Archived decisions

Policy & Resources Select Committee Review of Scrutiny Arrangements

Collated Questionnaire Responses:

Roles of Scrutiny

(1) What do you understand as the role of scrutiny?

· To democratically hold those in power to account and to ensure policies are well designed and properly implemented.

· The ability to challenge the Executive and hold it to account

· In depth review of Council activities with a view to improvement

· To improve the transparency of decision making by Executive Members, and the engagement of non-cabinet Members of all parties. You could say `to reduce the democratic deficit thrown up by the move to a Cabinet system in 2001'

· The need/ability for Members to - ensure procedures are being followed correctly, question decisions or proposals in relation to corporate objectives and efficiency, suggest preferred actions etc

· Holding decision makers to account, finding & investigating ways to improve services, seeking best practice, seeking best value

· I understand it to be two-fold. Firstly, as a means of challenging decisions made by the cabinet and portfolio holders. Secondly, as a means of reviewing service provision with a view to re-aligning priorities where necessary

· A method of keeping non-executive Members busy now that we are not involved in decision making. This is not what I got elected for!

· In depth review of Council activities with a view to improvement

· Key roles are - holding Executive Members to account, Policy Review, Scrutinising external providers such as police, health service and voluntary sector

· To ensure correct decision making. This can only be achieved if the Executive Member and Senior Officers support the process and listen

· To hold the Cabinet to account. To ensure that HCC does its duties as efficiently as possible

· Critical friend to Executive Member & Eyes and Ears to issues beyond officer reports

· To oversee reports and make necessary comments which can be acted upon.

· To suggest subjects for scrutiny/Select Committees.

· Providing challenge/holding to account.

· Performance management, Policy development, Policy review.

· It also has a side benefit, illuminates for the individual a themed area of Council service delivery.

· Since everything in the Council is, in theory, done in our name, councillors should be aware of everything that goes on. In practice that is quite impossible because of the volume of the work, so we have to prioritise our scrutiny and, as individuals to specialise in particular subjects. Even so, we have to rely to a great extent on officers bringing matters to our attention. Members of the public will also play a part in bringing matters to our attention. Scrutiny, is the sum of all these channels of information.

· To review actions where an issue or problem has been raised with a view to approving policy or decisions or recommending consideration of changes in policy or decisions- but not necessarily or usually recommending the actual changes -in the case of policy I believe that would be the role of a working party. In the case of decisions it is the decision of the Executive Member.

· Help to develop key policies , strategies and priorities, Hold the Executive to account for the services for which they are responsible, Challenge decisions made by the Executive, Scrutinise the services provided by HCC and evaluate value for money.

· The ability to discuss before the action to be taking place - does not appear to be the case most of the time.

· To ensure that correct process is being followed and to advise on which decision options should be adopted.

· A process by which a larger number of Councillors can examine in depth policy and implementation proposals. Early engagement in policy information is crucial to effective scrutiny. The outcome of scrutiny is to provide a coherent way forward for policy implementation to improve the services provided for our Hampshire population. In the extreme it is a method for challenging decisions already made by Cabinet or Executive Members, which other Councillors feel are not in the best interests of our population.

· Lets keep is simple. Scrutiny is the act of examining the process and action of making decisions - in the context of Hampshire County Council.

· I think it is a potentially important part of accountability and should have the capacity to make a difference by informing decision makers of strengths and inconsistencies across the County.

· Casting light into every aspect of Hampshire County Council's work, responding with openness and frankly to every reasonable request for explanation of methodology and decision!

· Ideally it should hold the Executive Members to account. I think it fails to do so.

· As described in para. 6.5.2 of constitution (update7) document. This is a clear and all embracing description of scrutiny, some of which is not being or only partially applied at present.

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

· It can and should be if carried out well

· Yes it's effective where task & finish groups have investigated (a) specific decisions of Executive Members & (b) areas of policy & officer actions which have given rise to some concern e.g. (a) Deaf and Hearing Impaired provision (b) Office furniture. Less effective - lack of Member engagement - P&R (by Lib Dem Members especially) except when political points can be scored e.g. the furore over `Budget Challenge meetings'

· Reasonable given the difficulties of volume of decision/policy making activity across the organisation

· No, not at present. Only a limited number of councillors take the matter seriously

· No. Post scrutiny is often pointless, but most of all because its under resourced - there needs to be more officer support and time allocated to this to ensure HCC gets things right

· In my view scrutiny can never be fully effective where one political party has a significant majority. Also, Executive Members are unlikely to be swayed by the opinions of their non-executive colleagues

· Seems to be working okay

· No! I can't think of a single decision changed by scrutiny. Executive Members are a law unto themselves and ignore views of other members including their own party

· No, because the work should be done by professionals, with member involvement at the stage of making the decision, like it used to be

· No. There is no scrutiny of the Executive Members - or very little. Most questions are directed at officers while Executive Members sit at the back and let officers take the stick. There has been some review of policy decisions - but not a lot.

· The HAT scrutiny role in Fareham and Gosport was wrecked when the Executive Member publicly stated that he would ignore any subsequent findings because his mind was made up. Young People's scrutiny has been broadening but hasn't changed anything. Health scrutiny has been brilliant, has effected change and put considerable pressure on the NHS

· 40% effective - if we are lucky

· Yes - because the majority of members support it

· No. The Executive controls the agenda

· No, the meetings are infrequent and we are rarely given a "draft" paper on which to comment/revise.

· Can only speak for HOSC, Safe and Healthy People and the two focused reviews - Access in the community and the case for a Lyndhurst bypass. Effectiveness is proportionate to focus, resources to illuminate the topic and time. All else is awareness.

· Not very effective because of the scale of the problem. The old committee system was better at breeding specialists and was better at dealing with subjects in depth.

· The scrutiny has some effectiveness especially where the change can be effected within Hampshire County Council itself. Effecting change within a partnership is more difficult to measure.

· Yes and No but mainly no. Yes if the desire for a successful outcome comes from the Executive then resources are put into it. No because most scrutiny is retrospective once a policy direction or decision has been made - this is wasteful of time and money

· Not really see no 1.

· No. Officers drive the decision making and attempt to set an agenda that reduces the ability of members to take a role.

· Overall it is effective. It is effective when early engagement has occurred and decision makers are prepared to modify their decisions taking into account in depth, evidence based scrutiny.

· This depends on what you want and where you are coming from. If the aim is to validate the rules of the process are followed, then yes. It is reasonable to view the present arrangements (rules) as "new" and many members will either feel they are unsatisfactory from their point of view, or that it is too early to say.

· Having worked on the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, I have taken part in some extremely effective scrutiny. This effectiveness is partly the result of officer expertise and member leadership, and partly the focus resulting from the brief to address NHS decisions as they affect our communities. The most effective review I have taken part in has been Care at the End of Life which looked at Adult Services as well as NHS provision. Full co-operation from stakeholders made a great difference and all members of the review group were fully involved in visits and witness sessions. There was too an element of timeliness because of the financial situation affecting Adult services. I particularly value the follow-through where we are able to see how recommendations are being implemented. Clear criteria and careful scoping are very important - for example, the reviews of the Health of School Age Children and Podiatry Services for Diabetics benefited from this.

· Becoming so - early days. Too much political posturing

· No. The committee does not carry out scrutiny and has yet to find a role for itself.

· Partially. Some thorough work has been done on specific issues, but some important decisions are taken by the Executive Member/cabinet which have not been addressed by the Scrutiny Committee.

(3) What barriers are there to effective scrutiny?

· Lack of quality of Members - effort, thought etc

· Political point scoring and defensiveness of Executive Members and Officers

· Too much to be scrutinised - committees, inevitably, receive the output of possibly many many days of work by officers. Hence, unless the scrutiny committee has Members with detailed knowledge much of the comment is `emotional' rather than informed

· The overwhelming degree of control of the process from the Executive

· Sadly we ask too much of our scrutiny officers. They should have admin support staff to free them up to do what they do best

· Lay people (councillors) trying to do work which should be done by professionals (officers)

· An inability of senior members and officers to listen and compromise

· Lack of officer support and time. Opposition parties should chair all scrutiny to be effective

· Having the right chairman and a committee who are dedicated and prepared to do the work

· None obvious.

· Executive Members can ignore findings.

· Clogging up Select Committees with information reports that have little to do with scrutiny. Members reluctance to change - they still think they are old-style Committees. The Chair does not control the agenda.

· As Councillors we cannot know as much as our staff about "what goes on".

· Lack of officer support and time.

· Infrequent meetings result in long agendas leaving little time for questions/debate.

· The cabinet member sits in and listens. This does not mean that they will act as the scrutiny committee wishes.

· A tendency to be too broad gauge and therefore, not homing in on a key subject, which can be examined in detail.

· Lack of information channels.

· Political will, Budgetary pressures, Partners involved

· Very little pre scrutiny. To be really effective need to have warning of what might be proposed so that evidence/views of our taxpayers can be taken into account before any decision is made. This would save unnecessary call-ins or last minute decisions to `consult'. Select Committees have too few meetings so that members are not sufficiently engaged in the services they are scrutinising. Members are not asked if they wish to help with individual scrutiny topics. They are often chosen at the request of the Chair.

· All seems to be arranged beforehand.

· Agenda setting that denies member involvement.

· Main constraint is time, for effective scrutiny in depth data collection and analysis is required which is a heavy burden on members & officers alike. Priorities have to be set, due to the above constraint & this may lead to some areas which do require scrutiny being left out.

· Ownership of individual and collective decision making (elements of subjectivity). Political bias. Pre-judgement. Opposition members feel disempowered.

· Lack of full co-operation, too wide a scope, the sense that policy will continue unchanged despite recommendations. Lack of clarity as to objectives - scrutiny should not be seen as an opportunity to express individual members' views.

· Pressures of time primarily.

· Decisions are taken before scrutiny takes place.

· The remit of Children's Services is too large to address many important issues because of lack of time. Social Services have tended to dominate the agenda with insufficient time for education matters. The well-being of vulnerable children is vitally important but so is the need to provide high quality education to the 300,000 pupils in Hampshire schools. The creation of the new Education Advisory Committee may help.

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

· Very little so far but watch this space!

· In P&R - there is a good potential cross cutting role provided other committees are prepared to accept this. I am constantly keeping my eyes open for potential themes e.g. Biodiversity

· Works reasonably well on the HOSC, but Health is of course a subject that everyone has a view on and which is continually in the press and on TV

· We have had some success in both of these areas. But the process is too slow and longwinded

· They don't!

· The Children & Young People Select Committee tends to concentrate on social service issues and give little time to education.

· Committees and Young Person's should have done more cross examination parliament Select Committee style, Extremely thorough preparation has been always carried out by officers in my view. Perhaps we could spend a little more time preparing questions on key issues but in the Fareham & Gosport HAT politics will always be played.

· We have effectively challenged Executive Member decision - we have yet to see if this leads to policy development. Also challenged nil policy with regard of furniture procurement.

· They don't seem to work much - they fall on deaf ears e.g. bus cuts.

· Also we never see the end result of our input so don't know if any of it ever gets taken on board.

· I have yet to find out.

· Children and Young People: Education was already a vast field - then government made it worse by lumping in childrens social services. Environment and Transport : The way the government underfunds Hampshire County Council is at the root of our inability to develop policy e.g. cutting back bus services to fund social care for the elderly.

· HOSC - capable of significant impact on PCT proposals by way of constructive challenge and in the case of Care at the End of Life Review illuminating an area of concern & promoting significant joint HCC/PCT working.

· The detailed studies will aid policy development due to their evidence based conclusions.

· They do as much as they can.

· As a councillor, the policies can be reviewed if they don't work, but the decisions are made, it appears, despite scrutiny

· Have seen no good example of policy making as part of the committee process - that would be pre scrutiny. Only seen good input into decision making retrospectively e.g. Deaf and Hearing Impaired Review. Occasionally debate happens with the Executive Member present and occasionally the committee make a specific point in recommendation but most reports are only `noted'

· Variable at times.

· In children & Young People we have to fight to get education matters onto the agenda.

· In general by early engagement, presentation of evidence and astute analysis, with recommended constructive ways forward.

· In theory by bringing to the table as wide a critical appraisal as possible - wider perhaps on occasion than the decision maker will possess; by acting as a conduit for public views and concerns; by highlighting controversial issues or signalling acceptance through consensus.

· We hope to increase understanding and knowledge of services across the County, identifying good practice and highlighting inconsistencies. Difficult to be clear as to how far Select Committees actually achieve this.

· Too early to say.

· So far as I know they don't.

· Through Call-ins, and in-depth reviews, otherwise the committee rarely feels as if they have any influence/input into decision making.

(5) What factors make scrutiny successful?

· See (3) i.e. scrutiny being successful is a function of the role divided by the barriers.

· When there is co-operation by those whose work and/or Departments are being scrutinised. This is improving as the role of scrutiny is better understood by staff and Executive Members

· Improving better outcomes to services and achieving best value

· Able to question officers.

· Qualified professionals doing the in-depth work required.

· Good leadership from the Chair. Strong involvement of members who hear the process. Engaging in matters of great concern to the general public.

· The right subject, Member willingness to undertake the job, adequate resources, successful outcomes.

· Good resources - more officer support to really get to grips with issues and analyse them, better time tabling to allow this to happen (1 weeks notice re bus cuts is unacceptable). Being opposition lead - it can involve back benchers. Being allowed to examine any aspect of HCC policy or performance.

· The fact that one can request a Select Committee to look at a subject in depth.

· 1 - Control and influence of the process being open to members outside of the ruling group. 2 - The ruling group being itself prepared to challenge the Executive.

· Alert support staff and alert Councillors.

· Focus, resources & engagement by internal & external partners, which ensures that any conclusions are soundly evidence based. It is not a quick, simple resource light discharge of an important duty.

· Specialising. An important insight was provided by Rabbit in Winny the Pooh: Rabbit said to Winny: "This is a search and I am organising it." "What does `organised' mean?" asked Winny the Pooh. "It's what you do to a search when you don't all look in the same place at once" said Rabbit

· Political will, Budgetary issues force change, Public awareness may be raised.

· Clear scoping of the subject to be scrutinised, Clear objectives, Specific areas of evidence, Open public debate, Confidence that the scrutiny will be robust and not a dragged out process, Confidence that the recommendations will be acted on.

· Back to No 1.

· Determined members, officers who will listen.

· Personal interaction is a key, to be sympathetic to other views and constructive dialogue in early stages of policy information.

· I cannot truly say.

· Relevance and timeliness, full co-operation, engagement with stakeholders, member attendance, quality of officer support, scoping, clarity of criteria. Confidence that work carried out actually is influential - e.g. follow through from Care at the End of Life.

· Modesty, common sense, above all, good communication simply put.

· N/A.

· Have sufficient time and information to analyse and report.

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

- in-depth reviews

- call-ins

- `light touch' scrutiny i.e. half day workshops

- reports to meetings

· Workshops are informative

· Reports to meetings can be excellent and enable Members to contribute to the decision making process

· There has been some success in all areas

· First three are good as they provide opportunity for informed debate. Reports to meetings can be fine but depends on topic and depends on background

· All of these are necessary and worth while. I believe the Chairmen of Select Committees are key. The Health Select Committee is the Committee whose example should be followed. The Chairman is strong, knowledgeable and well respected.

· Different topics require a different approach. Therefore all of the above types of scrutiny activity can be effective. It would be dangerous to restrict scrutiny to only certain types of activity.

· No problem.

· All have been ineffective.

· In-depth reviews can be very effective if they are matters of interest to the general public. Call-ins tend to be on minor matters. A lot of time was spent on the provision for deaf children when there are only about 50 children involved. Not a main-stream matter.

· Reports are not effective scrutiny.

· All the workshop briefing sessions have been extremely useful. Intransigence and sometimes arrogance by senior members and officers have made "call-ins" a waste of time. In-depth reviews have sometimes been too complicated for some individual members to understand.

· In-depth reviews have been far too lengthy.

· With regards to the workshops - not enough members attend.

· Most members engage in reports to meetings.

· In-depth reviews in progress - will wait and see.

· Call-ins - very useful if the portfolio holder listens.

· Reports to meetings - dull, passive, waste of time

· In-depth reviews - very good.

· Call-ins - rarely effective.

· "Light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops often ill-attended.

· Reports to meetings - rubber stamping.

· In-depth reviews - no real experience of this.

· Call-ins - Ineffective - the shutters just go up. "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - this is usually about giving out information, not about scrutiny or challenge. Reports to meetings - same as workshops

· In-depth reviews - very useful - e.g. street lighting PFI scheme.

· Call-ins - tend to be "party political" with not much gained by anyone.

· `Light touch' scrutiny i.e. half-day workshops useful

· Reports to meetings - depends if reports get read.

· In-depth reviews. The only way to carry out a sound evidence based review of a topic. Most of us have to understand the nature of the problem, understand the constraints and competences of our policies and agents, consider evaluate and formulate proposals and then review the process to see if the comments are valid or solutions appropriate to the original problem. We probably have to consider more carefully the sustainability of any change or initiative.

· In-depth reviews are probably the best. Call-ins are not very useful. `light touch' scrutiny i.e. half day workshops are helpful. Reports to meetings are good for routines but less helpful at spotting problems.

· In-depth reviews-very satisfying to participants but change can only take place if there is political will on the part of all partners. We seem keen to scrutinise others but not keen enough to look again at HCC. Call-ins - panic reactions, but often return some change. `light touch' scrutiny i.e. half day workshops-not effective, just informative- gives a pointer to a real problem and can be useful for officers to highlight a problem. Reports to meetings-not scrutinising enough if done too late- often feels like a foregone conclusion.

· 1) (in depth reviews) & 2) (call ins) Deaf and Hearing Impaired Review - reasonably speedy, sound examination. Recommendations clear, outcome still unknown. 1) Library Review - classic example of just going through the motions. Over 2 years from first agreeing to do it and still no outcome. 3) (workshops) Not really scrutiny, more information giving with members asking questions 4) (reports to meetings) CYPSC. Most reports are information only and very generalised. Little scrutiny and no pre scrutiny going on.

· In-depth reviews - yes

· Call- ins - very few to be able to comment.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - have been informed at times.

· Reports to meetings - time is after the event.

· In- depth views - Extremely important.

· Call- ins - only as a very last resort & with little effect.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - useful but not deep enough.

· Reports to meetings - Purely feedback to help other information.

· In-depth reviews - potentially very effective, more experienced needed.

· Call-ins - not enough experience to judge.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - useful but marginal.

· Reports to meetings - mostly effective, sometimes too bureaucratic in presentation.

· In-depth reviews : most capacity for effectiveness and the fullest scope for cross-agency evidence.

· Call-ins : little experience - only Deaf and HI - but it did allow for valuable insights into the issues involved.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops: good for information and understanding but by definition limited, and member attendance often low.

· Reports to meetings : useful information and still the best way re national and local policy and performance management reports.

· In-depth reviews - effective.

· Calls-in - effective.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - time pressures?

· Reports to meetings - ok.

· I don't think they are effective.

· In-depth reviews - thorough, but time consuming and can cause long delays in making recommendations.

· "light touch" scrutiny i.e. half day workshops - helpful for gaining information and understanding issues.

· Reports to meetings - long reports sometimes require a clearer summary.

· Not easy. Officers refused to listen over Deaf and Hearing Impaired Call in

Topic Selection

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

· Again it is variable. One might hope that Cabinet Members might consult more in advance of decisions.

· Method of prioritisation of issues could, apart from Select Committee Councillors, come from the Director of Services, who may welcome an in depth scrutiny of a particular service.

· The Chairs and Vice Chairs are really the only Members who have been inputting in this area - so the agenda is almost entirely theirs - I would welcome more suggestions from other Members

· Reference my answers to question 3, the workload

· The workload of my own Select Committee seems quite high. At the last meeting priorities for next year were discussed. Whilst there was largely a concensus of opinion on this it was clear that some members would have liked to see other issues included in the programme for next year.

· Manageable.

· Select Committees have no powers. Executive Members can ignore them. Meetings are therefore largely a waste of time.

· Long meetings producing very little of worth.

· Workload seems rather lighter compared to HATs for example that meet monthly and really dig into matters of interest. The HATs are more effective in scrutiny than Select Committees. Method of prioritisation is bizarre.

· Children and Young People have a massive protracted work load. Members at times are deluged with info. HOSC has a lot of issues by officer and Chairman prioritisation is excellent.

· CYPSC - very very large workload since education & childrens social care merged. Co-opted members were extremely knowledgeable & contributed well. Prioritisation agreed with all members.

· Opposition should decide what it looks at, if its not convenient to look at items for the ruling party they could get missed off, delayed or relegated.

· Scope limited because of long infrequent meetings.

· If an area of real challenge is likely to be chosen barriers are put up to stop it getting onto the Agenda.

· Several Environment and Transport "In-depth reviews" have occurred on dates I was unable to attend. If possible, need to give members (at the previous committee meeting) chance to influence what dates are available.

· Rather haphazard; there seems to be no clear set of guidelines to either decide what is an appropriate workload or a priority issue? Priorities tend to be emergent due to operational or political pressures.

· I can't judge most of them but it is mostly by tradition.

· Workload good but seems to take too long to get going

· Because there are so few meetings the agendas are overlong and items are rushed through towards then end of the meeting. Long gaps between meetings means there is little continuity of subjects looked at. Time wasted with overlong presentations which cover same material as written report. The work programme choice is usually left to the end of the agenda by which time everyone is exhausted and we are running out of time.

· Some meetings are very thin indeed. As below do not know how prioritisation is done.

· Prioritisation is very different and may change with time. Budget scrutiny and resource allocation must always be a top priority. Evidence & data collection is essential for effective scrutiny.

· No real opinion.

· Varies from committee to committee. The Children Act and the reorganisation of services have made this committee particularly demanding. I think it is important for members to have the opportunity to discuss policy although in many instances our input is necessarily limited to noting reports, and the prioritisation of these is necessarily dictated by policy changes - many of them national - and by forthcoming cabinet decisions. Members are given the opportunity to suggest items for the agenda, but given the length of agendas, time is often short, and when given the chance to volunteer for working groups, sometimes not many do!

· Fair.

· I only have experience of the Environment Committee and it appears to be drifting.

· Many important items are suggested by members, but time constraints mean that only a few can be addressed each year.

· My proposal to put 6T (Time Taken to T? the T?) was agreed by committee but not minuted. I had to bring it up again to get the matter onto the priority list.

(8) Do you know how items are chosen for the agenda for Select Committee meetings?

· Yes - insufficient consultation with opposition. Actually it is inappropriate that Select Committees are Chaired by the Majority Group

· Yes - usually by the Chair and the Vice Chair!

· To an extent but not completely

· The Committee select the items and areas for scrutiny. The Select Committee meet so infrequently it is easy to forget what the Committee are supposed to be doing. Various sub-committees are set up and those not involved lose touch with what is happening.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· I understand anyone can request a matter, can go on the agenda but the Chair had final say on what is selected.

· Presumably the back bench member recommendations are listened to.

· As Chairman I have chosen but have always invited members to suggest items.

· The Chairman sometimes asks us.

· No.

· Yes.

· I presume at Chairman's briefing.

· Yes, but also an emerging consensus by committee members that certain topics are reviewed. whether they are pareto optimal is doubtful, as a group we are not that well informed on the pressures and constraints that shape service delivery.

· It is not very transparent.

· Think so!

· Chairman hopefully sets the agenda though in some meetings I suspect it is entirely officers who drive the programme. Occasionally requests from members are added to the agenda.

· No.

· Yes.

· I think so.

· Not really.

· Not really; only those suggested and agreed by members.

(9) Are you aware of how you can influence what goes on the agenda?

· Yes. But it should be routine.

· Yes I organise it!

· Yes

· I believe there is some confusion with some Councillors in this area.

· Yes - by saying so at meetings.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· Yes, I can make a request to the Chair, but have not done so yet.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· No - other than ask the chair.

· It took me about 2 years to get an item on the agenda.

· There is no real ability for opposition members to influence the agenda.

· I presume approach the Chairman of the Committee.

· It is a consensual process punctuated by pressing issues.

· I don't think I would have any problem putting something on the agenda.

· Again, think so!

· Could ask for a particular item to come before the committee

· Not really - would like to do so.

· Yes.

· Yes, of course, the operative word is "influence".

· Yes and some members do.

· Not altogether sure.

· Yes, I think so.

· No.

· No, only through members suggestions.

· Yes, but I don't expect my views to be ignored

Communication

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

· Children's Services dialogue is satisfactory.

· Not always entirely clear - some appear to try to avoid engagement if possible!

· I have an understanding and the process is O.K, providing the Executive Members `play the game' as intended

· An issue, or decisions that Executive members are needing to make a decision on, should first be debated by the appropriate Select Committee and their recommendations should be seen as a measure to assist the Executive member. I believe this would and could lead to better decision making.

· I am unsure of this process (I am still a relatively new member).

· No.

· By Executive Members taking scrutiny seriously instead of paying lip-service to reviews and ignoring decisions they or their officers dislike.

· As they are the only ones making the decisions, ultimately this doesn't really matter too much.

· The Executive Member needs to attend a Select Committee meeting and give reasons for accepting or rejecting the recommendations. This works better than a Report.

· I wasn't aware that the Executive Members had a strategy for this.

· Too drawn out over time.

· They probably ignore them.

· The Executive Members should attend all scrutiny meetings and should have the opportunity to respond in person to Select Committee reports.

· The Executive Member has a reasonably good record of attending Select Committee meetings. However, "responding" at HCC is usually "rebutting" rather then taking issues and analysis on board.

· Members should attend the Executive Member's Decision Day. Pay mileage for members attending.

· Not entirely clear about the formal process but I judge that the response is proportional to the quality of the case and how well they align with and support corporate goals.

· It will always depend on the individuals.

· They receive recommendations and approve or reject them. It might be useful for them to discuss the outcomes of a longer scrutiny as well as receive the paper.

· Should take the recommendations into account. Some Executive members are better at acknowledging inputs than others. Would at least like a written response from Executive member explaining what he/she agreed with and what not.

· Executive comes to meetings & listens in - should take consideration of comments made before taking decision. But money at the end of the day is the main concern it appears.

· Executive members often attend scrutiny committee meetings and listen to the views expressed. For reaching key Executive decisions should be discussed in Select committees before final version is agreed.

· I am not clear on this, member involvement is so marginal - few have a broad experience of this, and I have the feeling individual Executive Members may differ considerably in their responses. We need a clearer, overarching template for responses.

· Executive members do attend committee meetings, but I don't know how much they know of the work of review groups - reading reports doesn't give the full flavour of witness sessions. Given their work load it may be difficult to improve this. However, it would help if the implementation of recommendations was regularly reported.

· A key issue, but will Executive Members listen or act? No guarantees. No constitutional need. Even after call-in by Select Committee & full Council as in case of Deaf & HI units.

· Executive Members do respond by attending the scrutiny meeting to explain their position, but this normally only happens if there is a disagreement between the two.

· It would be better if they didn't write their speeches in advance of hearing the scrutiny discussions

(11) Does scrutiny successfully secure feedback from relevant stakeholders?

· Don't know yet.

· Sometimes - especially sensitive issues such as deaf and hearing impaired, libraries etc. Less so perhaps in some of the mundane areas.

· On some occasions yes, but lacking in detail far too often.

· I believe so based upon the presentation to my Select Committee.

· Yes

· No.

· I am not aware of any feedback from a policy review from stakeholders. But the stakeholders should be asked to testify as part of the review process.

· On occasions when preparation has been thorough between Chairman & Officers.

· Most of the time - if they don't feel threatened.

· Only if you ask them to attend, contribute and answer members questions.

· I have yet to find out.

· No.

· Unlikely.

· Generally, the in-depth reviews have been successful though there is often a feeling that we cannot get a truly representative response. The old story of public consultation - partial response from the mainly partisan; the majority are either disengaged or that we are there via their mandate to make decisions for the benefit of all. A division of labour that is equitable for most of the time.

· We could almost certainly do better

· Yes, I believe so

· Not usually. Successful feedback should be early in the process of decision making. Usually feedback is asked for only when a decision is about to be made e.g. removal of bus subsidies, Tower Arts. It seems to me that only when it becomes apparent that there will be protests is there any consultation or `feedback from stakeholders'

· In part but not enough. Should do more. The public are the most important.

· Yes.

· In practice, I am comfortable this mostly happens.

· Can be difficult - e.g. Exclusions when stakeholders had to be reminded a few times. Possible cause is lack of understanding of the scrutiny process which should improve as more happens - NHS has become much better at it over time!

· Wouldn't think so.

· No.

· On occasions for contentious issues. It would be informative to hear from users of services from HCC as well as others.

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

· Progress reports with evidence, but very labour intensive

· Formal meetings are Public, but to get greater engagement more attention needs to be put to those mentioned in Answer to Q13

· Yes

· I believe a short summary of all the work being carried out by each Select Committee, could be sent out to all Councillor's in order to appraise all Council members.

· It is accessible in the same way as all of the other decision making processes of the Council. Sadly the community are largely disinterested in these matters unless it is something that directly affects them.

· Continue as at present.

· No.

· Yes.

· I'm not aware of where to find the work-plan - it is probably on the website but so much is there it is hard to find anything.

· No problem generally with accessibility.

· Not sure what you are asking.

· No - website, email links, 1 page bulleted exec summaries.

· Don't know.

· Probably - but as the work is largely irrelevant it hardly matters.

· I am sure it is all on Hantsweb.

· Accessible to whom and to what purpose? Our deliberations are a matter of great indifference for most people most of the time; effective service delivery and sensible policies are presumed.

· It's not too bad.

· No- feeding to Parishes takes a long lead time with print deadlines-need a forward plan of scrutinies similar to the calendar of meetings and an index of scrutinies for the public.

· Papers only appear on Hantsweb 5 days before meetings. Very rarely are there members of the public. Need better and earlier publicity. Room layout is for the convenience of the members not the public. Need proper microphones, the public often cannot hear. Chairs need to explain what is going on.

· To members yes, to public no. Greater use of website & on special issues no feedback to members of public.

· Yes - mainly by using the web.

· No. Individual members access to feedback is quite variable not to mention the time we make available.

· There are of course web-sites and announced links to them, but perhaps there should be specific reporting of findings, range of witnesses and stakeholders, recommendations and - even more importantly - of implementations of recommendations just to show that it does work. I think it would help if these were very much in summary form - full reports can be sign-posted for the curious - and take their place among the other committee reports under their own heading. It would probably encourage members if they felt that what they produced actually instigated actions! - e.g. Care at End Of Life.

· Communication, communication, communication to stakeholders.

· To whom?

· Accessible to whom? Members, stakeholders, local people.

· No. Members should be informed where items affecting their divisions are being discussed

(13) How should the views of local people be used to inform scrutiny?

· Surveys, focus group info, views of local Members not on the Scrutiny group

· Via local Members directly, and through HATS, otherwise it could be difficult to get them to engage with scrutiny. Also through LSP's (local strategic partnerships) etc

· Don't know how we can do things differently to get more public interest. The opportunity is there if local people have an interest. I suspect they feel much as per many members - the topics are sometimes too large to really get involved.

· Make better use of Parish Magazines and seek views of the public. Parish Magazines are the most well read publications. These would also be at no cost to the consultation and therefore the Council Tax payers.

· Elected members are there to represent the views of local people so I do not see that any other measures are necessary to ensure this is achieved.

· Down to each Councillor.

· Local people need to be consulted. This is perhaps better left to HATS who are undertaking this task.

· Through better public consultation and involvement.

· Bring key stakeholders in to give evidence.

· They should be respected for local knowledge but should be aware that outcomes are for strategic level.

· Focus groups, witnesses and letters.

· Through the local member.

· Probably not. Let's get elected members able to influence the process first.

· I do not believe that any of my electorate has ever said "Now what is this about Scrutiny?".

· Problematic as scrutiny as I define it is not a "public meeting moment". It is informed and considered comment or concern that is required. Well briefed discussion groups focussed on particular topics can add value, otherwise there is a tendency to preserve the status quo or cry for the moon, when what is wanted is practical & deliverable proposals.

· By survey and through local members

· A number of communications per year from the public should trigger a question onto scrutiny, but with an end date

· Better pre scrutiny so people (members and public) know what is likely to be decided on. Forward Plan does not show enough detail - needs better description and lead officer for contact. At present it is very user unfriendly. In original discussions about scrutiny ( probably 2 years ago) we were told this would be worked on. It has not happened. Need to think automatically about ways to give people opportunities to give input on every topic.

· Yes indeed - this is not done enough.

· With very great difficulty to avoid minority pressure groups demonstrating. Usually Councillors are aware (as they have to be due to elections & accountability) of local views from their division/area.

· A wide range of consultation techniques is called for to cover the varying themes and scales of issues called in.

· I think some come through anyway via members and stakeholders, and HATs are beginning to contribute (e.g. Rushmoor & Hart re Foster Carers this week, and Basingstoke and East Hants re Deaf & HI) but this could be increased.

· Primarily communication with local members surely.

· Sparingly.

· Through consultation on particular issues, which has happened on occasions.

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

· Yes

· Yes - it might make a useful type of `terms of reference', which could make the work programmes a lot more structured

· Probably

· Yes.

· Without a doubt yes.

· No.

· Not until officers and senior members take scrutiny more seriously.

· Yes. I prepared one when in charge of scrutiny at Winchester City Council and it proved useful for officers as well as members. Many Councils have done this so it will be easy to cobble something together.

· Possibly but most members seem to have made up their own minds on what motivates them at scrutiny sessions. Perhaps the best thing is for everybody to look at the way HOSC has operated it certainly has been successful.

· Only if it is bullet points. we produce far too much wording & often repeat things.

· Yes very.

· No.

· No - we need less bureaucracy and more challenge.

· Try a draft version at a Members Briefing. My feeling is No:- Members need it "in their heads" not tucked away in cardboard boxes.

· Possibly, if you can capture the essence of scrutiny and give guidance on selection of key priorities. Effective scrutiny needs effective engagement by Members, Officers and stakeholders. It cannot be done quickly with little resource input. Little effort or resources at best results in topic specific briefing of a themed area of service delivery.

· Yes

· No- it should all be available on the website

· Yes to make clear the role of Executive, members, officers and members of the public. To make clear how members can effectively contribute. To list under each scrutiny committee the fixed areas of work which will be looked at over the year. NB This does not have to be a paper book as it can be published on the website.

· Yes.

· It might be useful - but as there is too much paper already - not sure that it would be used by every member.

· Probably - if it is in plain language and not too woolly.

· I'm not sure a handbook as such would help but reporting as suggested in 12 above would make members (perhaps officers too) more aware of what works and what can be achieved.

· Don't know.

· Yes.

· Yes.

· No. We don't want more process, we need more original thought from members

end