CHAPTER 7
Relationship to other internal structures1. THE EXECUTIVE OR POLICY COMMITTEES
There is a formal relationship in all authorities between the executive (or policy committees under alternative arrangements) and the overview and scrutiny arrangements. Guidance relating to new constitutions requires a statement of the provisions for call-in (ie the circumstances in which scrutiny committees can ‘call-in’ items of executive business) and of the arrangements of best value reviews (which can involve both executive/policy committees and scrutiny). In addition, the constitutional provisions for dealing with key decisions typically set out a process whereby scrutiny committee views are channelled to the executive/policy committee.
But the common existence of a formal relationship can hide considerable disparities in the broader, more informal relationship between decision-makers and scrutiny. At one extreme, this relationship can be close and mutually-beneficial. In Buckinghamshire County Council for example:
‘Members of both cabinet and overview and scrutiny described a positive relationship between the two bodies. Portfolio holders found overview and scrutiny supportive yet challenging, and did not feel that they had been given an “easy ride’’ when appearing before scrutiny committees. These committees had also undertaken work which portfolio holders had found very valuable.’
On the other hand, relationships can also be distant to the point of non-existence! In Bristol, it was acknowledged that ‘work in particular needs to be done to develop a more productive relationship between cabinet and the scrutiny commissions’. In other authorities too, dialogue between the two key elements in the new system was extremely limited.
‘Overlapping attendance’ was one device which some of the case-study authorities used to try to integrate executive and scrutiny functions. In York, the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee regularly attends meetings of the executive and participates in discussions. In Eastleigh, members of the executive regularly attend meetings of the Scrutiny Panels, which mirror their responsibilities. Helpful though these devices may be, they may in other ways blur the distinctiveness of the two structural elements.
The ODPM (originally the DETR) Guidance encourages executives/policy committees to behave proactively in relation to scrutiny committees, commissioning them to carry out policy reviews or policy development studies which they (the executive/policy committee) are too busy to do justice to. Some of the executives in our case study authorities, for example Bedfordshire County Council, operated in this way. This practice is a helpful contribution to effective overview and scrutiny, not least because it demonstrates a readiness on the part of the executive/policy committee to be influenced by the scrutiny process. An illustration of a cabinet-instigated scrutiny investigation which occurred in South Ribble Borough Council is provided below. Such a case study demonstrates the potential for overview and scrutiny committees to develop a complementary investigative role to the strategy-setting role of the executive or policy committees.
Executive-Instigated Scrutiny Investigations:
A Review of South Ribble’s Approach to Capital ProjectsIn November 2000, South Ribble’s cabinet received a request to approve an additional budget allocation for a capital project. This followed several similar requests in relation to other capital projects. The cabinet agreed to approve the additional expenditure but at the same time decided that a review should be undertaken of the Council’s general approach to capital projects, to seek improvements. This review was undertaken by the Policy and Service Review Scrutiny Panel. A project plan for the investigation was developed and a clear scope for the review was agreed. The investigation involved a wide range of methods:
Documenting the existing corporate process;
Comparing the original and outturn costs and timescales for all large projects over a four year period;
Seeking comments from individual cabinet members, managers, other staff and the external and internal auditors;
Researching national best practice eg Audit Commission reports and relevant reports from the Best Value Inspectorate;
Interviewing senior officers involved corporately with capital projects.
From this intensive investigation the Panel shaped 18 clear recommendations for the cabinet. These were included in the report of the investigation, completed in April 2001.
Contact: John Dakin, Head of Scrutiny and Improvement, South Ribble Borough Council
Email: jdakin@southribble.gov.ukEven in circumstances where the executive or policy committee is predisposed to take the views of scrutiny committees seriously, and welcomes their reports, they may not always act on them, particularly if there are resource implications which are outside the scope of the current budget. To ensure that the outcomes of scrutiny committee meetings are not subsequently marginalised, some form of progress monitoring system is advisable (see Chapter 9).
The extent to which the operation of call-in has brought the decision-making and scrutiny mechanisms into contact has varied from one authority to another. In most of the case study authorities it had been activated rarely, if at all.
The other responsibility which has the potential to bring the two functions into relationship are the arrangements for ‘best value’. In some authorities, the executive has dominated the best value review process, sometimes setting up and chairing a series of review panels, upon which scrutiny panels may be represented. In other cases, however, the overview and scrutiny machinery has a much more high profile role in best value (as in Bedfordshire, see Chapter 2).
Whereas a situation in which decision-makers commission work from an overview and scrutiny committee, and also involves it substantively in the best value review process, can be viewed positively in that it demonstrates a readiness on the part of the two elements to work together, it does have its dangers. Effective overview and scrutiny requires a balance between the two elements. Helping the executive or, policy committees by supporting its policy development and review roles is important, but equally so is the responsibility of holding the decision-makers to account. If the latter is precluded by the dominance of the ‘overview’ role, then the balance is lost, and the relationship may become too cosy. The ‘critical’ part of the ‘critical friend’ metaphor is just as important as the ‘friend’ part.
2. THE COUNCIL
Although full council cannot overturn an executive decision (or decision intention) which a scrutiny committee does not agree with, it can ‘express a view’ on the issue concerned which may influence the executive in its final judgement. One of the case study authorities – Bedfordshire County Council – had developed full Council so that it is a vehicle to debate both executive and overview and scrutiny reports and recommendations. The benefit of this initiative is that it extends the scope for debate about topical issues and signals the importance to the authority of the scrutiny process, by requiring the executive to justify its position in the public arena of the council chamber. There was very little evidence of such opportunities amongst the other case study authorities, and a survey carried out by Bedfordshire County Council of practices in other counties revealed (with one or two exceptions) a mixture of inactivity and incomprehension.
3. AREA COMMITTEES OR FORUMS
A number of the case study authorities had introduced (or continued) as part of its modernisation package some form of area-based structure, which in some cases had decision-making powers (Eastleigh, Barnet) and in other cases was consultative (York). In no case had a clear relationship developed between the overview and scrutiny machinery and the area machinery. Sometimes they were seen as wholly separate mechanisms; in other cases the authority perceived some had possibilities in linking the two mechanisms, but had done little to implement this recognition. One of the few positive moves in this direction had been the way in which the ward committees in York had been consulted as part of a scrutiny project on street cleansing. Elsewhere, the opportunities for co-opting area forum representatives in scrutiny exercises or building in an opportunity for such forums to contribute had not been developed.
Published 17 October 2002
Return to Local Government Index
Return to Home Page
Web site terms