Agenda item

Report by Director for Law and Governance

The purpose of this report is to set out proposals and initial ideas to develop the Overview and Scrutiny function for consideration. Members should consider if they support these proposals and how they would like to develop them further.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to consider the contents of the report and agree on how to develop the Overview and Scrutiny function moving forward.

The Committee considered a report setting out proposals and initial ideas to develop the Overview and Scrutiny function.

The Chair opened the discussion by noting the diversity of elected members on the Committee and how he believed that would lead to better decision making.  There was an opportunity with the current review of scrutiny to design a system to better serve the public and other councillors who are not on scrutiny committees.

His experience as a councillor was that the opportunity for other Members to impact policy making at a time when it made a difference were limited in the Leader and Cabinet model,.  He believed that the Committee would be most effective if it spoke with one voice and was able to win the trust of Cabinet and officers.

Members introduced themselves and described their own background and divisions.  Those Cabinet Members and senior officers participating also introduced themselves and their roles.

Anita Bradley, Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer, stated that she wanted to ensure that the Committee had the support that it needed to do its work.

Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, welcomed the formation of this important committee and the enthusiasm of its Members.  She stated that she was particularly interested in hearing suggestions as to where the Council could do more for its residents.

Jodie Townsend, Democratic Services, introduced himself and the report.  The development plan had already been presented to the Health and Place overview and scrutiny committees.  It was important that scrutiny be Member-led.  He noted that at the scrutiny training sessions there had been support for prioritising issues in order to have a more thorough scrutiny on a shorter list of issues rather than trying to cover everything.

There was a strong commitment from officers and Cabinet to facilitate more effective scrutiny.  Training and development had started and would be a continuous process to look at best practice.

Members made the following comments on the report:

·         It was a good start which they could refine as the committee progressed.

·         There should be a review process – perhaps after 6 months.

·         There should be a greater role for the public than the current opportunities for petitions and public address.

·         Joint scrutiny with city and district councils should be considered.

·         Having data is important and knowing what data is already in the system.

·         Does the Committee want to focus on outcomes rather than outputs?

·         The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) was an impartial source of data across the Council and partners and it informed the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

·         It was sometimes important to look back at the history of an issue for context and the decision-making process that took place.

·         Reports should be circulated with the agenda in good time and most of the time in the meeting should be made available for questions.

·         There was a need to consider the involvement of the following:

o       co-opted members of the former Education Scrutiny Committee

o       faith groups

o       those working with Looked After Children

o       service users

o       external expertise

o       people beyond those who are already engaged

o       public representatives at other levels and locality meetings

The Chair concluded with a summary of the discussion:

The Committee was looking to promote greater public participation.  There was a desire to engage with stakeholders and a paper would be needed to discuss options around that.  The Committee needed to be flexible in its work programme.  In the Public Health area there was a need to focus on preventative, upstream measures.  Cabinet Members should front the responses from the administration, supported by officers as appropriate.  There should be an item on the agenda for Full Council meetings to discuss scrutiny.

This was agreed as a summary.

Actions: provide a report on how the Committee could engage with stakeholders.