In July the Annual Carbon Reduction Plan of Manchester City Council got a bit of a mauling. Maybe that explains why, months later, it still hasn’t gone to the Executive? Marc Hudson explains.
On Wednesday July 17th this year climate change and democracy collided in Manchester Town Hall. The Council wanted to assert that it had reduced its own emissions by 7% (it had aimed for 10%). During a “scrutiny committee” (a bunch of councillors who gather to keep tabs on what is happening), it was forced to admit was that emissions had actually gone up by 1.8%, with the claimed reduction being entirely due to the fact that emissions from traffic lights had become the responsibility of a different body.
There has been a second sharp rise that the Council probably doesn’t want you to know about as well – in the days taken for a Plan to move from committee to Executive. In previous years the Council’s Annual Reduction Plan has gone from the scrutiny committee to the very next available “Executive” meeting to be signed off (the Executive is made up of 9 (8 for the moment) top councillors who do the day-to-day running of the Council. This year, the contested and bloodied Carbon Plan has appeared at neither of the July or September Executive meetings. The earliest it can appear is on Wednesday October 23rd, after the Executive has gained a new Deputy Leader.
Two weeks ago we contacted the relevant officers at the Council, asking for an explanation as to why the Annual Carbon Plan had not been sent to Executive, where members of the Consultative Panel might ask some searching and damaging questions about it. Silence.
Marc Hudson
mcmonthly@gmail.com
manchester climate monthly 
What is their problem? We all know this stuff needs doing and doing at a much more urgent pace than is going on. A bunch of sloths would have achieved more. *Groan!
Multiple problems, I’m afraid.
They blame – with some justification – the utter havoc wreaked by this appalling government. The spending cuts have caused confusion, uncertainty and short-termism, no doubt.
The big problem with this narrative is, though, that “everything was fine beforehand”. Well, it wasn’t. The Council’s pre-May 2010 record was nothing to shout about, at all.
And what does basic open-ness and honesty cost, anyway?
Still, we get the government we (civil society) make happen. If we don’t stay awake, and we don’t find ways to help others understand what is going on, and work with them so we all gain the skills and confidence to take persistent action, then this is the sort of nonsense that you can expect…
There’s work to be done!!
forgive me if I’m wrong here, but isnt a Scrutiny Committee’s job …to well scrutinise?? In which wouldnt it make sense that theres a gap between then and Executive? If it got such a bloody nose the first time round, then it clearly needs work before it can be resubmitted. If anything if they’d followed the previous timetables there’d be more to worry about!
Hi Adam,
the Scrutiny Committee mauled it, but sent it on its way to Exec. I’ve asked why it hasn’t been sent on to Exec, and have received silence.
The gap between its scrutiny and its appearance before Exec is now unprecedented, as well as unexplained.
I would *love* it to come back to Scrutiny for re-working. It really needs it. Really really needs it. But right now, it’s in limbo. That’s not good enough, in my opinion!
Best wishes
Marc Hudson