CHAPTER 6
Officer Support1. INTRODUCTION
Officer support to overview and scrutiny is considered by many to be one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of the new political management arrangements. There are a number of reasons which explain this: the resourcing of officer support can be a contentious, problematic issue, particularly in resource-constrained or small district councils; the creation of dedicated support officers and units challenges the tradition of a unified officer structure; and, the separation of executive and overview and scrutiny produces claims of conflict of interest for officers seeking to support both sides.
2. APPROACHES TO OFFICER SUPPORT
A previous study has established that the period of experimentation produced three responses to the issue of officer support (see Table 26). Work in the case study authorities and wider scanning of good practice would suggest that the minimal approach is becoming rarer, with a number of authorities now coming within the integrated or specialist categories.
Table 26 Approaches to officer support
Minimal
Direct officer support is provided by committee officers, who also provide support to other political forums, such as the executive, full council and so on.
Integrated
Direct officer support is provided, on a part-time basis, from a variety of sources, including committee services, officers within departments and corporate policy officers. All these officers also undertake work for the executive.
Specialist
Direct officer support is provided by a scrutiny support unit with dedicated officers, who only work to their overview and scrutiny committees.
Source: From S. Snape and F. Taylor, A Hard Nut to Crack: Making Overview and Scrutiny Work, LGA, 2001, p.12.
Certainly these two different approaches dominate within the ten case study authorities. And, of our ten case study authorities, the majority had established dedicated scrutiny support units ie groups of officers whose job description is focused wholly on facilitating the scrutiny process. Such specialist units typically report to a second or third tier post in the chief executive’s department.
Examples of Specialist Support Units
Direct officer support to scrutiny in Camden London Borough consists of six scrutiny policy officers to provide research and policy support to panels and a team of 3.5 committee services officers to provide clerking and administrative support to panels, with a manager and general administrative support for each team. However, the scrutiny function does call on the advice, support and co-operation of officers across the council.
Staffordshire County Council has employed three dedicated scrutiny managers to support the work of the five overview and scrutiny committees. They work closely with the chairmen, the committees and departmental directors to develop annual work programmes and to support the scrutiny members in their new roles.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has also created a specialist scrutiny team with four full-time scrutiny officers. A new post of Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) was created to manage their work. This post oversees the overview and scrutiny arrangements, manages the Council’s best value arrangements and ensures a strong connection between the scrutiny and best value functions.
The London Borough of Hounslow’s overview and scrutiny function is supported by a Head of Scrutiny and Performance (AC01), two scrutiny officers (PO5) and an administrative assistant (scale 6). These posts were initially seconded but are now permanent.
North Tyneside’s overview and scrutiny function is supported by a dedicated Best Value and Scrutiny Unit, which comprises four officers.
Carlisle City Council’s work on overview and scrutiny is supported by a senior officer as Head of Scrutiny (the Head of Corporate Policy and Strategy was seconded to undertake this role) and a Scrutiny Support Officer.
The London Borough of Newham’s overview and scrutiny function is supported by a Head of Overview and Scrutiny (chief officer grade) and each committee chair has project management support provided for their scrutiny investigations by one of three scrutiny managers. In addition, the team provides committee administration and research/policy support.
However, a few of the case study authorities had not been convinced of the need for a separate unit of this nature, and rely on the unified officer structure to support the scrutiny process as well as the decision-making process. An example of an integrated approach – from outside our case study authorities – is provided by Leicester City Council, where each scrutiny committee has a lead officer at a second tier level, responsible for pulling the programme and overall procedures together and being the bridge to the cabinet side. One Director has an overview of all scrutiny committees and gets the lead officers together from time to time to tackle problems and improve practice.
Another interesting variant on the integrated approach is provided by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. This authority has opted for a single Scrutiny Management Board which has the power to create short-term (normally six month) scrutiny panels to carry out in-depth investigations. Each panel received direct officer support from an Independent Support Officer. This officer will be a second-tier manager who has had no involvement with the service being scrutinised (see box below).
Barking and Dagenham’s Independent Support Officers and Scrutiny Panels
Barking and Dagenham opted for a single Scrutiny Management Board which can create task-and- finish Scrutiny Panels when in-depth investigation is required. They did so in order to get away from the old committee style of meetings. Membership of the panels usually includes approximately five councillors and one or two relevant external representatives. Officer support to these panels is provided by Independent Support Officers (one for each panel). This officer will be a second-tier manager who has had no involvement with the service being scrutinised. They may volunteer for the job or be selected by the Management Team. Their role is to act as a critical friend, and to give support and advice to the Panel. It provides an opportunity for that manager to be involved in corporate management and review work outside his or her normal service.
Contact: Nina Clark, Head of Democratic Support
Email: nina.clark@lbbd.gov.ukIn our ten case study authorities it tended to be the unitary or most-purpose authorities, which had established dedicated support units. Of our case studies, Brentwood and Eastleigh – both shire district councils with limited budgets – relied on the unified officer structure for scrutiny support, a stance taken by many other such authorities. Of the all or most-purpose authorities we visited, Calderdale had chosen not to establish dedicated scrutiny support units.
The size of the scrutiny units established by the ten case study authorities varied from ten (Bristol) to three (York) officers. The status of the officers concerned was most commonly ‘principal officer’ level (but in some cases ‘senior officer’). The senior local authority officer with overall responsibility for the work of the scrutiny support unit varied: in Barnsley it was the Borough Secretary; in Bedfordshire an assistant chief executive; in Barnet a Democratic Services Manager; and in Haringey a Head of Local Democracy.
There is no doubt that the existence of a dedicated scrutiny support unit does increase the chances of effective scrutiny (though it cannot guarantee it!). What dedicated units provide is an analytical capacity geared specifically to the requirements of the overview and scrutiny process. That analytical capacity can be generated from the unified officer structure but generally with more difficulty and questions about its scrutiny-specific orientation. An officer who has produced a report recommending a certain line of action to an executive member is unlikely to be predisposed to provide an ‘alternative’ report to an overview and scrutiny committee which wants to challenge that recommendation.
This issue – a requisite two-hattedness on the part of professional officers – does not disappear in situations where dedicated scrutiny units exist. Scrutiny units even when well-resourced cannot replicate the full range of professional skills in the authority, any of which they may need access to in carrying out a particular scrutiny exercise. Thus, an increased flexibility on the part of all professional officers is an important pre-requisite for effective scrutiny in most instances. A tension between the need for the scrutiny unit to generate independent advice and the reluctance of the mainstream officer structure to provide it was identified in at least three of the case-studies.
Two good examples of the benefits of a well-resourced scrutiny unit which has been given a high status position within the officer structure are provided by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Bedfordshire County Council.
The Select Committee Support Unit in Bedfordshire County Council
Bedfordshire County Council fundamentally re-structured its officer-side at the same time as creating new political management arrangements. Part of this reorganisation involved the creation of a specialist officer support unit for overview and scrutiny – the Select Committee Support Unit. By January 2002, there were seven permanent full-time posts within the Unit:
An Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny) (grade CO), who reports to the chief executive and is ‘responsible for ensuring the effective operation of the council’s ‘scrutiny’ function via its Select Committee System’.
One select committee adviser (grade BG 4E), who: deputises for the Assistant Chief Executive; manages the support functions of the Select Committee Support Team; undertakes policy research generally; and provides dedicated support to one of the select committees and its chairman.
Two select committee policy officers (BG 4G) who: undertake general policy research; and provide support to one of the select committees and its chairman.
A technical support officer (scale 6) whose principal duties are: to provide technical support to all the committees; and, to undertake numerical analysis, benchmarking, database management, work with spreadsheets.
A best value and select committee studies administrator (scale 5) who: provides general administrative support; assists in preparing and drafting reports; assists in gathering relevant information; and makes arrangements for expert advisers and witnesses giving evidence.
An administrative and secretarial officer (scale 4), whose principal duties are: to provide secretarial support to the Assistant Chief Executive; to provide the support team with word processing, administrative and clerical support; and to make administrative arrangements for holding select committees.
The revenue budget for the support team is £330,000 for 2001/02. Each select committee can call on dedicated policy support from within the team:
The assistant chief executive supports the Scrutiny Select Committee and the Lifelong Learning Select Committee.
The select committee adviser supports the Community and Environment Select Committee.
The two policy advisers support Individual Well Being and Resources Stewardship.
The nature of the work to support the committees varies considerably but the following are the main duties:
The preparation of an outline work programme and detailed agendas;
Advising chairmen on the best questioning strategies;
Detailed policy and service research and advice;
Preparation of written reports;
Administrative duties;
Undertaking research on new legislation or new initiatives;
Project managing individual reviews – whether they are best value reviews or other reviews;
Shaping the witness package.
This level of dedicated officer support has produced considerable benefits for the authority in terms of the management of the scrutiny process.
Contact: Bill Hamilton, Assistant Chief Executive (Scrutiny)
Tel: 01234 228032
Email: HamiltWD@csd.bedfordshire.gov.uk
The Scrutiny Support Unit in Barnsley
Barnsley has invested a significant level of resources in supporting the scrutiny process. There is Scrutiny Support Unit, formally responsible to the Borough Secretary which comprises six Scrutiny Commission Advisers each serving a single Scrutiny Commission(SC). A recent change is that three of the six posts are now permanent, whilst three remain designated on a two-year secondment basis.
All the Advisers are on Grade P.0.6. Their job description includes the following provisions:
Assistance with the identification of issues or discrete areas of the Council’s activity suitable for detailed examination by the SC within the scope of its Terms of Reference and those recommendations and decisions of the Cabinet most appropriate to scrutinise in detail.
Consideration and assistance with the identification of persons outside the Council who it is appropriate to invite to serve on or attend meetings of the SC and maintaining regular and effective dialogue and liaison with such persons.
In liaison with the Council’s Press Officer, maintaining regular and effective dialogue with the local press and media with a view to securing appropriate publicity for, and reporting of, the activities and proceedings of the SC.
Making arrangements to provide members of the SC with appropriate briefing material relevant to any area of the Council’s activity subject to detailed examination and for the provision in consultation with the appropriate Executive Directors or other officer of regular background information as to developments generally within the subject areas covered by the Terms of Reference of the SC.
Overall, the unit manages the scrutiny process in Barnsley extremely effectively. The advisors share the same physical base, their equivalent chairs have separate rooms in an adjacent area. The officers are strongly-motivated and skilled in helping SCs to ‘add value’ in terms of identifying issues that merit attention, developing lines of questioning and enquiry and drafting reports (sometimes in conjunction with the Chair). Their contribution is highly valued by the Scrutiny Commission members and contributes to the quality of the Scrutiny Reports.
To play an active role in supporting both elected and co-opted members during the proceedings of the SC and to ensure that there is an effective debate exchange of information and examination of the issues relevant to the subject matters under consideration with those persons attending before the SC.
Contact: Alan Maher, Principal Policy and Co-ordination Officer, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Tel: 01226 773444
e-mail: AlanMaher@barnsley.gov.ukIn authorities where there is a more modest scrutiny support unit (or indeed where none exists) the provision of ‘independent advice’ can be facilitated by a division of labour at senior management level within key departments.
A further potential source of independent advice is to commission work from relevant experts outside the authority. This kind of externally-provided support may be of particular importance when the scrutiny responsibilities in relation to health gather momentum. In three of the case study authorities there was an opportunity (and a budget) to bring in external help in this way, although in only one of the authorities had much use been made of this opportunity. However, external expertise had been incorporated in a different way in several of the case study authorities through the use of co-optees to the scrutiny committees (see Chapter 8).
In all the authorities we saw, there were adequate arrangements for organising the business of the overview and scrutiny committees. Meetings are arranged, agendas drawn up, reports commissioned and minutes published, typically by democratic service officers. But this is a minimum administrative requirement, which should not be confused with the provision of analytical support for the scrutiny process (though in some authorities the two processes are sometimes confused).
Because in a number of authorities the emphasis has been on overview (i.e. policy development) and/or best value reviews rather than scrutiny per se (i.e. holding the decision-makers – individually or collectively – to account), the key problem of role conflict for senior officers has not yet emerged markedly. But, as the Audit Commission have emphasised, the potential for role conflict clearly exists.
“How distinct will the differences between the executive and scrutiny functions be? The more confrontational the relationship, the more power that resides with the executive, the more likely it is that a distinct and competent scrutiny function will exist, requiring its own dedicated support.”
Thus, the examples we encountered in the case studies of scrutiny responsibilities being divided up between members of a senior management team, who also of course have parallel (and much more time consuming) responsibilities for facilitating executive action seemed to us to be structurally unsound in the longer term, and ‘hostages to fortune’ even where major tensions had not yet been encountered.
3. CONCLUSION
Effective scrutiny requires (amongst other things) an acknowledgement that the tradition of unified officer advice is no longer appropriate in an era when scrutiny committees are expected (inter alia) to challenge decisions and intentions. To do so they need an organisational culture which sanctions the provision of non-uniform professional advice (ie an engineer who is prepared to critique the traffic management scheme of a fellow engineer). The existence of dedicated scrutiny support teams can manage and, to some extent, contribute substantively to this process, but that it itself is unlikely to be adequate, in the face of an obdurate resistance elsewhere in the organisation based on a continued adherence to the principle of ‘unified officer advice’.
Published 17 October 2002
Return to Local Government Index
Return to Home Page
Web site terms