Introduction
This practice guide is for councillors and officers involved in scrutiny where a council is, or may soon be, under no overall control (NOC).
NOC can feel politically uncertain, especially just after elections. But it does not have to mean weak governance or ineffective scrutiny. In some councils, NOC creates more space for discussion, challenge and negotiation. In others, it can make relationships more fragile, blur accountability, and create pressure on scrutiny to become a proxy for wider political conflict.
This guide focuses on what scrutiny practitioners can do in practice. It is not a guide to coalition-building or political management. Instead, it looks at how scrutiny can stay useful, credible and impactful when no single political group has overall control.
It covers:
- what NOC means in practice;
- how scrutiny may be affected before and after Annual Council;
- the practical implications for chairs, members and scrutiny officers;
- how to maintain robust but constructive accountability;
- how to handle work programming, call-in and policy development in a more politically fluid environment; and
- what councils can do to strengthen scrutiny arrangements for the longer term.
As with all scrutiny, there is no single template. Local political cultures, personalities, constitutional arrangements and past experience of coalition or minority administration all matter. Use this guide to support local reflection and practical action.
What do we mean by no overall control?
A council is under no overall control when no single political group has more than half the seats.
That can result in different arrangements, for example:
- a minority administration, where the largest group forms an administration without a formal coalition;
- a formal coalition between two or more groups;
- an informal arrangement based on confidence, supply or issue-by-issue agreement; or
- a more complex arrangement involving independents, residents’ groups or a directly elected mayor working with a council of mixed political balance.
NOC can arise after ordinary elections, but it can also emerge during the year through by-elections, defections, group splits or the breakdown of an existing agreement.
The phrase itself can be misleading. It may suggest that control has disappeared altogether, when in reality councils continue to make decisions and discharge their responsibilities. What changes is the political environment in which those decisions are negotiated and taken.
Why NOC matters for scrutiny
Under NOC, scrutiny often operates in a more exposed political space.
That is partly because accountability can become more complex. A cabinet member may depend on support from another group. A scrutiny chair may belong to a group that is formally outside the administration, or to one that is inside it but not aligned on every issue. Opposition members may use scrutiny to test the strength of an administration. Administration members may want scrutiny to avoid destabilising fragile agreements. Senior officers may find themselves supporting governance in a more fluid and less predictable environment.
This can create risks:
- scrutiny becomes a stage for wider political conflict rather than a route to insight;
- blurred accountability – where it is not clear who owns a decision or a direction of travel;
- pressure to soften challenge in order to preserve relationships;
- over-use, or under-use, of call-in for political reasons; and
- work programming is shaped by short-term political management rather than public value.
But there are opportunities too:
- broader ownership of recommendations;
- more open discussion about risk, compromise and trade-offs;
- stronger cross-party policy development;
- a more deliberate culture of explanation and justification from the executive; and
- greater visibility for scrutiny as a space for honest, evidence-informed discussion.
The aim is not to make scrutiny less political in an unrealistic sense. Scrutiny sits in a political environment. The aim is to help scrutiny stay purposeful, fair and effective within that environment.
Before the election, or before control changes
Where a move into NOC is possible, scrutiny practitioners should do some thinking in advance. That does not mean trying to predict political outcomes. It means ensuring that scrutiny arrangements are resilient enough to operate well under different scenarios.
1. Do some scenario planning
Think through what scrutiny might need if the council moves to:
- a minority administration;
- a two-group coalition;
- a looser agreement with independents or smaller groups; or
- a politically fragmented council where an administration takes time to emerge.
This is less about trying to script the politics and more about asking practical questions.
For example:
- How might committee places and chairing arrangements change?
- What assumptions in current ways of working rely on single-party control?
- What would scrutiny need in order to start well with a very mixed group of members?
- What risks to effective scrutiny might arise if the largest opposition group dominates scrutiny numerically?
2. Review constitutional resilience
A move into NOC can expose constitutional assumptions that have never really been tested.
Scrutiny officers, democratic services managers and monitoring officers should look in advance at issues such as:
- committee proportionality and appointment processes;
- allocation of scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs;
- call-in rules and thresholds;
- substitutes and quorum rules;
- rules for motions, amendments and debate that may affect how business is managed;
- protocols governing executive-scrutiny relations; and
- whether current arrangements assume a simple administration/opposition split that may no longer hold.
This is not just technical housekeeping. In a more politically contested environment, fairness, clarity and transparency matter even more.
3. Think about officer resilience
Scrutiny officers and democratic services officers may find themselves under greater pressure in NOC settings. Members may be less settled. Expectations may shift quickly. The temptation for officers to compensate by over-directing the function can become stronger.
It helps to discuss in advance:
- how officers will maintain and provide assurance of impartiality and trust across groups;
- where roles and responsibilities need to be especially clear;
- how support to chairs will be handled if chairs are new or politically exposed;
- how to maintain reflective practice and continuous learning rather than slipping into defensive behaviour; and
- how scrutiny officers can help the wider organisation understand the changed political context.
The period between the election and Annual Council
This period can be intense. Political negotiations may be moving quickly, while scrutiny structures have not yet been confirmed. Officers may have incomplete information but still need to prepare for several possible outcomes.
For scrutiny practitioners, this period is less about final decisions and more about readiness.
What scrutiny officers should be watching closely
- Emerging relationships. Which members are likely to move from executive to scrutiny, or vice versa? Where are relationships already strong, weak or strained?
- The likely role of scrutiny. Will the new administration want scrutiny to play a visible policy development role, or will it keep tighter control of agenda-setting?
- Member capability and confidence. Are there many new councillors? Are likely chairs experienced or completely new to the role?
- Structural implications. Are there likely to be changes to committee sizes, remits or memberships to make the numbers work?
What officers can do in this window
- prepare briefing material for different structural scenarios;
- identify which current assumptions about work programming, chairing and accountability may need to change;
- plan early induction and development support for scrutiny members and chairs;
- speak to members early about expectations, without assuming business will continue as before; and
- avoid being drawn into political negotiation between groups.
Officers should recognise that scrutiny will be operating within a wider programme of officer support to the development of new political arrangements, and should ensure their work is aligned with that broader organisational effort (as reflected in guidance from the Local Government Association).
The officer role is to support the function, not broker political deals.
Starting scrutiny well in the first few months
The first few months matter disproportionately. This is when habits are set, expectations are tested, and scrutiny can either establish itself as a trusted space or slide into confusion and point-scoring.
Start with explicit conversations about purpose
Do not assume everyone shares the same understanding of what scrutiny is for.
Early conversations with members should cover:
- what good challenge looks like in this council;
- how chairs will manage cross-party dynamics in meetings;
- how the function will distinguish political disagreement from legitimate scrutiny concern;
- where scrutiny can add value on policy development;
- how recommendations will be framed so they can attract broad support; and
- how members want to use pre-decision scrutiny, task and finish work, and call-in.
In NOC settings, it is especially helpful to make these expectations visible rather than leaving them to custom and assumption.
Build momentum with short, focused work
Where possible, plan some early pieces of scrutiny work that are practical, time-limited and clearly worthwhile.
This can help:
- build confidence among new members;
- establish a culture of evidence-led working;
- show that scrutiny can add value quickly; and
- create some shared experience before the most politically difficult issues arrive.
Short, sharp reviews can be especially useful after elections, but they still need a clear purpose. Avoid work that is small but inconsequential.
Support chairs deliberately
In NOC settings, chairing matters even more than usual.
Chairs may need support to:
- manage meetings where political relationships are delicate;
- keep questioning focused on accountability rather than theatre;
- create space for all groups to contribute;
- avoid being drawn into defending coalition arrangements or exploiting fractures within them; and
- maintain credibility with both the administration and opposition.
A confident chair can make the difference between a committee that adds value and one that becomes performative.
Accountability under NOC
Formal scrutiny meetings are often where the public sees political accountability most clearly. Under NOC, that accountability can become more complex, not less important.
Keep sight of who is accountable for what
One recurring difficulty in NOC arrangements is that responsibility can appear blurred.
For example:
- a coalition agreement may contain compromises that no one member fully owns;
- policy decisions may emerge from behind-the-scenes negotiation rather than a straightforward administration position;
- officers may be working across competing political priorities; and
- the public may struggle to understand who is answerable.
Scrutiny can help by being disciplined in how it frames accountability.
Useful questions include:
- Who is the political lead for this issue?
- What has actually been agreed, and by whom?
- What trade-offs were made in reaching this position?
- What are the red lines or non-negotiables?
- What risks are being carried and where are they being monitored?
- How will success be judged if the administration itself contains different priorities?
- How has this proposal been informed by evidence, data and engagement with residents and stakeholders?
Don’t forget the “normal scrutiny questions” too
In a no overall control environment, it can be easy for scrutiny to focus heavily on political dynamics – who agreed what, and how decisions have been negotiated. While those questions matter, they should not crowd out the core lines of enquiry that underpin effective scrutiny in any council.
These “normal” questions focus on the quality of decision-making. They test whether proposals are based on sound evidence, informed by engagement with residents and stakeholders, clear about their intended outcomes, and realistic about risks, costs and delivery.
Keeping these questions at the centre helps ensure that scrutiny remains focused on public value. It also provides a shared, non-partisan framework for discussion, which can be especially important in a more politically fluid or contested environment.
Make room for honest discussion
NOC can sometimes create better conditions for more candid conversations, particularly where administrations know they need broader support and cannot rely on sheer voting strength.
Scrutiny should not waste that opportunity.
Where relationships allow, scrutiny can be a place to surface:
- delivery risks;
- tensions between short-term compromise and long-term strategy;
- the practical consequences of phased or partial decisions; and
- where ambiguity is causing problems for officers, partners or residents.
- That requires mature handling. The goal is not to force administrations to expose every internal disagreement, but to ensure that the public-facing account of decision-making is honest and intelligible.
That requires mature handling. The goal is not to force administrations to expose every internal disagreement, but to ensure that the public-facing account of decision-making is honest and intelligible.
Policy development and work programming
NOC can change how policy is developed.
In some councils, coalition partners may want to keep policy formation close to the executive in order to avoid surprises. In others, scrutiny may become more useful as a place to test options, build consensus and show that proposals have been examined openly.
Scrutiny practitioners should ask:
- which issues are politically too live for scrutiny to add value right now, and which are ready for constructive input;
- whether there are areas where cross-party policy development is both possible and useful;
- how work programming can reflect public value rather than just political temperature; and
- whether scrutiny is being invited in early enough to influence anything meaningful.
A good NOC work programme is unlikely to be either wholly consensual or wholly adversarial.
It should combine:
- issues where accountability needs to be visible and robust;
- issues where policy can be improved through wider reflection; and
- some longer-burn areas where scrutiny can help the council think beyond immediate coalition management.
Call-in under NOC
Call-in arrangements often need particular attention.
Thresholds or conventions that made sense under majority control may operate very differently in a NOC council. If the numbers on scrutiny committees change significantly, or if the largest opposition group dominates scrutiny, call-in may become either too easy to deploy or too constrained to be useful.
That does not mean call-in should be neutered. It remains an important safeguard.
But officers and members should review whether the current arrangements:
- still make sense given the political balance;
- support legitimate scrutiny rather than tactical disruption;
- are clear, fair and workable; and
- avoid creating barriers so high that members cannot use call-in when they genuinely should.
Any changes should be approached carefully and transparently. Rules that appear designed to protect a fragile administration are unlikely to build confidence.
The role of protocol and ground rules
In NOC settings, local protocols can become more important.
An executive-scrutiny protocol or an agreed set of ways of working, can help clarify expectations about:
- notice and preparation for meetings;
- access to information;
- how recommendations will be responded to;
- how dissent and disagreement will be handled;
- how chairs and cabinet members will communicate between meetings; and
- the difference between legitimate political debate and behaviour that undermines the function.
The point is not to over-formalise relationships. It is to reduce ambiguity at a time when ambiguity can quickly become mistrust.
What good scrutiny practice looks like in NOC
Good scrutiny practice in NOC is not about pretending politics has disappeared. It is about holding onto the core disciplines of scrutiny in a more politically fluid setting.
That usually means:
- being clear about purpose;
- keeping accountability visible;
- asking better, not louder, questions;
- supporting chairs and members to work with confidence;
- investing in relationships without becoming captured by them;
- using evidence to steady the discussion when politics becomes heated;
- noticing where process rules are helping or hindering good scrutiny; and
- protecting the legitimacy of the function over the long term.
A practical checklist for scrutiny officers and members
For officers
- Review whether current scrutiny arrangements assume single-party control.
- Check whether call-in, substitutes, chairing arrangements and proportionality rules are still fit for purpose.
- Talk early with likely chairs and members about expectations.
- Plan for early and ongoing member development, so councillors understand how scrutiny will operate in a NOC context and what will be expected of them
- Support members to negotiate with each other, not through you.
- Keep regular, impartial dialogue across groups.
- Help executive-side officers understand how the political environment has changed.
- Avoid stepping into leadership gaps because members are unsettled.
- Stay reflective; do not let political pressure push you into defensive practice.
For councillors
- Be clear what you want scrutiny to achieve in this new context.
- Do not confuse visible political disagreement with effective scrutiny.
- Ask questions that clarify accountability, not just expose tension.
- Use scrutiny to improve decisions and surface risks, not just to score points.
- Be realistic about the pressures on coalition or minority administrations, without going soft on challenge.
- Support chairs to run meetings fairly and with discipline.
- Use call-in with care and purpose.
- Remember that the credibility of scrutiny will matter long after a particular political arrangement ends.
Longer-term considerations
NOC arrangements can change quickly. By-elections, defections, changes in leadership, or the breakdown of agreements can all shift the environment again.
That means scrutiny should think beyond the first few months.
Questions to keep under review include:
- Are current structures still working?
- Has scrutiny found a useful balance between accountability and policy development?
- Are chairs and members getting the support they need?
- Has the administration become more open over time, or more defensive?
- Are there aspects of the constitution or protocol that now need formal revision?
- What would happen to scrutiny if the current arrangement ended suddenly?
NOC is not just a moment of transition. In many councils, it is an ongoing way of operating. Scrutiny should be designed accordingly.
Final reflection
No overall control does not remove the need for good scrutiny. If anything, it increases it.
When political leadership is shared, negotiated or unsettled, scrutiny has a vital role in making accountability visible, testing assumptions, improving proposals and helping councils stay focused on the public interest. That role will only be fulfilled where councillors and officers are deliberate about how the function works.
Good scrutiny under NOC is not accidental. It is built through clarity, relationships, confidence and practice.
It is built through clarity, relationships, confidence and practice, supported where needed by external guidance and peer learning – including direct support from Centre for Governance and Scrutiny and resources such as Changes in political leadership and Supporting transition to ‘no overall control’ – a 30-step framework from the Local Government Association.
All resources