Agenda item

Mr A J King, Cabinet Member for Localism and Partnerships; Mr P D Wickenden, Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager; and Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, will attend the meeting from 9.30 am to 10.30 am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

The Chairman explained that she had asked for a report on options for Overview and Scrutiny and best practice across the country because there was a need to improve scrutiny and its effectiveness.  Mr A King explained that it was important to get the views of Members on the options for Overview and Scrutiny, the Leader had agreed to submit a proposal, which would be worked up and shared with the political groups, to the County Council meeting in the Autumn. Transparency was vitally important in local authorities, particularly given the composition of Kent County Council. 

Mr Wickenden explained that the paper examined other ways in which Overview and Scrutiny was structured in other authorities.

The KCC model was based on directorate and portfolio responsibilities; there were a number of statutory requirements: a call-in mechanism, a Committee which scrutinised crime and disorder reduction (the Communities POC), a Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee and scrutiny of the Local Area Agreement was emerging through the Government’s agenda.  

Hertfordshire was quite radical in terms of the ways in which it commissioned and undertook council business.  It didn’t have any formal standing arrangements apart from an Overview and Scrutiny Committee that had call-in within it’s remit as well as the responsibilities of the Policy Overview Co-ordinating Committee, in that it co-ordinated and delegated work to Task and Finish Groups.  Hertfordshire’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee has invited a representative from each of the ten district and borough Councils to serve of the Committee.

Essex County Council was based on a Local Area Agreement themed approach – which was arguably more effective for looking at cross cutting issues but it did not necessarily effectively pick up all the business of the County Council.  Essex has a joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and Mr Wickenden explained that Kent had an arrangement with Medway Council to form a joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee if there was a need on a geographical basis.  The Scrutiny Board at Essex County Council was effective at commissioning work and even commissioned a piece of work to the area forum to look at an issue at  a local level on measles, mumps and rubella, which was an effective way of involving all relevant agencies as close to the community as possible. 

Telford and Wrekin’s model was based on a Local Area Agreement with limited co-option via open advertisement. 

Durham County Council’s model was based on a thematic approach and extensive co-option. 

There seemed to be a lot of work being done on involving co-optees but at this time it was difficult to judge how effective this was proving to be.  The report also looked at rapporteurs, which the POCC had considered but a scheme had not come to fruition.  The London Assembly recommended a rapporteur system and in some cases a ballot was used to decide which issues to take forward. 

The HOSC would be looking at refocusing and restructuring that Committee to see where it could be improved including the possibility of delegation to borough and district colleagues.  In terms of the engagement of back bench Members there were a number of strands, Overview and Scrutiny was one, and the other was the localism agenda.  Mr Whittle explained that the options set out in front of Members were all variations on themes there was not a one size fits all option.  There was a distinction to be made around whether scrutiny is focused on LAA themes, or whether it focused on more detailed KCC business.  There were no mature co-option models available apart from the education co-optees, but it seemed to work well where there were clear roles for each individual.  In relation to the rapporteur model, the London Assembly had a significant resource attached to it, and that would have to be taken into account when considering that option, but it was open for discussion. 

Mr Kite explained that he hoped that with such a strong majority the Council didn’t miss out on the opportunities in front of it, it was necessary to look in a creative way at how we run our big communities.  Scrutiny could become the Council looking inwards or outwards, but actually it should be the County and its organisations and representatives looking inwards at what the Council was doing for the County, it would be valuable to bring people with experience into scrutiny.  Mr Kite suggested that the Council looked at its main sectors of customers and clients and brought in truly authoritative expertise and voices from those communities into scrutiny.  Mr Kite also saw a role for those who communicated with the public, such as the media involved in Scrutiny on a non-voting basis.  Mr Kite didn’t see a need for a ballot to get an item onto the Scrutiny agenda, but what might be useful was a ballot to get items onto the Cabinet agenda.

Mrs Dean endorsed the involvement of partners in scrutiny and Mr Kite stated that there were two sets of partners, there were those which the Council worked with on a close basis, and also those who were recipients of services and who did not currently have close contact with the local authority. 

Mr Christie stated that the concept of the media being involved in scrutiny was intriguing and an interesting concept worth further consideration.  Mr Christie was disappointed that there had been no discussion about pre-decision scrutiny and looking at strategic plans that were yet to be implemented.  He hoped that pre-decision scrutiny would be high in the priorities of the County Council, without losing the ability to hold Cabinet Members to account.  Mr Christie reminded Members that Kent had separated the scrutiny function from the policy overview function and he asked the witnesses whether there were authorities that had combined the two functions.  Mr Wickenden explained that Essex was the other authority that separated the two functions; the other authorities had combined scrutiny of the Executive and the co-ordination role.  In response to a question from Mr Christie about pre-decision scrutiny at the other authorities Mr Whittle explained that it hadn’t been obvious but the research had not focussed on pre-decision scrutiny so Officers would have to go back and look at the authorities to determine whether they managed pre-decision scrutiny in an effective way.  Mrs Dean explained that her understanding was that the Leader was happy that pre-cabinet decision scrutiny should take place, but it hadn’t happened.  The forward plans listed out those items which were open for the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise, but it needed to be improved. 

Mr King explained that it was a process of raising the level of engagement, the key was the opportunity for Members to engage with the Cabinet, to understand the decision making process and the thinking of the administration.  The Council was going through some tough economic times, and it would be important to be proactive, engagement was vital, all Members needed to engage with their constituents to ensure that the people of Kent had the opportunity to understand what the Council was doing and why.  Meetings such as Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and the Policy Overview Committees were more important than they ever were.

Mr Hotson stated that he believed that the Council had not yet got local forums right, they were a key factor in demonstrating why the Council had made decisions, and for the forums to feed back to the Council on what it should be doing.

Mr R. King explained that he was keen on the idea of outside involvement in the scrutiny process, experts giving advice to Members would be of great benefit to the Committee.  Positive back bencher involvement was key along with engagement in policy evolution.  Informal Member Groups and the rapporteur idea could be linked and report back to the Committee that commissioned the work.  Mr King had concerns that coming to a conclusion by October might not give Members enough time to make an informed decision. 

In response to a question from Mr Manning about measuring the success of the options for Overview and Scrutiny Mr Whittle explained that some of the options had not been in operation for long enough to make a meaningful analysis of how successful the models were.  There were many questions about how it was possible to objectively measure how successful a scrutiny model was.  Mrs Dean explained that her view of whether a scrutiny function was successful was whether it made a difference. 

Mr Christie stated that Kent wasn’t unique in running a Scrutiny Committee and separate Policy Overview Committees, he asked whether Officers took account of Members’ experience of scrutiny in Borough Councils and how the local community were involved in borough and district level scrutiny.  Councillors often spent too much time explaining why things couldn’t be done, rather than how the Council could move forward.  Mr Christie asked whether the authorities looked at within the report had changed their structure following the elections in June 2009. 

Mr Wickenden explained that regarding the success of Overview and Scrutiny tangible outcomes could be seen through the Select Committee process, for example the Home to School Transport review started at a local board in Dover featured as a piece of work by a Task and Finish Group and influenced the Cabinet and Council policy.  Mr Wickenden explained that most authorities across the country were probably having a similar discussion following the election, whether the structures in place were still the most effective models.  In response to a question from Mrs Dean Mr Wickenden explained that to his knowledge there were no borough or district councils that formally involved the County Council in their Overview and Scrutiny process.

Mr Hotson stated that October was perhaps too early for a decision over KCC’s Overview and Scrutiny structure. In terms of measuring the success of Overview and Scrutiny the Comprehensive Area Assessment would be based on results and public perception and this should be taken into account when planning Committee agendas.  Some authorities based their scrutiny programme on CAA targets, although KCC did not do this it would give an opportunity to include specific LAA items on Committee agendas, although it should not exclude Council business.  Regarding rapporteurs, their work was vital and could be fed into the Informal Member Group process.  Improving the forward plan was important in pre-decision scrutiny.  Mrs Dean asked, within the authorities previously looked at, what support was available for a Member taking on the role of a rapporteur.  Mr Whittle explained that he had experience of the London Assembly, each of the Assembly Members had a research officer and Members could also call on the Assembly’s corporate research function – further examination would be necessary to determine what resource would be necessary.  Mr Hotson explained that Maidstone Borough Council undertook a rapporteur scheme in which Members volunteered to undertake work and report back, it was a Member led process and did not take up a great deal of Officer time.   Mr A. King explained that resource was limited and it would be difficult to increase that resource, the process of engagement meant that Members needed to do more for themselves. 

Mr Kite explained that he was nervous of pre-decision scrutiny, he considered that the Cabinet needed to be free to make decisions and then have them scrutinised if necessary.  Regarding the role of scrutiny, it should be the place where impact statements were produced and the effects of policy should be investigated.  Email and website communications could be used to a much greater extent for example they could be used to inform elected Members of responses from members of the public to particular issues.  Mr Kite stated that all Members of the Council were consumers of Kent’s services and it was important, particularly in the difficult economic times ahead, to explain why the Council was making the decisions that it was and there should be a greater blurring of the boundaries between the borough and districts and the county council.  Mrs Dean referred to e-petitioning and the website and it was important to make the website more user friendly for members of the public.

Mrs Dean reported that she had received a letter from the Federation of Small Businesses asking whether they could play a part in the scrutiny process at the Council, this was something that should be considered in making decisions about the Council’s structure.  Mr Jarvis commented on involving the public and made the point that the public’s perception of local government was low at present, the Council may get a low response to communications and it was important to ensure that the interest was there.  Mrs Dean referred to ‘Question Time’ and the ways in which panel members get put forward to be on the panel.  Mr Brookbank stated that it was important to fit in with the localism agenda and that service users would get involved if the issue was of importance to the community. 

The views of the Committee would inform the Leader’s debate and report to the County Council in October.  Mr Christie asked whether the report could come back to the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee before it went to Cabinet in October.  Mr A King explained that an appropriate structure would be produced for the October County Council meeting, and input from both the CSC and the POCs would be beneficial before the County Council meeting. 

The Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

-          Thanked Mr A King, Mr Whittle and Mr Wickenden for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.

-          Thanked Mr A King for the opportunity in September to input further into the proposal for Overview and Scrutiny