A man of independent mind!

Last week my blog was titled, North Harrow deserves better than this, and it spoke about a constituent who cannot expand his business because he is hampered by rules governing change of use and the loss of retail outlets in North Harrow’s shopping area.  I will return to this at another time because the matter is ongoing.

Instead I will report this week’s council meeting in which I gave my maiden speech and why I supported motions by both Conservative and Labour councillors.  During the election campaign I said that by electing an Independent councillor it would be seen by the established parties as an attack on the ‘accepted way of doing things’.  After all I have no party whip to instruct me what to think and how I should subsequently vote, and nor do I want one because as I said to the meeting of all 63 Harrow councillors, I will judge every issue put before us entirely on its merits and vote accordingly.

My maiden speech just happened to support a Conservative motion on greater transparency of council business.  This is a subject I feel strongly about and as I pointed out to the meeting after the scandal of MP’s expense claims, local councils must be completely open for scrutiny in all aspects of their work, especially when it comes to councillors’ allowances and the pay of senior officers.

I don’t actually think that Harrow’s ruling Labour group want to block our access to information, they can’t anyway because of a government directive and of course the Freedom of Information Act, but in my view they made a tactical error by opposing this motion as it will be interpreted by the wider public as just another group of politicians voting for a cover up.  So despite the lone Liberal Democrat councillor and I backing the opposition, the motion was defeated by 30 votes to 29.

I then supported a motion by the Labour group.  It was an amendment to a Conservative motion opposing the closure of Harrow Magistrates Court.  In reality the council is united in opposing the government’s plans to close the court.  I took the view that Labour’s amendment would be more effective as it directed the council to lobby our MP’s, seek meetings with ministers and promote the use of petitions.  In the end there was no actual vote as a consensus across the council chamber was achieved.

If Labour had presented an amendment motion on greater transparency with the same resolve they put into opposing the court closure they would have demonstrated their support for open government, which having spoken to individual councillors at the end of the meeting I know to be the case.

The criticism of my council colleagues, I hope, will always be constructive and given in good faith.  This blog will not indulge in party political point scoring and will be written with an entirely independent mind!