HMRI Process - Scrutiny

Can we rely on the scrutiny process?

Much has been made of the length of time spent in the scrutiny committee meeting of 8th September 2005, as if quantity automatically implies quality.

On the principle of "If you have a dog, why bother to bark yourself?" the Executive Board appeared to have deferred to the decision of the scrutiny committee and endorsed the full clearance of the Welsh Streets from Kelvin Grove to Admiral Street at its subsequent meeting (Item 54) .

Despite the length of the meeting, there are serious questions about the fairness of the scrutiny.

A contemporaneous note records some of the issues, but a glance at the agenda shows the lack of balance: only one slot was allowed for a resident (Nina Edge) to argue for a reconsideration of full clearance - overwhelmingly favouring the array of experts and protagonists for demolition. Two factors aggravated this aspect of unfairness: -

The slot immediately before Nina Edge was unexpectedly short. The officer Elaine Stewart delivered the results of a new opinion survey showing 118 versus 58 households favouring demolition and then sat down. This timing of this information - and the fact that it was not shared in advance - had the effect of further undermining Nina's credibility. Based on petitions etc, she believed that she had a (small) majority in favour of a rethink and said so. The appearance was thus created that an untruth was being told. On reflection there is no real conflict of evidence. Whether it is 50% or 33% who wanted a rethink, the community has been divided. (People who have signed a petition may change their mind afterwards.)
Nina Edge was followed by the WDC representative, Mary Huxam who was able to attack her without any possibility of rebuttal.

The whole basis for clearance - the HMRI ideology - was not open to effective challenge. All the experts and advocates were on the same side. Yet HMRI is controversial. Indeed the Liberal Democrat Councillors' Group has recognised this by having had two special Group meetings on the subject and the outcome was that the issue is unresolved and needs a special working party to be set up. So far this has not come to fruition. A discussion paper Questioning Liverpool's HMRI Policies by Councillor John Coyne has mapped the complexity of some of the issues.

Although the meeting was chaired well, the structure and climate of the meeting did not allow members to engage with the contested, controversial issues and to test conflicting evidence: -

Local Housing Market	The Welsh Streets Home Group (WSHG) had a register of some 80 potential buyers who wished to move into the area. The register was never inspected and indeed its existence was called into question.
Stock Condition	WSHG were not allowed to challenge assertions of poor condition or to introduce opinions from other experts.
Value for Money	The Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment, produced by the Penningtons Consultancy was not made available to members and there was no opportunity to challenge some of the assumptions underpinning its conclusions.
Community Engagement	There was no examination of the Council's failure (refusal) to engage with the Welsh Streets Home Group from the date of their inception - March 2004.

It may not have affected the outcome, but it is a reflection on the tone of the meeting that members voting against full clearance were required to stand up and show themselves whereas members voting the other way could remain in their seats.