be said at this stage is that any beneficial effect of the questioning to the Federation, and arguably for the taxpayers, was nil. Worse than that, the questioning actually benefitted Riverside because under the cloak of “scrutiny” the answers (invariably slanted in favour of Riverside) became  a  barrier to any exposure of Riverside`s failings.

As such, the questioning, far from being part of a scrutiny system based on the parliamentary system became the exact opposite and was in fact an added layer of protection.

Turning now to recent times and your council`s troubling concerns about Riverside. There has been an historic transformation in the situation and the campaign by the Federation over the past 15 years is now seen to have been largely justified.

Many of the Federation`s concerns expressed over those years are  now being voiced by individual councillors and are also reflected in your council`s report to  the September 7 meeting.

The historic transformation has highlighted other concerns of the Federation in addition to those concerns about the panel`s operations mentioned above.

These other concerns are as follows:

1, The  council`s questioning arrangement  at panel meetings now seems to have come to a halt and the Federation  has no access to the panel and is out on a limb.

2, It appears that all issues raised by the Federation in the longstanding and continuous Federation campaigning against Riverside have not been given deserved inclusion in your council`s “demands” of Riverside.

3, The Federation does not consider that  the“scrutiny” workings of the panel over the years have been in accordance  with the workings of the parliamentary select committees. These workings, as outlined earlier in this letter, have in fact been in direct contradiction.


 Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803

No comments:

Post a Comment