Archived decisions

POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEES - DRAFT OPERATING PROTOCOL

    1) Executive Summary

    This is a summary of how it is proposed that the new scrutiny arrangements will operate and is the outcome of consultation with the cross-party group of Members which has been working on these arrangements over the last 9 months.

    Its purpose to serve as an operating protocol to guide members in their various roles in `scrutiny', e.g. chairman of a task and finish working group undertaking a review; a member called to give evidence or to answer questions etc.

    The protocol covers:

      · The function of scrutiny in relation to the Executive Member role

      · The structure of Scrutiny and Terms of Reference of the PRCs

      · Managing roles within the structure

      · Overseeing the Scrutiny function

      · The management of the overall scrutiny work programme

      · The operation of Task & finish Thematic Reviews

      · Dealing with Scrutiny outcomes & recommendations

      · The links between Health & Generic Scrutiny

      · Lead Scrutineers

      · Call-in

    2) The function of scrutiny and the Executive Member role

    The Local Government Act 2000 tasks scrutiny with focusing on:

      · Decisions of the Executive and the organisation (pre-scrutiny / Call-in / review of impact)

      · Other functions and actions of the Executive and the organisation (before and after action)

      · Matters which affect the area and its people

      · Holding the Executive to account

In order to ensure the scrutiny function carries out all these functions in a balanced way it is proposed that the functions of scrutiny be described as:

      · Holding the Executive to account

      · Scrutiny of decisions: which can include any of the following

        _ Pre-scrutiny: prior to decision making

        _ Call-in: post decision challenge

        _ Decision Impact: post implementation review

      · Policy Development

        _ Proactively exploring issues of policy about which the Executive has no firm plans or where there is a perceived policy gap

        _ Responding to requests by Executive members to look at policy issues they plan to decide upon

      · Policy Review: reviewing the effectiveness of a policy or strategy implemented by the organisation

      · Performance Review: Ensuring the Executive and Senior Managers are picking up and taking appropriate actions on performance issues across the organisation

      · External Review: scrutinising the work and impact of external agencies which impact on the people of Hampshire

      · Executive Members can be invited to attend PRCs or Thematic Reviews to answer questions or give evidence. In these circumstances every reasonable effort will be made to make mutually convenient arrangements

    3) The structure of Scrutiny, Terms of Reference

3.1. The Policy & Resources Policy Review Committee has a corporate overview in its Terms of Reference and also the co-ordination of the scrutiny work programme (see below for links with Health Scrutiny)

3.2. The following rules of operation are proposed:

      · That the Policy & Resources PRC would meet formally four times a year to undertake its dual function (further meetings possible if required)

      · The other PRCs would meet formally four times a year to enable time to be freed up to undertake the Thematic Review programme agreed by the Policy and Resources PRC

    4) Managing roles within the structure:

The functions of the PRCs and their relationship to the working groups undertaking Thematic Reviews can be clarified thus:

4.1. Formal PRC Meetings:

    Have responsibility for any of the following which fall within the subject area of their Terms of Reference:

      · scrutinising the work of both the Executive and the County Council as an organisation

      · Questioning and exploring areas of interest of concern

      · Monitoring the strategic management of performance

      · Questioning Executive members about performance, direction and or decisions

      · Pre-scrutinising recommendations they deem warrant their particular attention from the Decision Programme

      · Monitoring impact of external agencies on the people of Hampshire

      · Dealing with any topics which:

        _ can be managed within the formal meeting structure of the PRC (i.e. do not warrant any additional sub-group meetings)

        _ can be dealt with effectively with Departmental Officers and do not require the specific support of the specialist Scrutiny Officers

      · Putting forward topics to the Policy and Resources PRC for possible Thematic Reviews

      · Receiving, ratifying and tracking outcomes of Thematic Reviews directed to them by the Policy & Resources PRC.

4.2. Task & Finish Thematic Reviews:

    These will:

      · Usually be undertaken by working groups, on a proportionate basis as far as is reasonably practicable, comprising members of the County Council and one of the Chief Executive's scrutiny officers

      · Comprise subjects which have been:

        _ Put forward from internal or external sources

        _ Scoped by Scrutiny Officers using the process outlined below (using the proformas in Appendix 2) in consultation with stakeholders (i.e. Members, Officers and external bodies as appropriate)

        _ Prioritised by the Policy & Resources PRC as adding value and having strong potential for constructive impact. (Prioritisation would normally happen in one of the four formally convened business meetings but could, exceptionally, be agreed outside meetings through consultation with the PRC Chairman where urgency demands. In such cases the scope and rationale will be made public when the topic is added to the programme and reported to the next formal meeting for public record)

      · Be evidence focussed (including external witnesses and/or co-optees as appropriate)

      · Use a variety of methods (including Select Committee style where appropriate)

      · Deal with topics which require a robust process and support by independent scrutiny officers (i.e. cannot be dealt with by departmental officers or require a process which would not be possible within the formal PRC structure of four meetings a year).

    5) Overseeing the Scrutiny function:

5.1. As the Policy & Resources PRC would be overseeing the scrutiny work programme the membership would include the Chairmen of the other PRCs to ensure balance in the determining of priorities of the overall work programme and to enable effective corporate overview of performance, finance and integrated planning. It will also include the Chairman of the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

5.2. The Chairman of the Policy & Resources PRC would then act as the Lead Member for Scrutiny for the County Council. In this role the Chairman would produce an annual report to Full Council outlining:

      · What the scrutiny function has achieved (in both the PRCs and the work programme)

      · The outcomes / impact scrutiny has had

      · Lessons it has learned and plans for the future

    6) The operation of Task & finish Thematic Reviews:

6.1. The following principles would apply:

      · Proportionality protects the right of minority groups to be involved and, as far as is reasonably practicable, working groups will be established on that basis. However there may be times when proportionality is a difficult principle to apply to groups of elected members who volunteer for membership of a working group to carry out task and finish thematic reviews. If such occasions occur, members will be reassured that each thematic review would report back to a PRC formally established in line with proportionality rules. There will, therefore, be a framework in place for ensuring that not only minority groups but also any other member of the task and finish group will have opportunities to present their views if they do not align with the conclusions of the group. Membership of each working group would include one of the Chief Executive's scrutiny officers and accordingly there would be no requirement for each group to be established on a proportionate basis.

      · Thematic reviews, which would take the shape of working groups on a task and finish basis. they would be ad hoc and informal. They would be free to analyse topics in greater detail or to carry out scrutiny in ways which are not conducive to traditional, formal business meetings. A Scrutiny officer from the Chief Executive's Department will facilitate and support and be a member of each working group.

      · .Members would be able to come together to ensure efficiency and effectiveness for Hampshire. This would mean time commitment from the members making up the working groups. As such, scrutiny carried out in this way would be best served by groups of members with experience or an interest in the particular subject volunteering to undertake the work and working with the allotted scrutiny officer

      · Task and finish groups shall appoint their own chairmen The scrutiny officer would not be eligible to take the chair.

6.2. In this context the working groups will operate in the following way:

      · Topics put forward as possible Thematic Reviews would be subject to initial research for scoping by Scrutiny Officers prior to being presented for consideration. (A proposed format for this initial research is found in Appendix 2)

      · The topics would then be prioritised using the criteria outlined in Appendix 3. Although the scoring mechanism will be used it will be indicative only in recognition that weighting of criteria can vary on different occasions. Where decisions do not fall in line with scoring a reason will be recorded for why this was the case.

      · When a topic is selected by the Policy & Resources PRC to become a Thematic Review they will also identify the PRC to which it will initially report back. It is also possible that the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee will be identified as the appropriate forum instead of a PRC.

      · When considering the report of a working group a PRC (or the Health O&S C) will review how any recommendations they ratify should then be pursued. Recommendations may be made to an individual Executive Member, to Cabinet or Full Council as the PRC deems appropriate

      · Working groups would be made up from volunteers with an interest in the topic.

      · There would be no restriction on the size of the group (although the Policy and Resources PRC would recommend an ideal size on the advice of Scrutiny Officers)

      · Places on thematic reviews would first be offered on a proportionate basis, but as take up would depend upon interest and availability the group should not be prevented from going ahead should proportionality not be practically possible.

      · Where recommendations are agreed to be taken forward to an individual member of the Executive, Cabinet or Full Council they will normally be presented by the Chairman of that group.

    7) Providing Guidance for Giving Evidence to Thematic Reviews:

    In order to provide clear guidance to people submitting written and / or oral evidence to the working groups, especially where they are operating in Select Committee style, the Guidance Notes in Appendix 5 will be supplied with appropriate adjustments in accordance with the topic and style of the review.

    8) Dealing with Scrutiny outcomes & recommendations:

    There needs to be clarity about how recommendations from scrutiny are put forward as well as the expectations in terms of response.

It is proposed, therefore:

      · To develop formats for the following types of report relating to the scrutiny function so that Executive members, the Council and the Officers are clear what is actually being recommended; the status of the recommendations and how they should respond. These should include:

        _ Scrutiny Report (outcomes of an Inquiry)

        _ Executive Member / Cabinet Response to scrutiny recommendations

        _ Officer Update / Response to Agreed Scrutiny Recommendations

      · To define a protocol for how recommendations from working groups are responded to - an example of how this could look is contained in Appendix 4.

        _ The cross party group suggests the right to response should work along similar lines to those laid down in statute for the Health Overview & Scrutiny function. These define that whoever the recommendations are addressed to should make a response within 28 days even if that response may be, on occasions, to explain and outline a longer time period which is needed to make a full response.

    9)The links between Health & Generic Scrutiny:

    Partly due to the developing partnership working between Health and several of our departments and services there is a potential for overlap between the work of the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee and therefore a need to manage this overlap. This will provide us with some very positive opportunities for joint working which will build on the excellent reputation Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee already has.

    Appendix 5 provides a basic framework to assist in ensuring the overlap is managed in a constructive and beneficial way avoiding duplication.

    10)Lead Scrutineers:

    In order to assist PRC Chairmen to ensure that their PRC's Terms of Reference are adequately covered and so that members can choose to have specialist areas of focus, Lead Scrutineers should be nominated. These will take responsibility for having a more in depth understanding on a service or subject area and assisting the PRC Chairman to identify any issues the wider PRC may need to pick up.

    The proposed details of how this could work are outlined in Appendix 6. As a pilot it is proposed that Children & Young People PRC consider the approach initially.

    12)Call-in

    Where an Executive decision falls within the remit of more than one PRC, a quorum of each of the relevant PRCs will be required - see revised PRC Rules of Procedure.