Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which set out the background to the scrutiny review and its findings. He commended the workshops run by Democratic Services which had drawn out a number of issues that members had wanted to raise. The report set out the key principles for the new scrutiny arrangements which were centred on a single overview and scrutiny committee supported by task and finish groups.  In his view overview and scrutiny was greatly underutilised in the council and he stressed that if there was all-party support for a particular way forward on an issue, any Cabinet would find it difficult not to take that into account.  He hoped that the new arrangements would be the starting point for change and members would enjoy the focus and independence of the task and finish groups. He acknowledged that there was much further work to be done before the new arrangements were implemented in May 2012.  The constitutional changes would be supported by the Constitution Working Group and in terms of defining protocols and procedures for the new arrangements, he proposed an open invitation for any member to participate in the scrutiny workshops which would be arranged to seek members views.

A member considered the new arrangements were change for change’s sake and their implementation would take up a lot of officer time unnecessarily.  He considered the system worked well at the moment and the current committee structure facilitated the setting up of working groups. He was concerned that if the task groups met in private, the public accountability and transparency of the current arrangements would disappear.

Another member felt that the business of the council was too varied to be dealt with by a single committee and the current arrangements allowed members to build up specialist knowledge for their particular committee.  She was also concerned that the scrutiny management committee at the County Council had a tendency to get too involved in particular issues and the ruling group was able to veto what items went on to the scrutiny workplan.

Other members spoke in support of the new arrangements and experience at the County did not mean the structure was wrong but purely the way it was operated.  They considered that task and finish groups had the potential to make much better use of members’ expertise but questioned whether a suggested limit of four task groups would be sufficient.  One member was concerned that members should not be disenfranchised by the timing of working groups, particularly those who were not available before 6 p.m. in the evening.  It was important that when a working group was constituted, the members agreed the optimum time when the greatest number of members could attend. Other members spoke of the importance of Cabinet Member involvement and participation in the scrutiny process. There was a concern that it would always be the same group of members that were putting themselves forward for working groups. Members should be encouraged to participate in working groups where they had interest or expertise. A member highlighted that only 14% of members had completed the recent member skills audit and she encouraged members to return the questionnaire if they have not already done so.

Councillor Hall, as sponsor of the Scrutiny Review, considered that good member training and involvement would be important but there would also need to be a huge change in members commitment to the scrutiny process to ensure it was a successful. It was important that the workload was spread across all members. She reminded members that current task groups do not meet in public and and she hoped that members of the public would be invited to participate in the task groups.

The Leader raised the issue of scrutiny of partnerships as there was no mention of this in the report and the new arrangements should make provision for this important role. He also highlighted that the council was not in a position to provide dedicated scrutiny officers and the new arrangements would rely on officers from the relevant service area to support the working groups.

In his summing up, the Cabinet Member Corporate Services stressed that it was not change for change’s sake and most members responding to the questionnaire had wanted a change and supported more use of working groups. In his view it was not essential that every task group should report back to the overview and scrutiny committee and there would be flexibility here.  He acknowledged that resources would be a challenge but it was important to see how the new arrangements bedded in and then see what further resources were necessary.  It would be up to the overview and scrutiny committee to manage the scrutiny workplan and the available resources. The task and finish groups could go for a combination of private and public meetings and would also have the option to meet in alternative venues. Their final reports would always be made public. In his view there was no reason why the new arrangements should be dominated by the ruling group. Finally he encouraged members to complete the Member skills audit.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that

1. The key principles of the new scrutiny arrangements set out in sections 5.3 to 5.21 of the report be approved.
   
   
2. Officers be authorised to develop the detailed procedures and processes to support the new arrangements ready for implementation immediately following the borough elections in May 2012, in consultation with the Project Sponsor, Councillor Penny Hall and the Cabinet Member Corporate Services.
   
   
3. The Constitution Working Group be requested to review the constitutional changes required to support the new arrangements and include them in its planned revisions to the Council’s Constitution due for approval by Council in March 2012.
   
   
4. Officers be authorised to reconvene the independent Members Remuneration Panel to review any changes to the Special Responsibility Allowances arising from the new arrangements.
   
   

Voting For 26, Against 3 with 1 abstention.