Agenda item

A report by the Director of Law and Assurance and Head of Democratic Services, reviewing scrutiny performance and effectiveness during 2018-19 and including performance data and feedback from the annual scrutiny member survey.

The Committee is asked to review the report, make any recommendations for improvements to scrutiny practice, and identify any training or development needs for Scrutiny Members.

9.1  The Committee considered the Annual Scrutiny Performance 2018/19 report from the Director of Law and Assurance and Head of Democratic Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).

9.2  The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and highlighted key information for the Committee, with the results of the annual scrutiny member survey demonstrating frustration with some aspects of the scrutiny process. Select Committees have a good appetite for external witnesses, informal briefings outside of Committee, and engagement with the Youth Cabinet. There is a need to focus more on outcomes in the annual report and to identify how best to measure the effectiveness of scrutiny. A Member Day is due to be held in September with the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) to review scrutiny at the Council and the new national scrutiny guidance.

9.3  The Committee made comments in relation to the annual scrutiny performance report including those that follow. It:

·                     Thanked the Head of Democratic Services for this useful review of scrutiny within the county.

·                     Commented that the scrutiny survey should be distributed in electronic format in future years rather than paper to enable Members to respond anonymously, to save paper and to encourage response rates. The Head of Democratic Services agreed that this could be actioned.

·                     Expressed concern regarding the reduction in Members feeling select committees were able to influence decisions appropriately and commented that scrutiny must be more proactive, robust and add value to decisions. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that a Member Day would take place in September with a focus on scrutiny arrangements, including the use of performance information. The outcomes from the session would feed into the scrutiny work programme for the next 2 years.

·                     Stressed the importance of scrutiny needing to be independent and raised a suggestion that Chairmen should be appointed by the committees in a secret ballot.

·                     Suggested that more minority party Members should be appointed to the roles of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen.

·                     Queried whether the recent corporate peer review highlighted any areas that require attention. The Head of Democratic Services explained that the peer review did not focus on scrutiny arrangements, but scrutiny may benefit from an independent view especially in light of the recent MHCLG guidance that needs to be considered.

·                     Acknowledged the inevitably reactive nature of select committees, in addition to necessary regular items such as the budget, but expressed support for a more pro-active approach to scrutiny. It was suggested that best practice in other authorities and the private sector could also be considered alongside risk.

·                     Commented that more officer time and support resource is required to help Members enquire into issues arising.

9.4  A Member of the Committee proposed some suggested recommendations regarding scrutiny that the Committee may wish to consider, following on from the recent Ofsted report which demonstrates the need for effective, independent and comprehensive scrutiny. The suggested recommendations are set out below and it was recognised that a change to the Constitution of the Council may be required to enable these suggestions:

Ø    To encourage scrutiny to be independent of decision makers, the Chairman and Vice Chairman could be elected by the Committee via secret ballot;

Ø    To enable comprehensive scrutiny Committees could hear from non-members with relevant knowledge. Members who do not sit on the Committee could be given the right to speak on one agenda item, and the option of speaking on further items at the Chairman’s discretion (and claim expenses for their attendance);

Ø    To ensure all views are included in the scrutiny process all Members could have the right to sit on at least one service select committee.

9.5  The Committee discussed the suggested recommendations and made comments including those that follow. It:

·                     Expressed some support for Select Committee Chairmanship being selected from within by secret ballot or appointed from the opposition party to encourage robust scrutiny, highlighted that this has worked well at some local councils, and recommended this suggestion be put to the Governance Committee for consideration.

·                     Did not support making the suggested recommendations and commented that it isn’t for this Committee to make recommendations of this nature; amendments such as these would require wider Member engagement and the involvement of the Governance Committee.

9.6  Resolved - That a review of scrutiny is undertaken by the Governance Committee to consider the national guidance and best practice on scrutiny including consideration on appointing Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Committees.