---

CHAPTER 2
Roles for overview and scrutiny

1. INTRODUCTION

In the early development of Overview and Scrutiny there has been a great deal of confusion over the exact meaning of the term itself. Indeed, previous research has established that there can be many functions for overview and scrutiny committees to perform (see table 3 below). However, it is perhaps best to see Overview and Scrutiny as an umbrella term covering a wide range of potential roles.

Table 3 Roles for overview and scrutiny

Holding the executive (or policy committees under alternative arrangements) to account Policy review Policy development Best value reviews External scrutiny Improvement agenda (CPAs), performance management and review Ensuring corporate priorities are met Area scrutiny Monitoring and revising the constitution Engaging partner organisations Engaging the public Engaging the press Providing satisfying and meaningful roles for non-executive councillors Source: Adapted from S. Snape and F. Taylor, A Hard Nut to Crack: Making Overview and Scrutiny Work, LGA, 2001, p.5.

This chapter examines good and innovative practice in undertaking four key roles for overview and scrutiny:

• Policy development and review;

• Best value reviews;

• External scrutiny;

• Holding the executive (or policy committees) to account.

However, before good practice is examined for each of these roles, it is important to briefly relate three general trends that emerge from the case study research, and the wider scanning of good practice examples:

A Decline in Confusion Over the Meaning of ‘Overview and Scrutiny’

When the earlier qualitative research was undertaken on new political management arrangements, in 1999/2000, a key finding for overview and scrutiny was the confusion over the meaning or definition of the term (Snape, Leach et al, 2000). This in itself produced a considerable obstacle to developing the new function. Although not directly comparable, this current research suggests that this extreme confusion over the meaning has reduced considerably. Members and officers in most of the case study authorities were clear about the roles for overview and scrutiny.

Different Authorities Emphasise Different Roles

Analysis of the ten case study authorities and wider scanning of practice has identified a strong trend towards individual authorities emphasising particular key roles, and relatively neglecting others. For example, Barnsley have laid greatest emphasis on policy development and review work but have purposefully chosen to limit their select committees’ work in best value. Similarly, given the nature of their alternative arrangements model, Brentwood determined to follow a policy of ‘less scrutiny and more overview’, again, emphasising the importance of policy development and review work. It seems that few of the authorities we considered have taken a highly balanced approach to their work, with more equal emphasis between the roles. The closest to this approach amongst the case study authorities is Bedfordshire County Council. Differential role emphasis can also be apparent within councils between overview and scrutiny committees. For example, executive business dominates the Regeneration Scrutiny Commission in Barnsley but features least on the Public Protection Scrutiny Commission.

Varying Progress Across the Four Key Roles

The third general trend is that authorities have made more progress in some of the key roles than others. By far the most problematic role to undertake has been what is frequently viewed as the ‘scrutiny’ component of ‘overview and scrutiny’ ie holding the executive to account. Developing meaningful member oversight of best value continues to prove problematic, although some authorities are beginning to develop effective mechanisms. Some interesting work is being undertaken on external scrutiny and, by far the most progress has been made within the area of policy development and review, in particular in undertaking in-depth investigations.

2. POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW

What is policy development and review?

The longer the time elapses after a decision has been implemented the more you move into the area of policy review. Policy reviews can take a number of different forms: ‘big picture’ reviews, for example, reviewing the impact of housing policy within an authority; or more focussed reviews, for example, reviewing statementing in Education. Usually, the focus is on examining whether the intended policy outcomes have been achieved, but committees could explore other issues such as take-up of services, awareness, the processes involved and so on. Policy development involves shaping the formulation of key plans and policies, through examining alternatives against needs, resources and other issues. Authorities have a choice of incorporating policy development within overview and scrutiny or creating separate policy development groups. However, it is impossible to completely separate policy development from policy review, since undertaking policy review will usually lead to making recommendations for developing policy.

Work within this role has been the most impressive we have seen undertaken by overview and scrutiny committees. A number of the authorities we visited have completed in-depth policy review and development work which has involved a wide range of investigative methods and the production of well honed and targeted reports. They have been carefully project managed, extremely well led by members and well supported by officers. A few examples of this excellent work are provided below.

Examples of in-depth investigations

Choices about the Financing of Capital Projects, Use of the Council’s Commercial Property Portfolio by Camden London Borough Investigation of Social Services Overspend by Worcestershire County Council Domestic Violence and Licensing investigations by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Review of Consultation Mechanisms and Abandoned Vehicles investigations by Maidstone Borough Council Review of the Effectiveness of the Council’s Overall Arrangements for Delivering Best Value and Review of the Council’s Approach to Capital Projects, by South Ribble Borough Council Winter Maintenance, Waste Management, Review of the County Music Service and a number of other investigations by Bedfordshire County Council Review of Mobile Phone Base Stations and Public Concerns about their Siting by Hartlepool Borough Council Review of Grants to Parish Councils by Brentwood Borough Council Review of the Provision of Library Facilities within a One Stop Shop by Staffordshire County Council Review of the development of ‘Westlift’, a failed economic regeneration project, by Hounslow London Borough In-depth investigation of Housing Stock Transfer and in-depth examination of Parental Involvement in Schools at Tower Hamlets London Borough Review of the Allotment Service by the Resources Scrutiny Committee of Darlington Borough Council Lambeth Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committees and Commissions have undertaken a number of in-depth investigations, including reviewing street repairs, investigating the communities’ views on the planning service, an inquiry into Grimebusters (an environmental quality project), a review of the secondary school service and others North Tyneside’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee has undertaken a number of in-depth investigations, including review of the Council’s senior management costs in comparison to other authorities and an investigation into budgetary overspend Bristol City Council’s Home Zones review carried out developmental work and sought to stimulate public debate about future initiatives; Bristol has secured Government funding to develop this work Newham’s overview and scrutiny function has undertaken a number of in-depth investigations. There is a list of all their completed investigations to date on their website, at www.newham.gov.uk/democracy/scrutiny/previousReviews.htm.

Many members and officers argue that such quality of work was undertaken rarely within the traditional committee system. In a number of authorities it has produced a cadre of members who are becoming skilled at investigating below the surface of policies and initiatives and adept at developing evidence-based approaches. Members also find this investigative approach particularly satisfying.

Digging Down Versus Depth

However, many of these investigations cover relatively discrete policy areas and there is a concern that members on some select committees are becoming highly knowledgeable in specific policy areas but less knowledgeable about the breadth of policy. This can be termed the ‘digging down versus breadth’ dilemma. This is particularly dangerous in areas such as education and social care, where service and policy provision is heavily prescribed and members need to keep abreast of the whole gamut of developments.

Follow-Up, Capturing Outputs and Outcomes

It is also the case that occasionally very good work is ‘lost’ through poor follow-up. Authorities such as Bedfordshire and Bristol are learning to include provisions for a follow-up report on action taken to be provided to the overview and scrutiny committee within six months after the agreement of recommendations. But this needs to be rigorously pursued. And, related to this, authorities are beginning to realise the importance of ‘capturing’ the outputs and outcomes from their work in order to demonstrate the ‘added value’ that overview and scrutiny brings to the authority (this is explored further in Chapter 9).

Examples of In-Depth Investigations

In order to demonstrate good and innovative practice in undertaking this role, examples of in-depth investigations are provided below and in Appendix 2. These examples are drawn from a range of types of authorities, with a mix of political control and organisational arrangements for overview and scrutiny. When analysed collectively, they represent the following good practice elements in undertaking in-depth investigations:

The Selection of Significant Issues
Many of the investigations concern issues of real public concern such as the siting of mobile phone base stations, the salting of roads, public disorder aspects of licensing policy, abandoned vehicles, library provision, educational attainment and development pressures. A number of the case study investigations had important financial implications, including Brentwood’s review of grants to parish councils and Bedfordshire’s investigation of winter maintenance.

Pre-Investigation Project Planning
All of the case study investigations had the benefit of being carefully project planned in advance. This included well thought out terms of reference, plans for methods of inquiry, timescales, officer support and reporting mechanisms.

Range of Investigative Methods Adopted
And the investigations also demonstrate the value of using a wide range of investigative methods, from ‘participative’ methods such as the workshop used in Brentwood’s review of grants to parish councils to the more formal ‘select committee’ style approach adopted by many of the other authorities.

Involvement of Partners and the Public
All of the case studies involve investigations where the committees took care to involve partners, the public and occasionally also the press. This usually took the form of requesting written and oral evidence and often included varying the location of meetings.

Well Presented Final Report and Recommendations
The reports from these investigations also largely depart from traditional service committee reports, providing summary sections, reviewing the evidence gathered and providing a range of evidence-based recommendations.

Follow-up
Many of these investigations have been carefully followed up in order to ensure action has been taken. A good example of excellent follow-up is provided by the review of parental involvement in schools undertaken in Tower Hamlets.

(The issue of good practice approaches to in-depth investigation is discussed further in Chapter 3.)

Bedfordshire County Council: Winter Maintenance

In the Spring of 1999 the Life in the Community Select Committee (now called Community and Environment) determined to examine the policies of the authority for winter maintenance. The reasons for undertaking the investigation were as follows: Winter maintenance has a high profile within the community; It relates to road, pedestrian and cycle safety issues; It also relates to economic and social issues of keeping communication channels open and reasonably safe; It was an investigation which would be a learning tool for the committee – and a precursor to their work on fundamental performance reviews. The timing of the investigation was deemed particularly appropriate since the recommendations could be evaluated and some implemented before the onset of winter. The Committee undertook its investigation in the following way: A project brief was drawn up and discussed by the committee. This set out the terms of reference, methods to be used, focus and timescales to be met; Written evidence was requested. 52 individuals or organisations sent in written evidence, including internal officers, town, parish and district councils and interested agencies such as the Cycle Touring Club; The committee met five times (from June to August 1999) to take oral evidence from a range of internal and external witnesses; Drafts of the report were discussed by the Committee and the final report was sent to Full Council in September 1999. The report fully summarised the investigation undertaken and the evidence collected. All the recommendations – some 24 in total – were accepted by the Council. A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study: Selection of a public interest subject to investigate; Good project planning before beginning, with clear methods and timescales; Evidence-based approach with both written and oral evidence collected; Very good report which summarises the evidence gathered and supports the recommendations determined by the committee; Good list of recommendations; It had an impact! Contact: Bill Hamilton, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) Tel: 01234 228032 Email: HamiltWD@csd.bedfordshire.gov.uk This study can be viewed on the website www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/scrutiny

 

Brentwood Borough Council: Review of Grants to Parish Councils (September 2001 – ongoing)

One of the issues that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Brentwood Borough Council tackled in its first year of working was a Review of Grants to Parish Councils. The grants system had been little changed over the course of the previous 12 years. However, it was timely to undertake a review since: the Liberal Democrats were keen to further empower the parishes; budgetary constraints had prompted the design of a second Budgetary Strategy for the Borough which would logically involve examining grants to parishes since the Borough paid a high level of grants for concurrent powers, and, there were plans to create two new parishes. The Policy Board – the key decision-making body within Brentwood’s system of alternative arrangements – decided that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should consider the issue in-depth and report with recommendations. Overview and scrutiny was deemed to be appropriate since the issue needed to be reviewed by a non-partisan body in as transparent a manner as possible and the complexity of issues required an in-depth investigative approach suited to the Committee. The Committee undertook its investigation in the following way: September 2001 Meeting: A comprehensive report on the current system was presented by the Borough Treasurer and Head of Legal Services. This produced a 45 minute discussion at the Committee meeting, prompting the need for further information. October 2001 Meeting: A further report with supplementary information was provided. This also included information on a comparative case study (Braintree). November 2001 Meeting: The seven chairmen of the parish councils were invited to take part in discussions with the Committee. A short presentation at the start of the meeting by the Chief Executive was followed by small group discussions, with the Committee and the Parish Chairmen split into two groups to discuss the issues. Notes were taken on flipcharts and then fed-back to whole group. December 2001 Meeting: A report was presented to this meeting which summarised the views of the parishes. Members took 30 minutes to go through the report, focussing on the shape of the recommendations. These recommendations went to the Policy Board, where they were agreed. A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study: Good topic for overview and scrutiny to review; Topic referred by the Policy Board; The issue was discussed in-depth over a number of meetings; The members on the Committee worked proactively in shaping the methods for investigation and the recommendations; Variety of methods used: comparative case study; officer reports and presentations; involvement of partners; small group discussions with partners; Inclusive approach to involving the parishes; It was the conclusion of those interviewed that this issue would not have been dealt with in the same in-depth manner under the previous committee system. Contact: Bob McLintock, Chief Executive, Brentwood Borough Council Tel: 01277 261111 ext. 399

 

Tower Hamlets London Borough: Parental Involvement in Schools

The Education and Youth Scrutiny Panel agreed to undertake an in-depth examination of ‘Parental Involvement in Schools’. This was an issue initially raised within the authority through the Governors Forum. It is also a topical issue in education circles, since there is growing evidence that greater parental involvement in schools raises pupil attainment. The investigation commenced in January 2000. The Panel undertook its investigation in the following way: It set out clear terms of reference for the inquiry; It undertook a range of oral hearings in locations appropriate to the nature of the investigation, including one at Tower Hamlets Parents Centre and another at Bow Family Centre; The Panel took care to ensure that it took evidence from wide range of appropriate groups, including: Toyhouse Libraries; Workers Educational Association; Tower Hamlets Playgroups and under 5s; Tower Hamlets Parents Centre; Family Welfare Association; Lower Leaside Supporting Parents; Bow Family Centre; East London Schools Fund; Parents Advice Centre; The Panel also interviewed a range of council officers; The Panel also considered examples of interesting practice from local and national contexts A report from the investigation was produced in April 2000. This is a short but concisely written report which sets out the terms of reference, summarises the methods of investigation and makes three key recommendations: that a strategy for parental involvement is developed; that in developing the strategy a survey of parents attitudes is undertaken and further research is considered on best methods for increasing parental involvement; and that the relevant officers report back to the scrutiny panel on progress in six months time. The Panel also arranged for a display showing the range of work undertaken within the Borough relating to parental involvement to be on show near the council chamber to coincide with a meeting of the full council. Since the publication of the report, the Council developed a strategy for parental involvement in schools, which was considered again by the Panel in May 2001; this strategy included the creation of a Parents Panel of 300 parents, which would be involved in a range of consultations. Progress on this strategy was later also considered by the Policy and Implementation Committee in March 2002. A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study: Selection of an important issue for the Borough; Clear terms of reference; Appropriate investigation, which involved stakeholder groups and moved location as appropriate; Clear, concise report; Sensible recommendations; Excellent follow-up of these recommendations; This investigation clearly had a tangible impact in a very important area of policy. Contact: Dave Kingdon, Democratic Operations Manager Tel: 020 7364 5000

3. BEST VALUE REVIEWS

What is the role for overview and scrutiny in best value?

Central government guidance sets out three options for linking best value reviews into new political structures: overview and scrutiny committees to oversee best value reviews; the executive to be responsible for best value reviews; or, a joint forum of executive and scrutiny councillors to be responsible. It is at the discretion of individual authorities which option they chose, although experimenting authorities tended to send best value reviews to overview and scrutiny committees.

Diversity in Practice

There is a great deal of diversity in the way in which authorities we have seen have linked the best value process to their political management arrangements. Some have chosen to make the connection largely through the cabinet, others have created joint executive and non-executive review bodies but most link best value through to overview and scrutiny. However, even in these authorities the approaches that have been adopted for scrutiny councillor involvement have varied considerably.

To illustrate this diversity, practices in five of the ten case study authorities for the research are summarised below. In three out of the five authorities overview and scrutiny committees have either no, or highly limited, involvement in best value. In contrast, in Calderdale and Bedfordshire there is a far more substantive role for scrutiny councillors in overseeing and shaping individual best value reviews.

Best value in five councils

York City Council. Member oversight of best value review takes place totally separately from the formal scrutiny machinery, via a number of Best Value Monitoring Working Groups. These groups lean heavily on officer input and report directly to the executive. Eastleigh Borough Council. The three scrutiny panels have little involvement in best value reviews. One member of the relevant scrutiny panel is invited to participate in each review (one executive member serves on it also) but there is no formal opportunity for scrutiny panels to consider the recommendations of a best value review team prior to the report being passed to the executive. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council. The scrutiny commissions have (purposefully) limited involvement in best value through the following: (i) they scrutinise best value fundamental review reports and the best value performance plan initiated by the executive; (ii) they can provide the views of the scrutiny commission before a best value review is undertaken; (iii) they can monitor the implementation of the outcome of a review. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Scrutiny committees have a role in overseeing individual best value reviews in their services areas. Some of the scrutiny committees, for example Corporate Services, have set up small working groups of 3 or 4 members to oversee a review. Bedfordshire County Council. All but the Scrutiny Select Committee have a substantial role in development of individual best value reviews. Each review is placed in one of three categories which determines the nature of member involvement. Members are involved from the scoping stage through to monitoring outcomes.

Learning From Experience

This diversity is highly beneficial, since local government is continually ‘learning’ about effective and ineffective approaches. There is certainly evidence available which indicates poor practice in linking best value to overview and scrutiny (see Table 4). Some authorities we have considered have interpreted their overview and scrutiny committees largely as performance monitoring and review bodies, with workloads which almost entirely comprise best value reviews. This has a major disadvantage of driving out other important work for committees to undertake.

Table 4 Poor practice in connecting best value to overview and scrutiny

Swamping the work programme with best value reviews, driving out other work and other roles. Providing very lengthy (and often technical) reports for overview and scrutiny. Presenting best value reports in a traditional service committee approach. Presenting highly polished officer reports which are difficult for members to ‘add value’ to. Sending each best value review in front of the whole committee. Failing to differentiate between member involvement in different reviews ie using the same process for each review. Including substantive best value reports as one item on long agenda. Failing to consider how members can be more meaningfully involved in the best value process (not understanding ‘the world of members’). Providing no training for members in best value.

Scrutiny councillors also often complain about lengthy, undifferentiated, reports to committees (sometimes with no summary pages). In addition, in a number of the authorities best value reports are presented – and dealt with – within a very traditional service committee approach: officers talk through a lengthy report (which is often only one item on a long agenda), followed by a few member questions but little real substantive debate and no real investigation by members of the issues involved. It is also the case that some councils do not differentiate between different reviews and use the same process for each review.

Above all, best value reviews and general performance monitoring is often presented to members as though they were fellow officers. This tends to produce a very negative reaction amongst the majority of members. Many councillors particularly dislike best value work – precisely because it is often presented in a highly technical format. More attention needs to be given to the particular value that members can add to best value work.

Good Practice Approaches

However, local government is quick to learn and authorities are developing good practice approaches to connecting best value to overview and scrutiny and to ensuring meaningful member oversight of best value (see Table 5).

Table 5 Good practice approaches to connecting best value and overview and scrutiny

Consider how best value links into the whole of the political management system (not just overview and scrutiny). Prioritise member involvement in best value work. Greater member involvement could be targeted on: failing or poor performing services; high public interest/concern service/policy areas; overspending services and so on. Consider adopting exception reporting (ie performance management reports only go forward to overview and scrutiny where performance has dropped below certain pre-agreed standards). Ensure that best value work is not taking up the majority of the work programme of a committee. Consider which stages of the best value process are most appropriate for member involvement. Consider which of the 4 Cs are most appropriate for member involvement (research suggests that they can be particularly useful for ‘consult’). Use small working groups or individual or ‘paired’ members to track the progress of a review and report back to the full committee as appropriate. Involve scrutiny councillors in decisions over the best value performance plan, programme of reviews, packaging and performance management systems not just individual reviews.

Experience to date suggests that authorities will profit by taking a ‘whole systems’ approach to making the connections, understanding how each component part of new political management arrangements can contribute to continuous improvement. One way to do this is to work from the roles of particular components of new political management arrangements. An illustration of this is detailed in Table 6.

Table 6 How to make the connections? Working from the roles of new political structures
Political Management Structure	Role (based on Government Guidance)	Potential Role in Best Value (BV)	Potential Methods
Full Council	Discuss and agree budget and policy framework	Discuss and debate BV Performance Plan Discuss and debate BV Reviews	Special council meeting to debate BV Performance Plan Full debate for high priority BV Reviews Member and officer presentations Questioning of members and officers
Executive	Provide leadership and direction for the council Responsible for the effective implementation of council policy and for delivering those services in line with those policies and the budget	Lead on the search for best value and to provide overall direction Responsible for effective implementation of BV policy through BV Performance Plan, BV Reviews and performance management overall	Individual cabinet portfolio to cover BV Cabinet members to monitor BV process, outputs and outcomes in their portfolio areas
Overview and Scrutiny	Holding the executive to account through examining cabinet decisions before or after they are made	Holding the whole cabinet and individual cabinet members to account for BV decisions either before or after they are made	Use of call-in Monitoring cabinet decisions on BV Calling cabinet members and chief officers in front of overview and scrutiny committees to question them on BV decisions and actions
	Reviewing council policies and performance	Reviewing BV policies	Using key scrutiny investigative methods (interviewing internal and external witnesses, commissioning research, analysing data etc) to scrutinise BV Performance Plan and Reviews
	Assisting in the development of policies	Assisting in development of BV policies	Using key scrutiny investigative methods to develop BV policies
Policy Development Forums	Assisting in the development of policies	Assisting in development of BV policies	Using key scrutiny investigative methods to develop BV policies
Area Arrangements	Area committees can perform delegated executive functions Area forums more likely to be consultative bodies	In either case, area arrangements could be consulted over BV policies (as source of local/service knowledge) Area arrangements could be used to consult external partners and the public	Relevant BV Reviews (especially area based) to be reported to area forums for comments BV policies to be debated at area forums Cabinet members/chief officers to present drafts of BV policies Overview and scrutiny to call area chairs as witnesses when investigating BV Public part of meetings used to consult public over BV policies
Quasi-Judicial Committees	To perform a range of quasi-judicial functions	Consulted over BV policies	(largely as above)

Authorities are also learning to prioritise or categorise best value reviews and member oversight. For example, more member time can be spent on reviews which are:

• Poor performing/failing services;

• Rated as important by the community in market research;

• High spending;

• An area of consistent overspend;

• Politically sensitive.

And such prioritisation of member oversight can be linked into different approaches to member involvement. Table 7 illustrates this point by setting out three different approaches to member oversight: the whole committee drives a review; a small working group is established; or individual/‘paired’ members are used. (These three approaches to member involvement do not just apply to best value work but to any of the work of overview and scrutiny committees.)

Table 7 Three approaches to member involvement

Whole Committee The best value review is overseen by the whole overview and scrutiny committee. The committee either meets outside its formal cycle of meetings to undertake this work or includes it as an item within its usual committee cycle. Working Group A ‘task and finish’ working group (of 3-5 members) is created to oversee the review. It meets outside of the usual committee cycle and can be drawn either wholly from one overview and scrutiny committee or from a number. It reports back at key points to the whole committee. Individual/Paired Members Either an individual member of the committee or two members (‘paired members’) with particular interest in the subject area of the review keep an oversight of the review’s progress, through meeting with officers (and others). They report back to the whole committee at key points.

A well developed approach to prioritising member involvement has been established in Bedfordshire County Council. As the following example illustrates, the authority has devised three categories of review, each with different levels and types of member involvement.

Best value and scrutiny in Bedfordshire County Council
Bedfordshire has devised an interesting system for prioritising their select committees’ involvement in best value reviews. The Council as a whole agrees the programme of reviews and which of the select committees will lead the review. Then each best value review is placed in one of three categories, set out below. Those with the highest degree of public interest are considered by the select committee as a whole; second category reviews are driven by a member task group (which may be drawn from a number of select committees); and the third category – often process issues – are driven by the officer review team.
Type of Review	Involvement of Overview and Scrutiny Members	Examples of BV Reviews
Category 1 Degree of public interest Political importance/sensitivity Members adding value in their representative role	Select committee meets on a regular basis to consider evidence and receive information from the Officer Review Team. The Select Committee will drive the review.	Waste management Highways services
Category 2 Degree of public interest Political importance/sensitivity Members adding value in their representative role Reviews cutting across Select Committee terms of reference	A member task group is created– one member from each political party (and will involve diocesan/parent governor representatives if an education related issue). The Member Task Group will drive the review.	Libraries Statementing Schools admissions Charging policies Debt management Services to young people
Category 3 Process issues Significant technical knowledge Less visible impact on the public Shorter	The Officer Review Team reports to the Select Committee at key stages, such as project brief, completion of evidence gathering, options appraisal, final approval. The Officer Review Team drives the review.	LEA impact on educational achievement Payment of invoices Economic development School children with disabilities
Contact: Bill Hamilton, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) Tel: 01234 228032 Email: HamiltWD@csd.bedfordshire.gov.uk

It is also useful to consider which stages in the best value review process are most appropriate for member involvement. Table 8 sets out the five key stages in the development of a review – each authority can consider: ‘Which stage is appropriate for member involvement? What methods can be used?’.

Table 8 Stages and outputs in the best value review process
Stage	Outputs
Preparation for each review	Statement of objectives Project plan and timetable
Collecting and ordering the evidence	Interim report/Option report
Action plan/final report	Key performance targets Plan of action Explanations
Implementation	Progress reports
Monitoring and review	Monitoring reports Re-reviews Background for next review

One of the overview and scrutiny committees at Staffordshire County Council found it useful for members to develop a ‘front-end’ approach to best value, with ‘pre-best value’ context setting reports to raise awareness and understanding of the key issues (see box below for more details).

Staffordshire’s ‘front-end’ approach to best value

Initially, Staffordshire’s five overview and scrutiny committees took a traditional approach to best value reviews. This led, in the main, to scrutiny committees receiving long and complex written material which, in turn, resulted in little, or no actual probing scrutiny. To combat this the scrutiny committees are starting to develop new methods and approaches. One committee in particular has evolved a ‘front-end’ approach to best value, with the committee receiving a series of ‘pre-best value’ context-setting reports, presentations and site visits to raise awareness and understanding of the key issues. This process has taken place over a series of meetings and has resulted in the scrutiny committee members reaching a point at which they will be able to receive the formal best value reports with some degree of confidence. The ethos which underpins this process is one that will encourage ‘ownership’ of the end product. Scrutiny members also take part in officer Best Value Review teams and are encouraged to ‘lead’ on feeding back the progress of the reviews to the scrutiny committee for comment and information as the review progresses. Contact: Bryan Magan, Scrutiny Manager, Staffordshire County Council Tel: 01785 276132 Email: bryan.magan@staffordshire.gov.uk

Another approach to making the connections between overview and scrutiny and best value is to consider which of the 4 Cs of consult, compare, compete and challenge are most appropriate for members to address. ‘Consult’ is certainly suited to member oversight, but the ‘challenge’ role may be more difficult for members, who tend to support existing arrangements. However, it is possible to develop innovative approaches to member involvement in all 4 Cs. For example, Herefordshire have created ‘challenge teams’ of officers and members to provide rigorous challenge at different stages during the review process (for more details see the box below).

Herefordshire’s challenge team

Herefordshire’s four scrutiny committees are experienced in undertaking best value reviews. However, this experience highlighted a particular weakness in the area of challenge in relation to best value reviews. Members were often drawn into becoming ambassadors for the service under review, rather than standing back and offering objective challenge. To address this Herefordshire have set up a Challenge Team which is skills based, rather than expertise based. It is a joint officer and member team. It is single challenge team for the whole authority and all best value reviews. The team’s role is to offer sustained challenge to the best value process at key points throughout the review. Contact: Hilary Preedy, Policy Officer, Herefordshire Council Tel: 01432 260379 Email: hpreedy@herefordshire.gov.uk

In the examples we have seen, the energy of scrutiny councillors in connecting with best value has largely been targeted on overseeing individual best value reviews. However, this has the disbenefit of scrutiny councillors concentrating on detailed individual reviews, but neglecting the key strategic decisions of packaging and prioritising. In other words, members can be missing the ‘big picture’. Taking a broader view of involvement in best value would include overview and scrutiny committees involving themselves in the following:

• The content and presentation of the best value performance plan. Do members think that the public and partners will find this useful and comprehensible?

• Decisions over the prioritisation and timing of the best value programme of reviews. Do members believe that public concerns and failing services have been given sufficient priority?

• Decisions concerning the packaging of best value reviews. Does this make sense to members? Are sufficient cross-cutting and area-based reviews included? Would they have meaning to members of the public and partners?

• The nature of performance management generally. Are members convinced of the general systems for performance management within the authority? Are the most helpful – and informative – performance targets being presented to members and to the public generally?

An interesting approach to overview and scrutiny committees becoming involved in these key strategic decisions has been developed by South Ribble Borough Council. One of the functions of the Policy and Service Review Scrutiny Panel is to undertake an annual review of the Council’s best value and performance management framework. This review does not examine individual best value reviews but the overarching framework for performance management.

Scrutiny member involvement in strategic decisions concerning performance management: The example of South Ribble’s review of the effectiveness of the council’s overall arrangements for delivering best value

South Ribble’s Policy and Service Review Scrutiny Panel undertakes an annual review of the Council’s overall arrangements for delivering best value. The purpose of the review is to identify what needs to be done to ensure that the Council’s approach matches current and future best practice. The scope of the review does not encompass individual services or best value reviews. The review was undertaken in the following way: The implications of the recent White Paper were reviewed; Substantial desk-based research was undertaken, analysing key reports, for example, best value inspectorate reports; UNISON branch officials were consulted; All elected members were surveyed by a short questionnaire; Discussions were held with year 1 and year 2 review team leaders; All employees on year 1 and year 2 review teams were invited to return a more detailed questionnaire; Several external members of review teams were interviewed; All council employees were invited to complete a short questionnaire via the weekly newsletter or by email; The Committee took evidence from the Council’s portfolio holder for best value and from relevant senior and middle managers; The Committee also met with the County Council’s best value portfolio holder and best value manager to discuss working together on best value. The review identified 14 key elements to an effective overall approach to best value, summarised the Council’s existing approach and made detailed recommendations for improvement. Contact: John Dakin, Head of Scrutiny and Improvement, South Ribble Borough Council Email: jdakin@southribble.gov.uk

Another authority which has taken care to address these ‘big picture’ issues is North Tyneside. In 2000/01 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at North Tyneside initiated an investigation of the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan. So successful and useful was this exercise, that it has been repeated in 2001/02.

North Tyneside’s review of the best value performance plan

In 2000/01 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at North Tyneside Council initiated a thorough review of the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP). This was the first and most significant piece of co-ordinated work involving the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Council’s select committees. The purpose of the exercise was firstly to critically examine the BVPP in terms of its general content and secondly to carry out some sample reality testing in terms of the key policy priorities set out in the Plan. The exercise involved, amongst other things, Cabinet members being called to account by the Overview and Scrutiny and Select Committees on the delivery of the key policy priorities; detailed consideration of the framing of the key priorities; and some basic reality checking to measure both the effectiveness of arrangements to achieve these key policy priorities and the impact on the community. The exercise was repeated in 2001/02 and has proven remarkably successful. In its final report to Cabinet on the 2001/02 BVPP, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee suggested, amongst other things, that there were too many stated objectives; poor wording; absence of adequate financial or supporting information and inadequate mechanisms in respect of delivery. The draft 2002/03 BVPP has been radically changed to reflect the Committee’s views. Contact: Patrick Kilgallon, Scrutiny Team Leader, North Tyneside Council Email: patrick.kilgallon@northtyneside.gov.uk

In examining these key strategic issues, overview and scrutiny committees will also need to develop ways of engaging in the Government’s Improvement Agenda and programme of Comprehensive Performance Assessments which it announced in the recent White Paper.

4. EXTERNAL SCRUTINY

What is external scrutiny?

The Government is keen for overview and scrutiny committees to develop a strong outward focus, encouraging participation from partners and the public. One aspect of this is external scrutiny; scrutinising the work and impact of external agencies on a council’s community. These may be other public agencies such as health service organisations and quangos, or voluntary and private sector organisations.

Experience in undertaking external scrutiny is beginning to develop rapidly within local government, although many authorities concentrate upon more ‘internal’ services and policies. Those authorities that concentrate upon ‘internal’ policy development and review work usually provide the following explanations for not undertaking external scrutiny (yet):

• ‘we want to learn how to undertake the role internally before looking outside the authority’;

• ‘we are afraid that we could worsen the relationship with partner agencies through inconceived external scrutiny investigations’;

• ‘we need to put our own house in order before interfering in other agencies’;

• ‘we have hardly got the resources to scrutinise our own services, never mind other organisations’.

However, a growing number of councils are realising the potential that exists for external scrutiny, if it is undertaken in a well planned and managed way. And members are often amongst the first to realise the benefits and linkages to the whole partnership and community leadership agenda.

This growing awareness and experimentation in external scrutiny has produced some impressive in-depth reports concerning the actions and impact of external agencies. Just a few examples are provided in the table below, with some in-depth examples following.

Examples of external scrutiny

Devon County Council’s investigation of the Foot and Mouth outbreak within the county. Bedfordshire County Council has undertaken a wide range of external scrutiny investigations including: GNVQs and NVQs; The Learning and Skills Council; and The Proposed Closure of Some of the Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Courts. They have recently completed a local inquiry into an incident in February 2002 at the Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre. Bristol City Council’s select committee on improving bus services. Buckinghamshire County Council’s report on ‘Winter Pressures’. Camden’s investigation of the development of a Mental Health and Social Care Trust for Camden and Islington. An investigation of ‘The Floods’ by York City Council. Lewisham’s review of local authority and health services provided for children under eight with special needs. Sheffield City Council’s overview and scrutiny function has a rolling programme of scrutiny of Leisure Trusts – bodies that deliver a wide range of leisure and cultural related services on behalf of the Council. The purpose is to examine the effectiveness of how each Trust is delivering its services and particularly to enable members to influence the outcome of those services for the benefit of the City’s residents and visitors.

 

Bedfordshire County Council: Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre Investigation

Bedfordshire County Council’s Resource Stewardship Select Committee began an investigation of the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, shortly after a fire and disturbance occurred there in February 2002. The Committee gathered a wide range of written evidence and undertook a series of oral hearings with a range of high profile local and national individuals and organisations. These included Group 4, the Immigration Service, the Home Office, the emergency services, local MPs and councillors, local community groups and other interested parties, for example the Bishop of Bedford. The Council used its website to keep the public and interested parties informed of the investigation as it progressed. Through the website it was possible to give evidence or ask a question. And sound recordings of the oral hearings are also available through the web pages. Regular press releases were also sent out to keep the public informed throughout the study. The inquiry and the Select Committee featured regularly on local news and national programmes and interviews took place with the Council Leader and Select Committee Chairman, as well as with other interested individuals. A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study: High profile local and national issue with a great deal of national and local media interest; Emphasis on gathering written and oral evidence; Use of web pages to keep public and others informed of progress; Interactive nature of web pages; Use of press releases; High profile interest and continuous contact with the local community; Use of in-depth questioning techniques by members, especially difficult given the criminal, and other investigations and the sub judice nature of aspects of the issue; The publication of the report culminated in an adjournment debate in the House of Commons and has put into place the first steps towards an effective communication strategy with the Government and the local community. Contact: Bill Hamilton, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) Tel: 01234 228032 Email: HamiltWD@csd.bedfordshire.gov.uk Or view developments in the inquiry through Bedfordshire’s scrutiny web pages: www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/scrutiny

 

Bedfordshire County Council: Learning and Skills Council

In early 2000 the Lifetime Learning Select Committee determined to investigate the likely impact of the local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) on the strategic role of Bedfordshire County Council. The investigation was prompted by the introduction of the LSC’s planned for April 2001. The Committee undertook its investigation in the following way: At its meeting in February 2000 it discussed and finalised a project brief which would guide the investigation. This brief included purpose and objectives, methods, timescale and focus; The Committee met on three occasions to discuss the investigation (between February and March 2000); Presentations and questions were asked of a range of internal and external witnesses, (including chamber of commerce representatives and chair of the North Bedfordshire Adult Education Consortia); Written evidence was also received, including evidence from Government Office for the Eastern Region and the LGA; A report was presented to the full council in April 2000, with all of its recommendations (7 in total) accepted; In the following autumn, the LSC recruitment process resulted in two county councillors being selected for the LSC’s Board; The Chairman of the LSC gave a presentation and entered into a dialogue with the Select Committee; A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study: An important and timely investigation;. An investigation which sought to influence the development and working of a key local partner. Good processes; The interest that the Council took in the work of the LSC produced context and an understanding of the LSC’s work sufficient to secure councillor representation on its Board; The Chairman of the local LSC attended the select committee in January 2001 and gave a presentation on the LSC’s role and function. A year later he returned with his Chief Executive. At that second meeting the Chief Executive gave a presentation based on the LSC Strategy and business plan and both LSC representatives entered into a robust and productive dialogue with the select committee. The Chairman of the LSC wishes this to become an annual event as a means of addressing the local democratic deficit of the LSC. Contact: Bill Hamilton, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) Tel: 01234 228032 Email: HamiltWD@csd.bedfordshire.gov.uk Or print off a copy of the report from: www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/scrutiny

 

Lambeth Borough Council: Review of New Policing Proposals

When the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) reviewed its Resource Allocation Formula – the formula used to determine the number of police officer posts allocated to each London borough – initial proposals threatened to see a reduction in the number of police allocated to Lambeth. This was considered to be a vital issue for the Borough for a number of reasons: Crime and fear of crime consistently appears at, or near, the top of the list of residents’ concerns; Experience has shown that Lambeth needs sensitive policing. The Community Police Consultative Group wanted every day policing with police officers based in the borough. There was a concern that a reduction in policing levels could lead to emergency policing for high profile operations; the opposite of what was required. In response to these proposals, the Council’s Finance Scrutiny Committee, whose remit includes community safety, organised a special meeting to review the MPA proposals and fulfil its community leadership role. Up to this stage, there had been limited public consultation on the new formula, not just in terms of input from the council but also the ability of local people to find out about the proposals and comment upon them. Initially, there was a lot of opposition both within and outside the council to scrutinise this matter, but eventually all parties were convinced that it was in their interest to co-operate with the review. The following gave evidence at the Special Meeting: The Metropolitan Police Authority; The police, including the local borough commander; The GLA member for Lambeth and Southwark and Chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; The consultants who had been commissioned by the MPA to devise the new formula; Other expert witnesses and local partners. And around 80 members of the public also attended the meeting. Because this was a one-off special scrutiny meeting, the Chair pulled together the comments from members in the form of a motion to go to the council’s executive – but in practical terms it summarised the view of the council for the MPA ahead of its meeting to decide the way forward. When the MPA issued its recommendations it agreed the revised formula be implemented, but it also recognised that Lambeth’s needs exceed those predicted by the formula and recommended that the borough be allocated extra officers. Whilst the extra officers have only been allocated for a year (when the numbers will be reviewed again), the scrutiny exercise helped Lambeth make its case. The meeting provided a real opportunity for those proposing the new formula to explain their thinking, for local police officers to discuss needs and for others to set out their concerns. It filled a gap in the consultation process and demonstrated the value of the council’s scrutiny function. Whilst ‘meeting in public’ does not generally involve very many members of the public at Lambeth, in this instance the strong public presence to hear the discussions first hand demonstrated that members of the public can be attracted to scrutiny sessions as active spectators. The meeting also received favourable coverage in the local press including the comment from the local newspaper, South London Press that “the meeting was a great example of democracy at its best”. Contact: Sab Sanghera, Head of Scrutiny, Lambeth London Borough Tel: 020 7926 2490 Email: Ssanghera@lambeth.gov.uk

Integration Versus Specialisation

The issue of ‘integration’ versus ‘specialisation’ is an important one in structuring overview and scrutiny to undertake external scrutiny work. Some authorities have set up specific ‘external affairs’, ‘outside bodies’ or ‘external scrutiny’ committees to progress this role. An example of this approach, developed by West Wiltshire District Council, is outlined below. The External Overview Committee of the authority has undertaken a range of external scrutiny investigations, including flooding and flood prevention, and the work of the Committee has been praised by the District Audit. However, such separate committees do not always work well, simply because making a clear distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ issues can be very difficult in the highly fragmented local public sector.

West Wiltshire’s External Overview Committee

West Wiltshire created two overview and scrutiny committees in late spring 2000. One of these, the External Overview Committee, is tasked to examine the work of external organisations (including the Council’s contractors). Examples of the work of this Committee include: Flooding and Flood Prevention – this gave the Council a much better understanding of what caused flooding in the District, what responsibilities and duties the various agencies had, and what contribution the Council could make; Road Maintenance – where the Committee developed some ideas for improving the focus of the work undertaken by the Highway Authority; Health Partnerships – this was an opportunity for councillors to get to grips with the roles of the new health organisations which provide primary care, the plans for their future restructuring and financing, and start work on the scrutiny role that the Council will be picking up in the coming year. Contact: Peter Woodcock, Corporate Officer (Democratic Services), West Wiltshire District Council Email: pwoodcock@westwiltshire.gov.uk

And this issue of integration or specialisation of structures has reared its head again in the preparations that authorities are making for undertaking the health scrutiny role. Although some authorities we saw had created ‘social care and health’ overview and scrutiny committees before the Government’s policy on health scrutiny emerged, it seems many more are now considering whether they should establish a Health Scrutiny Committee.

Collaborative Approaches to External Scrutiny

The greatest danger or risk in undertaking external scrutiny is that the external scrutiny investigation worsens the Council’s relationship with the relevant external partner(s). And it is perfectly possible that external scrutiny investigations could produce this outcome. One potential approach which minimises this risk considerably is to undertake a joint scrutiny investigation with partner organisations. Just such a collaborative approach – to review services for older people – is being piloted by East Sussex County Council and the Brighton and Hove and East Sussex Health Authority and Primary Care Trusts.

Collaborative Approaches to Scrutiny: Joint Best Value and Scrutiny Review of Services for Older People in East Sussex

East Sussex County Council is piloting a ground breaking joint best value and scrutiny review of services for older people with the Brighton and Hove and East Sussex Health Authority and Primary Care Trusts. This partnership will ensure that all the provision for older people across the county is reviewed. The review is focusing on falls, dementia and strokes as the three main ailments which affect older people in East Sussex. The review began in September 2001 with a scheduled completion date of July 2002. The joint Project Board comprises elected members from the County Council, non-executive members from the National Health Service and a representative from the district and borough councils who is a director of housing. A project team of officers from East Sussex County Council and the Health Authority conducts and contributes to the review. The review is jointly funded. Contact: Roger Howarth, Scrutiny and Best Value Co-ordinator, East Sussex CC Tel: 01273 481327 Email: roger.Howarth@eastsussexcc.gov.uk

Cross-Authority Scrutiny Work

External scrutiny also includes scrutinising the work of other councils. This can take the form of scrutinising the work of neighbouring authorities and one tier of local government scrutinising another’s work. From our experience, it is not unusual for district councils to express an interest in scrutinising the work of their county councils. Given the power of well-being, such cross-authority scrutiny work is legitimately part of each council’s community leadership role. However, given the historic problematic relationships that exist in some two tier areas and between neighbouring authorities in unitary and two tier areas, such investigations require careful planning and management. The dangers are considerable.

However, collaboration between authorities in undertaking scrutiny work could also produce many benefits in terms of pooling information and resources. Certainly, collaborative approaches to undertaking health scrutiny work, which bring together counties, districts (and neighbouring all-purpose authorities) have much to commend themselves, and some of the resource constraints facing district councils in supporting overview and scrutiny work could at least in part be solved by more collaboration with neighbouring authorities. Kent’s local authorities have recognised these potential dangers and benefits and have produced a cross-authority protocol to guide overlapping scrutiny reviews. Its two guiding principles are that: all authorities should be supported in considering issues of community well-being wider than the responsibilities of their councils; authorities should work together to maximise the exchange of information and views, minimise bureaucracy and make best use of the time of members and officers of local and other authorities.

Kent’s Cross-Authority Protocols

Local authorities in Kent (under the aegis of KALA, the Kent Association of Local Authorities) have agreed two protocols: one on NHS Scrutiny; and the other on overlapping scrutiny inquiries. The second protocol, setting down the aim, principles and procedures for overlapping scrutiny inquiries is reproduced below. Overview and Scrutiny Co-operation Aim of the Protocol To ensure the Overview and Scrutiny Committees of all Kent local authorities can review issues of community interest effectively and with efficient use of all local authority staff resources. Principles All authorities should be supported in considering issues of community well-being wider than the responsibilities of their councils. Authorities should work together to maximise the exchange of information and views, minimise bureaucracy and make best use of the time of members and officers of local and other authorities. Procedures Authorities should seek to exchange information on programmes and results of reviews. If an overview and scrutiny committee wishes to review an issue in which another authority has a statutory role or in which evidence from the officers of another authority would be helpful, it should consult with that authority about: the purpose of the review; the areas of interest to the other authority; the input that can be given by members or officers of the other authority. Consideration should be given to whether the issue is more appropriately discussed in another forum, for example a joint committee, or whether there is scope for joint action including the co-opting of members of the other authority onto the Overview and Scrutiny committee for the purpose of the review. Where a proposal is subject to a public consultation process, scrutiny is most helpful if conducted as part of that process eg allowing any findings and recommendations to be available in time to influence the final decision. Subject to such prior consultation, authorities will seek to respond positively to requests for information or for a member or officer to attend meetings of overview and scrutiny committees or for information. While it is ultimately for each authority to decide who it considers the most appropriate person(s) to speak on its behalf to an overview and scrutiny committee, consideration will be given to meeting specific requests. Dates and times of member and officer attendance at overview and scrutiny meetings should be agreed with them. Each authority will nominate a contact officer for the operation of these procedures.

5. HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE OR POLICY COMMITTEES TO ACCOUNT

What is holding the executive (or policy committees under alternative arrangements) to account?

This role involves scrutinising executive decisions at a number of different stages of the decision-making process: before decisions are made; before they are implemented; and after they are implemented. The role can be interpreted as the ‘scrutiny’ side of the overview and scrutiny role; examining executive (or policy committees’ in alternative arrangements) agendas, minutes, forward plans in detail and using call-in or other mechanisms to comment or intervene in the decision-making process.

Development of the Role

Of all the key roles for overview and scrutiny committees, the one which is proving most challenging is ‘holding the executive to account’. As the case studies demonstrate, authorities are finding it difficult to meaningfully develop this role. It was also interesting to note that during the wider scanning of good practice examples, the research team received very few examples relating to this role. Some authorities have chosen to downplay the role altogether, but even in those authorities which have determinedly attempted to undertake the role, progress is limited.

For example, Bedfordshire County Council created a specific Scrutiny Select Committee to undertake this role. It is chaired and vice-chaired by opposition members. Much member and officer time has been expended on making this part of the Bedfordshire overview and scrutiny function work. However, since its inception in April 2000 it has been the subject of controversy and contention. Some majority party members argue that it is an ‘opposition’ select committee, whereas the opposition members have tried to make a distinction between their ‘scrutiny hat’ and their ‘opposition hat’. As one scrutiny councillor at Bedfordshire commented:

‘It is a very difficult one [role]…At what point do you become political when you are pointing to short falls in what the executive does?’ (member).

Whereas in Bedfordshire the problem is that ‘opposition’ members are accused of using the Scrutiny Select Committee as an opposition vehicle, in other authorities the constraint tends to be that majority party members feel uncomfortable criticising their own colleagues on the cabinet. It is rarely the case that formal whipping or discipline is applied to overview and scrutiny councillors. It is more that criticising colleagues from the same party goes against an innate party self-discipline and the whole tradition of party group behaviour.

And this is at the heart of the limited progress on ‘holding the executive to account’; it is the most problematic role to perform since it is the role that most directly challenges the power, influence and culture of the party group system. It also directly challenges often the most powerful elements within the decision-making system. Although leaders, cabinet members and senior officers often declare their support for robust scrutiny, in reality some will not complain if the role emphasis within overview and scrutiny committees lies with policy development and review, rather than holding the executive to account.

It is also the case that holding members to account in such a transparent and rigorous manner is simply not part of the traditional member behaviour and culture, and this has led to some fundamental misconceptions about undertaking this role. For example, in many of the authorities we have seen overview and scrutiny committees have interpreted ‘holding the executive to account’ as ‘holding the senior officer to account’. Few authorities regularly ask cabinet members to attend formally as witnesses in front of overview and scrutiny committees.

Further, the issue of holding the executive to account is even more complicated in alternative arrangements authorities. Although holding the policy committees to account is a legislative requirement of overview and scrutiny committees, the ‘logic’ and ‘motivation’ for doing so depends on the model of alternative arrangements adopted. A number of districts we have seen have developed systems which are effectively ‘cabinet with leader’ models but perhaps have a single policy committee/executive of larger than 10 members. For these authorities, the majority of councillors will not sit on decision-making bodies and the ‘logic’ of holding the policy committee to account still holds strong. However, for authorities which are developing the Government’s original vision of streamlined committee systems, with more than one policy committee, then the ‘logic’ and ‘motivation’ for holding these committees to account declines.

Table 9 Why have some authorities made limited progress to date in holding the executive/policy committees to account?

The role challenges the power of the party group system Powerful interests within authorities prefer committees to emphasise other roles It appears less suited to certain types of alternative arrangements Some of the methods are unfamiliar to local government and require further development Many experimental arrangements avoided this role and so the learning for undertaking this role has been more restricted

Methods

However, there are a wide range of methods available for undertaking this important role (see Table 10). This section examines each of the key methods in turn.

Table 10 Methods for holding the executive/policy committees to account

Examining executive/poilcy committee minutes and agendas Using call-in procedures Attending the executive meeting Examining the forward plan Calling the cabinet member as a witness Meetings with cabinet members Officer briefings Shadowing

Examining executive/policy committee minutes and agendas
Executive minutes and agendas are often scrutinised by overview and scrutiny councillors, and they may trigger further investigation and potentially call-in. However, these vary as to their usefulness and how informative they prove to be.

Using Call-in Procedures
All authorities have to develop call-in procedures for their fully compliant constitutions. However, the authorities we have seen vary dramatically as to how often they are used. In most authorities they are used rarely. Call-in procedures vary as to how they can be activated or initiated, the criteria for initiating and the period of time for initiating the procedure. In some authorities call-in is managed by a particular scrutiny committee (for example, Haringey). In York, there are three scrutiny calling-in committees, each reflecting two cabinet portfolios with the casting vote held by the chair, who is always from the party calling in the decision.

Call-in: the example of Stockport

In Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council five councillors must sign the form that initiates the call in procedure. Two of the members must be from the relevant scrutiny committee. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has developed the custom and practice of inviting each of the five call-in signatories to speak about their reasons for calling the decision in for consideration when the relevant scrutiny committee meets. The executive councillor and relevant officer are then invited to make a statement about the background and reasons for the original decision. Relevant external witnesses have also been invited to provide relevant information and background material about the item under discussion. Contact: Jane Scullion, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny), Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Tel: 0161 474 3180 Email: jane.scullion@stockport.gov.uk

There have been examples of where cabinet decisions have been reversed by the use of call-in. However, even when the original decision is not overturned, call-in can have advantages in terms of publicly debating the issues involved. An example of this is provided below from Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council.

The use of call-in at Bolton

The executive member for Education and the executive debated the issue of a failing school and agreed to cease maintaining the school. This decision was subsequently called-in by an opposition member at the executive’s meeting and the decision was scrutinised by a meeting of the Education and Culture Scrutiny Committee. After a lengthy debate the Committee agreed to note the decision of the executive, allowing the decision to be implemented. However, the call-in process did allow the concerns of some members to be aired, in a public forum with good attendance from the public and local media. Contact: Andrew Jennings, Committee Services Manager, Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Tel: 01204 331003

Attending the Executive/Policy Committee Meeting
The attendance of scrutiny councillors at executive meetings (or policy committees under alternative arrangements) varies considerably from authority to authority. In some, it is usual to have a hard core of scrutiny chairs and vice chairs observing each meeting; in others they rarely attend (unless invited to speak on a particular issue). In Bedfordshire, the Chair of the Scrutiny Select Committee will attend every executive meeting, and often up to a half of his committee also attend and observe.

From the examples we have seen, the rights to speak for scrutiny councillors at executive meetings also vary considerably. Following on with the Bedfordshire example, each scrutiny councillor is allowed to ask three questions as long as they are notified to the chair beforehand. In other councils speaking rights are more limited.

In some authorities, a scrutiny chairman may have been given a particularly privileged role in attending cabinet meetings and hold full speaking rights (although no decision-making rights as this is contrary to the legislation). For example, in Herefordshire the Chairman of the Strategic Monitoring Committee (which itself comprises the chairmen of the four cross-cutting scrutiny committees) attends all cabinet meetings and has full speaking rights. A similar practice occurs in Middlesbrough.

Examining the forward plan
Many overview and scrutiny committees now include the cabinet forward plan within their agendas, and overview and scrutiny committees do review forward plans in order to investigate any issues that concern them. For example, in November 2001 Doncaster’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee identified the proposed closure of a residential unit in a special school from the forward plan and referred it to the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Sub-committee. This committee investigated the proposed closure further, which in consequence reversed the cabinet decision, in favour of taking a more inclusive and holistic approach to the issue of service delivery to children who have special needs.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council: Reversal of cabinet decision to close a residential unit in a special school

In September 2001, the executive was proposing to close a residential unit within a special school. This was in line with a previous decision for the Council to cease maintaining residential facilities for pupils with moderate learning difficulties. In November 2001, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee identified this proposal as an issue from the forward plan and referred it to the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Sub-Committee for further investigation. At a November meeting of the sub-committee, members considered the report and took evidence from Education officers. In a December meeting, the committee took further evidence from Education and Social Services officers as well as from the head of the school. At its January meeting, the committee debated the evidence and considered possible options. The sub-committee found that a corporate approach to the issue of residential care for children with special needs was needed, with a more integrated approach between Education and Social Services. The committee recommended reversing the original closure decision as a reflection of a need to adopt this more joined-up approach. The executive agreed and the original decision was reversed. Contact: Ian Glossop, Central Services Manager, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Tel: 01302 734033

Calling the cabinet member as a witness
In some authorities cabinet members have been called as formal witnesses in front of their overview and scrutiny committees when undertaking in-depth investigations. A good example of this practice, from Maidstone Borough Council, is explained below.

Cabinet members as witnesses: Maidstone’s review of the corporate plan

Early in 2002, the Strategic Leadership and Overview Scrutiny Committee examined the Council’s Corporate Plan. In previous years, the Plan had not received much attention from members. However, this year the Scrutiny Committee questioned the Council Leader, Chief Executive and other relevant officers for over three hours. As a result, a number of further changes to the plan were agreed (which have generally been acknowledged to have improved the document). Contact: William Benson, Scrutiny Secretary, Maidstone Borough Council Tel: 01622 602463 Email: williambenson@maidstone.gov.uk

Meetings with cabinet/policy committee members
Some chairs of scrutiny committees and cabinet members will meet to discuss their respective work programmes and projects. This is important from the point of view of avoiding duplication in work programmes between the cabinet and overview and scrutiny and can help to foster a positive relationship, rather than an adversarial one.

Officer briefings
In some authorities, officers attempt to keep scrutiny councillors well briefed on policy developments. However, it is uncommon for these briefings to achieve the same level of officer contact and detail as are usually available for cabinet members.

Shadowing
Three of the case study authorities – Barnsley, Bedfordshire and York – had developed shadowing systems for the executive. For Barnsley and York this included a briefing of the shadow executive concerning the cabinet agenda. In York, the one-party shadow executive reviews the executive’s agenda four days in advance of each fortnightly executive meeting and can make representations to the executive or initiate the call-in procedure. In Bedfordshire, each member of the Scrutiny Select Committee is asked to ‘shadow’ a particular cabinet member. However, overall, these shadowing arrangements are relatively uncommon and are not yet fully developed.

CONCLUSION: A ‘NARROW’ OR ‘WIDE’ INTERPRETATION OF THE ROLE

In using the above methods, most overview and scrutiny committees have tended to take a ‘narrow’ definition of ‘holding the executive to account’ which focuses on the detailed decisions planned or taken by the executive (or policy committee under alternative arrangements). In essence, this narrow approach is reactive to an agenda set by the executive itself, and a common response by cabinet members to this approach is to dismiss it as ‘nitpicking’ over detailed issues.

There is a growing awareness amongst scrutiny councillors that it would also be possible to take a ‘wide’ interpretation of the role, which focuses on the strategic direction set by the executive and proactively works to establish whether the key strategies are appropriate and are being implemented effectively. If this wide definition is adopted then much of the policy development and review work being undertaken by authorities is contributing to ‘holding the executive to account’.

Finally, authorities need to develop methods for holding the executive/policy committees to account which fit both the narrow and wide interpretations of the role. However, it is likely that the narrow definition of ‘scrutiny’ will continue to pre-dominate. As mechanisms such as ‘shadowing’ develop in local government then more progress may be made in this role. However, the problematic relationship to the party group will continue to act as a powerful constraint.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

---

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not responsible for the contents or reliability of the linked web sites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. Listing should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. We cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and we have no control over the availability of the linked pages.

---

Published 17 October 2002

---

Return to Local Government Index

---

Return to Home Page

---

Web site terms