"It often turns into a ding-dong with Ken".

Written by Sally Hamwee and published in PUBLIC is the Guardian's monthly magazine for public sector executives and their professional partners on Tue 10th Apr 2007

That was the comment of the Editor of Scrutiny on the difficulty of reporting the work of the London Assembly. The answer? A) it shouldn't; b) it doesn't (and c) we should refer to him more; cuddly "Ken" consolidates his chosen image, probably a cardinal error on the part of a scrutineer).

The London Assembly has as part of its role holding the Mayor of London to account. A sophisticated readership will understand that "holding to account" does not mean making the subject change his mind (in the early days of the Greater London Authority, Assembly Members did occasionally complain that the Mayor didn't agree with them). It does mean getting information into the public domain.

When the Congestion Charge was introduced it was only after quite prolonged pestering by the Assembly, particularly by (to his credit) a Labour member and myself, that the Mayor's contract with Capita to run the scheme was published. Both parties had been telling us they were bound by a confidentiality clause - we pointed out that they could agree with each other to vary this. It turned out to be 600 pages long and crashed the IT system. Following that experience, I did not immediately download the Mayor's recent "oil for advice" deal with Venezuala - but then found it was only nine pages, of which three were the cover sheet, parties and signature pages. The Mayor published this contract without having to be asked, and one can speculate as to whether this was because publication was regarded as routine or because he wanted to let everyone know what a good deal it was.

In neither case would publication in itself have achieved much. The trick is knowing what to do with what one discovers, and knowing what will appeal to the media. I find it heartening that "a ding-dong with Ken" is seen as a difficulty in reporting the work of the Assembly. It's the ding-dong that usually appeals to the media, and unless we can identify a battle-ground the media show little interest. Our job is really much more subtle; for instance, as is apparent from the "oil for advice" agreement, it is really not about oil at all (except that the price of oil - all oil - is the basis for a formula for a calculation), but it does raise interesting questions about how the Mayor determined which benefits claimants would qualify for cheap fares and the administration of the scheme. Too complicated for snappy reporting - though we did get over the general message that the scheme was …. perhaps I should simply describe it as at an early stage of development. But as so often the detail, whether of a "sexy" subject or of a topic of less obvious immediate interest, is hugely important, and we ignore it at our peril.

I learned recently that there is now a media team assisting the Parliamentary Select Committees, which perhaps explains why their reports are so effectively trailed on Today. Scrutiny is a developing art, and we scrutineers need to keep working at the fine print, while keeping an eye on what will, through both print and broadcast media, catch the public's attention - without, of course, dumbing down.

Sally Hamwee

Liberal Democrat

Deputy Chair, London Assembly

10 April 2007