|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM EX8
EXECUTIVE
19 MARCH 2002
CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 MARCH 2002
POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS -
REVIEW OF CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Report of
the Review Panel
Summary
- In the submission
to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
on the new political management arrangements for Oxfordshire the Council
set out its commitment to review what standing and other consultative
arrangements if any should be developed. The Council commissioned the
Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee to undertake that review. The
Committee appointed Councillors Brian Hodgson, Biddy Hudson, Brian Law
and Jim Moley to lead the review.
- We have met as
a panel on 5 occasions and have:-
- considered the
outcomes of the Stakeholder Consultation on New Political Management
Arrangements;
- looked at the
strategy and guidance issued to departments on consultation and the
outcomes of some of the corporate consultation undertaken in recent
years on the public’s attitude to the Council;
- received information
from departmental officers on the range and extent of consultation
being undertaken or planned.
- The timescale
set for this review was extremely tight and we did not have the opportunity
of following up the previous consultation with stakeholders to get their
views on how they would want to see the Council consulting with them.
Equally, we did not have the opportunity to explore best practice from
other local authorities. We believe that further work needs to be undertaken
and this report therefore presents our interim recommendations. Councillor
Brian Law had expressed his reservations to the other three members
of the panel about some of the conclusions reached in our findings and
the recommendations. Unfortunately, we were not able to resolve these
as he was not able to attend our final meeting.
- This is an interim
report only as :-
- the timing of
this review panel coincided with a Consultation Audit being carried
out by the Corporate Consultation Officer;
- the amount of
time given to this review has been very short and it has not been
possible therefore to undertake consultation with any stakeholder
community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- (a) We RECOMMEND
the Committee to extend the life of this Panel until October 2002 in
order to enable us to:-
- reconvene
when the Consultation Audit is completed to review its findings;
and
- consider
the findings in recommendations (b)-(e) below, with a final report
to the Committee in October 2002;
and,
subject to such extension, to endorse the panel’s further work:
- to
ask officers to look at best practice in other similar authorities
on consultation, including amongst other things member involvement
with stakeholder groups generally and to cost various options
for our consideration;
- in
the meantime, we are conscious that the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act places new duties on the Council and that there is a particular
emphasis on consultation. We therefore consider that the ethnic
minority community representatives who were members of the former
Ethnic Minorities Consultative Committee would be best placed
to form the key basis of a reference group which could meet
with the appropriate members and officers and:-
- comment
upon the Executive’s proposals for implementing the Race
Relations Amendment Act;
- in
the light of (i) above and of the best practice identified
under recommendation (b), advise us on how consultation
with ethnic minority communities might take place in the
future within the Council’s new political management arrangements.
This
work to be completed and a final report to be submitted by us
to the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee in October 2002.
- to
encourage the Executive and Scrutiny Committees to form effective
communication with stakeholders in line with the comments received
to the original consultation on the new political management
arrangements: and
- whilst
recognising that planned major consultation exercises will be
included within the Executive Forward Plan which however only
provides outline details, that further information about the
details of such exercises be specifically drawn to members’
attention through the Members’ Bulletin and, when it is developed
and members can access it, through the Intranet.
Background
- Prior to the adoption
of its new political management arrangements, the Council commissioned
extensive consultation with the community about its preferred arrangements.
In the submission to the Secretary of State in September 2001 the Council
recognised that many of the findings from the consultation related to
the way in which it communicated, engaged and encouraged participation
from the community not only in the democratic process but also in the
services for which it is responsible. The Council recognised that the
political arrangements set out in the submission would go some way towards
addressing these issues. However, the Council also acknowledged that
further work needed to be done, both in the short and medium terms.
- The Council therefore
commissioned the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee to undertake
a review of standing consultative arrangements and how stakeholders
would wish to engage with the Council. The Scrutiny Committee appointed
Councillors Brian Hodgson, Biddy Hudson, Brian Law and Jim Moley to
form the Review Panel to lead the review. We were appointed for a fixed
term from 13 December 2001 until 2 April 2002. The Corporate Governance
Scrutiny Committee also appointed review panels to look at local area
structures (consultative and/or decision making) and of ways in which
County Councillors could strengthen links with the communities and constituents
they represent. We were conscious that these issues related to and had
an impact upon our review and we have therefore tried to avoid duplication.
The Process of
the Review
- The timetable
for us to conduct our review was extremely tight and we have met 5 times
over a period of 7 weeks. We have been supported in our review by Derek
Bishop Head of Democratic Services and Carole Dixon Corporate Consultation
Officer. Whilst the core area for our review was around what standing
consultative arrangements particularly with stakeholders should exist
within the new political management arrangements and what form they
should take, we also took a much broader approach and looked at consultation
issues generally.
- We had as our
starting point the responses to some of the issues relating to consultative
processes which came from the original consultation on political management
arrangements. These are available together with other background papers
to our review in the Members’ Resource Centre. We recognised that within
the time available to us for carrying out the review that it was not
possible to carry out any additional consultation with stakeholders
which might have further informed our recommendations. However, we were
able to meet with officers responsible for corporate and service consultation
issues and are grateful for the time they gave in assisting us.
- We recognised
as we proceeded with the review that consultation is a complex and broad
issue and that the means of consultation are many and varied. We also
recognised that there are many different purposes for consulting and
that consultation takes place at many different levels within the County
Council. To help us come to a clearer view of what issues needed to
be addressed we looked at the public and stakeholders within three broad
categories which we termed:-
- communities
of place (i.e. geographically defined);
- communities
of interest (e.g. friends of museums, ramblers associations, user
groups);
- communities
of identity (e.g. Young people, older people, ethnic groups, business).
- Whilst this categorisation
was helpful it also had its limitations in that the majority of people
are likely to belong to at least two of these categories simultaneously.
We also therefore looked at a division of consultation between corporate
consultation undertaken centrally and aimed at the general public as
a whole and service specific consultation which was focussed upon particular
sections of the public.
Findings
- In relation to
communities of place, we recognised that this would primarily be addressed
by the local area structures review and we have not therefore made any
recommendations on this.
- In terms of communities
of interest, we considered that the main thrust of consultation would
be undertaken within services. We:-
- found that consultation
with the general public and service users had improved considerably
in the last year;
- were impressed
with the presentations we received from departmental officers which
gave us a good picture of the type and range of consultation being
carried out, the extent of consultation and the variety of consultation
methods being used;
- were pleased
to see that Departments had or were now in the process of developing
consultation plans which would set out proposals for consultation
and the processes to be used.
- We did have some
concerns that:-
- there might
be some duplication between consultations;
- there could
be dangers of "consultation overload" where some stakeholders
are contacted numerous times by different services in a very short
space of time;
- corporate resources
such as the central stakeholder database were being used by departments
to full effect;
- there may be
scope for developing a more co-ordinated approach;
- members may
not be fully aware of the consultation which is being undertaken.
- The timing of
our review was unfortunate in that the Council’s Corporate Consultation
Officer is shortly to undertake an audit of departmental consultation
which will provide an objective evaluation of the consultation being
undertaken. A consultation framework is also to be produced. The outcome
from these will help to address our concerns. However, we feel that
it would be helpful if this Group were to review the outcome of the
audit.
- In terms of the
corporate consultation, we noted that the political modernisation consultation
itself had been commended as an example of good practice and that a
wider range of consultation techniques was now being employed. We think
that these will over time give the Council a statistically reliable
set of data which will be able to inform the decision making process.
We noted that the Council’s Citizens' Panel had now been established
and would provide an essential component in being able to gauge public
views on a wide range of issues. We hope that this will be used both
for corporate issues and also by departments for service issues.
- In relation to
Communities of identity we realised that the majority of contact with
particular groups took place with members at a local level. In terms
of participation at a countywide level, there was consultation by departments
on specific service issues which affected particular groups such as
young people or ethnic minority groups. However, with the exception
of the former Ethnic Minorities Consultative Committee and the Older
Peoples’ Panel there had not in the past, been any systematic, organised
way of consulting face to face with these groups on a corporate basis.
It was only with these two exceptions that there was also direct involvement
from elected members. We recognised that there were differing views
and expectations about how the Council should consult with community
groups and what the role of members should be in that. We also recognised
the differences between giving information and developing methods for
two way communication between the Council, communities as a whole and
different interest groups and stakeholders within it.
- We were aware
that there was an expectation by some members that in relation to ethnic
minority groups formal arrangements with those communities would continue
under the new political management arrangements. However, we were mindful
that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act places new duties on the Council
and that there is a particular emphasis on consultation with ethnic
minority groups. We also had not had the opportunity of consulting further
with those groups (or indeed other stakeholders) on what future consultation
arrangements they would like to see. We therefore consider that it is
premature at this stage to make any recommendations on what permanent
consultative arrangements (if any) should be put in place for ethnic
minority groups or indeed any other groups.
- However, we did
recognise that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act will require the Council
as part of the policy and plan which the Executive will need to produce
to specify the consultation arrangements which it has with Ethnic Minority
Groups. We understand that this will need to be in place by the Summer.
Given that the legal framework under which the Council will be required
to operate is changing we feel that a specific piece of work needs to
be undertaken on this area. We think that the best way of progressing
this would be to establish a time limited reference group of community
representatives and others. We suggest that the ethnic minority community
representatives who were previously on the Ethnic Minorities Consultative
Committee could form the basis of such a reference group. The reference
Group should be asked to comment upon the Executive’s proposals for
implementing the Race Relations Amendment Act and to provide advice
to us on how consultation with ethnic minority communities might take
place in the future within the Council’s new political management arrangements.
- In relation to
consultation with other groups we do not feel in a position at this
stage to make any specific proposals. We think that the officers should
be tasked with reviewing best practice in other similar Authorities
in terms of any standing consultative arrangements with stakeholder
groups, how they fit within their new political arrangements (including
amongst other things member involvement) and provide us with costed
options for our consideration. In the meanwhile, we consider that the
Executive and the Scrutiny Committees should be encouraged to form effective
communication with stakeholders in line with the comments received to
the original consultation on the new political management arrangements.
- One of our concerns
as noted in paragraph 9 above was that members may not be fully aware
of the extent and range of the consultation which is being undertaken
by the County Council. We do think that members should be more effectively
made aware of the consultation going on. Whilst we recognised that the
Executive Forward Plan does need to contain details on consultation
being undertaken in relation to prospective decisions this merely provides
an outline. We think that more detailed information should be provided
to members on consultation being undertaken, particularly if that is
happening at a local level. We think that the best vehicle for providing
this is the Members’ Bulletin and that when it is developed and members
can access it, through the Intranet. We recognise that Executive members
may wish to maintain an overview of major consultations particularly
those affecting services but we did not consider that as a general rule
members should be involved in details of consultation.
Financial and Staff
Implications
- Our report does
not propose the introduction of any additional arrangements at this
stage. We recognise that some officer time and resources will be required
to undertake further research on good practice in other local authorities,
but consider that this is minimal and this will need to be included
within their work programmes. There will be some minimal cost associated
with our proposals for a reference group to advise on the implementation
of the Council’s new responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act but consider that consultation on this issue would in any event
need to be undertaken. Any costs should therefore be met from within
existing budgets.
Review Panel on Local
Area Structures
Cllr
Brian Hodgson
Cllr Biddy
Hudson
Cllr Brian
Law
Cllr Jim Moley
28
February 2002
Return to TOP
|