Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Policy & Resources Select Committee

Review of Current Scrutiny Arrangements

Report

April 2008

Contents

Page number

Chairman's Introduction 3

Background 3

Executive Summary 4

Findings 14

Recommendations 23

Appendices

Page number

Appendix 1: Terms of Reference 26

Appendix 2: Excerpt from the Local Government and Public Involvement

in Health Act 2007 29

Appendix 3: Executive Member and Department Director Interview notes 40

Appendix 4: Select Committee Members responses to questionnaire 41

Appendix 5: Policy & Resources Select Committee Workshop notes 58

Appendix 6: Scrutiny Team initial identification of issue areas 60

Chairman's Introduction

To be added at a later date

1 Background

1.1 The current arrangements for the local government overview and scrutiny function at Hampshire County Council were set up in Autumn 2006. In July 2007 the Policy and Resources Select Committee decided it would be appropriate to review these arrangements to ensure that they were operating effectively.

1.2 The scrutiny function for local government was initiated by the Local Government Act 2000. The function is designed to `assert and protect the public interest by holding decision makers and policy makers to account' (Executive Director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, quoted in `The Good Scrutiny Guide' published by CfPS May 2006). The scrutiny function has now been strengthened by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, extending the scope of scrutiny to partnership working and clarifying the links between the Executive and scrutiny. (see Appendix 2 for details of the 2007 Act relating to overview and scrutiny)

1.3 According to the Centre for Public Scrutiny, good public scrutiny is based on the following four principles, it:

· Provides `critical friend' challenge to executive policy-makers and decision-makers

· Enables the voice and concerns of the public

· Is carried out by `independent minded governors' who lead and own the scrutiny role

· Drives improvement in public services

1.4 This Review set out to consider the progress of the Select Committees to date and to gauge Members' and senior officers' current perceptions and understanding of scrutiny. (see Appendix 1 for the full terms of reference of the Review). Through this process the Review looked at the current scrutiny operating protocols to identify opportunities for improving the delivery of a robust scrutiny function at the County Council.

1.5 In order to provide focus to the Review and identify which areas to probe with Members and senior officers some initial work was carried out by the scrutiny team (see Appendix 6 for notes of the issue areas identified). The areas identified were then discussed at a workshop involving Members of the Policy & Resources Select Committee in October 2007 (see appendix 5 for the notes from this event). Members agreed at this workshop to invite comment from all Select Committee Members and to seek the views of Departmental Executive Members and Directors about the way in which overview and scrutiny was perceived to be functioning.

1.6 A questionnaire was prepared and sent to all Select Committee Members in November 2007 (see Appendix 4 for the unabridged responses received). This was followed by a series of semi structured interviews with Executive Members and Department Directors between January and March 2008. (see appendix 3 for a list of who was interviewed and the feedback provided). A Review Group was then convened; comprising the Select Committee Chairmen and Opposition Spokespeople, to weigh up the evidence gathered by the Review and agree the conclusions and recommendations.

1.7 The responses received from the questionnaire and interviews raised clusters of issues around the following areas:

· Relationships with Executive Members

· Links with Departments

· Input/influence on Hampshire County Council Decision Making Process

· Strengthening the Scrutiny Process and Member Support

· Priority Setting/Work Programmes

· Communications and Profile

Where concerns were identified, recommendations are suggested to address them, informed by national best practice.

1.8 The evidence from the Review indicates that scrutiny has made some progress, with the work of certain reviews such as the Review of Outdoor and Field Study Centres undertaken by the Culture and Communities Select Committee being welcomed by the Executive. However, it is clear that this is still a new way of working and it has taken time for the new arrangements to `bed in'. There are areas where the function could develop to become more robust, and suggestions for how to go about this are provided in the recommendations resulting from this Review.

1.9 Effective overview and scrutiny should provide constructive input to the decision making processes of local government. As such it is a valuable and necessary complement to the Executive function. Hampshire is already a four star authority and has a clear commitment to continuing to deliver improved performance. It supports an increasingly complex range of work programmes as well as contributing to performance assessment tools such as the evolving system of Corporate Area Assessments. The current Select Committee structure, supporting and constructively challenging the Executive, is one route through which this commitment to improvement can be demonstrated. The Executive Director of CfPS notes `The non-executive function is acknowledged as a critical factor in well run organisations'. Hampshire County Council is a well run organisation.

2 Executive Summary

2.1 The evidence gathered during this Review suggests that the change to the new arrangements for overview and scrutiny in Autumn 2006 has involved adjustment for the organisation and over the past year progress has been made in developing this function. Members have enjoyed engaging with topics through in-depth reviews, and generally the outcomes of scrutiny work have been welcomed by the Executive. Feedback suggests that non-executive Members are keen to develop an effective voice through scrutiny, and Executive Members on the whole welcome the input of non-executive Members. However, feedback received has also highlighted various areas where the scrutiny function could be strengthened. There are recurring themes, which are addressed from different angles by the various recommendations put forward. The Review Group feels that, taken as a whole, this suite of recommendations will help the scrutiny function become better embedded within the organisation, and better equipped to contribute to driving improvement across the organisation.

2.2 Throughout the process of this Review, some clear messages have emerged, with the same points being raised by different stakeholders from Scrutiny officers to Select Committee Members, Executive Members and Department Directors. This reinforces the importance of tackling these issues, which coalesce around six areas:

· Relationships with Executive Members

· Links with Departments

· Input/influence on Hampshire County Council Decision Making Process

· Strengthening the Scrutiny Process and Member Support

· Priority Setting/Work Programmes

· Communications and Profile

2.3 Relationships with Executive Members:

2.3.1 One of the recurring issues highlighted by Select Committee Members was a sense that they were not in a position to inform or influence the Executive or the decision making process of the County Council. Various recommendations presented in this report are designed to help address this concern, including clarification of the mechanisms through which Executive Members respond to recommendations from Select Committees. If Select Committee Members are not aware of the response of the Executive Member, and any changes made as a result of their work, there is a perception that their efforts through scrutiny have not had any influence. Select Committee Members commented that if recommendations are not accepted an explanation of the reasons for this would be helpful.

2.3.2 Feedback from Executive Members drew out the importance that they placed on responding to recommendations from Select Committees, although they also pointed out that this did not necessarily mean that decisions would be changed. Overall there seemed to be different expectations about what would happen to recommendations to Executive Members from Select Committees. Given the changes that have been introduced in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which places a duty on Local Authorities and the Executive to respond to Overview and Scrutiny reports and recommendations within a defined timescale, it is therefore recommended that:

A) There is a clearly defined mechanism agreed through which Select Committees can bring issues, reports and recommendations to the attention of the relevant Executive Member, or where appropriate the Cabinet, and a clear timeframe for providing a response to the appropriate Select Committee.

A1) When a response is made, if recommendations are not accepted an explanation is provided.

B) Where recommendations are accepted there will be an agreed process for following up progress with implementation and reporting this to the relevant Select Committee, with sufficient time allowed in meetings for Members to give full consideration to the actions initiated.

2.3.3 Feedback from Executive Members indicated that there may be occasions when they would value the input/views of Select Committees as an independent source of feedback. They also commented that the reasons behind a particular issue being selected for inclusion in the scrutiny work programme were not always clear (this latter point is addressed by recommendation S later in the report). Additionally there were concerns that the length of time taken to complete some scrutiny activities meant that there was a reduced opportunity for input or influence.

2.3.4 On the other hand feedback from some Select Committee Members included a perception that their work programmes were directly controlled by the Executive, with little scope for input from non-executive Members. In part these differing views may reflect the different working relationships and styles of working that have developed between Select Committees and their Executive colleagues; nevertheless it is an important issue that needs to be considered by this Review. It is therefore recommended that work is undertaken to:

C) Make explicit the means by which Executive Members are able to feed into and inform Select Committee work programmes.

D) At the point of selecting a topic for inclusion in the work programme, Select Committee Chairmen ensure that the prioritisation and scheduling of work allows for maximum opportunities to inform or improve the service/topic under consideration.

2.4 Links with Departments:

2.4.1 Select Committees currently work to thematic portfolios, focusing broadly on the activities and services of Hampshire County Council Departments. The move from the previous Committee structure to a more arms length scrutiny of decisions has caused some reduction in the opportunities for non executive Members to regularly engage with both Executive Members and officers within Departments. Some feedback raised the concern that this separation had resulted in the emergence of a `knowledge gap' in non-executive Members' understanding of the work of the County Council. Equally there was an acknowledgement of the breadth of expertise and professional advice that Executive Members are able to draw on to inform the management of their portfolio. Although the Select Committees are able to seek independent technical and professional advice and support, and have done so on a number of occasions, feedback suggests that further opportunities for building Member understanding of the Departments they are scrutinising, drawing on existing County Council skills and expertise would be beneficial. It is therefore recommended that:

E) The scope for Select Committee Members to access the expertise within Departments to obtain professional and technical advice/input is explored, taking account of the need to manage an appropriate separation of the work of Departments and scrutiny.

2.4.2 Select Committee Members identified a barrier to effective scrutiny to be lack of information about, or awareness of, emerging issues. Some of the deficits identified related to reports and briefings that were available on the County Council website, or included in Member Briefing Days, suggesting that some Members may benefit from improved signposting to existing information. There is scope for non executive and Executive members to play a greater role in the identification of topics to be addressed at Member Briefing Days, ensuring that the content is targeted at areas of greatest interest to Members.

2.4.3 The process through which Select Committees request specific information and reports on different topics from Departments also needs to be streamlined to ensure that there is a sensible balance between the need for there to be a response to the requests of Members and the need to recognise the pressures that exist in the day to day work of Departments. The size and complexity of some Departments means that there needs to be a clearly defined route through which communications between the Select Committees and the Departments takes place. It is therefore recommended that:

F) The point of contact between lead scrutiny officers and each Department is formally agreed to ensure that information is properly routed both through Departments and to Select Committee Members.

F1) Briefings and reports for Members can be easily identified and accessed through the County Council website.

2.4.4 A recurring theme in responses from Select Committee Members was their frustration regarding the lack of advance notice given of upcoming decisions/policy work being undertaken by the Executive. However, feedback from Departments noted that some decisions had to be taken at short notice. Whilst it is anticipated that the imminent decisions database will provide greater opportunities for Members to be alerted to emerging issues or decisions, regular informal meetings between Select Committee Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen, Executive Members, Opposition Spokespeople, and key officers would provide an opportunity to highlight areas of potential interest to non executive Members, allowing them to determine any further action they wished to initiate on either an individual or Select Committee basis at an early stage. It is also essential that these meetings are clearly Member led, with Select Committee Chairmen having a key role in ensuring that feedback from these meetings is effectively communicated to their fellow Committee Members. This process would help manage some perceptions that the agendas for Select Committees were directed by officers. It is therefore recommended that:

G) Regular informal meetings are set up between the relevant Select Committee Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen, Opposition Spokespeople, Executive Members and key officers to provide an early alert to emerging issues and facilitate `real time' scrutiny of decisions, policy development and work programmes.

G1) Select Committee Chairmen have lead responsibility for regularly briefing their Select Committee Members on the issues raised in these meetings.

2.5 Input/influence on HCC decision making process:

2.5.1 As noted in the section above, feedback from Select Committee Members and Executive Members indicated some significant frustrations; on the one hand the extent to which non-executive Members perceived their ability to inform the decision making process of the County Council, and on the other the view that Select Committees did not always take a County wide or evidence based view.

2.5.2 A number of issues were raised in relation to the timing of Select Committee meetings and the impact this has on Select Committees' capacity to influence. Under the current arrangements for scrutiny, the meeting structure means there are few opportunities for pre-scrutiny of decisions. Each Select Committee has four formal meetings a year, whereas Executive Member Decision Days take place approximately ten times a year, more if necessary, therefore the opportunity for formal scrutiny may not fit the timing of when the decision is being made. If recommendation G above were adopted this would help ensure the work flow of the Select Committee is better aligned with Executive Member Decision Days and would allow for regular `real time' scrutiny of Executive Member decisions. Further consideration could also be given to increasing the number of formal meetings (there would be resource consequences associated with this) or increasing the flexibility for Committees to initiate action outside the formal meetings, either through the Chairman or designated lead for a particular area.

2.5.3 Select Committee Members indicated they feel out of touch with the mainstream activity of the Council under current arrangements, although the point was also made that individual Members need to be willing to engage with and understand the work and responsibilities of the County Council. If Select Committees met more regularly this would provide a forum to update backbenchers with relevant and timely information on issues relevant to the Select Committee's Terms of Reference, however, as noted above there are resource implications associated with this and the active participation of Members would be fundamental to the success of this change. This may also be one means by which Select Committees could have more time to revisit and monitor the outcomes of previous pieces of scrutiny.

2.5.4 Concern was expressed that unplanned work referred to the Select Committees could have a consequential impact on planned activities, causing other pieces of work to be delayed and potentially damaging the timeliness of those pieces of work. Select Committees need regular opportunities to review their work programmes and focus on top priorities, including weighing up how best to accommodate unplanned work, for example referrals through new mechanisms such as the Councillor Call for Action. Members also commented that in-depth reviews can take a long time to complete, suggesting that the Select Committees need to deploy a range of different approaches in their planning of scrutiny activities. Reporting on outcomes of in-depth reviews can be excessively delayed, as if a deadline for one meeting is missed by a couple of days, the next opportunity does not present for three months under the current meeting structure. More regular meetings of Select Committees would help avoid this difficulty but, as inferred above, there is also scope for mechanisms to be put in place to facilitate Chairman's Action between meetings (which in turn has implications for the work load of Chairmen) and greater use of electronic communications to keep Members informed and enable them to provide feedback (see recommendation G1 above). It is acknowledged that Members are more familiar with working through formal meetings, however there may be benefits from developing other ways of working. It is therefore recommended that:

H) The timing and frequency of Select Committee meetings and supporting activities are reviewed to improve alignment with the Executive Member decision making process.

2.5.5 The drive in national policy towards greater partnership working, and the anticipated impact of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 were each raised in feedback as key areas for scrutiny, not least because Select Committees will be expected to respond to referrals from some partner organisations (i.e. Local Involvement Networks) within a defined timeframe, as well as having extended powers for examining a range of public sector agencies. To accommodate this, it is recommended that:

I) Mechanisms should be put in place to enable Select Committee Chairmen, taking account of the agreed priorities of that Committee, to initiate a response or action on behalf of the Committee to referrals from external sources that occur between meetings. These will be shared with all Committee members at the earliest opportunity with the chance for feedback where timescales permit.

2.5.6 Both Department Directors and Executive Members highlighted the potential for Select Committees to inform and influence a range of partner organisations by looking at thematic or multi agency issues. Some of the feedback received suggested that scrutiny has sometimes focused on small local scale issues, and concentrated on service specific topics rather than taking a Hampshire wide perspective. Executive Members have commented that scrutiny could add greater value by taking a more strategic and cross cutting focus. The Policy and Resources Select Committee could take a stronger lead on enabling this type of scrutiny activity to take place, building working relationships with partner organisations to support this `outward looking' way of working.

2.5.7 Comments received also noted that the workloads of the Select Committees vary, and that in some cases timing of in-depth reviews has resulted in significant peaks in workload for scrutiny officers, with the consequence that review timescales needed to be changed. The current role of the Policy and Resources Select Committee is to oversee the work of the other Select Committees, however this element of its role could be strengthened, so that in-depth reviews can be timetabled to avoid resource clashes (see also recommendation D). Therefore it is recommended:

J) That the Policy and Resources Select Committee takes a stronger role in identifying priorities for scrutiny and adjusting work programmes as appropriate.

2.5.8 Inevitably the new powers accorded to the Select Committees as a result of recent legislative changes will mean that they move to be more `outward facing' in the work that they do, complementing their internal function of holding the Executive to account. The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee operates in this fashion and feedback from across the range of interviewees highlighted this as an example of good practice, providing a possible model to inform the reshaping of Select Committees as the new arrangements emerge. This does have workload implications for the Chairmen. Clear criteria for prioritising topics for inclusion in work programmes will support this process (see section 2.7 below), however there is also a role for the Select Committees in the oversight of the way in which Hampshire County Council engages with and involves partners where this is appropriate. This will be particularly key where partner organisations (for example Local Involvement Networks) have the power to refer issues to the Select Committees for investigation. It is therefore recommended that:

K) Select Committees actively build working relationships with relevant partner organisations and consider the way in which Hampshire County Council engages with and involves partners as a routine part of any thematic scrutiny activity.

2.6 Strengthening the scrutiny process and Member support:

2.6.1 The importance of non-executive Members being fully involved with the work of the Select Committees was highlighted by a number of respondees. Again a number of frustrations emerged in the feedback, with some non-executive Members feeling that the length of time between meetings meant that there was little familiarity with agendas. Some Select Committee Chairmen highlighted the variable involvement of Members of their Committee, with some individuals carrying very heavy workloads across a number of areas of interest and others only infrequently attending meetings. This latter point was also noted by Executive Members and Department Directors together with a sense of an emerging `knowledge gap' about the work of the County Council amongst some Members.

2.6.2 Generally the view was that there were sufficient opportunities for training and briefing non-executive Members, however it was not possible to force Members to take these up. It was noted that a number of areas of deficit reported related to information that had in fact been widely circulated (e.g. Select Committee reports/work programmes) or that was available on the website (e.g. forthcoming Executive decisions). Generally Select Committee Members that were involved in the increasing range of scrutiny activities that take place between formal meetings were more satisfied with their level of engagement: for example, feedback regarding in-depth scrutiny reviews was positive from Members who had been involved. The scope for there to be some form of `job description' or `role profile' for Members of Select Committees was raised as one option for addressing this issue, to clarify what is expected of Councillors undertaking a scrutiny role. Another way to encourage greater engagement could be to allocate Members particular topics (based on their interests/strengths) and give them the remit to keep informed about that topic by speaking to the relevant officers. Making Members `lead scrutineers' in this way has been partially used here with some success, and creation of `Member champions' along the same lines has been used at various other authorities. This would capitalise on Members' interests, give them a specific role and potentially enable them to make informed suggestions for scrutiny or provide informed input to decision making around their topic area. Alternatively the allocation of specific roles to Members could be made dependent on the completion of agreed training requirements. Therefore it is recommended that:

L) Consideration is given to the most effective way to support Members in building a knowledge base of, and engagement with, the work of the County Council. This may include the introduction of a `job description' for certain roles, a system of `lead scrutineers/member champions', or specified training completed prior to a Member being appointed to a particular role. The role of the Chairman in supporting non-Executive Member development should be included in this work.

2.6.3 Some respondees highlighted the limited resource available to support Select Committees, particularly in the context of the need for unplanned work to be dealt with alongside planned work programmes. The scope for access to the expertise in Departments was noted as one possible option for managing this tension (see recommendation E above), as was the opportunity for Select Committee Members to feed into the current review of the Chief Executives Department to help ensure that available resources are used to best effect. It is therefore recommended that:

M) Consideration is given to the resources available to support non-executive Members in the conduct of overview and scrutiny.

N) Work programmes are sufficiently flexible to accommodate unplanned work without compromising the timeliness of planned work undertaken by Select Committees.

2.6.4 A recurring theme reported was non-executive Members feeling that it was not possible to influence or inform the work programmes of the Committee or the way in which Executive Members make decisions. Actions aimed at addressing this sense of disengagement have been made in a number of the previous recommendations in this report, including improving opportunities for early engagement with emerging policy or key issues (see recommendation G above) and greater clarity about responses to recommendations made to Executive members (see recommendations A & B above). However, further work can be done to ensure that each stage of the scrutiny process is open and transparent, supporting evidence based decision making at the County Council.

2.6.5 Feedback across the board supported the idea that scrutiny should make use of a variety of approaches. However, concerns were raised regarding the existing mechanism for `Call in' of Executive Member decisions. While Executive Members acknowledged that it was appropriate for scrutiny to use this mechanism to ask the Executive Member to re-consider a decision it was felt could be improved, it was indicated by Select Committee Members that the current process for doing so was overly complex and confusing. It was also noted that existing standing orders meant the range of decisions that can be called in was restricted. Select Committee Members were of the opinion that `Call in' should only be used as a last resort, and that if opportunities were made available for early engagement of Select Committee Members with policy development and decision making `Call in' should very rarely be needed. However, it was noted that a clearer system for `Call in' would be beneficial for use in those times where all else has failed. Therefore, it is recommended that:

O) The `Call in' process is reviewed, taking account of national best practice.

2.6.6 It was noted that reports produced by Hampshire County Council supporting decisions could be difficult to understand and may not include the background or evidence underpinning a specific decision. It was clear across the range of respondees that there was scope for improving the way in which information and reports were presented to support decision making processes. The Review heard that Adult Services are working on a new report writing style, which includes the background and evidence base supporting a decision, on-going work and links with corporate plans and strategies. The Review welcomes this approach. With a view to enabling early engagement, it would also be helpful if reports leading to decisions made clear what consultation is planned and at what stage non-executive Members can have an input. It is therefore recommended that:

P) The way in which reports and other information is presented to Members be reviewed to ensure that all relevant evidence and supporting information is included, previous work can be easily tracked and links with corporate polices are clear.

2.6.7 A number of respondees commented that a handbook for scrutiny would be useful as a guide to inform Members' and officers' understanding of the role of the Select Committees. In particular some Executive and non-executive Members had differing perceptions about the way in which responses to recommendations from Select Committees were dealt with. This related not only to feedback from the Executive Member but also the fact that the recommendations made may not be accepted by, or change the decision of, the Executive Member. A handbook could provide a reference point for the processes involved in scrutiny, and by clarifying the role and processes of scrutiny provide consistency across how the different Select Committees work. It is therefore recommended that:

Q) A `plain English' handbook is developed setting out the role and function of the Select Committees and the procedures that support their work. This will be clearly accessible on the website and widely circulated in the County Council.

2.7 Priority setting/Work Programmes:

2.7.1 Feedback from both Executive Members and non-executive Members indicated that there was a degree of confusion about the way in which topics were selected for work programmes. It was also noted that, due to the infrequency of meetings, most work tended to take place outside the formal programme of meetings. There were occasions when Executive Members felt that they would find it helpful to have feedback from a Select Committee about a particular decision. Equally there was concern that some recommendations from Select Committees did not take account of the available evidence base or the need for the decision to be taken in a County wide context.

2.7.2 A number of respondees felt that the means by which priorities were set could be simplified and strengthened, possibly by modifying the criteria used by the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The value of a sound understanding of the key budget and performance issues facing the County Council was highlighted by a number of commentators as providing a clear evidential base for focusing priorities and identification of opportunities for supporting improvement in service delivery. It was noted that this information, particularly with regard to performance data, is not routinely made available to the Select Committees.

2.7.3 Opportunities for improving the flow of information to and from Select Committees to Executive Members and Departments have already been identified as part of this Review. However, it was noted by Executive Members and Department Directors that scrutiny could be making more use of financial and performance information to support effective topic selection, and provide an evidence base for why items have been chosen for further scrutiny. It would also aide Members knowledge and understanding of the work of Departments if they considered financial/performance information. At present this is not consistently provided to or considered by the Select Committees. The presentation of this information could be improved to make key messages more accessible to Members and the links between performance and budgetary decisions clearer. Therefore it is recommended that:

R) The scope to build Select Committee Member understanding of the key issues with regard to performance and finances, and better alignment with the annual cycle of both disciplines, is explored with the appropriate key leads in the County Council.

2.7.4 Greater communication with Departments regarding topic choices would help Select Committee Chairmen identify issues where the timing was appropriate for scrutiny to influence and have the potential to contribute to change/improvement. Recommendation R above would also help in this regard, as topic choices could be justified using this evidence.

2.7.5 Another key source of evidence for informing the work of the Select Committees was identified as feedback from local people and communities. Whilst it is not the role of the Select Committee to conduct consultation, there is a value in considering engagement and involvement activities that support Executive (and partner) decision making. Feedback through MORI, Hampshire Action Teams (HATs) and Local Involvement Networks (LINKs) for example would also provide a route through which the Select Committees would be able to take account of the views of stakeholders.

2.7.6 The introduction of a strengthened overview and scrutiny function with new partnership arrangements resulting from recent legislation is distinct from the role of the Select Committees in holding the Executive to account. Select Committees need to be aware of these two discreet functions, and ensure that they maintain an appropriate balance between `inward' and `outward' looking work. It is essential that Select Committees have in place clear criteria that will help them to target opportunities for improvement to greatest effect whilst still fulfilling their democratic responsibilities. Referrals from external agencies will need to be managed in a proportionate, timely and transparent process that will direct and sign post any action necessary to the responsible organisation. Clear criteria for including issues on the work programmes of Select Committees would provide a mechanism for effectively managing work load and referrals from partner organisations. It is therefore recommended that:

S) A clear set of criteria for prioritising topics for inclusion in Select Committee work programmes is agreed and published. This is also used, adjusted as appropriate, to support the Select Committees in coming to a view about any referral from partner organisations.

2.8 Communications and profile

2.8.1 Feedback from both Executive and non-executive Members indicated that the profile of the work undertaken by the Select Committees was not high, particularly with regard to emerging work programmes or areas of interest. Whilst annual reports have been published, setting out this information, this was not always familiar to Members. Although a number of the actions identified above are directed towards responding to this perception, there is scope to raise further the profile of the Select Committees via an accessible web presence. It is therefore recommended that:

T) Work on the website for Hampshire County Council Select Committees continues and includes work programmes and other support activities as well as the handbook (see recommendation R above)

2.8.2 Another area for action relates to the need to up-date media protocols to ensure that they reflect the role of the Select Committees within the County Council. It was noted in the feedback received by the Review that it is important that Select Committees and scrutiny review groups provide consistent messages to the media relating to their work. It is therefore recommended that:

U) The Hampshire County Council media protocols are revised to ensure they properly reflect the role of the Select Committees

3 Findings

3.1 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 be helpful to reconsider certain aspects of its operation. As a result, the Policy and Resources Select Committee initiated a review of current scrutiny arrangements, which has been undertaken between September 2007 and April 2008.

3.2 A key component of this Review was the preparation of a questionnaire which was sent to all members of scrutiny committees (see appendix 4 for the unabridged responses to the questionnaire). 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. Members raised many issues about scrutiny as a new process and indicated that whilst significant progress has been made over the last twelve months, there are still a number of opportunities for strengthening this process.

3.3 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. Overall, feedback from Select Committee Members, Executive Members and Department Directors brought out recurring themes and indicated 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

3.4 The following summarises the points raised by Select Committee Members, Executive Members and Department Directors, under each question posed in the questionnaire and interviews.

3.5 Roles of Scrutiny

-What do you understand as the role of scrutiny?

3.5.1 The Select Committee Members who responded to the questionnaire demonstrated 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.

3.5.2 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.

3.5.3 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.

3.6 Effectiveness of HCC Scrutiny

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

3.6.1 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.

3.6.2 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'.

3.6.3 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.

3.6.4 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'.

3.6.5 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.

3.6.6 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'.

3.6.7 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'.

3.7 Barriers to Scrutiny

-What barriers are there to effective scrutiny?

3.7.1 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

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

3.7.3 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.

3.7.4 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.

3.8 Informing Policy Development

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

3.8.1 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'.

3.8.2 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.

3.8.3 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.

3.8.4 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.

3.9 Successful Scrutiny

-What factors make scrutiny successful?

3.9.1 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

3.9.2 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.

3.9.3 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.

3.10 Effectiveness of different types of scrutiny activity

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

3.10.1 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'.

3.10.2 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'.

3.10.3 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.

3.10.4 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.

3.10.5 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.

3.10.6 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.

3.10.7 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.

3.11 Topic Selection

- Workload

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

3.11.1 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.

3.11.2 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.

3.11.3 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.

3.11.4 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'.

3.12 - Choosing items to go on the agenda

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

3.12.1 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.

3.12.2 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'.

3.12.3 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'.

3.13 - Influencing the agenda

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

3.13.1 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'.

3.14 Executive Member response

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

3.14.1 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'.

3.14.2 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.

3.14.3 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'.

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

3.14.5 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.

3.14.6 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.

3.15 Feedback from stakeholders

-Does scrutiny successfully secure feedback from relevant stakeholders?

3.15.1 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'.

3.15.2 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'.

3.15.3 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'.

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

3.15.5 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.

3.16 Accessibility of scrutiny work

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

3.16.1 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'.

3.16.2 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'.

3.16.3 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!'

3.16.4 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.

3.17 Using views of local people

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

3.17.1 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'.

3.17.2 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.

3.17.3 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 scrutiny 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'.

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

3.18 Scrutiny Handbook

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

3.18.1 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.

3.18.2 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'.

3.19 Summing up of findings

3.19.1 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.

3.19.2 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 considered the evidence gathered during this Review and in response to the issues raised makes the following recommendations. The arguments for how these respond to the evidence is presented in the Executive Summary, and therefore is not duplicated here.

4 Recommendations

A1) When a response is made, if recommendations are not accepted an explanation is provided.

C) Make explicit the means by which Executive Members are able to feed into and inform Select Committee work programmes.

F) The point of contact between lead scrutiny officers and each Department is formally agreed to ensure that information is properly routed both through Departments and to Select Committee Members.

F1) Briefings and reports for Members can be easily identified and accessed through the County Council website.

G1) Select Committee Chairmen have lead responsibility for regularly briefing their Select Committee Members on the issues raised in these meetings.

H) The timing and frequency of Select Committee meetings and supporting activities are reviewed to improve alignment with the Executive Member decision making process.

J) That the Policy & Resources Select Committee takes a stronger role in identifying priorities for scrutiny and adjusting work programmes as appropriate.

M) Consideration is given to the resources available to support non-executive Members in the conduct of overview and scrutiny.

N) Work programmes are sufficiently flexible to accommodate unplanned work without compromising the timeliness of planned work undertaken by Select Committees.

O) The `Call in' process is reviewed, taking account of national best practice.

T) Work on the website for Hampshire County Council Select Committees continues and includes work programmes and other support activities as well as the handbook (see recommendation R above)

U) The Hampshire County Council media protocols are revised to ensure they properly reflect the role of the Select Committees

Appendix 1

Policy and Resources Select Committee

Proposal for Review of guidance affecting Hampshire County Council's Scrutiny arrangements

Contact: Scrutiny Officer

Revised January 2008

1. Introduction

Arrangements for scrutiny were a key 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 be helpful to reconsider certain aspects of its operation.

2. Timeliness and relevance

New scrutiny arrangements have been in place at the Council for a year and the learning from this initial period indicated that now is an excellent time to take stock of the current situation and identify opportunities for further improvement. Early impressions from auditors during the recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment show that scrutiny is well on-track and the Policy and Resources Select Committee, with its overarching coordinating role for scrutiny and responsibility for scrutinising corporate policy and performance, will have interest in ensuring that this performance is maintained.

Recognition of scrutiny's importance in ensuring transparent democratic processes and robust decision making is on the rise nationally and there are some excellent examples of best practice in scrutiny to be observed. The Local Government White Paper 2006 reinforced the role of scrutiny in ensuring effective, accountable and responsive local government by granting extended powers to scrutiny committees, thus broadening their remit and profile. It is therefore essential to ensure that scrutiny is a well-understood and robust function in Hampshire.

Increased focus on working in partnership with other statutory agencies and external organisations means that further consideration of how best to engage partners in scrutiny could also be made.

3. Progress with scrutiny to date

Much progress has already been made in Hampshire as the progress reports from the Select Committees at Annexes A-E show (not reproduced here). However, there is potential for further refinement and clarification of the role of scrutiny and its objectives as this will assist in achieving continued good performance.

4. Scope of the Review

A review of this topic could include the following:

a) Recognition of scrutiny's progress since Autumn 2006, to include:

· Achievements of the Select Committees

· Members' and officers' current perceptions and understanding of scrutiny

b) A review of current scrutiny operating protocols to identify areas requiring further clarification or amendment, to include:

· Operation of scrutiny reviews (`task and finish groups'), including consideration of group composition and reporting mechanisms

· The relationship between Executive Members and Scrutiny Committees

· Selection and prioritisation of work programmes

· Protocols for the writing and submission of reports to committees

· Clarification of legal and constitutional implications of different types of scrutiny i.e. Call-in

· Involvement of external organisations in scrutiny i.e. districts

c) A review of the effectiveness of current communications protocols for scrutiny including:

· Communications with Executive Members when responding to scrutiny recommendations

· Communications with stakeholders and the public

· Internal communications about scrutiny's role and purpose

d) Learning from the experiences of external peers with well-established and highly-regarded scrutiny functions

5. Anticipated outcomes of the Review

· That Hampshire guidance on the operation and purpose of scrutiny is robust and user-friendly

· That ways of helping all Members, officers and external stakeholders to understand the role and purpose of scrutiny are identified

6. Indicative Key Stakeholders

· Hampshire County Council Cabinet members

· HCC Select Committee members

· HCC Liberal Democrat and Labour spokesmen

· HCC lead officers

· HCC Legal Services

· HCC Democratic Services

· Portsmouth City Council Scrutiny Manager

7. Proposed approach

It is suggested that a series of workshops and informal meetings with stakeholders is arranged in order to facilitate discussion of key issues. Work to commence in Autumn 2007 and continue for 6 months.

8. Project Plan

September 07 - Scrutiny Team and Democratic Services Away Day with Portsmouth City Council Scrutiny Officer

October 07- Policy & Resources Select Committee Workshop

November 07 - Questionnaire prepared and sent to all Select Committee Members

December 07 - collation of questionnaire responses and external research

January 08 - analysis of questionnaire responses and holding Executive Member/department director interviews

February 08 - holding executive member/department director interviews

March 08 - Review group meets to review evidence

April 08 - final report submitted to Policy & Resources Select Committee

9. Review Group Membership

Due to Members decision at the Policy & Resources Select Committee Meeting in October 2007 to review this topic in greater depth, the following Members have been appointed to lead on the Review of Scrutiny arrangements:

Cllr Cartwright - Chairman of Policy & Resources Select Committee

Cllr Ellis - Chairman of Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Cllr Chapman - Chairman of Culture & Communities Select Committee

Cllr Leversha - Chairman of Children & Young People Select committee

Cllr Hutcheson - Chairman of Environment & Transportation Select Committee

Cllr Heath - Chairman of Safe & Healthy People Select Committee

Cllr Collett - Liberal Democrat Spokesperson

Cllr Kelly - Labour Spokesperson

Appendix 2

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

Chapter 2 Overview and scrutiny committees

119 Reference of matter by councillor to overview and scrutiny committee

After section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) insert-

"21A Reference of matters to overview and scrutiny committee etc

(1) Executive arrangements by a local authority must include provision which-

(a) enables any member of an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority to refer to the committee any matter which is relevant to the functions of the committee,

(b) enables any member of a sub-committee of such a committee to refer to the sub-committee any matter which is relevant to the functions of the sub-committee, and

(c) in the case of a local authority in England, enables any member of the authority to refer to an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority of which he is not a member any local government matter which is relevant to the functions of the committee.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), provision enables a person to refer a matter to a committee or sub-committee if it enables him to ensure that the matter is included in the agenda for, and discussed at, a meeting of the committee or sub-committee.

(3) In considering whether to exercise the power which he has by virtue of subsection (1)(c) in any case, a member of an authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.

(4) Guidance under subsection (3) may make different provision for different cases.

(5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply where a local government matter is referred to an overview and scrutiny committee by a member of a local authority in accordance with provision made pursuant to subsection (1)(c).

(6) In considering whether or not to exercise any of its powers under section 21(2) in relation to the matter, the committee may have regard to-

(a) any powers which the member may exercise in relation to the matter by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (exercise of functions by local councillors in England), and

(b) any representations made by the member as to why it would be appropriate for the committee to exercise any of its powers under section 21(2) in relation to the matter.

(7) If the committee decides not to exercise any of those powers in relation to the matter, it must notify the member of-

(a) its decision, and

(b) the reasons for it.

(8) The committee must provide the member with a copy of any report or recommendations which it makes to the authority or the executive under section 21(2) in relation to the matter.

(9) Subsection (8) is subject to section 21D.

(10) In this section "local government matter", in relation to a member of a local authority, means a matter which-

(a) relates to the discharge of any function of the authority,

(b) affects all or part of the electoral area for which the member is elected or any person who lives or works in that area, and

(11) In subsection (10)(c), "excluded matter" means any matter which is-

(a) a local crime and disorder matter within the meaning of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), or

(b) a matter of any description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section."

120 Power of overview and scrutiny committee to question members of authority

(1) In section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees), in subsection (13), before "and" immediately following paragraph (a) insert-

"(aa) may require any other member of the authority to attend before it to answer questions relating to any function which is exercisable by the member by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (exercise of functions by local councillors in England),".

(2) In subsection (14) of that section, for the words following "mentioned in" substitute "paragraph (a) or (aa) of subsection (13) to comply with any requirement mentioned in that paragraph".

121 Powers to require information from partner authorities

(1) After section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 insert-

"22A Overview and scrutiny committees of certain authorities in England: provision of information etc by certain partner authorities

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, in relation to a relevant committee-

(a) as to information which relevant partner authorities must provide to the relevant committee, and

(b) as to information which may not be disclosed by a relevant partner authority to the relevant committee.

(2) In subsection (1), references to information do not include information in respect of which provision may be made in exercise of the power conferred by-

(a) section 20(5)(c) or (d) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters), or

(b) section 244(2)(d) or (e) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), "relevant committee" and "relevant partner authority" have the meanings given by section 21C.

(4) The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision, in relation to a relevant district council committee-

(a) as to information which associated authorities must provide to the relevant district council committee, and

(b) as to information which may not be disclosed by an associated authority to the relevant district council committee.

(5) In subsection (4), references to information do not include information in respect of which provision may be made in exercise of the power conferred by section 20(5)(c) or (d) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)-

· "relevant district council committee" means-

(a) an overview and scrutiny committee of a district council which is not a responsible local authority ("the district council"), or

(b) a sub-committee of such a committee; "associated authority", in relation to a relevant district council committee, means-

(a)

the county council which is the responsible local authority in relation to the district council, or

(b)

any person (other than the district council) which is a partner authority in relation to that county council, other than-

(i)

a police authority, or

(ii)

a chief officer of police;

and for this purpose, "responsible local authority" and "partner authority" have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different persons or committees or descriptions of person or committee.

(8) The power conferred by subsection (7) does not affect the power conferred by section 105(2)(b)."

(2) In section 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters), after subsection (6) insert-

"(6A) In subsection (5)(c) and (d), references to information are, in relation to any crime and disorder committee, to information relating to-

(a) the discharge, or decisions made or other action taken in connection with the discharge, by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions; or

(b) local crime and disorder matters in relation to which the committee has functions under or by virtue of section 19."

(3) In subsection (7) of that section, for "and "co-operating persons and bodies"" substitute ", "co-operating persons and bodies", "crime and disorder functions" and "local crime and disorder matters"".

(4) In section 244 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41) (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), after subsection (2) insert-

"(2A) In subsection (2)(d) and (e), references to information are to information relating to matters relating to the health service in the authority's area."

122 Overview and scrutiny committees: reports and recommendations

(1) After section 21A of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (inserted by section 119) insert-

"21B Duty of authority or executive to respond to overview and scrutiny committee

(1) This section applies where an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority in England makes a report or recommendations to the authority or the executive, otherwise than-

(a) by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), or

(b) by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section.

(2) The overview and scrutiny committee may publish the report or recommendations.

(3) The overview and scrutiny committee must by notice in writing require the authority or executive-

(a) to consider the report or recommendations,

(b) to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee indicating what (if any) action the authority propose, or the executive proposes, to take,

(c) if the overview and scrutiny committee has published the report or recommendations under subsection (2), to publish the response,

(d) if the overview and scrutiny committee provided a copy of the report or recommendations to a member of the authority under section 21A(8), to provide the member with a copy of the response,

and to do so within two months beginning with the date on which the authority or executive received the report or recommendations or (if later) the notice.

(4) It is the duty of an authority or executive to which a notice is given under subsection (3) to comply with the requirements specified in the notice.

(5) Subsections (2) and (4) are subject to section 21D and to any provision made under section 22(12A).

(6) In this section-

(a) references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to a sub-committee of such a committee; and

(b) references to "the authority" or "the executive", in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee, or a sub-committee of such a committee, are to the authority by which the overview and scrutiny committee is established or to the executive of that authority.

21C Reports and recommendations of overview and scrutiny committees: duties of certain partner authorities

(1) This section applies where-

(a) a relevant committee makes a report or recommendations to the authority or the executive, otherwise than-

(i) by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), or

(ii) by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section, and

(b) the report or any of the recommendations relates to a local improvement target which-

(i) relates to a relevant partner authority, and

(ii) is specified in a local area agreement of the authority.

(2) The relevant committee may by notice in writing to the relevant partner authority require the relevant partner authority to have regard to the report or recommendation in question in exercising their functions.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be accompanied by a copy of the report or recommendations.

(4) It is the duty of a relevant partner authority to which a notice is given under subsection (2) to comply with the requirement specified in the notice.

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply if-

(a) the relevant partner authority is a health service body, and

(b) by virtue of section 244 of the National Health Service Act 2006, the report was, or the recommendations were, made to the health service body (as well as to the authority or the executive).

(6) In subsection (5), "health service body" means-

(a) a National Health Service trust,

(b) an NHS foundation trust, or

(7) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to section 21D.

(8) In this section-

· "the authority", in relation to a relevant committee, means-

(a) in the case of an overview and scrutiny committee, the local authority by which it is established, and

(b) in the case of a sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee, the local authority by which the overview and scrutiny committee is established,

· "the executive", in relation to a relevant committee, means the executive of the authority,

· "local improvement target" and "local area agreement" have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (local area agreements),

· "relevant committee" means-

(a) any overview and scrutiny committee of-

(i) a county council in England,

(ii) a district council in England, other than a council for a district in a county for which there is a county council, or

(iii) a London borough council, or

(b)a sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee within paragraph (a), and

· "relevant partner authority", in relation to a relevant committee, means any person who is a partner authority in relation to the authority for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, other than-

(a) a police authority, or

(b) a chief officer of police;

and references to a target relating to a relevant partner authority are to be construed in accordance with section 105(3) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

21D Publication etc of reports, recommendations and responses: confidential and exempt information

(1) This section applies to-

(a) the publication under section 21B of any document comprising-

(i) a report or recommendations of an overview and scrutiny committee, or

(ii) a response of a local authority to any such report or recommendations, and

(b) the provision of a copy of such a document-

(i) to a member of a local authority under section 21A(8) or section 21B, or

(ii) to a relevant partner authority under section 21C,

by an overview and scrutiny committee or a local authority.

(2) The overview and scrutiny committee or the local authority, in publishing the document or providing a copy of the document to a relevant partner authority-

(a) must exclude any confidential information, and

(b) may exclude any relevant exempt information.

(3) The overview and scrutiny committee or the local authority, in providing a copy of the document to a member of the local authority, may exclude any confidential information or relevant exempt information.

(4) Where information is excluded under subsection (2) or (3), the overview and scrutiny committee or the local authority, in publishing, or providing a copy of, the document-

(a) may replace so much of the document as discloses the information with a summary which does not disclose that information, and

(b) must do so if, in consequence of excluding the information, the document published, or copy provided, would be misleading or not reasonably comprehensible.

(5) If by virtue of subsection (2), (3) or (4) an overview and scrutiny committee, in publishing or providing a copy of a report or recommendations-

(a) excludes information, or

(b) replaces part of the report or recommendations with a summary,

it is nevertheless to be taken for the purposes of section 21B(3)(c) or (d) to have published or provided a copy of the report or recommendations.

(6) In this section-

· "confidential information" has the meaning given by section 100A(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (admission to meetings of principal councils),

· "exempt information" has the meaning given by section 100I of that Act, and, in relation to-

(a) any report or recommendations of an overview and scrutiny committee which has functions under section 21(2)(f), or

(b) any response to such a report or recommendations,

also includes information which is exempt information under section 246 of the National Health Service Act 2006,

· "relevant exempt information" means-

(a) in relation to a report or recommendations of an overview and scrutiny committee, exempt information of a description specified in a resolution of the overview and scrutiny committee under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 which applied to the proceedings, or part of the proceedings, at any meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee at which the report was, or recommendations were, considered, and

(b) in relation to a response of the authority, exempt information of a description specified in such a resolution of the authority which applied to the proceedings, or part of the proceedings, at any meeting of the authority at which the report or response was, or recommendations were, considered, and

· "relevant partner authority", in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee which is a relevant committee within the meaning of section 21C, has the same meaning as in that section.

(7) In this section, references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to a sub-committee of such a committee."

(2) In section 22 of that Act (access to information etc), after subsection (12) insert-

"(12A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, in relation to-

(a) the publication by executives of local authorities in England under section 21B, or under any provision of regulations under section 21E which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provision of section 21B, of responses to reports or recommendations of overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees of such committees, or

(b) the provision by such executives under that section of copies of such responses,

which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 21D."

123 Joint overview and scrutiny committees: local improvement targets

(1) For the purposes of this section, "group of partner authorities" means-

(a) a county council in England; and

(b) one or more district councils which are partner authorities of it.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which a group of partner authorities may-

(a) appoint a joint committee (a "joint overview and scrutiny committee"); and

(b) arrange for any functions of making reports and recommendations falling within subsection (3) to be exercisable by the committee.

(3) A report or recommendation falls within this subsection if-

(a) it concerns a matter which-

(i) relates to the attainment of any local improvement target specified for the time being in a relevant local area agreement; and

(ii) is not an excluded matter; and

(b) it is made to-

(i) the county council, or

(ii) the county council and one or more district councils,

in the group of partner authorities.

(4) In subsection (3)-

(a) "excluded matter" means any matter with respect to which a crime and disorder committee could make a report or recommendations-

(i) by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (local authority scrutiny crime and disorder matters); or

(ii) by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section;

(b) the reference to a report or recommendations being made to a county council or district council is, in the case of a local authority operating executive arrangements under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), to be read as a reference to a report or recommendations being made to the local authority or its executive.

(5) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular-

(a) provide for arrangements to be made only in circumstances, or subject to conditions or limitations, specified by the regulations;

(b) in relation to joint overview and scrutiny committees, make provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of-

(i) section 21(4) and (6) to (12) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22),

(ii) sections 21A to 21D of that Act, or

(iii) section 246 of, and Schedule 17 to, the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41),

with or without modifications;

(i) as to relevant information which associated authorities must provide to a joint overview and scrutiny committee (or, if the regulations make provision for the appointment of sub-committees of such a committee, to such a sub-committee); and

(ii) as to information which may not be disclosed by an associated authority to a joint overview and scrutiny committee (or, if the regulations make provision for the appointment of sub-committees of such a committee, to such a sub-committee).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(c), in relation to a joint overview and scrutiny committee-

· "associated authority" means-

(a) the county council in the group of partner authorities which appointed the joint overview and scrutiny committee; or

(b) any person which is a partner authority in relation to that council other than-

(i) a police authority; or

(ii) a chief officer of police;

· "relevant information", in relation to an associated authority, means information which is relevant to a local improvement target in a relevant local area agreement which relates to the associated authority;

and section 105(2) or (3) applies for the purpose of determining whether a local improvement target relates to an associated authority.

(7) Regulations under this section may not make provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (5)(c) with respect to information in respect of which provision may be made in exercise of the power conferred by section 20(5)(c) or (d) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters).

(8) In this section-

(a) "relevant local area agreement", in relation to a joint overview and scrutiny committee, means a local area agreement of the county council in the group of partner authorities which appointed the committee; and

(b) "local area agreement", "local improvement target" and "partner authority" have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of this Part.

(9) Any group of partner authorities and any joint overview and scrutiny committee must, in exercising or deciding whether to exercise any functions conferred on it by or by virtue of regulations under this section, have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

124 Overview and scrutiny committees of district councils: local improvement targets

After section 21D of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (inserted by section 122) insert-

"21E Overview and scrutiny committees of certain district councils: functions with respect to partner authorities

(1) This section applies to any district council which is a partner authority in relation to a county council ("the related county council").

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which a district council to which this section applies may confer on their overview and scrutiny committee, or any of their overview and scrutiny committees, power to make reports and recommendations to the related county council, or that council's executive, which relate to any local improvement target which-

(a) relates to a relevant partner authority, and

(b) is specified in a local area agreement of the county council.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may make provision applying or reproducing any provision of section 21B, 21C or 21D (with or without modifications).

(4) For the purposes of this section-

(a) "relevant partner authority", in relation to a district council, means-

(i) the related county council, or

(ii) any other authority which are a partner authority in relation to that county council, other than-

(a) a police authority, or

(b) a chief officer of police,

(b) "local area agreement", "local improvement target" and "partner authority" have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and

(c) section 105(2) or (3) of that Act applies for the purpose of determining whether a local improvement target relates to a relevant partner authority."

125 Guidance

In section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (overview and scrutiny committees: authorities operating executive arrangements), at the end insert-

"(16) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions-

(a) an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority in England, or a sub-committee of such a committee, must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State; and

(b) an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority in Wales, or a sub-committee of such a committee, must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Welsh Ministers.

(17) Guidance under subsection (16) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee or sub-committee."

126 Reference of local crime and disorder matters to crime and disorder committees etc

(1) The Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 19 (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), for subsections (3) to (8) substitute-

"(3) A local authority must-

(a) ensure that its crime and disorder committee has power (whether by virtue of section 21(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 or regulations made under section 32(3) of that Act or otherwise) to make a report or recommendations to the local authority with respect to any matter which is a local crime and disorder matter in relation to a member of the authority, and

(b) make arrangements which enable any member of the authority who is not a member of the crime and disorder committee to refer any local crime and disorder matter to the committee.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), arrangements enable a person to refer a matter to a committee if they enable him to ensure that the matter is included in the agenda for, and discussed at, a meeting of the committee.

(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where a local crime and disorder matter is referred to a crime and disorder committee by a member of a local authority in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3)(b).

(6) In considering whether or not to make a report or recommendations to the local authority in relation to the matter, the committee may have regard to-

(b) any representations made by the member as to why it would be appropriate for the committee to exercise any power which it has by virtue of subsection (3)(a) in relation to the matter.

(7) If the committee decides not to make a report or recommendations to the local authority in relation to the matter, it must notify the member of-

(a) its decision, and

(b) the reasons for it.

(8) Where a crime and disorder committee of a local authority makes a report or recommendations to the authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a), it must-

(a) provide a copy of the report or recommendations to any member of the authority who referred the local crime and disorder matter in question to the committee in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3)(b), and

(b) provide a copy of the report or recommendations to such of-

(i) the responsible authorities, and

(ii) the co-operating persons and bodies,

as it thinks appropriate.

(8A) Subsection (8B) applies where the crime and disorder committee of a local authority-

(a) makes a report or recommendations to the authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a), or

(b) provides a copy of a report or recommendations under subsection (2) or (8)(b).

(8B) Where this subsection applies-

(a) the crime and disorder committee must notify the authority, body or person to whom it makes the report or recommendations or provides the copy that paragraph (b) applies, and

(b) the authority, body or person must-

(i) consider the report or recommendations;

(ii) respond to the committee indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;

(iii) have regard to the report or recommendations in exercising its functions."

(3) In subsection (9)(b), for "subsection (1)(b) or (6)" substitute "this section".

(4) In subsection (11)-

(a) after the definition of "crime and disorder functions" insert-

"electoral area" has the meaning given by section 203(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983;", and

(b) for the definition of "local crime and disorder matter" substitute-

"local crime and disorder matter", in relation to a member of a local authority, means a matter concerning-

(a) crime and disorder (including in particular forms of crime and disorder that involve anti-social behaviour or other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment), or

(b) the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances,

which affects all or part of the electoral area for which the member is elected or any person who lives or works in that area."

(5) Section 20 (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters) is amended as follows.

(6) In subsections (1) and (2), after "under" insert "or by virtue of".

(7) In subsection (5), omit-

(a) paragraph (f); and

(b) sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (g).

127 Overview and scrutiny committees: consequential amendments

(1) In section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees)-

(a) in subsection (2), after "their overview and scrutiny committees" insert ", and any joint overview and scrutiny committees,";

(b) after that subsection insert-

"(2A) In subsection (2), "joint overview and scrutiny committee", in relation to a local authority ("the authority concerned"), means-

(a) a joint overview and scrutiny committee within the meaning given in subsection (2)(a) of section 245 of the National Health Service Act 2006 appointed by the authority concerned and one or more other local authorities,

(b) an overview and scrutiny committee of another local authority exercising relevant functions (within the meaning given in subsection (1) of that section) of the authority concerned by virtue of arrangements made under regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that section,

(c) a joint overview and scrutiny committee within the meaning given in subsection (2)(a) of section 185 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 appointed by the authority concerned and one or more other local authorities,

(d) an overview and scrutiny committee of another local authority exercising relevant functions (within the meaning given in subsection (1) of that section) of the authority concerned by virtue of arrangements made under regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that section, or

(e) a joint overview and scrutiny committee within the meaning of section 123 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint overview and scrutiny committees: local improvement targets) appointed by a group of partner authorities (within the meaning of that section) which includes the authority concerned.";

(i) after "this section" insert ", sections 21A to 21C"; and

(ii) at the end insert "or any functions which may be conferred on it by virtue of regulations under section 21E"; and

(d) omit subsection (8).

(2) For section 32(3) of that Act (alternative arrangements) substitute-

"(3) Regulations under this section may make provision with respect to committees or sub-committees falling within subsection (1)(b), including-

(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)-

(i) any provision of sections 21 to 21D or paragraphs 7 and 9 to 11 of Schedule 1,

(ii) any provision made under section 21E or 22A,

(iii) any provision of section 246 of, or Schedule 17 to, the National Health Service Act 2006, or

(iv) any provision made under section 244 of that Act, and

(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)-

(i) any provision of section 21 or 21A(1)(a) or (b) or (2) or paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 1,

(ii) any provision of Schedule 17 to the National Health Service Act 2006,

(iii) any provision of section 186 of, or Schedule 11 to, the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or

(iv) any provision made under section 184 of that Act.".

(3) In section 245(3)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41) (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc)-

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for "(15)" substitute "(17)"; and

(b) after that sub-paragraph insert-

"(ia) sections 21A to 21D of that Act,

(ib) section 22A of that Act,".

(4) In section 185(3)(b) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c. 42) (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc)-

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for "(15)" substitute "(17)"; and

(b) after that sub-paragraph insert-

"(ia) section 21A(1)(a) or (b) or (2) of that Act,".

128 Transitional provision

(1) Section 33E of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (proposals for change in governance arrangements) (which is inserted by section 64) applies (in addition to the cases mentioned in subsection (1) of that section) to a local authority which-

(a) by virtue of the coming into force of any provision of this Chapter is required to vary its executive arrangements; or

(b) by virtue of the coming into force of any provision of regulations made under section 32 of that Act (alternative arrangements) by virtue of any provision of this Chapter is required to vary its alternative arrangements.

(2) In this section, "alternative arrangements", "executive arrangements" and "local authority" have the same meanings as in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.

Appendix 3

Executive Member and Department Director Interviews

Participants

The following interviews took place:

Cllr Colin Davidovitz Executive Member for Performance, Efficiency and Communications with Andrew Smith, Chief Executive - interviewed by Cllr Michael Cartwright, Chairman of Policy & Resources Select Committee. Interview took place on Tuesday 8 January 2008.

Cllr David Kirk Executive Lead Member for Children's Services and Cllr Patricia Banks Executive Member for Children & Families with John Coughlan Director of Children's Services - interviewed by Cllr Keith Chapman, Chairman of Culture & Communities Select Committee. Interview took place on Tuesday 22 January.

Cllr Michael Woodhall Executive Member for Economic Development and Jon Pittam County Treasurer - interviewed by Cllr Adrian Collett, Liberal Democrat Group Leader. Interview took place on Monday 18 February.

Cllr Mel Kendal Executive Member Environment and Alison Quant Director of Environment - interviewed by Cllr Jo Kelly, Labour Group Leader. Interview took place on Friday 22 February.

Cllr Felicity Hindson Executive Member Adult Social Care and Richard Ellis Assistant Director of Adult Services - interviewed by Cllr Carol Leversha, Chairman of Children & Young People Select Committee. Interview took place on Friday 22 February.

Cllr Margaret Snaith Executive Member for Recreation & Heritage with Yinnon Ezra Director of Recreation & Heritage Department - interviewed by Cllr Peter Hutcheson, Chairman of Environment & Transportation Select Committee. Interview took place on Wednesday 27 February.

The Leader Cllr Ken Thornber - interviewed by Cllr Ray Ellis, Chairman of Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Interview took place on Wednesday 19 March.

Process

The same questions were used at each interview, and the questions used were a simplified version of the questions asked in the questionnaire sent to Select Committee Members. Notes were taken during the interviews and agreed as a correct record with the participants. The notes are reproduced below, collected under each question. The responses are given simply by `Executive Member' or `Department Director'.

[ Responses to be added if agreed ]

Appendix 4

Policy & Resources Select Committee Review of Scrutiny Arrangements

Collated Questionnaire Responses from Select Committee Members:

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.

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

· 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.

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

end

Appendix 5

Policy & Resources Select Committee Workshop: 16 October 2007

Attendance: Cllr Blampied, Cllr Cartwright, Cllr Chapman, Cllr Collett, Cllr Gurden,

Cllr Kelly, Cllr Leversha

Members discussed the operation of scrutiny to date. The comments made clustered around the following five areas:

Roles of Scrutiny

Members began by questioning the role of scrutiny here at Hampshire County Council, asking themselves such questions as Is the scrutiny function just ticking boxes? What is the outcome of scrutiny? Is the point of scrutiny simply giving non-executive members something to do?

Members considered that due to the creation of `Children's Services', there is a potential role for scrutiny to review their policies. It is arguable that at present issues relating to vulnerable children tend to dominate the Children & Young People Select Committee agenda. Some Members expressed concern that other important issues may be getting left out e.g. education issues. If `every child matters' the committee should be looking at things that affect more than just vulnerable children.

Members noted the horizon scanning work undertaken by scrutiny often gets duplicated within departments.

Members queried whether scrutiny could perform a monitoring role. It was suggested that a separate committee could be set up to monitor schools (like the old schools monitoring panel) - to follow policies through to see what effect they have. This committee could then suggest education issues worth looking at for scrutiny.

Regarding post decision scrutiny - holding executive members to account for their decisions - some concern was expressed that select committees are not doing enough of this at the moment.

Members noted Executive Members have a big responsibility - they can't dig in depth with issues like the old committee system. Scrutiny can look at things in more depth.

It was noted a system is being set up to develop scrutiny of budgets.

Members suggested they felt more informed under the old committee system. Scrutiny could help keep Members informed.

Constitution

Members commented that the relationship between Executive Members and scrutiny may need developing in some cases. It was also noted as important for scrutiny to develop relationships with directors of departments.

Members indicated the `call-in' process needed to be made clearer.

Selection of Topics

Regarding workload, it was commented that the Children & Young People Select Committee had a large volume of work to manage. It was suggested that this could be eased by holding more meetings, or by dividing it into two committees.

Members noted there is a perception that certain topics are `management business' or `Executive Member business', there needs to be some agreement over what can become `scrutiny business'.

The model of using Lead Scrutineers was suggested as worth considering, whereby Members connect directly with officers who are specialists in certain fields, and through this greater understanding of a topic may identify appropriate topics for scrutiny.

Members commented that topics are sometimes restricted by the initial scope - members indicated that it may be useful to allow some flexibility to explore aspects that emerge during the review that are of interest that aren't in the initial scope.

In terms of how to seek relevant topics to scrutinise, it was suggested that scrutiny could make use of departmental annual reports, or output from the Joint Area Review, or Performance Indicators.

It was commented that reports should go to the relevant scrutiny committee before going to Executive Members/full council.

How Hampshire Action Teams fit in to the committee structure, and what possible connection they might have to scrutiny, was raised as an issue.

Communications

It was noted that currently press releases have to be run by the relevant Executive Member, which doesn't necessarily make sense for scrutiny press releases, where the scrutiny perspective may be different to that of the executive.

Members suggested communication with officers could improve, there was a sense that in some cases officers in departments were not clear enough about the role of scrutiny.

Supporting the Scrutiny Process

Members indicated their impression that it would benefit the scrutiny team to have lower level support for performing administrative tasks, to free up scrutiny officers to concentrate on the other parts of the job.

Members also commented on the fact that democratic services staff and scrutiny officers both take notes in meetings, which seems like unnecessary duplication. It was acknowledged that the traditional brief style of minutes may not be appropriate for scrutiny, as it is important to record more detail of what takes place when undertaking a scrutiny review. Members suggested that democratic services staff could be trained to take more detailed notes for scrutiny meetings.

In terms of working with departments, Members noted they experienced variation in levels of co-operation across departments to date.

Appendix 6

Scrutiny Team Identification of Issue Areas in Current Scrutiny Arrangements

Constitution

- relation between Executive Members and Scrutiny

- legal issues e.g. Call in process

Selection of Topics

- workload

- priority setting

- possible use of performance information

- potential for use of scoring system

- Members knowledge of work of Departments

Communications

- public - are the public aware of the scrutiny function?

- press - are existing protocols appropriate for the new arrangements?

- Member - communication between Executive Members and Scrutiny, and profile of scrutiny activity among the wider membership

- officer - understanding in departments of scrutiny roles and process

Roles of Scrutiny

- understanding and effectiveness of different types of scrutiny under current arrangements :

- horizon scanning

- policy development

- post decision i.e. Call in

- pre decision e.g. scrutiny of upcoming Executive Member decisions

- budget scrutiny

Supporting the Scrutiny Process

- working with Departments

- Effectiveness of support to Select Committees from Chief Executive's Department

This content is archived