Agenda item

On 3 October the Vice Chairman of the OSPB had attended a West Midland Scrutiny Network event and she updated the Board on the main issues discussed.

New Government guidance on scrutiny was being drafted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the network had discussed what might be included.  In summarising the discussion, the Vice Chairman made the following points:

·       Scrutiny questions should be precise.  Formulating the correct question was key to successful scrutiny.

·       Powers to scrutinise external bodies should be made clearer.

·       Chairs of scrutiny bodies should be elected by the committee as it was important that the person chosen knew how to chair.

·       Information should always be in the public domain unless it could be demonstrated that harm would be done by publishing.

·       Any item coming to Cabinet should also come to scrutiny as this would improve the Cabinet report.

·       The scrutiny work programme should be shared with District Councils and other Local Authorities in order to identify common topics and avoid duplication.

In the discussion that followed, the following main points were made:

·       There needed to be complete transparency on budget figures for the scrutiny process to be successful, as it was crucial to understand what resources were available.  Identifying a 'scrutiny champion' on Senior Leadership Team would be important in achieving this.

·       Involving other Local Authorities, in particular Town and Parish Councils, should be done in a sensitive way.

·       In the interests of transparency, all scrutiny panel meetings should be webcast.

·       The importance of performance information was noted.  It was crucial that each Panel considered relevant performance data so that trends could be identified and reports made on an exception basis.

·       All Panels must have budget information on a quarterly basis.

·       It was suggested that the Board should write to the MHCLG and also to the Leader and Chief Executive of the County Council giving their views on the guidance.  The Vice Chairman volunteered to draft these letters.

·       Members were reminded that, at the Board's last meeting, it had been agreed that performance information and in-year budget figures would be considered by the Board four times a year.

·       With reference to webcasting, it would be useful to see viewing figures before any decisions were made, as webcasting more meetings would require additional funding.  The Chairman of the Economy and Environment O&S Panel expressed concern that, although webcasting was useful for Council, Cabinet and OSPB, it was less useful for Panels as it may inhibit the officers attending.

·       Feedback from the Network meeting had suggested that scrutiny should report to Council rather than to Cabinet.  This was also favoured by Ministers.  The Vice Chairman expressed concern that this might slow the scrutiny process down as Council met less frequently than Cabinet.  It was suggested that OSPB might need to retain the flexibility to report to either body.

·       A Councillor who was not a Member of the Board was asked for her views.  She supported the idea of scrutiny reporting to Council as it would enable participation from a wider range of Members.  The current system had reduced opportunity for Members to express a view and she welcomed wider participation and ownership.

·       With reference to the idea that a committee chairman should be chosen by the committee, the implication was that this would override proportionality.  It was suggested that the current system of OSPB being chaired by a Member of an opposition party guaranteed an element of challenge.

·       Webcasting additional meetings would be a challenge while County Hall only had one room with the facility to webcast.  A second smaller webcast facility would be needed.

·       It was suggested that proportionality should not be a requirement for scrutiny task groups.  It was more important to have Members who were interested and motivated to do the work.

·       It was suggested that scrutiny reporting to Council rather than Cabinet was a major constitutional issue that should be carefully considered.  It was suggested that this may be a question to pose to the Chief Executive as a way of understanding the implications of such a change. 

In conclusion, it was agreed that the Vice Chairman would draft two letters as follows:

1.     Letter to Government covering the following points:

a.     There was a need for transparency on the budget for scrutiny and greater leadership on scrutiny would be welcomed.

b.     The Board would welcome more powers to call other bodies to scrutiny.

c.     Further opportunities to webcast meetings would be welcomed provided additional funding was made available.

2.     Letter to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive covering the following points:

a.     The Board would welcome greater senior leadership support for scrutiny.

b.     Members appreciated the increased availability of performance and budget information coming to Panels.

c.     The Board would wish to retain the flexibility to report to Council and Cabinet as appropriate.

d.     OSPB would welcome more items coming to scrutiny before being considered at Cabinet.

It was agreed that drafts would be circulated to Members of the Board for comment before letters were despatched.