Agenda item

To provide the Governance and Audit Committee with an opportunity to consider an updated Action Plan in response to the Short Scrutiny Improvement Review undertaken by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.

The report was presented to the Committee by Councillor Linda Wootten, Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing.

In 2021 the Council commissioned the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny to undertake an evaluation of its scrutiny function to check and test that scrutiny arrangements met the Council’s high expectations of democratic accountability and that decision-making and overview and scrutiny was transparent, effective and impactful.

The Governance and Audit Committee considered an initial draft of an action plan in response to the recommendations of the review at its meeting on 28 September 2022.  It was agreed at that meeting that further work needed to be undertaken on the action plan and that this should be informed by a Councillor workshop.

The workshop was held on 30 November 2022 and was open to the public and a number of public attendees took the opportunity to submit their views and comments after the workshop in respect of the Scrutiny Review.  In re-considering the recommendations of the review, taking into account the comments received at the workshop and the written submissions from members of the public, a revised action plan had been developed by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing.

The Action Plan also set out progress made to date in respect of each recommendation since receipt of the final report by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.  The Governance and Audit Committee was invited to consider the content of the findings of the review, the outcomes of the workshop and the revised action plan.

The Cabinet Member clarified that she agreed with the vast majority of recommendations and this had been indicated within the revised plan.  A lot of discussion, thought and planning had gone into the revised plan.  There were to be some changes in the way the Council worked regarding scrutiny.  In particular, there was to be more involvement with the Committee Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen in forward planning for meetings and early scrutiny for future development.  Committee Chairmen were expected to attend Cabinet meetings to put forward subjects for future discussion and present recommendations from their respective Committee.  Other changes included:

·                              Proposed revisions to the Council’s committee structure.

·                              More opportunities throughout the year for the Leader and Deputy to be held to account in respect of delivery against the Corporate Plan.

·                              Proposed amendments to the Constitution in respect of considering the Council’s budget

During discussion, Members raised the following points:

·            What was the timescale for completion of the action plan?

·            The review was seen as important and the detail of the work undertaken was acknowledged by the Chairman.  The recent workshop was found to be very useful.

·            A Member asked why the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing did not agree with recommendation 9 – ‘considered changing the process for the appointment if scrutiny committee chairmen’.

Some Members welcomed the report, although some expressed they did not consider it a positive report.  Some expressed disagreement regarding recommendation 9 and felt the current process of appointing Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen required change, as per the recommendation.  Councillor Dixon-Warren requested that his reservations about not carrying the chairmanship recommendation forward be recorded.  He had found no record of this recommendation being discussed and felt that the Council needed to do better than ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’.”

·            It was considered by some Members that tradition or the fact that some other Councils adopted the same Chairmen appointment process was not sufficient reason to continue the same process.

·            A Member considered that the review confirmed the process for appointing Committee Chairmen did not work and scrutiny processes had not always been satisfactory.  These appointments were currently political ones made by the Leader of the leading group, therefore creating political bias.

·            Holding scrutiny committees the day before a meeting of Cabinet did not represent an honest and constructive view of scrutiny meetings.  The appointment of Chairmen was at the heart of the process.

·            The scrutiny process needed to be more collaborative, not confrontational.  The need to listen to the public was acknowledged as an important factor in the process.

·            It was noted that Cabinet agreed with 11 of 13 recommendations within the report.

·            Was there any protocol for promoting early scrutiny?

·            The recommendation to have a standards committee was welcomed.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing clarified that any changes proposed to the action plan report would be heard at Constitution Committee on 14 February before being heard at Full Council in March.  The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that they felt no changes were needed to the process of appointing scrutiny Chairmen as the current process worked well and there were other Councils who used the same system with success.

The Chairman added that the current process worked well.  Scrutiny was the responsibility of Committee Members to work within the framework provided, holding the Cabinet to account.  The Chairman added that it was traditional that the Leader appointed the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen.

The Cabinet Member for Waste Services and Climate Change emphasised the importance of providing training for Members on scrutiny committees as it would enable Councillors to have the confidence and skills to undertake the role.  Scrutiny frequently involved the ability to assess complex documents, for example, the Treasury Management Strategy Statement.  The difficulties in co-ordinating everyone’s diaries was acknowledged.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the appointment process for committee chairmanship had been included as part of the comprehensive review of the Constitution.  The Governance and Audit Committee had the right to change any aspect of the Scrutiny action plan as it wished.  Whilst it was not ideal to hold Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings the day before a meeting of Cabinet, this only happened in exceptional circumstances when a timetable relating to a decision was so tight that it was the only viable way to ensure scrutiny of decisions took place.  The Officer clarified that the most important factor was that scrutiny was able to happen, even it if was the day before a decision was due to be made, and that it would still be possible for Cabinet to take into account any recommendations submitted from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Training for Members was fundamental and following the elections in May 2023, the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny would be holding training for all members of Overview and Scrutiny Committees. 

A Member expressed concern in respect of the proposed reduction in Committees and complex functions currently under the responsibility of some committees potentially being considered a different meeting.  The Member added that a lower number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees reduced the amount of effective challenge and that an active, challenging opposition contributed to healthy governance.

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED:

That the Committee:

a)         endorsed the Scrutiny Improvement Review Action Plan.

Councillor Sue Woolley asked that her abstention from the vote be noted due to not being present for the whole debate.