Archived decisions

Policy & Resources Select Committee

Review of existing Scrutiny arrangements:

Summary of Evidence

1 Introduction

1.1 Arrangements for scrutiny were a focus of the Hampshire County Council Review of Democratic Services, the outcomes of which were reported to Full Council in July 2005. Implementation of the new approach towards scrutiny began in Autumn 2006 with Committees operating under revised terms of reference. There was recognition that the new ways of working brought about significant change for Members and officers of the Council and, having worked with the new system for several months, it became evident that it would now be helpful to reconsider certain aspects of its operation.

1.2 Members of Policy & Resources Select Committee therefore decided to embark on a review of existing scrutiny arrangements. A key component of this was the preparation of a questionnaire which was sent to all members of scrutiny committees. In all, the questionnaire was sent to 59 Members and 28 were returned (48%), which is an encouraging response rate. This level of response in itself suggests scrutiny Members are interested in scrutiny, and keen to see its further development.

1.3 This report draws together Members views as expressed in their questionnaire responses. Members raise many issues about scrutiny as a new process and indicate that whilst significant progress has been made over the last 12 months, there are still a number of opportunities for strengthening this process.

1.4 The next stage of the review involved Members of the Policy and Resources Select Committee interviewing relevant Executive Members and Directors of Departments regarding their views on how scrutiny has been operating to date. The feedback received through this process is also reflected within this report.

2 Issues Emerging

2.1 Feedback from Select Committee Members, Executive Members and Department Directors indicates the following issues potentially need to be addressed:

· level of departmental officer support to scrutiny

· perception of ineffectiveness

· infrequency of meetings

· opportunities for pre-scrutiny

· availability of appropriate information channels

· member training

· scrutiny press relations

· report writing style

· follow through on outcomes of scrutiny

· greater Policy and Resources Select Committee role to manage scrutiny work programme

· call-in process could be reviewed

· system for selecting/identifying and prioritising topics to scrutinise

· greater use of performance/financial information

· encouraging more Member input to topic selection

· defining the process for Executive Member response

· communication to Members of scrutiny activity

2.2 The following summarises the responses received to each question posed in the questionnaire sent to select committee members. The feedback received from executive members and department directors during the interviews is also included, under the appropriate questions. This provides the context for why the above are considered to be issues.

3 Roles of Scrutiny

-What do you understand as the role of scrutiny?

3.1 The Select Committee Members who responded to the questionnaire demonstrate a good understanding of the role and aims of scrutiny. Comments received covered challenging Executive Members and holding them to account for their decisions, policy development, in depth reviews with a view to improvement, seeking best practice and scrutinising our partner organisations. However, some comments made at this stage suggested that the scrutiny function at Hampshire County Council may not be performing some of these roles successfully at present.

3.2 Executive Member responses indicated they too have a good understanding of the purpose of scrutiny. It was acknowledged that effective scrutiny can add value to the way in which the council delivers services, and that scrutiny can have a proactive role in terms of policy development. The comment was made that `it is important that we build a relationship where we (executive and non executive members) can be open and free with each other'. However, the view was also expressed that scrutiny `should not focus solely on the agenda for executive decisions which creates a parallel process'. Some Executive Members also indicated they would welcome greater use of pre-decision scrutiny. It was noted that scrutiny needs to be both forward and backward looking.

3.3 Department Directors also displayed a good awareness of the function of scrutiny. It was particularly noted that scrutiny has the potential to make a significant impact in the emerging environment of increased partnership working.

4 Effectiveness of HCC Scrutiny

-Do you think HCC scrutiny is effective? - if yes or no why?

4.1 There were mixed responses to this question from select committee members, although a large proportion indicated that scrutiny is not always perceived to be effective. Where scrutiny was perceived to be ineffective, this was frequently attributed to a feeling of disempowerment in Select Committee Members' ability to influence decision making and identify suitable topics for scrutiny. However, some comments indicated scrutiny is effective, and other Members felt it is early days and hard to judge at present the effect of scrutiny.

4.2 Some responses were optimistic such as `it can and should be [effective] if carried out well'. Where scrutiny had been perceived to have been effective, the following was noted `Effectiveness is proportionate to focus, resources to illuminate the topic and time'. Members also commented that `it is effective when early engagement has occurred and decision makers are prepared to modify their decisions'.

4.3 Several Members referred to Health Scrutiny as successful, with effectiveness in this area being attributed among other things to `officer expertise and Member leadership, and partly the focus....clear criteria and careful scoping are very important'. While it is possible lessons can be learned from the operation of Health Scrutiny, local government scrutiny brings different challenges.

4.4 More than one response indicated that scrutiny is under resourced and highlighted the `need to have more officer support and time allocated to this to ensure Hampshire County Council gets things right'.

4.5 Some indicated a preference for the old committee style system, suggesting that the type of work involved in scrutiny `should be done by officers, with Member involvement at the stage of making the decision'. However, it is unlikely there will be a return to this style of decision making by committee.

4.6 Executive Members' comments suggest scrutiny at Hampshire County Council is patchy at present. It was noted that there are limits on the resources available to support the scrutiny process, whereas executive members have an extensive resource to help with their decision making. The comment was made that `we need to respect the process better - and we will need dedicated resources to achieve results'.

4.7 Department Directors comments suggested scrutiny here is `still on the road to improvement', though it was noted that Health scrutiny has been successful. It was also noted that `if scrutiny is to inform decision making of executive members, which is a healthy demonstration of democracy, scrutiny must firstly ensure that it is looking at an issue from a Hampshire wide perspective' and must have regard to the evidence it gathers, even if the evidence does not support the views members wish to take. An encouraging comment made was that `scrutiny has moved considerably in the last year, this momentum needs to continue'.

4.8 Issues - level of officer support to scrutiny

- perception of ineffectiveness

5 Barriers to Scrutiny

-What barriers are there to effective scrutiny?

5.1 Select Committee Member responses to this question highlighted a number of elements that may be contributing to the perception that scrutiny is not as effective as it could be:

· Meetings are infrequent resulting in long agendas with little time for discussion and small chance for pre-scrutiny/comment on upcoming decisions

· Lack of information channels

· Tendency to be too broad gauge and not hone in on something that can be examined in detail

· Prioritising topics may not be most effective at present

· Lack of officer support and time

· Lack of full co-operation by all relevant stakeholders

· Members may not be knowledgeable in the area being scrutinised and comment may be emotional rather than informed

· Members reluctance to shift away from the old committee system of scrutiny and embrace new styles of working

5.2 Members were also concerned that recommendations of Select Committees can easily be overlooked by Executive Members and Senior Officers which, in turn, dilutes scrutiny's capacity to influence. This compounded some Members' sense that policy/decisions will continue unchanged despite scrutiny activity.

5.3 Executive Members noted that the politics of scrutiny need to be carefully managed. It was recognised that it is easier for scrutiny to come from the opposition than from members of the same party as the executive. The comment was made that `better training may bring more impartiality to the process'. It was also noted that the level of engagement varies among non executive members, which results in reliance on particular members who take on many responsibilities.

5.4 Department Directors agreed that members lack of knowledge may be a barrier at present and that `it must be the case that knowledge of the subject matter will increase the capacity of members to scrutinise effectively'. It was also noted that scrutiny may be held back by concerns over damaging the council's reputation or embarrassing colleagues. It was suggested that adequate support to scrutiny, potentially in the style of Best Value Reviews, could help overcome this. It was also noted that scrutiny relations with the press need to be carefully managed. Department Directors also commented that the way in which reports are written at Hampshire County Council does not provide a sufficient background/evidence base to justify individual decisions at a given point in time, which makes it difficult for scrutiny to follow the reasons for the decision.

5.5 Issues - infrequency of meetings

- lack of pre-scrutiny

- lack of appropriate information channels

- member training

- scrutiny press relations

- report writing style

6 Informing Policy Development

-How do Select Committees inform decision making/policy development in your area of work?

6.1 Whilst some Select Committee Members felt it too early to judge the outcomes of the new style of scrutiny, some Members cited examples of successful scrutiny, whilst others felt that scrutiny did not have the capacity to influence at all. However, various responses noted that Health Scrutiny is `capable of significant impact on PCT proposals'.

6.2 Some Select Committee Members' perception of having little genuine influence over Executive decision making applies equally to their policy development work as to other types of scrutiny.

6.3 Another point made indicated `we never see the end result of our input so don't know if any of it ever gets taken on board'. This suggests Members may be finding it hard to see the value of their work if they don't receive feedback on the effects it has had.

6.4 Some Executive Members indicated that scrutiny had informed decision making or policy development in their area of work. However, others indicated that scrutiny's influence had been weakened by parochial views or political point scoring.

6.5 Issues - lack of follow through on outcomes of scrutiny

7 Successful Scrutiny

-What factors make scrutiny successful?

7.1 Responses to this question from select committee members provided some constructive points regarding what contributes to effective scrutiny, such as:

· co-operation by those whose work and/or Departments are being scrutinised

· good leadership from the Chairman

· member willingness to undertake the job

· the ruling group being prepared to challenge the Executive

· sufficient officer support

· notice of decisions being given in advance such that pre-scrutiny can take place

· clear scoping of the subject to be scrutinised, clear objectives

· confidence that the scrutiny will be robust and not a dragged out process

· confidence that the recommendations will be acted on

· open public debate

· parties involved in scrutiny being sympathetic to other views and constructive dialogue

· Health Scrutiny a good model

7.2 Executive Members commented that `effective scrutiny is dependent on the dedication of members'. It was noted that members taking an interest in a particular area is helpful. It was also commented that scrutiny could add value by scrutinising how well cross cutting agendas such as wellbeing are supported across departments and partners.

7.3 Department Directors suggested it would help if the programmes of the different committees were managed to avoid clashing agendas and enable effective cross cutting working.

7.4 Issues - greater Policy and Resources Select Committee role to manage scrutiny work programme

- the importance of member engagement in the process

8 Effectiveness of different types of scrutiny activity

-From your experience of different types of scrutiny activity, how effective have the different approaches been?

8.1 Again responses to this question were varied from select committee members, on the positive side comments were received such as `all of these are necessary and worth while'. One response noted that `different topics require a different approach...It would be dangerous to restrict scrutiny to only certain types of activity'. However, a couple of responses were negative, for example `all have been ineffective'.

8.2 In-depth reviews

Most responses were positive about scrutiny being undertaken through in-depth reviews, for example it was noted that in-depth reviews `can be very effective if they are matters of interest to the general public'. It was commented that this type of scrutiny can be very satisfying for those participating in the review, and that this type of scrutiny has the potential to be very effective. It was also noted as `the only way to carry out a sound evidence based review of a topic'.

8.3 Call-ins

Generally Call-ins were not considered very productive. It was suggested that call-ins can provoke a defensive reaction, and that they tend to be party political. It was also noted that use of call in should only be as a last resort. Some comments indicated it was hard to judge the effectiveness of call ins as not many have taken place. This was attributed in part to the current complexity of call-in arrangements.

8.4 Workshops

Half day workshops were generally considered useful, with select committee members describing them as helpful and informative. However it was also commented that member attendance at these events can be low.

8.5 Reports to meetings

The majority of responses indicated reports to meetings are considered ineffective as a method of scrutiny, though they can be useful as a way of communicating relevant information.

8.6 Executive Members indicated call in is an appropriate mechanism for scrutiny `to ask the executive member to stop and think if a decision can be improved' though it was also noted that this process should not be misused, and that the current process of call in can be confusing. It was suggested that standing orders may need to be looked at to remove complexity around call-in. It was also commented that scrutiny should consider the full range of mechanisms open to them when looking at an issue, as different topics may benefit from different approaches.

8.7 Department directors agreed that one size doesn't fit all and that scrutiny should use a mixed approach in terms of types of scrutiny. The comment was also made that in depth reviews can take too long, with the danger that by the time the final report is published, the information involved is out of date.

8.8 Issues - the call in process could be reviewed to reduce the complexity of the process

- scrutiny needs to be timely and adopt an appropriate approach

9 Topic Selection

- Workload

-What do you think about the workload of each Select Committee and the method of prioritisation of issues?

9.1 Select Committee Member comments in response to this question were variable, however many made reference to the fact that meeting agendas are long and meetings infrequent. It was noted that infrequent meetings reduces the amount of topics that can be covered. It was also indicated that workload varies between the committees, with some having particularly heavy workloads as a result of the breadth of areas covered.

9.2 A number of responses indicated the method of prioritisation used could be developed. Some members mentioned that the current system of prioritising topics was unclear, and other members suggested that other things could provide input to topic selection such as service directors and budget scrutiny.

9.3 Executive Members suggested that at present the choice of topics by scrutiny can feel a bit indiscriminate. It was noted that it may be appropriate for scrutiny to look at performance information and to scrutinise areas of low performance. It was also suggested that scrutiny consider the forward plan, and be open to suggestions from the executive member who may see a benefit to scrutiny looking into a particular issue. There was strong encouragement from some Executive Members for scrutiny to focus on the governance of partnerships. One voice warned that the advent of LINKs could easily detract from scrutiny unless better arrangements for partnership scrutiny are put in place. The threat to democratic accountability in view of emerging partnerships was highlighted in this respect.

9.4 Department directors also indicated that financial and performance information is provided to members which could be greater used in selecting scrutiny topics. It was noted that more transparency in this area could help members identify areas where the council is having difficulties. The comment was made that `performance information provides a large evidential base which should form the bedrock for drilling down on key issues'.

9.5 Issues - system for selecting and prioritising items for scrutiny

- greater use of performance/financial information

10 - Choosing items to go on the agenda

-Do you know how items are chosen for the agenda for Select Committee meetings?

10.1 The majority of select committee members confirmed that they understood how items are chosen for the agenda. Of those who elaborated, the comment was made that there is `insufficient consultation with the opposition'. Another response indicated that greater member input to topic identification and selection would be welcome.

10.2 Another comment made was that `the select committee meet so infrequently it is easy to forget what the committee are supposed to be doing.. sub committees are set up and those not involved lose touch with what is happening'.

10.3 A response also pointed out the process for selecting items to go on the agenda `is not very transparent'. The point was also raised that `in some meetings I suspect it is entirely officers who drive the programme'.

10.4 Issues - encouraging more Member input

11 - Influencing the agenda

-Are you aware of how you can influence what goes on the agenda?

11.1 Most respondents acknowledged that they were aware of how they could influence the agenda. However, the comment was made that `there is no real ability for opposition Members to influence the agenda'.

12 Executive Member response

-What is your understanding of the process for Executive Members responding to Select Committee recommendations? How could this be improved?

12.1 Some Select Committee Members felt that scrutiny should be a more formal part of the decision making process and that `decisions that Executive Members are needing to make should first be debated by the appropriate select committee and their recommendations should be seen as a measure to assist the executive member'.

12.2 Many Members expressed concern at the lack of evidence of Executive Members having thoroughly considered recommendations of Select Committees. Members were supportive of greater discussion and debate between Select Committees and Executive Members.

12.3 Positive suggestions for the way in which executive members should respond to scrutiny included `the Executive Members need to...give reasons for accepting or rejecting the recommendations' and `should have the opportunity to respond in person to Select Committee reports'. It was also noted that `it might be useful for them to discuss the outcomes of a longer scrutiny as well as receive the paper'.

12.4 Members also suggested `we need a clearer, overarching template for responses' and `it would help if the implementation of recommendations was regularly reported'.

12.5 Executive Members remarked that recommendations should be constructive and add value. It was noted that scrutiny can help to identify what issues need to be considered when a decision is taken. It was acknowledged that recommendations should be given full and thorough consideration. However, the comment was made that `if the views expressed are parochial this is frustrating because executive members have to look at issues strategically'. It was also suggested that non executive members could get more involved in executive member decision days, to make their views known about decisions being taken.

12.6 Department Directors agreed that the immediacy of influencing decisions would be improved if non-executive members could ask questions at decision days. It was also noted that scrutiny could potentially be better embedded as part of the consultation processes, prior to decision making.

12.7 Issues - process for Executive Member response could be more defined

- greater opportunity for pre-decision input would be appreciated

13 Feedback from stakeholders

-Does scrutiny successfully secure feedback from relevant stakeholders?

13.1 Responses from select committee members to this question were again variable, with some indications that more could be done in this area, with some feeling that we secure feedback `in part but not enough'.

13.2 The comment was made that feedback is gained `sometimes...less so perhaps in some of the mundane areas'. It was also noted that `generally the in-depth reviews have been successful'.

13.3 Some responses suggested gaining feedback from stakeholders `can be difficult' and the comment was made that the `possible cause is lack of understanding of the scrutiny process which should improve as more happens'.

13.4 Executive Members commented that the right stakeholder engagement is important, including service users, as this enables a good dialogue and interchange of ideas.

13.5 Department Directors suggested that scrutiny needs to be based on good quality technical information, and that it is therefore important that departments provide this information to scrutiny as required. It was suggested that greater departmental officer support could be provided to in depth reviews to assist with this.

13.6 Issues - provision of information from departments

- development of mechanisms for encouraging further stakeholder feedback to scrutiny

14 Accessibility of scrutiny work

-Is the work of the Select Committees easily accessible? If not how could this be improved?

14.1 Select committee member responses to this question generally considered the accessibility of scrutiny work acceptable, with most comments neutral. The comment was made that `it is probably on the website but so much is there it is hard to find anything'.

14.2 Some suggestions were made regarding improving the communication of scrutiny work, such as a `short summary of all the work being carried out by each select committee could be sent out to all Councillors'. The comment was also made that we `need a forward plan of scrutinies similar to the calendar of meetings'.

14.3 A response also suggested that it would help if implementations of recommendations were communicated to Members `just to show that it does work...it would probably encourage members if they felt that what they produced actually instigated actions!'

14.4 Executive Members commented that it would be good to have an annual report collating what scrutiny has taken place, and a forward looking work programme of what is due to be scrutinised in the coming year.

14.5 Issues - communication to Members of scrutiny activity

- feedback on outcomes

15 Using views of local people

-How should the views of local people be used to inform scrutiny?

15.1 Select committee member responses to this question identified various existing mechanisms for gaining public input such as `surveys, focus group information, views of local Members'. It was also noted that the public can provide input to scrutiny reviews through writing letters or appearing as witnesses. It was also mentioned that views of local people could be identified through the conduit of the Hampshire Action Teams. Some responses indicated a more pro-active connection with the public can help `well briefed discussion groups focused on particular topics can add value'. It was also noted that the views of local people could be communicated through Members as `elected members are there to represent the views of local people'.

15.2 One comment made suggests we `need to think automatically about ways to give people opportunities to give input on every topic'. While it is true that the Council should make sure the public are encouraged to provide input to decisions, this is not necessarily the role of scrutiny. However, Scrutiny Committees should consider topics of public concern when selecting scrutiny topics.

15.3 Executive Members noted that the emerging legislation provides for a process called the Councillor Call for Action, and that this could be a key route through which the concerns of local people can be raised as potential scrutiny topics. It was also noted that referrals to scrutiny can come through Hampshire Action Teams which look at local issues. It was suggested that greater synergy between the work programmes of HATs and scutiny would be beneficial, although one response felt that this could add extra layers of bureaucracy to the organisation. However it was suggested that `more work needs to be done to ensure that members are clear about the different routes through which issues may be raised with them'.

15.4 Department Directors suggested the public may not be aware of their capacity to influence through scrutiny.

15.5 Issues - further consideration of mechanisms for involving the views of local people in scrutiny, particularly in the light of new legislation, is required

16 Scrutiny Handbook

-Would it be helpful to have a `scrutiny handbook' for officers and Members involved in scrutiny to refer to?

16.1 Of the straight answers received to this question, ten said yes and five said no. The majority were therefore in favour of the creation of a scrutiny handbook. Whilst support for a scrutiny handbook was widespread, Members stressed the importance of this being part of the development of a more robust and respected scrutiny process.

16.2 Some responses included suggestions regarding what the handbook should contain, such as `plain language', `to make clear the role of the executive, members, officers and the public', `terms of reference' and to `give guidance on selection of key priorities'.

17 Conclusion

17.1 The feedback received from select committee members, executive members and department directors provides an invaluable evidence base for reviewing the operation of scrutiny to date at Hampshire County Council. Overall, the responses show a commitment to the process, with encouraging suggestions for improvement. Recurring themes have emerged from this process.

17.2 Members and officers have flagged up a variety of issues, which if responded to could help develop a more robust and respected scrutiny function. The review group now needs to decide how it wishes to reflect these issues in the report on the review, and what recommendations to make regarding how scrutiny can be developed.