(1) The Chairman
introduced this item and explained that following the informal
meeting held on 1 February 2011 a draft paper had been prepared,
which included comments made by Members at that
meeting. He proposed going through the
subjects covered by this paper and invited Members to make comments
and to add any other issues that they would like included in the
paper that would be submitted to the April meeting of the
Board.
(2) The following points
were made:-
- Access to meetings - there was a need to look at the
way that we engaged with the public.
Reference was made to the letter from Bob Neil (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Communities and Local
Government) and the emphasis on making use of available
technology. This tied in with the theme
in Bold Steps for Kent of “putting the citizen in
control”.
- Publicity for O/S
– the Chairman referred to a meeting that he had attended
with editors of local papers and a press release that he had
issued.
- Performance
monitoring – Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees had
a role in monitoring “Bold Steps for Kent”.
- Policy Development
– there was a need to ensure that Policy Overview and
Scrutiny Committees had the opportunity to have an input at an
early stage.
- Agenda setting
– there should be adequate information available in the
Forward Plan of Key Decisions and though other sources so that
Members could decide which items they wished the POSC to have an
input into. The agenda meeting
was an opportunity for the Chairman to ask the Cabinet Member what
issues were coming forward which the POSC could assist with.
- Scrutiny – it
was suggested that clarity was needed around when was the
appropriate time to scrutinise an issue.
- Rapporteur - this
was an issue that would be given further consideration.
- Select Committee
Monitoring - there was a process for this set out in the
Constitution – Members need to consider if this needed to be
revised.
- Scrutiny in the
locality – when Locality Boards were being established
their role in scrutiny need to be considered.
- Select Committees
– it was suggested that there should be feedback half way
though the work of the Select Committee setting out the emerging
issues.
(3) Mr Wickenden and Mr Kit
Smith referred to an LGIU conference that they had attended
recently attended and outlined some of the key issues raised at
this event. These included:-
- With direct delivery of local
authorities diminishing, who was going to hold new service
providers, including the voluntary and private sector, to account
- Acknowledgement of the need for
strategic scrutiny at a county level.
- The need to find new level of
interface for accountability – currently most of this was
taking place at county level but in accordance with the spirit of
the localism bill, non strategic matters needed to be moved closer
to communities, possibly through Locality Boards.
(4) Members made some
points about the development of Locality Boards and the progress
being made by Districts on suggested models for their
areas. Members expressed a wish to have
more information on the development of Locality Boards, although
this was not something that came within the remit of the Scrutiny
Board.
RESOLVED: that the comments made by Members be
noted and incorporated into the paper on Enhancing and Improving
the Overview and Scrutiny Process, which would be submitted to the next
meeting of the Board.