APPENDIX 2
Further examples of in-depth investigations
Bristol City Council: School Exclusions Select Committee Project
In 2000/2001, the Learning and Culture Scrutiny commission and Equalities and Social Inclusion Scrutiny Commission received a series of reports highlighting the high levels of permanent and fixed term exclusions in Bristol schools. The Commission reports, combined with the findings/recommendations in the Education Ofsted report, resulted in the establishment of a Schools Exclusion Select Committee.
The committee’s brief was to recommend a council-wide strategy to reduce the number of pupils excluded from Bristol LEA schools. It looked at the impact exclusions had on the council’s services as a whole rather than regarding the ‘problem’ of exclusions (and selections to it) as being the responsibility of the Department of Education and Lifelong Learning.
In the light of the evidence that there was an over-representation of Black and other Ethnic Minority pupils and Special Education Needs (SEN) pupils in the exclusion data the Select Committee established two working groups to investigate these two issues in greater depth. The overall impact of the three pieces of work was greater than the sum of its parts.
Each of the three elements co-opted members representing a range of relevant interests (eg a headteacher, Bristol Racial Equality Council, Bristol Race Forum). Each element heard evidence from a range of relevant sources (eg two good practice authorities (Birmingham City Council and Southampton City Council) the Education of Children Looked After Service Right Track (a project working with young black people) the Shakts Imani Inclusion Project and various other agencies and key individuals). Each of the three elements assembled evidence about the nature and distribution of the problem, and made recommendations for change.
The ultimate outcome was a report which was presented to the Executive member for Education and Lifelong Learning in April 2002. This member agreed to develop a strategy to implement the recommendations over the next six months.
There are various qualities which make this project an example of good practice, in particular:
the selection of an issue of real concern to the local council and to many residents, which the council was in a position to do something about;
the cross-cutting (as opposed to departmental) nature of the brief;
the drawing in to the scrutiny process of a range of interested parties, through co-option and through the invitation to give evidence;
the ‘added value’ involved in the collection of new evidence and development of new forms of analysis of the problem;
the production of a report which influenced the actions of the executive.
Contact: The Scrutiny Team, Bristol City Council
Tel: 0117 9222742
Email: scrutiny@bristol-city.gov.uk
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council: Licensing Investigation
The Public Protection Scrutiny Commission undertook an in-depth investigation into the policy aspects of licensing.
The scrutiny commission invited a series of witnesses from the following organisations to give evidence:
South Yorkshire Police (Commander and Chief Inspector of ‘E’ District plus 2 constables of ‘D’ District;
Barnsley Magistrates Courts (Chair of the Licensing Justices Committee, Clerk to the Justices and Clerk to the Licensing Justices);
Barnsley Licensed Victuallers Association (Chairman and Secretary);
Three Night Club Proprietors;
Barnsley Hackney Carriage Drivers Association;
The Yorkshire Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association;
The Campaign for Real Ale;
Increase Management;
Regulation Unit Manager, city of York Council;
Plus a number of young adults.
Its principal findings included the following:
The licensing and regulatory system has not been used to plan the growth of Barnsley’s entertainment industry;
Long-term changes in Barnsley’s entertainment industry have created a ‘climate’ where violence and anti-social behaviour have become more likely;
Barnsley’s entertainment industry bears some of the responsibility for exacerbating specific public order problems in and around licensed premises-especially by the irresponsible use of drinks promotions;
More needs to be done by the local entertainment industry to meet the costs of policing alcohol-related public disorder problems in the Borough;
Taxi licensing arrangements in the Borough could be more robust; there may be a serious problem with unlicensed taxis.
The report makes a series of 12 recommendations for dealing with the problems identified, all of which are capable of implementation in the short-to-medium term.
Contact: Alan Maher, Principal Policy and Co-ordination Officer, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Tel: 01226 773444
e-mail: AlanMaher@barnsley.gov.uk
Hartlepool Borough Council:
Inquiry into Mobile Phone Base Stations and Public Concern about their SitingIn March 2000 Hartlepool’s Planning and Licensing Panel resolved that no further applications for telecommunications developments be considered until there had been an investigation of the proliferation, design and other relevant issues concerning mobile telephone base stations. The following month the full council asked the Policy Scrutiny Forum to undertake an examination of mobile phone base stations and public concern about their siting.
The Forum undertook a very wide-ranging inquiry which was undertaken in four stages:
Stage 1 – General briefing and discussion on the role of mobile telephone base stations and public concerns. A comprehensive briefing note was provided;
Stage 2 – Meeting with mobile phone company representatives and local residents with concerns;
Stage 3 – Meeting with independent experts;
Stage 4 – Discussion and agreement of the report to Council.
The report of the investigation is far removed from a traditional service committee report. It sets out the aims of the inquiry, the methods of investigation, summarises the evidence, outlines the key issues emerging from the inquiry and details a number of well developed recommendations.
Contact: John Polson, Democratic Support Manager, Hartlepool Borough Council
Tel: 01429 523647
Staffordshire County Council:
Review of the Provision of Library Services within a One Stop Shop FacilityThe Cultural and Recreational Services Scrutiny Committee’s first scrutiny investigation involved a review of the provision of library services within a one stop shop facility. The aim was to test whether this approach had contributed towards the improved delivery of library and other services to the community.
The focus of the review was very much the local community. Meetings were held in the locality, giving ease of access to local people. Local district and parish council representation was sought and secured. The committee’s review was widely publicised in the locality, including local press and radio coverage. Library users were encouraged to attend the meetings and allowed the freedom to join in the debate. Site visits were arranged to the library itself, the previous library building and outside the County. The whole process was conducted in an inclusive way with access to the meeting for all who wished to attend and speak. In recognition that some people would find the prospect of addressing a meeting daunting, written submissions were also accepted. Front line staff were included in the process and senior officers from the department responsible were included in the pre-meeting briefings to emphasise an inclusive approach and to build a relationship of ‘trust’. The emphasis was on developing a ‘critical friend’ approach and not an aggressive, negative approach.
The scrutiny committee’s report was also written in a style that not only reflected a process that was member-led but also one which was designed to engage the community. The report departs from a traditional local authority report and is written in plain English for a layperson to understand.
Contact: Bryan Magan, Scrutiny Manager, Staffordshire County Council
Tel: 01785 276132
Email: bryan.magan@staffordshire.gov.uk
South Bedfordshire District Council:
Investigating Future Development PressuresIn common with many South East England shire districts, South Bedfordshire District is facing the difficult issue of how to meet its planning responsibilities with growing pressures to provide new housing and employment land. These pressures imply loss of Green Belt and, or, significant character change in established towns and villages. On the other hand the needs to be met include affordable housing and economic regeneration. The issues involved are very controversial politically and also involve other levels of government (county and regional).
The Council agreed that it was important to develop an early, and active influencing, role in these issues. As a result an Environment and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee was established, whose terms of reference were to:
To inform the Council’s response to South East/East of England Regional Guidance and the emerging Bedfordshire County Council Structure Plan to 2016;
To consider the Council’s own future development strategy (South Bedfordshire Local Plan) in parallel with the above;
To give the Executive Committee advice and recommendations on the above, and to provide the “ammunition” to achieve influence on County strategy and the actions of the development industry and land owners;
To try to gain Council (and eventually wider public) understanding of and ownership for controversial planning and policy decisions.
To date the Select Committee has worked through its brief – which is expected to continue over a number of years – through a mix of responses to officer reporting, interviewing of key internal and external experts and community representatives.
To date achievements include:
Advising the Executive Committee on responding to the initial consultation on the new County Structure Plan and its implications for the District;
Winning wide ownership and support for the above amongst all councillors;
Developing a deeper understanding of the issues involved amongst a group of key councillors;
Creating a good basis for moving onto the more difficult job of implementing a new local development strategy with the needs of the District in mind.
This case study example in particular demonstrates the strengths of overview and scrutiny in investigating difficult and complex issues. It also shows that in doing so overview and scrutiny can assist the work of the Executive.
Contact: John Hoad, South Bedfordshire District Council
Email: john.hoad@southbeds.gov.uk
Maidstone Borough Council:
Abandoned VehiclesMaidstone’s Health, Environment, Community Safety and Social Inclusion Overview and Scrutiny Committee has specific responsibility for waste management, cleansing, environmental health, public conveniences, community health plan, crime and disorder, licensing and social inclusion. The Committee met for the first time in June 2001 and determined that its first inquiry would be a review of current policies for addressing the problem of abandoned vehicles in the Maidstone Borough, examining in particular:
The nature and extent of the problem.
Existing strategies employed to tackle and address the problem in the Borough.
Consultation mechanisms with other relevant interested parties such as Kent County Council, the police, the DVLA and the fire brigade.
- Possible alternative strategies to tackle and address the problem including an examination of innovative strategies being employed by other borough and district authorities.
Abandoned vehicles was deemed a key local (and national) issue because of the exponential growth in the problem. In 2000, more than 1,3000 vehicles were removed from the streets of the Borough, representing a seven-fold increase in three years. Abandoned vehicles therefore had a significant cost implication for the Borough. And there was public concern about this increasing problem. However, the Committee was also impressed by the multi-faceted nature of the problem, with its strong links to crime and arson, community safety and environmental issues.
The Committee undertook it’s investigation in the following way:
It set out clear terms of reference for the inquiry (reproduced above).
It undertook a number of oral evidence sessions with: officers from the authority; the police; Kent County Council; DVLA representative; and, the fire brigade.
The Committee also received a number of written submissions.
Examination of relevant Government (and EU) policy, guidance and directives.
Analysis and review of data on the development and current nature of the problem.
Review of innovative practice in other authorities, including Medway, Bristol, Birmingham, Hounslow, Newham and Lewisham.
The Committee drew up a comprehensive report, with a wide range of recommendations (some for the Borough itself to implement, others for external agencies). A photo opportunity was also arranged to launch the report – with a lorry load of abandoned vehicles brought into the town centre. The led to the report and its conclusions being the main new item on both regional television news programmes and further radio and press coverage.
A number of elements of good practice are apparent in this case study:
Contact: William Benson, Scrutiny Secretary, Maidstone Borough Council
The selection of a growing problem, with several significant aspects to the problem.
The adoption of an evidence-based approach, with written and oral evidence provided to the inquiry.
The production of an excellent report which both summarises the inquiry but also provides detail on the evidence produced.
An appropriate and well thought out list of recommendations.
Effectively launched in the regional and local media.
Tel: 01622 602463
Email: William.benson@maidstone.gov.uk
Flooding Investigation at Worcestershire County Council
Whilst the autumn 2000 floods brought misery to many people in Worcestershire it also provided an excellent opportunity for the County Council to use its pilot political structures to exercise our new duty to promote the social, economic and environmental well being of the people of Worcestershire.
As part of our pilot political structures the Council had set up a Specific Issues Scrutiny Panel. It was intended that the Panel would carry out short, sharp, scrutiny exercises on issues of major significance to the people of Worcestershire. The Council asked the scrutiny panel to look at how the flooding had affected local communities throughout the whole of the County and what could be done to minimise the impact in the future.
The Panel decided to consult the people most affected for their top three ideas of how things could be improved. The consultation included:
Public consultation meetings and forums giving people the opportunity to air their views and say what they would like to see being done.
A high profile publicity campaign working with local media to raise awareness of the scrutiny exercise and encourage people to give their views.
A telephone hotline and website giving people the opportunity to let the Council have their views if they were unable to meet us face to face or attend the public meetings.
Staff consultation featuring the “River of Life” a huge poster upon which staff and visitors to County Hall were encouraged to write their views on how to minimise the impact of future flooding.
A consultation caravan visiting key locations across the county.
A Council (telephone) helpline facility during the floods.
A round table conference involving key agencies, interested groups, individuals and all County Councillors held at County Hall Worcester.
The Panel got a tremendous response. Over 600 people took the time and trouble to write in with their views. Each public meeting attracted well over 50 people (at a time when many affected people had either been evacuated or were preparing for the next surge of water down the river). Almost 40 key partners and agencies turned up to the conference.
From all the views expressed “action plans” were identified which were built up into a submission to central government and public agencies with responsibility for the actions identified.
Some of the actions (especially in relation to highways) were the responsibility of the County Council and the Council prepared its own action plan which is still (2002) regularly monitored by our Cabinet. This ensures that the County will be better prepared to deal with such an emergency again.
Contact: John Williams, Policy and Review Officer, Worcestershire County Council
Email: Jwilliams@worcestershire.gov.uk
Published 17 October 2002
Return to Local Government Index
Return to Home Page
Web site terms