Return to Agenda

ITEM CG6

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 15 JULY 2004

Social Inclusion Scrutiny Review Report: Comment on Changes to Recommendations July

2004 RECOMMENDATIONS

CHANGES to REC 1:

1. the proposal for a ‘mission statement’ has been dropped by common consent.
2. the possible implication that ‘promoting social inclusion’ will be pasted on all council documents has been removed.

CHANGES to REC 2:

1. The recommendation has been made considerably shorter by removing the four specific tasks in relation to this recommendation that were going to be asked of the Executive (they were a-d in the original report).
2. This has dropped the requirement for specific statements on social inclusion from the ambition groups.
3. This has dropped one key element of linking back the Compact to the Directorates, which is included as a comment in the report.
4. This has dropped requiring a social inclusion protocol in the Compact, which is included as a comment in the report.
5. This has dropped a specific comment on the business community, which is covered by the report.
6. This recommendation should still be monitored by checking the Community Strategy and Compact against our social inclusion policies, especially once there is a dedicated social inclusion officer in place to carry this out.

OTHER COMMENTS ON REC 2:

The view of the Review Group is that it is appropriate for the County Council to exert influence on organisations we work in partnership with, and that this is the legitimate role of a community leader.

CHANGES TO REC. 3:

1. In light of the fact that the Executive has already asked Heads of Service responsible for Oxfordshire Plan priorities to take into account social inclusion, the Recommendation now says ‘continue to address’ social inclusion.
2. ‘Action plans’ changed to ‘implementation’ plans, to keep terminology standard with the BVPP.

CHANGES TO REC 4:

1. The Review Group have agreed that the Deputy Leader should be involved in making the appointment of the Social Inclusion Champion.
2. The stipulation about quarterly reports has been removed.
3. As the role of the Social Inclusion Group has been recommended to be boosted to be the focus for delivering social inclusion strategy and the action plan (see below Rec. 6), the stipulation in this recommendation that the Champion be involved in a separate delivery-focused group has been removed.

OTHER COMMENTS ON REC 4:

The Review Group are convinced from the evidence heard during the Review that a Social Inclusion Champion is necessary to give the issue the appropriate support throughout the organisation. The evidence heard from witnesses also strongly indicated that the Champion had to be at the most senior level, and the Review Group agree that CMMT is the most appropriate level for this role.

CHANGES TO REC 5:

1. This has been altered to reflect that there is an appointment due to be made to a post concerning social inclusion, and to stress that this should be a dedicated role, i.e. not just an add-on to another role.
2. The recommendation has been made shorter by removing details about how the appointee should work with the Social Inclusion Champion and senior managers in the Directorates. These points are now covered in the report text.

CHANGES TO REC 6:

1. This recommendation has been altered to reflect the desire of the Committee to see the role of the Social Inclusion Group (SIG) strengthened and made central to delivering the social inclusion strategy and action plan.
2. This aim has been boosted by recommending that the SIG should have a high level membership of both Councillors and officers, with the business managers playing a particularly vital role.
3. Following on from this strengthened role, the text in the report comments on the need for proper support for the SIG, in terms of a servicing officer etc.
4. The recommendation for a new ‘delivery–focused’ forum has therefore been removed, as the SIG will now take this role.

REC 7: NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THIS RECOMMENDATION

CHANGES TO REC. 8:

1. The recommendation has been changed so that the mechanism for producing the report is now through the SIG, which will have an enhanced role following Rec. 6.
2. The recommendation has been made shorter by removing some details about the report.

OTHER COMMENTS ON REC 8:

The recommendation is still directed at the Executive and now the SIG. It is not appropriate for the recommendation to be directed at the Scrutiny Committee/s because by law they are not able to take upon themselves functions, or delegated functions of the Executive. As the report will be used to provide information for the Executive and services, it is not appropriate for it to be produced by Scrutiny.

REC 9: NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THIS RECOMMENDATION

CHANGES TO REC. 10:

1. The recommendation has been changed so that the mechanism for commissioning the consultation is now through the SIG, which will have an enhanced role following Rec. 6.

OTHER COMMENTS ON REC 10:

The recommendation is still directed at the Executive and now the SIG. It is not appropriate for the recommendation to be directed at the Scrutiny Committee/s because they by law are not able to take upon themselves functions, or delegated functions of the Executive. As the consultation will be used to provide information for the Executive and services, it is not appropriate for it to be undertaken by Scrutiny.

Return to TOP