I REFER to your article (Bolton Evening News, May 20) regarding Scrutiny.

Scrutiny could so easily be accused of rubber-stamping but, unlike the previous committee structure, reports brought to scrutiny are not just for noting, but for questioning.

Executive Member decisions come to scrutiny at every meeting and they should be subject to questions -- searching questions. For example "Why did you make this decision? "Were there alternative options and, if so, what were they and why did you choose this one?" "What effect will this decision have on service delivery?" I could go on, but these are questions that have been raised at my scrutiny committee.

Scrutiny committees do not just look at Executive Member decisions however. They receive monitoring reports which could slide through unnoticed but which, more often than not, also invite stimulating debate from all members from both the controlling group and the opposition.

Scrutiny can also ask to look in depth at any area that a department covers, either via a written question or by a means which I introduced ie asking members at every meeting if there are any identified items they would like to scrutinise in depth.

This then goes on to a report for the whole committee or a small task group of members of all parties assisted by officers who will go into detail and report back. Examples of this have been Disabled Adaptations (Housing) and Children's Services (Social Services)

At the start of the new processes in May 2000 the Chairs of Scrutiny attended a committee in Manchester. This was chaired by a Labour Member who was scrutinising the executive members from her own party (as happens in Bolton).

The questioning was so rigorous from all members that one could not tell which party they belonged to.

Adversarial politics has its place, in the Council Chamber and other arenas, but scrutiny is there to ensure the Executive Members are accountable for their decisions and that accountability is to their own non-executive colleagues as well as the opposition.

I have never refused or sidelined a question from anyone. My Scrutiny Committee has the notoriety of lasting at least two hours (sometimes longer) so there is little rubber-stamping there. The role of scrutiny is only as good as its members; if they don't ask questions, rubber-stamping is not far behind.

Margaret E Clare

Chair Housing, Social Services & Health Scrutiny Committee

Silchester Way, Bolton