---

CHAPTER 3
Organisational arrangements

1. INTRODUCTION

The DETR-funded study of six case study authorities which reported in spring 2000 found a great deal of diversity in the structures and processes for overview and scrutiny (Snape, Leach et al, 2000). This pattern of diversity has continued, as authorities continue to experiment locally with the best ‘fit’ for their own authority. This chapter explores this diversity, seeking to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the varying approaches adopted and highlighting good and innovative practice. It addresses structural diversity first, before turning to the processes and activities that overview and scrutiny committees have engaged in.

2. STRUCTURES

Authorities have experimented widely in creating local structures for the overview and scrutiny function. The number of committees varies, the membership and size also varies. However, it is possible to categorise local authority structures into one of four broad structural approaches (detailed in Table 11).

A popular approach to structuring overview and scrutiny is to create multiple scrutiny committees (between two to usually no more than eight committees), each having a mix of cross-cutting and functional briefs. This approach can have several potential advantages, for example, it can usually ensure that enough places are available for all non-executive members to sit on at least one committee and that members address key cross-cutting issues. An important variant on this approach is multiple scrutiny committees with a co-ordinating forum. This addresses one of the potential weaknesses of the first model: a tendency to duplicate each others work or leave gaps between committees. A co-ordinating forum is also important in increasing the legitimacy and power of overview and scrutiny and in sharing learning across the committees.

Table 11 Structures for overview and scrutiny
Structural approach	Description	Potential advantages	Potential disadvantages
Multiple overview and scrutiny committees without a coordinating forum Example: Barnsley, Chichester, Bolton, Buckinghamshire	Committees can number from two to seven or eight which often have a mix of cross-cutting and functional remits	Allows for more members to be involved in overview and scrutiny Encourages members to concentrate on key cross-cutting issues Allows members to develop specialisms Can help to spread the potential high workload of scrutiny Can help in relating to cabinet remits if mirroring cabinet portfolios Allows committees to experiment with different approaches	Gaps or overlaps between the committees Difficulty in making sense of crosscutting briefs Multiple committees can strain officer support resources Can reinforce retention of committee culture Can produce claims of inconsistency of approach
Multiple overview and scrutiny committees with a co-ordinating forum (often titled Scrutiny Management Board or Scrutiny Executive) Examples: York City, Sandwell, Kirklees, Haringey, Sheffield, Staffordshire County Council, Doncaster, St Albans, Stockport, Leeds, Darlington, East Sussex, Basingstoke and Deane, Carlisle City	This is a variant on the first approach, but with the important inclusion of either an informal or formal co-ordinating forum	As above but also… Ensures that gaps and duplication between committees are managed Encourages lessons to be learnt across the authority Can provide a powerful single voice for overview and scrutiny (and powerful position for chair of the forum)	Difficulty in making sense of crosscutting briefs Multiple committees can strain officer support resources Can reinforce retention of committee culture
Single standing scrutiny committee Examples: Camden, Barking and Dagenham	One standing scrutiny committee. Some authorities also include the power for the standing committee to create task and finish working groups to investigate issues	Provides high degree of flexibility Avoids creating an overly bureaucratic system Easier (and perhaps cheaper) to provide officer support to Can produce a cohesive scrutiny team	Can limit the number of members involved in scrutiny Cuts down the potential for members to develop specialisms Can be difficult to undertake a high workload
Different structures for different roles Examples: Bedfordshire, Herefordshire	This approach bases scrutiny structures on the different roles to be undertaken creating a separate eg ‘scrutiny’ committee to hold the executive to account or hiving off the policy development role into ‘policy development panels’	Ensures that there is a forum to undertake the distinct roles involved in overview and security work – ensuring roles are not neglected Can help to clarify the different roles involved Can help to ‘specialise’ member involvement in certain roles Can ‘free up’ other scrutiny structures from difficult tasks	Overlaps can emerge between the different structures – the most common is when policy advisory groups duplicate the work of overview and scrutiny committees Some structures can prove more popular than others with members and officers

There are two other structural models in this categorisation: a single standing committee; and a role differentiation model. In the first, there is one standing committee which undertakes the work of overview and scrutiny. Such an approach has the advantage of flexibility but can be restrictive on the number of members who can be involved. The second is based on establishing different forums for the different overview and scrutiny roles. A good example is Bedfordshire County Council’s structure which involves: a Scrutiny Select Committee whose function is to hold the executive to account; and four cross-cutting select committees whose role is to undertake policy development and review work.

These should be taken as broad categories, since even within these four approaches there is a high degree of variation from authority to authority. For example, some authorities with multiple standing committees undertake all their work within the committees, whereas in other authorities committees will occasionally create task and finish small working groups to undertake particular investigations. Similarly, some authorities with a single standing committee never create such task and finish groups, whereas others frequently do so. In addition, the size of such committees and the level of co-option (if any) varies within and across these categories.

Although each structure has potential advantages and disadvantages there is no one perfect structure for overview and scrutiny. Authorities will continue to be free to determine which model is the most appropriate for their own local circumstances. And, the ultimate success of the overview and scrutiny does not rely totally on appropriate structures, but on effective processes – and on the culture within which structures and processes operate.

3. PROCESSES

As with structures, councils have experimented with a wide range of processes for undertaking the work of overview and scrutiny committees. However, three broad approaches to operating overview and scrutiny can be identified: the traditional committee approach; the parliamentary select committee model; and an emerging participative model. The features of these three models are outlined in Table 12.

Table 12 Three models of scrutiny, styles and processes
Model	Traditional Committee	Parliamentary Select Committee	Participative
Description	A committee system ‘in disguise’. The committee: meets in the same venue as pre-new structures; members and officers sit in the same places; agenda, minutes and reports are unchanged; members and officers behave as in the committee system; activities are meetings-based	Overview and Scrutiny committees mirror the style of parliamentary select committees, in particular: the layout of select committees; the emphasis on oral evidence with internal and external witnesses; reports which fully cover the evidence gathered	Less formal, more participative approach to the work of overview and scrutiny. Can involve brainstorming, workshops, site visits, mystery shopping, and more informal partnership between members and officers
Potential advantages	Members and officers are familiar and comfortable – with the way of working	Holds cabinet and senior officers to account in public Brings in external opinion and expertise Evidence-based approach Can be highly effective approach for engaging partners and the public Develops questioning and analytical skills of members	Can develop effective team work between members and officers Particularly appropriate for contact with members of public/user groups/certain partnership organisations as it is less intimidating Can be a relatively cost-effective approach
Potential disadvantages	Ultimately frustrating for members since the key element for members – decision-making – is not present Undervalues the potential of overview and scrutiny Fails to recognise that a different role requires a different approach	Intimidating environment for less senior officers Intimidating environment for members of public as witnesses/user groups/certain partner organisations Highly resource intensive in terms of member and officer time	The lack of formality may not be conducive to undertaking certain roles Can be criticised as less evidence-based Unfamiliar approach for many members and officers

Traditional Committee Approach

In some authorities, the traditional committee system is casting a long shadow in shaping the approach to overview and scrutiny. It is still common for overview and scrutiny committees to operate almost as traditional service committees ‘in disguise’. Sometimes this is a purposeful local decision, but more usually it is a product of changing structures without changing culture; members and officers simply assume the same behaviour and activities as they have always performed.

Table 13 Identifying a ‘traditional committee’ overview and scrutiny forum

You are probably operating in a ‘traditional’ committee overview and scrutiny forum if the following are the case: You are meeting in the same venue; Members and officers are sitting in the same positions; The agenda, minutes and reports are unaltered from the traditional service committee system; You prepare for meetings the same way as before; You follow-up meeting the same way as before; Members and officers behave the same; Members are voting on motions/recommendations; The work of the committee is meetings-based.

Yet for overview and scrutiny – which has a fundamentally different role from traditional service committees – such an approach has few advantages and many disadvantages. A new function requires a new style of working and new processes. Authorities operating such an approach will find it valuable to consider the following:

• Challenge all the assumptions underlying the traditional committee approach;

• Change/vary the venue for meetings;

• Change/vary the layout of rooms;

• Change the seating arrangements;

• Challenge formalities/procedures;

• Use a variety of processes;

• Change the style of reports and minutes;

• Provide training and development to change the member and officer culture.

Parliamentary Select Committee Approach

However, different activities and processes are present in the other two approaches set out in Table 12. The parliamentary select committee model has been mirrored – and is proving effective – in a number of authorities (for example, Tameside Borough Council and Bedfordshire County Council). This approach relies on:

• Determining a terms of reference for the investigation and an outline project brief;

• Analysing a range of existing secondary information and research on the subject;

• Requesting and receiving written evidence from a range of internal and external individuals and organisations;

• Shaping a witness package from this response;

• Undertaking formal oral hearings with internal and external witnesses (which are sometimes recorded to provide a verbatim record of the proceedings);

• Analysing the data gathered to produce an evidence-based report and appropriate recommendations.

The other models that this approach rests on are public inquiries, tribunals and other quasijudicial deliberative bodies.

It has the advantage of drawing on a wide range of internal and external sources of information. Its formality – and the public nature of the proceedings – can also raise the legitimacy and increase interest in the work of the committee. However, it is resource intensive, demanding of member and officer time. And, it requires the development and refinement of new skills for members and officers, for example, developing questioning strategies and skills for members.

And its very formality can also be a weakness in terms of investigating issues which involve more vulnerable groups of society, where the participative approach outlined below can really be advantageous.

Participative Model

The participative model is beginning to emerge in a number of authorities. It relies on more informal joint working between members and officers, the use of brainstorming and workshops, site visits, mystery shopping and other such ‘hands-on’ on approaches for members and officers investigating issues. It is particularly suited to investigating issues relating to vulnerable or ‘hard to reach’ groups in the community, and it can be a cost-effective approach to adopt.

However, it is important to stress that although overview and scrutiny in some authorities has been heavily influenced by one of these approaches, in others a mix is apparent and ultimately such a flexible approach may prove to be the most appropriate.

However, it is encouraging that an increasing number of councils are realizing that overview and scrutiny can involve a far greater range of investigative and deliberative processes than the traditional service committee. And in truth, there is a very wide range of activities which scrutiny councillors could select from in order to investigate issues. (See Table 14.)

Table 14 Scrutiny processes and activities
INTERNAL PROCESSES	Discussion within committee meeting(s) and/or special meetings
	Officer reports and presentations to overview and scrutiny committees
	Interviewing officers
	Interviewing executive members
	Interviewing non-executive members (eg chairs of area forums, chairs of quasi-judicial forums, etc)
	Desk-based review of available internal and external documentation (eg relevant strategies and plans, budgetary and financial information, etc)
	Site visits within the authority
	Case studies of individual cases
	Commissioned internal research
EXTERNAL PROCESSES –general	Interviewing expert witnesses
	Conference attendance
	Visits to other authorities and other organisations
	Commissioning external research
EXTERNAL PROCESSES – engaging partners (business sector, other public agencies, voluntary and community sector)	Co-option of representatives of partner organisations on overview and scrutiny committees
	Joint working party with partner organisations
	Interviewing representatives of partner organisations
	Visits to view work of partners
	Workshops/discussions with partners
EXTERNAL PROCESSES – engaging the publicand users of services	Co-option of representatives of user groups on overview and scrutiny committees
	Interviewing representatives of user groups
	Workshops with representatives of user groups
	Public meetings
	Commissioning research to determine public/user views
	Press releases and media launches

4. THE 10 STEPS TO A SUCCESSFUL SCRUTINY INVESTIGATION

It is possible to draw on the positive and negative experiences of a range of local authorities to outline good practice guidance for undertaking successful in-depth investigations. This section sets out the 10 steps to good practice in overview and scrutiny in-depth reviews.

Table 15 The 10 steps to undertaking a successful in-depth scrutiny investigation
Step 1	Be sure that the subject is significant
Step 2	Project plan the investigation
Step 3	Determine the nature of member involvement
Step 4	Engage partners, public and local media
Step 5	Gather secondary evidence and primary written evidence
Step 6	Get the witness package right
Step 7	Gather oral evidence
Step 8	Adopt other methods
Step 9	Prepare draft report, disseminate and route the report
Step 10	Follow-up

Step 1: Be Sure That the Subject is Significant

The first step is for scrutiny members to be sure that the subject to be reviewed is significant. Undertaking in-depth investigations is resource-intensive – of member and officer resources. Investing such a high level of resources should only be undertaken for high priority issues.

The following are criteria which could be used to ‘check’ a topic against, to ensure that it is significant:

• Issue identified by members as key issue (through members’ surgeries and other constituency activities);

• Poor performing service;

• Service ranked as important by community (through market research, citizens’ panels and so on);

• High level of user/general public dissatisfaction with service;

• Public interest issue highlighted in local media;

• High level of budgetary commitment to policy/service area;

• Pattern of budgetary overspends. (A good example of this is set out below in North Tyneside’s Budget Overspend Inquiry);

• Council corporate priority area;

• Central government corporate priority area;

• Issue raised by external audit’s Management Letter, or in Inspectorate Reports (OFSTED, Joint SSI, Best Value);

• New government guidance or legislation.

North Tyneside’s Budget Overspend Inquiry

This inquiry was the most intense piece of work ever undertaken by any scrutiny body in North Tyneside. The inquiry followed an overspend of £6.2M in 2000/01 which led to the Council having negative reserves amounting to £3.1M. The inquiry – under the auspices of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel – was undertaken by four members with assistance from an independent person and a trade union representative. The investigation involved three months work, over 60 hours of interviews and a final report that identified “major weaknesses, omissions, errors of judgement and poor planning”. The ‘fall out’ from the budget overspend and the inquiry report continues to have an impact on the Council and is likely to have a major impact on the ‘governance’ of the Council in the future. Contact: Patrick Kilgallon, Scrutiny Team Leader, North Tyneside Council Tel: 0191 219 2620 Email: patrick.kilgallon@northtyneside.gov.uk

It is also possible to use criteria to ‘filter out’ topics for in-depth review. These might include:

• Issue being examined by another internal body (executive, officer group, area arrangement);

• Issue to be addressed as part of best value review in the next 12-18 months;

• New government legislation or guidance expected but not yet received.

Step 2: Project Plan the Investigation

Any resource-intensive investigation requires careful project planning. The experience of many authorities strongly suggests that the more an investigation is planned beforehand the more successful it is in the longer term.

Careful project management involves drawing up a project plan for the investigation. Such a plan covers at the least key issues such as:

• Terms of reference and objectives of the study;

• Details of methods to be adopted;

• Timescales;

• Officer support.

A standard proforma which has been used by many authorities to draw up a project plan is included below. Examples of the format of project briefs used by Tameside and Bedfordshire County Council are also provided.

Good practice experience indicates that a draft project plan is prepared by the support officer and/or chair and is discussed with the relevant overview and scrutiny committee, whose members then make comments about the revision of the plan.

Table 16 Project Plan for individual reviews
Terms of Reference
Witnesses Who? Why?	Information gathered
Documents/evidence What? Why? Site visits Where? Why?	Information gathered   Information gathered
Consultation/research/other methods? Why? What? Who?	Information gathered
Timescales for review
Officer support
Conclusions/recommendations

This proforma is drawn from S. Snape, L. McQue, F. Taylor and V. Hewitt, Overview & Scrutiny Advanced Level Modern Members Course, IDeA, 2001. It was developed by the authors from a NW Employers proforma.

Examples of Project Briefs: Tameside and Bedfordshire

The Tameside Project Briefs are structured into the following sections Name of scrutiny panel Summary of subject matter to be reviewed Key objectives of the scrutiny review Key background papers (internal papers and external papers) Details of which witnesses will be invited to provide evidence to the panel Details of steps being taken to engage customers of services and secure customer feedback on the service under review (including details of market research being undertaken and publicity plans for review) Resource requirements of the review Projected commencement date of the review Projected completion date for draft report

The Bedfordshire Scoping Studies are structured into the following sections Context/introduction The service/policy area under review Legislative basis of the service/policy Key issues Purpose and objectives of the review Review methodology (summary of the range of methods appropriate) Other information (range of information available regarding the service/policy area) Consultation process Project team (details of officers involved) Timetable for review Reporting mechanisms Dangers/risks

Step 3: Determine the Nature of Member Involvement

Part of determining the project brief will be to decide how members will drive the investigation. As already outlined in Chapter 2 there are three possible approaches to member involvement:

• The whole committee investigates the issue;

• A task and finish working group is established to drive the investigation;

• Individual or paired members drive the investigation.

For the majority of in-depth investigations the first two are likely to predominate, although individual or paired members may be used to investigate particular aspects of the subject area.

Step 4: Engage Partners, Public and the Media

Project management of the investigation also involves considering – before starting the investigation – whether and how to engage partners, public and the media. A high priority, high profile investigation is likely to require a strategy to engage all three groups. Advice on developing an outward focus is contained in Chapter 8, but in particular consider the following:

• Can partners/public/press be involved as participants in the investigation?;

• Can partners/public serve as co-opted members?;

• Can partners/public/press be invited as observers/spectators?;

• Can partners/public be invited as witnesses to give evidence?

Similarly, the following methods of engaging the press in particular can be considered at this point in preparing for the investigation:

• Press releases;

• Press launch for the report/investigation;

• Spots on local radio stations.

Step 5: Gather the Secondary Evidence and Written Evidence

This method for investigating the subject area involves the following:

• Calling for written evidence from a range of internal and external individuals and organisations. This very much follows the parliamentary select committee approach and has been adopted by a number of authorities (including Bedfordshire County Council);

• Reviewing existing internal council plans, strategies, service plans and reports which are relevant to the subject area;

• Reviewing relevant Government guidance, legislation and documentation;

• Reviewing relevant guidance, good practice guides from national and regional bodies (such as LGA, IDeA);

• Reviewing good and innovative reports and plans from other authorities.

Step 6: Get the Witness Package Right

If the authority has gathered written evidence from a range of organisations, then it can use this evidence as a guide for inviting a selected number of organisations to provide oral evidence to the committee or panel.

Generally, internal witnesses would include:

• Relevant cabinet member(s);

• Relevant senior and less senior officers (where appropriate);

• Chairs of other internal bodies, such as area arrangements or quasi-judicial bodies (if appropriate).

External witnesses can be drawn from a wide range of individuals and organisations, as the following demonstrates:

• Members and officers from other local authorities;

• Senior officers from external local public agencies eg directors of health trusts, health authorities, Skills and Learning Councils and so on;

• Senior officers from external regional public agencies eg Government Officers, Regional Development Agencies;

• Representatives from local voluntary sector organisations, regional organisations and national organisations;

• Representatives from professional associations;

• Representatives from trade unions;

• Representatives from the private sector (chamber of commerce and so on);

• Representatives of user groups (local, regional, national);

• Community representatives;

• Recognised experts in the subject area (academics, public or private sector managers).

A successful witness package needs to consider:

• Who are the key stakeholders whose views should be represented?;

• How do we ensure a good balance between different views?;

• Who will make good witnesses (in a public setting)?;

• Who is likely to be intimidated by a formal setting? (plan then to gather their views in a different way).

Step 7: Gather Oral Evidence

Many authorities are now becoming skilled in taking oral evidence from internal and external witnesses. There are a number of issues which are crucial in undertaking this work effectively:

Determining the right location
Many oral hearings are best undertaken in committee rooms which can be properly equipped for such work. However, some meetings which intend to gather oral evidence are better undertaken outside of town or county hall. A number of the authorities we have seen have taken their scrutiny committee meetings outside to schools, libraries, community centres and so on. Such meetings can have very specific advantages:

• They can increase partner and public turnout and engagement in the process;

• More local, less formal, surroundings can put witnesses more at their ease.

Meeting outside the Town or County Hall: The Example of Camden

In Camden, scrutiny panels have held meetings outside the Town Hall: At a school and in a housing estate’s community centre when looking at PFI redevelopment proposals for the school and estate; In a school in an area where the school run traffic problem is particularly acute; and, In a number of community venues when examining the development of tenancy support services for vulnerable people.

Getting the right layout
For a formal oral hearing, the parliamentary select committee’s horseshoe table layout is particularly effective. However, sound systems must be effective, procedures need to be appropriate and clear nameplates for all those involved are important.

Horseshoe Table Layout

The Horseshoe layout involves the chair sitting at one end of the room, witnesses at the other end (on a separate table) and committee members along either side. The following authorities have been using the Parliamentary Select Committee’s horseshoe table layout for committee meetings which gather oral evidence: Hounslow London Borough; Maidstone Borough Council; Sheffield City Council; Tameside; Worcestershire County Council.

Briefing witnesses beforehand
It is important that internal and external witnesses are given a clear briefing of what to expect beforehand. Written guidelines have a good role to play here but officers and members also need to brief witnesses before the meeting starts to ensure that they are clear about the procedures. A number of authorities (Bedfordshire, Leeds, York) have produced clear written guidance for witnesses. Interestingly, Leeds has produced two forms of guide for witnesses: an officer guide to scrutiny; and a guide for externals. Information on the guides produced by Leeds and York is provided below.

Leeds City Council’s Guides to Scrutiny

Leeds City Council has been particularly successful in developing a robust and comprehensive framework of rules, conventions, protocols and guides for overview and scrutiny. The Council realised the importance of producing guides to the scrutiny process for internal and external stakeholders who may have to provide written or oral evidence and/or may wish to influence the scrutiny process. The Officer Guide to Scrutiny is an A5 folding, glossy colour leaflet, which is structured around the following questions: What is scrutiny for? What can scrutiny boards consider? What are the arrangements at Leeds? What can scrutiny boards do? How are inquiries generated? What will I be asked to provide to the Board? Will I have to attend? This is then followed by a section setting out what an officer can expect when attending a scrutiny board meeting. The leaflet is extremely well set out and very informative. The guide was specifically designed by the Leeds City Council Scrutiny Support Unit to give information to officers providing written or verbal information to the Boards. The Guide to Scrutiny is an A4 spiral bound, 13 page guide targeted on people from outside the Council. Again, as with the officer guide, it is an extremely well written and informative guide, with the following sections: Introduction; Why has the system been changed?; Who makes what decisions?; Leeds City Council Structure 2001; What are scrutiny boards?; What are the responsibilities for scrutiny boards?; How does scrutiny work?; How does an inquiry work?; How can I take part in a scrutiny board?; How do I present a deputation?; What happens next?; What happens if I am asked to be a witness?; Written evidence; Oral evidence; How will the meeting room be set out?; Further information; Map. Usefully, the guide includes seven case studies, dotted throughout the guide, of the type of work that the Scrutiny Boards undertake. Contact: Nick de la Taste, Head of Scrutiny Support Tel: 0113 2474560 Email: nick.delataste@leeds.gov.uk

 

York’s Charter for Scrutiny Witnesses

York has produced a charter for witnesses, in response to a recognition that giving evidence to scrutiny committees can be a stressful experience. It includes the following provisions. The council will: Inform the witness of the matters about which the scrutiny body wish to ask them. Inform the witness of any documents that scrutiny wish to have produced for them; Provide reasonable notice of all of the requirements of the scrutiny body to enable the witness to respond in full at the earliest opportunity; Arrange for the Chair of the scrutiny meeting to introduce himself/herself to the witness prior to the proceedings; Ensure that all witnesses are treated with courtesy and respect and that all questions to witnesses are made in an orderly manner as directed by the Chair of the meeting; Following the proceedings, write to the witness and where appropriate, inform them of the outcome. It is accompanied by a set of ‘notes on guidance’ for witnesses covering the following topics: Who will be at the scrutiny meeting?; What happens when I attend a scrutiny meeting?; What happens when I give evidence?; Can I claim expenses?

Protocols for member behaviour in oral hearings
A number of authorities have also produced very useful written protocols to guide members in oral hearings. Again, the example of York is illustrated below.

Protocols on the Conduct of Members of Scrutiny Bodies: The Example of York

York has produced a protocol on the conduct of members of scrutiny bodies, which provides specific behavioural guidance for scrutiny members and chairs of scrutiny respectively. As an example, here is the guidance for scrutiny members. All scrutiny members shall: Refrain from personal criticism of other members, whatever their position in the Council; Carry out debate in a polite and respectful manner and consider the implications of such discussions and any consequent press coverage on the public perception of scrutiny; Use their powers of scrutiny properly and behave in a manner worthy of the trust placed in them by the local people who have elected them; Not permit personal agendas, rivalries and differences to deflect them from properly fulfilling their duties as scrutiny members; Declare any interest in the matters under scrutiny, pecuniary or otherwise; Contact: Rosalind Gray, Scrutiny Manager, York City Council Tel: 01904 551034 Email: rosalind.gray@york.gov.uk

Recording oral evidence
Some authorities have been taking verbatim recordings of the proceedings of oral hearings. This can provide a useful record for members and officers. If a verbatim record is not kept, then full minutes of the discussions need to be taken.

Checking evidence with witnesses
It is always good practice to send written records of oral hearings to witnesses to ensure accuracy.

Step 8: Adopt Other Methods

Gathering written and oral evidence are not the only methods available to overview and scrutiny committees. As Table 14 on page 55 demonstrates, there is a wide range of methods available. The skill is to match the investigation with the appropriate methods.

Step 9: Prepare, Disseminate and Route the Report

Good practice from a variety of authorities suggests that ‘good’ reports:

• Are evidence-based, outlining the written, oral and other evidence presented to the committee;

• Are user friendly, written in plain English;

• Use photographs, graphs, charts and other visual aids to engage the readers;

• Include a brief, concise summary;

• Include SMART (specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and timely) recommendations.

Sending draft reports to those individuals and organisations who provided evidence is also seen increasingly as good practice.

Also, the routing of reports can be crucial. The executive should have the opportunity to comment on reports but the full council is the often the most appropriate forum for debate about key scrutiny reports. The executive (or policy committees in alternative arrangements) should determine their response to reports and action any agreed recommendations.

Step 10: Follow-Up

Follow-up is key to successful investigations. Progress reports on actions taken from the investigation are valuable six months after the initial investigation has been completed. Maidstone Borough Council has an innovative practice whereby each scrutiny committee appoints a ‘rapporteur’ whose role is to follow up the conclusions and recommendations and monitor progress in implementation.

Maidstone’s Rapporteurs

Maidstone Borough Council has five overview and scrutiny committees. Each committee appoints a ‘rapporteur’ responsible for ensuring effective follow-up of recommendations. This has ensured that in addition to the original meetings where the responses to the reports were agreed, further cabinet reports have been forthcoming on implementing recommendations. Contact: William Benson, Scrutiny Secretary, Maidstone Borough Council Tel: 01622 602463 Email: williambenson@maidstone.gov.uk

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

---

Published 17 October 2002

---

Return to Local Government Index

---

Return to Home Page

---

Web site terms