They were based on a political executive, separate from other councillors, and the scrutiny function. 

There are four main sources of change. First, the Government has changed its mind on certain issues. 

The most important is that in its original proposals, there was no place for area committees exercising executive powers, because of the concentration of powers in the executive. Had it been implemented, as then proposed, existing area committees would have had to be abolished. 

Fortunately, the Government responded to the criticism of the joint select committee on the draft Bill, and the 2000 Act contained provisions for area committees, which have now been made more important by the Government.

The second source of change has been in the development of government policy. There were changes in political structures in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, aimed at strengthening the position of the leader in the leader and cabinet model, although that position is more likely to depend on the local political position than on any provision in legislation. 

More important has been the development of government policy, with its emphasis on community empowerment and public participation, and on the community leadership role of local government given expression in local area agreements. Both these developments sit uneasily with the simplistic rhetoric of strong leadership. Listening, explanation, persuasion and consensus-building are required in different ways, both in community leadership and in public participation, and are likely to need not one strong leader, but many leaders, including those at area or neighbourhood levels.

The third source of change has been in the working of the structures themselves. Practice has not necessarily followed the Government's expectations. The Government's original assumption was that the changes would enable councillors outside the executive, freed from the alleged burden of committee work, to devote more time to their representative role. 

At times, the Government did not appear to be aware of the effort councillors put into their representative role. Nor was it clear how, in the new structures, such councillors could ensure action on their constituents' concerns, a problem the Government has now recognised, although its favoured ‘Councillors call for action' carries no certainty of an adequate response by the executive. 

The assumption that councillors' time would be saved by removal of much of their committee work was misguided. Where overview and scrutiny have developed well, it has proved more time-consuming than traditional committee work. To probe into policy issues, to identify community concerns or to examine in depth apparent service-failures cannot be carried out on the basis of a single meeting on a four or six-week cycle – or even longer. It can require several meetings and the active involvement of councillors. Where it has been successful, councillors have not experienced the reduction in time commitments anticipated by the Government.

The fourth source of change is innovation by local authorities. In some authorities, there has not been the degree of separation between the executive and other councillors planned by the Government. This development may surprise those authorities which think their freedom of action is virtually non-existent, given the detailed prescription in the Act and regulations, and the almost-endless pages of guidance. 

Although over-prescription underlays the new structures, it is virtually impossible to prescribe how a political institution should behave in practice, and those authorities which have sought to innovate have found ways to do so.

The legislation and regulations laid down certain things authorities must do, with the emphasis on a political executive having responsibility for all the authority's functions, except those reserved for the council or the regulatory committees, or given to area committees.

Equally, legislation and regulations lay down specifics the authority cannot do, in particular, not to give other committees executive powers. Yet the legislation does not rule out other developments of the roles of individuals and committees, and the Government has recognised that individual councillors can be given budgets for ward issues.

Several councils have developed new roles for councillors as advisers and assistants to often over-burdened members of the executive by, for example, focusing on aspects of a service that could otherwise be neglected, such as special education. These councillors cannot make decisions, but can give advice. The council, too, can draw on the expertise and experience of councillors, by, for example, recognising a councillor as policy adviser on the disabled, who can maintain contacts with relevant groups. 

The executive, too, can benefit from such advice. In these and other ways, the separation of the executive is being modified, particularly within the majority group. 

It is a foolish executive that does not draw on the support that can be given by other councillors, including on occasion, councillors from other parties.

The overview and scrutiny structure was built up by the Government as a means of holding the executive to account. It is not a role that has proved satisfactory in many authorities, casting the executive and overview and scrutiny committees in opposition to each other.

Advance has, however, been made in policy review and policy development represented by the overview function that was not even mentioned in the Government's initial proposals. This work does not pit the committee against the executive, and the wise executive will support such work and respond positively to its recommendations.

Occasionally, the executive will want to work with other councillors in developing policy, and will set up a policy group under an executive member as chair. This arrangemen §t has to be outside the overview and scrutiny structure, because of the Government's obsession with the separation of roles, but authorities are finding ways around the rigidities of that doctrine.

Overview and scrutiny committees are developing new ways of working, using small task groups, where the emphasis is on discussion with those who can help them, including executive members, rather than the formalities of question and answer with witnesses, following the model of parliamentary select committees which have much to learn from the best of overview and scrutiny in local government. The council meeting is the formal setting in which the executive and other councillors determine policy together. Too many authorities have not yet reviewed the working of the full council. The Government has proposed that petitions and councillor calls for action could lead to debates in council. While there can be debates, the council cannot make decisions, or so it is widely believed. 

The council can, however make decisions on policy through the policy plans it determines, or when the executive has made a decision contrary to the policy in those plans. New forms of discussion are required in council meetings, enabling discussion on the development of policy. A first reading debate for discussion, where whipping is not necessary, could be distinguished from a later debate, where decisions are required after the executive has considered points raised.

Political structures are changing, in part because of changes in government policy, but more because of authorities learning from experience. There is a need for reappraisal by local authorities of the working of their structures, since many have been doing. 

Questions for a review include: 
* is the working of the structure geared to the needs of community leadership and community engagement?
* is the emphasis on the separation of the executive any longer appropriate, and should it be modified?
* how can the executive best draw on the experience and ability of other councillors?
* given the emphasis on overview rather than scrutiny, how can it be made even more effective?
* how can the authority make best use of the representative role of councillors, enabling effective action?
* are the procedures of full council adequate for the political structures?

The Government, too, should consider the lessons of the experiences of authorities, and whether the time has now come to relax prescription so that innovation can develop further. 

In particular, ministers should consider the danger of the over-emphasis on separation of the executive from other councillors, the importance of developing the roles of all councillors, and the need to recognise that the best way to make the representative role effective is to ensure it can lead to action, and that this approach will require that the council decide as well as debate. 

The Government should not determine what is required, but should ensure the statutory framework does not restrict the capacity of local authorities to develop approaches as they learn both the strengths and weaknesses of the new structures. 

After all, local authorities know far more about the workings of local government than central government ever can. 

George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV