For example, the recent schools mergers and closures debate was held at the Education Committee. Opposition councillors expressed community concerns and forced a number of votes. Under the new system the 15 Labour councillors would be expected to make the decision to close/merge. Labour back benchers and opposition councillors may then have the opportunity to discuss and question the decision that has already been made. They might recommend a change of heart by the 15 "elite" councillors but who would hold much hope of a change of mind!

John Mason said, "This is a total undermining of the democratic process. Questions and views should be aired before the decision is made, not afterwards. This seems clearly to be a move by the Labour Group to tighten their control over the democratic process. All challenges to their position must be removed. Even questions before a decision is made are to be silenced. We might have expected this in North Korea but it should not be happening in 21st century Scotland. This is a sad day for Glasgow."

MAIN COMMENTS

1. We question the decision making process on this. Papers were issued on Thursday 23rd, less than 4 days before the decision on Monday 27th. There should be a longer time for consultation and debate.
2. This proposal will centralise decision making. 15 Labour councillors will make all the decisions. Other councillors will only be able to ask questions and make recommendations, not actually be part of the decision making process as they are at present.
3. The Executive Committee will replace the present Policy & Resources Committee thus removing all opposition councillors from the key committee of the Council.
4. At Holyrood the committees are chaired by MSPs from all parties, however in Glasgow it is proposed that the chairs are all Labour councillors. This brings into question how effectively the scrutiny committees will scrutinise.
5. This appears to be preparation for a reduced Labour majority after May 2007. Even if Labour have a majority of only 1 after that, they will still have all 15 seats on the executive committee which makes all the major decisions.
6. The Education Committee will consist of 15 Labour councillors, 3 faith representatives, and no opposition councillors. This hardly seems democratic.
7. It is understood the "Executive Members" (convener/spokesperson) for a service will not appear at the relevant scrutiny committee to answer questions.
8. Improvements could be made to the present committee system, e.g. by meeting more often, delegating administrative detail, and abolishing most sub-committees. It is not necessary to remove the whole committee system to achieve such improvements, therefore the assumption has to be that this proposal is purely for the party political advantage of the Labour Group.

POSITIVE POINTS

1. Any 5 councillors can "call in" a decision and ensure the relevant scrutiny committee examines it.
2. Much administrative detail can be removed from a councillor's workload.
3. Development Applications will be slightly more removed from Development and Regeneration Services (they have been unhealthily close in the past).

KEY DEMANDS

If the proposal goes ahead:

• The Executive Committee should have a member from each opposition party as the present Policy & Resources Committee does.
• The chairs of the Scrutiny Committees should be shared among the political parties.

CONCLUSION

Based on the information available, the SNP is opposed to this proposed new system. It is inherently undemocratic as it centralises decision making in the hands of a few councillors and relegates scrutiny to after the decisions are made.