CHAPTER 8
Developing an outward focus: engaging partners, the public and the press1. INTRODUCTION
If overview and scrutiny committees are going to realise their potential in terms of contributing to the community leadership work of their authorities, then they have to engage partners, the public and the press. Developing such an outward focus is challenging for overview and scrutiny. This chapter addresses this important issue. The first step in achieving an outward focus is publicising the work of overview and scrutiny. After this has been achieved, it is possible to engage partners and the press in four ways.
2. PUBLICISING THE WORK OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Publicising the work of overview and scrutiny is a ‘pre-requisite condition’ before the public and partners can become involved and engaged in the work of overview and scrutiny. Public and partners need to be aware of scrutiny and their potential role in it. This implies the provision of information, either by the local authority itself, relevant overview and scrutiny committee or through the local media.
Some of the case study authorities had made considerable efforts to publicise the scrutiny process. In Haringey, the council had conducted a campaign to raise public awareness of scrutiny and overview. Glossy posters were produced and displayed in public buildings, and a well-presented information pack exploring the role of scrutiny was made available. Barnsley had relied on an increasing tendency in the local newspaper to run stories on scrutiny issues, which were to some extent inspired by press releases stemming from the scrutiny support unit, but also by the readiness of some scrutiny chairs to provide extended quotes for the press. What was interesting was the way in which the distinctiveness of scrutiny was conveyed in the local press. The articles generally distinguished clearly between the executive and scrutiny roles.
In other authorities, the local press were less balanced in their treatment of scrutiny. In Haringey, press articles tended to focus on scrutiny stories which were damaging to the image of the council such as examples of shortcomings in council services which the scrutiny process had uncovered. This experience illustrates that it may be difficult to control the way in which scrutiny is presented in the media. All publicity is not necessarily good publicity.
Camden and Maidstone provide two interesting examples of authorities which have actively sought to publicise the work of their scrutiny committees. Camden publishes a Scrutiny Bulletin which clearly explains the purpose of overview and scrutiny and is sent to 2,000 community, voluntary and statutory organisations as well being distributed at Council information points such as local libraries (see below for more information).
Publicising the Work of Overview and Scrutiny: The Example of Camden
In February 2002, Camden published its first issue of the Camden Scrutiny Bulletin, which it will publish four times a year. The ten page glossy Bulletin clearly and using plain English, explains the purpose of its Overview and Scrutiny Commission and its time-limited Scrutiny Panels. Past and current scrutiny investigations are described, and the Bulletin asks readers to contribute to scrutiny through:
Suggesting topics for a future scrutiny panel to investigate;
Sending views to a scrutiny panel;
Coming along to a scrutiny panel to put across views;
Being a co-opted member of a scrutiny panel.
This Bulletin is sent to 2,000 community, voluntary and statutory organisations, as well as to Council information points such as libraries, district housing offices, social services offices and sports centres.
Contact: Tim Young, Scrutiny Team Manager, Camden London Borough
Tel: 020 7974 5222
Email: tim.young@camden.gov.uk
Publicising the Work of Overview and Scrutiny: The Example of Maidstone
Maidstone uses a wide range of methods to publicise its work with its community (and to engage the public more proactively).
Leaflets, outlining the new structures and their purpose, have been produced and are available at all council offices and at public libraries.
The leaflets were also distributed as part of a recent Council ‘roadshow’ which visited local shopping centres, supermarkets and housing estates.
The Council’s website is extremely informative, containing a wealth of information on the work of the committees.
An email bulletin is also in the process of being set up. It will contain details of all past and present committee inquiries, any meetings taking place and any reports that have been/will be published. Anyone will be able to subscribe.
Contact: William Benson, Scrutiny Secretary, Maidstone Borough Council
Tel: 01622 602463
Email: williambenson@maidstone.gov.ukMaidstone uses a range of methods to publicise the work of overview and scrutiny, including the production of information leaflets, participation in Council roadshows and an informative website (see above for more information). Some authorities are beginning to develop their websites (and internal intranets) to provide a wealth of information on overview and scrutiny. The London Borough of Hounslow has taken this one step further by developing webcasts of its scrutiny panel meetings.
Publicising the Work of Overview and Scrutiny: Hounslow’s Webcasts
In 2001, Hounslow London Borough piloted webcasting of some meetings, including scrutiny panels. For 2002, the ambition is that all scrutiny panels will be webcast.
Contact: Sunita Sharma, Head of Scrutiny and Performance, Hounslow London Borough
Tel: 020 8583 2365
Publicising the Work of Overview and Scrutiny: Example websites
Bedfordshire’s scrutiny website can be found at www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/scrutiny
Camden’s website can be found at www.camden.gov.uk/scrutiny
Maidstone’s website can be found at www.digitalmaidstone.co.uk/osc
Newham’s website can be found at www.newham.gov.uk/democracy/scrutiny/index.htm
2. FOUR WAYS OF ENGAGING THE PUBLIC AND PARTNERS
Moving beyond information provision, there would seem to be four ways in which the public and partners can become involved in the overview and scrutiny process. These five opportunities are discussed in turn.
Table 27 Involving the public and partners in overview and scrutiny
There would seem to be four ways in which the public and partners can become involved in the scrutiny process:
as contributors to the overview and scrutiny agenda;
as participating spectators at scrutiny meetings;
as co-opted members of overview and scrutiny committees (either on a permanent or temporary basis);
as experts and witnesses brought in to help an overview and scrutiny committee explore particular issues and to provide evidence to a scrutiny committee.
Contributors to the Agenda
None of the case study authorities had involved the public in deciding what issues should be scrutinised, but other authorities have. A good example is provided by Hartlepool Borough Council. Making use of a well-briefed local radio station, public meetings were arranged to provide the scrutiny committees there with insights into issues which the public wanted to see scrutinised. Although not all the priority issues identified were judged as appropriate for scrutiny committees attention, several were – for example, street lighting, the location of mobile phone masts, vandalism on council estates and seacoaling (see the box below for more details on the seacoaling inquiry). This form of selection process helped engender public interest and involvement in the subsequent meetings of the scrutiny panels in Hartlepool.
Hartlepool Borough Council: Inquiry into Seacoal Collection
Hartlepool’s inquiry into seacoal collection within Hartlepool provides a useful case study of how to engage the public and partners in the work of overview and scrutiny. There are a number of reasons for this:
Seacoaling was actually identified as an important issue for overview and scrutiny to investigate by the local community itself (through the use of the local media and public meetings);
Members of the public gave evidence to the inquiry;
The meetings of the Forum attracted members of the public as spectators;
Partner agencies gave evidence to the inquiry.
In September 2000, the Policy Scrutiny Forum began its investigation. For many years coal has been washed up along Hartlepool’s coastline and its collection by local people has taken place for generations. There has also been some commercial collection of seacoal (which peaked in the late 1960s). The collection of seacoal on a commercial basis has proved controversial and periodically has attracted a high local profile.
The Forum undertook a wide-ranging inquiry, hearing representations from the following:
Seacoalers;
Local people with concerns about seacoal collection;
Cleveland Police;
English Nature;
The Crown Estate Commissioners;
Relevant Council departments;
Other relevant agencies and individuals.
The investigation was undertaken over six meetings, held from November 2000 to April 2001. Interestingly, a small working group was also set up of Forum members to review the issues that had been discussed during the inquiry. The Forum considered recommendations from this Group on the way forward.
The report for the inquiry is very informative. It includes the following:
Background to the investigation;
Conduct of the investigation;
Historical background to the issue;
Issues emerging during the investigation;
Recommendations;
Monitoring progress.
Contact: John Polson, Democratic Support Manager, Hartlepool Borough Council
Tel: 01429 523647Camden and Lambeth have also sought to engage partners and the public as contributors to the overview and agenda. The Scrutiny Bulletin provided by Camden (detailed above) asks for members of the public or partner organisations to put forward topics for review and investigation by overview and scrutiny. Lambeth has developed a very interesting system of ‘public questions’ for overview and scrutiny (see below for more information).
Members of the Public Asking Scrutiny Questions: The Example of Lambeth
In Lambeth Council there is a facility for members of the public and stakeholders to ask scrutiny questions. It is a key mechanism to encourage public participation in scrutiny. The question can be about any matter related to the Council. The questioner can expect a response within 10 working days and they will be invited to attend the scrutiny meeting where they can further quiz members and officers. In 2001, there were over 100 questions submitted to the scrutiny section. The questions vary enormously, but two good examples of how the question procedure may be used relate to Social Services.
The Social Services Scrutiny Committee have not received the number or frequency of questions that other scrutiny committees within Lambeth have (most notably environment and housing). However, the few questions that have been asked have, perhaps, epitomised the very essence of what the question process and scrutiny is all about. The questions have adopted a ‘funnel’ approach – with questions initially focusing on individual experiences of a service and broadening to wider issues relating to service delivery. Successful examples are:
Disabled Access. A member of the public highlighted the difficulties that she had faced in seeking help in order to obtain disabled access to her property. During the course of the question and answer process it became evident that the source of the problem was the fact that disabled access was dealt with by a number of departments and that a lack of coordination amongst departments had led to a delay in services. As a result of the question, not only was the questioner’s case progressed more quickly, but issues relating to cross directorate working were brought to the attention of the Committee. The Committee is now seeking to rectify the problem by instructing officers to adopt a cross directorate approach to such matters;
Respite Care. A member of the public, by illustrating her own experiences of the service, demonstrated general problems that were being faced by users of respite care. As a result, the Committee has initiated a Commission which is undertaking a review by interviewing users, providers and other stakeholders of the service. It is anticipated that the Commission will publish its findings in early April which will recommend a number of improvements to the service.
Contact: Sab Sanghera, Head of Scrutiny, Lambeth London Borough
Tel: 020 7926 2490
Email: Ssanghera@lambeth.gov.ukParticipating Spectators
Overview and scrutiny committees can attract high levels of attendance by members of the public (and partners) when issues of direct public and partner concern are being discussed. Thus, a scrutiny committee investigation into the closure and relocation of special schools in Barnsley elicited a good deal of public interest, as did an investigation in York into the way the floods of 2000 had been handled. The problems of seacoaling in Hartlepool also generated a good deal of public interest. Otherwise, the evidence is that scrutiny meetings are no more likely to generate public interest and attendance than the pre-new constitution committee meetings (or indeed executive meetings in the new system).
Co-option
The practice of co-option of members of the public varies considerably from one authority to another. Typically co-optees are representatives of organisations, although co-option of ordinary members of the public is not unknown. Co-optees to education (or nowadays more commonly ‘lifelong learning’) scrutiny committees are the norm and a number are legally prescribed. In principle, the practice of extending the membership of scrutiny committees to include co-optees is to be commended. It broadens the spectrum of involvement in the scrutiny process and makes more difficult the intrusion of overt party politics into scrutiny proceedings. However, co-option is simply one method for engaging partners and the public and there are times when other methods are more appropriate.
The most marked example of the use of co-option amongst the case study authorities was Bristol, where 44 co-optees were involved in the six scrutiny commissions, a far higher degree of co-option than is usual (see below for more details). However, Barnsley, Haringey and Barnet had all made real progress in the involvement of co-optees on scrutiny committees. In other case study authorities, the scrutiny structures were dominated by elected members.
Use of Co-optees in Scrutiny Commissions: The Example of Bristol City Council
Bristol is unusual in the extent to which it has appointed co-optees on to its six scrutiny commissions and ad-hoc select committees. For example, on the Sustainable Development and Social Justice Commission, the following organisations are represented:
Bristol Youth Forum;
Women’s Forum;
Older People’s Forum;
Bristol Civic Society;
VOSCUR;
Western Partnership for Sustainable Development;
Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative;
Bristol Regeneration Partnership;
Disability Equality Forum;
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Forum;
Race Equality Forum.
There are currently 54 co-optees in total. Although there have been some early problems of adjustment and assimilation, the co-optees are now an accepted part of the council’s approach to overview and scrutiny. The council’s wide-ranging programme of training and development courses for elected members is also open to co-optees (indeed, the brochure is entitled ‘Members and Co-optees Learning and Development Opportunities’). This is an indication of the seriousness with which the authority views the role of co-optees.
Contact: The Scrutiny Team, Bristol City Council
Tel: 0117 9222742
Email: scrutiny@bristol-city.gov.ukThe example provided below – of Darlington’s use of co-option in the review of its allotment service – demonstrates the worth of well managed co-option onto in-depth investigations. The Darlington example also highlights the effectiveness of bringing cooptees into time-limited investigative review groups.
The Use of Co-option: Example of Darlington Borough Council’s Review of the Allotment Service
In March 2001, the Resources Scrutiny Committee at Darlington Borough Council determined to create a review group to review the Allotment Service within the Borough. In establishing this review group, the Committee co-opted a number of representatives from relevant stakeholder groups. Although the group was chaired by a councillor, and there were two other councillors included, the group also included seven co-optees each representing a particular allotment within the Borough. The review group met five times over the course of its investigation, undertaking a number of site visits and interviewing external and internal witnesses. The recommendations of the group were agreed by the full Scrutiny Committee and passed through to cabinet.
Contact: Shirley Burton, Senior Democratic Support Officer, Darlington Borough Council
Tel: 01325 388233
Email: Shirley.burton@darlington.gov.ukThe Public and Partners as Experts or Witnesses
The use of experts to support the scrutiny process, and the use of expert witnesses in the operation of scrutiny committees, was being developed within a number of the case study authorities. In Haringey, scrutiny draws heavily on the expertise and experiences of those outside the council. In York, considerable use was made of expert witnesses from the Environment Agency and the regional water company in investigating the impact of the 2000 floods. In Barnsley, the views of local licensees, magistrates and the police authority were drawn on in investigating the problems of alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour in the town centre. Bedfordshire has also made extensive use of expert witnesses. York and Bedfordshire had earmarked a budget to pay such witnesses for their contribution.
The practice of calling ordinary members of public as witnesses in investigating issues of public concern was not so well-developed within the ten case study authorities. However, many authorities – including a number of the case study authorities – have engaged in the practice of seeking the views of community representatives and service user representatives. A good example is set out below, drawn from the work that Hertfordshire’s Adult Care Service Scrutiny Committee has undertaken in ensuring that they capture the views of service users.
Hertfordshire County Council’s Involvement of Service Users in Scrutiny
Hertfordshire County Council has five scrutiny committees which have each developed their approach to scrutiny in slightly different ways. The Adult Care Services Scrutiny Committee took a decision early on that it would invite appropriate representatives of service users and their advocates to its meetings on an ad-hoc basis according to the subjects it was looking at rather than co-opting long term members. This approach has resulted in some worthwhile discussions.
For their scrutiny of the implementation of the National Carers Strategy the Scrutiny Committee invited, through Carers in Hertfordshire, six carers to attend and address the meeting. Carers had been selected so that they represented people caring for service users with a range of different care needs eg a child with severe physical but no learning disability, a young adult with mental health problems and an older, mentally frail relative. Each carer was invited to speak for five minutes to the Committee. It was suggested to the carers that they might wish to describe their own experience, give examples of ways in which services had helped them and problems they had had, and that they might identify the single thing that could most help them in their caring roles.
Members found the input from carers extremely useful in guiding their approach to the Carers Strategy. As a direct consequence of the scrutiny, a Carers Topic Group which includes carers and County Councillors has been set up to review the allocation of the carers grant in order to support the objectives of the Carers Strategy.
Similar approaches have been taken to the scrutiny of the Social Services Inspection Unit, the National Service Framework for developing mental health services and, in the Children, Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee, services for children with disabilities. This approach has had a number of advantages:
It has enabled members to get a quick, but very high impact, picture of the experiences of service users;
It has enabled service users and carers to both feel and be involved, and have an influence on the way that services are developed to meet their needs;
The rather formal setting had some surprising advantages in that it was very clear to invited representatives that their voices were being heard.
One carer who had been a representative at the initial scrutiny meeting on the National Carers Strategy commented when she came to make a contribution to some member training in scrutiny that “this was the first time that I really felt my concerns had been listened to by the people in authority”.
Contact: Clare Kaye, Assistant Chief Executive, Hertfordshire County Council
Tel: 01992 555300
Email: clare.kaye@hertscc.gov.ukAppearing before a scrutiny committee as a member of the public or a representative of an external organisation can be a challenging experience. As outlined in Chapter 3 York City Council and other councils have provided helpful guidance notes for such witnesses.
Amongst the case study authorities, there were several who had not yet developed a strategy for involving partner organisations and the general public, although this situation was sometimes tempered with a recognition of the need to do so. Others, as we have seen from some of the examples cited above have begun to exploit the potential for external involvement, and invariably felt that the scrutiny process had been strengthened as a result.
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