Archived decisions

Item 10

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report

Committee:

Policy & Resources Select Committee

Date of meeting:

23 July 2009

Report Title:

Proposals for In Depth Scrutiny

Report From:

The Chief Executive

Contact name:

Marie Mannveille, Scrutiny Officer

Tel:

01962 845018

Email:

[email protected]

    1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The attached proposal/s are submitted for consideration by this committee. The attached is/are proposal/s for scrutiny reviews from one or more of the other Select Committees. This committee is asked to consider whether to endorse the proposal/s submitted.

    2. Contextual Information

2.1. Under the constitution, part of the role of the Policy & Resources Select Committee is to `ensure resources of the scrutiny function are being effectively targeted' and to `prioritise topics for scrutiny task and finish groups (thematic reviews)'. This committee acts as the overarching local government scrutiny committee, and exercises the roles quoted by requiring that any scrutiny reviews proposed by the other local government select committees (Environment & Transportation Select Committee, Culture Communities & Rural Affairs Select Committee, Children & Young People Select Committee, Safe & Healthy People Select Committee) are submitted to this committee first for approval.

    3. Consideration of Proposals

3.1. When considering whether to approve a proposal for a scrutiny review that has been submitted, this committee is asked to take into account the Topic Selection Criteria (as agreed by this committee in October 2008), see section 4 below. The proposal document should provide the relevant information for the appropriate judgements to be made.

3.2. Where the committee is in doubt as to the value of a proposed review, the committee is entitled to request further scoping be undertaken to establish an evidence base, or that the scale of the review be altered to reflect available resources/pressures.

    4. Topic Selection Criteria

4.1. Topics for in-depth review by Select Committees should be prioritised taking account of their capacity to:

    · contribute to the delivery of Hampshire County Council's corporate objectives

    · inform understanding of partnership working and delivery of the County Council objectives e.g. the delivery of the LAA and National Indicators or decisions taken by other agencies that affect local people.

    · respond to a major or Hampshire wide public concern

· influence or improve services across Hampshire

4.2. It is essential that the topics selected for in-depth review are supported by members of the relevant Select Committee and reflect a Hampshire wide perspective. As a topic moves from initial scoping to a substantive piece of work members will agree clearly defined objectives/outcomes to be delivered and timescales. Care will be taken at all times to ensure that topics taken forward for in-depth review do not replicate other monitoring or performance management activities and do not duplicate work being taken forward within the County Council or by partner agencies.

4.3. Topics selected for in-depth review should not be based on individual anecdote/complaint or lobbying interests as other more effective routes exist for dealing with issues of this nature. Similarly it is expected that topics that move forward from an initial scope to in depth review will have a defined evidence base.

    5. Conclusions

5.1. The committee is asked to confirm whether, based on the above selection criteria and any other considerations, the attached proposal/s is/are to be approved.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy

Hampshire safer and more secure for all:

yes/no

Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):

Maximising well-being:

yes/no

Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):

Enhancing our quality of place:

yes/no

Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):

OR

This proposal does not link to the Corporate Strategy but, nevertheless, requires consideration because:

This report concerns the approval by the overarching select committee for one of the other select committees to undertake a scrutiny review. This contributes to the work of the scrutiny function, and may indirectly link to the corporate strategy depending on the topic proposed for review.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

 

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. (NB: the list excludes published works and any documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.)

 

Document

Location

None

  

Proposal from the Environment and Transportation Select Committee for light touch scrutiny review on Flooding

Cllr Wheale, Chairman of Environment and Transportation Select Committee

    1. Purpose of the Report

    1.1. A light touch scrutiny on Flooding has been identified by the Environment and Transportation Select Committee. The purpose of the report is to obtain endorsement from Policy and Resources Select Committee prior to the review being carried out, at a date to be identified, in the autumn of 2009.

    2. Contextual Information

    2.1. In 2008, the Environment and Transportation Select Committee were prompted by the national Pitt Review Report (2008) recommendations relating to scrutiny, to consider the topic of flooding at their meeting in July. This allowed for overview and real-time scrutiny of arrangements in Hampshire at that time for providing responses to the risk of flooding from the perspectives of both emergency planning and mitigation.

    2.2. The committee took the decision to revisit the topic twelve months hence, and added it to its work programme for 2009-2010.

    2.3. The Committee considered the timing and general approach to the review at its meeting in April 2009, where it was decided that the subject merited a light touch scrutiny, over either a half or full day, to encompass partner agencies as parties to the joint working arrangements, as well as Hampshire County Council's role.

    3. Proposed Review

    3.1. The subject of the review is how public sector bodies and other key agencies in Hampshire prepare for the risk of, and respond to the occurrence of, flooding, and its impact on the residents of Hampshire.

    3.2. The key questions the review will consider are:

    · what arrangements are there in Hampshire for agencies to work together to assess and manage local flood risk from all sources, plan for flooding emergencies, and take appropriate preventative measures?

    · how has flooding in the county been dealt with during the last twelve months, and with what success ?

    3.3. Additional information relating to the review is contained in the attached Proposal document.

    4. Conclusions

    4.1. The topic is timely given the preparations that are on-going in the county in anticipation of a new Flood and Water Management Act; a draft Bill is currently being consulted on.

    4.2. The review, as proposed, sits comfortably alongside the other elements of the Environment and Transportation Select Committee forward work programme. The Committee would envisage the scrutiny event being open to all Councillors to attend, to provide the opportunity for a level of non-Executive participation that matches the degree of Member interest in the topic across the county.

PROPOSAL FOR THEMATIC SCRUTINY REVIEW - 8.6.09

* Delete as necessary

1. Name of Proposer:

Chairman of Environment and Transportation Select Committee

2. Subject of Review:

How public sector bodies and other key agencies in Hampshire prepare for the risk of, and respond to occurrences of, flooding and its impact on the residents of Hampshire

3. Objective of Review:

To review the partnership working underpinning current flood risk management and flood prevention arrangements in Hampshire, together with performance over the last year

4. Type of scrutiny*:

Policy Development / Policy Review / Decision Impact Review / Performance review / External Review

Please comment on all of the following:

5. What caused you to suggest this topic ?

In 2008, Hampshire County Council Environment and Transportation Select Committee were prompted by the Pitt Review Report (2008) recommendations 90 and 91 to consider flooding risk at their quarterly meeting in July. This allowed for real-time scrutiny of arrangements in Hampshire at the time for providing appropriate responses to the risk of flooding from both emergency planning and mitigation perspectives. At the meeting, Members agreed that they would wish to revisit the topic in a year's time, and accordingly the subject was placed in their forward Work Programme for 2009/10.

The Environment and Transportation Select Committee agreed at its April 2009 meeting that the subject merited a day's light touch scrutiny to encompass partner agencies as parties to the joint working arrangements, as well as Hampshire County Council's role.

6. What questions does the review need to answer?

    · What arrangements are there in Hampshire for agencies to work together to assess and manage local flood risk from all sources, plan for flooding emergencies , and take appropriate preventative measures ?

    · How has flooding in the county been dealt with during the last twelve months, and with what success?

7. What do you hope the outcome of the review would be?

    · To make transparent how public sector bodies and other key agencies are working together to protect the public from the risk of flooding and to mitigate that risk

    · To comment on the progress that has been made with joint working arrangements, and the impact of those arrangements for the benefit of Hampshire residents and environment over the last twelve months

    · To make recommendations to relevant bodies, as appropriate.

8. What evidence do you have that this review is necessary?

Sir Michael Pitt's Review of the Summer 2007 Floods was a landmark for flood risk management. Through describing the lessons to be learned, the author arrived at 92 recommendations aimed at ensuring that the country is better prepared for flooding, before, during and after it happens. The government response, published in 2008, supported changes in response to all of the recommendations, and a timetable has been published for taking the work forward.

Recommendations 90 and 91 proposed a key role for overview and scrutiny as a means of reviewing the work of public sector bodies and essential service providers that work on flooding issues. The government response was to leave it to local discretion as to how this might happen, but pointed towards scrutiny of the range of relevant partners by linking it with the scrutiny elements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; those elements of the Act include strengthening scrutiny's role in respect of reviewing partner agencies, and have now been implemented nationally.

9. Please comment on any factors that should affect the timing / reasons why this is good timing

The timing of the review, which is in the Committee's work programme, was agreed for July 2009; this was to support a twelve month perspective on the subject which was first considered by the Committee members in July 2008. It was recognised that developments would happen through the implementation of the Pitt Review during 2008-09, and that Hampshire would be adapting its approach during that time.

It is understood that considerable work has gone into preparing for the changes in Hampshire, and this would make it timely to review these, together with performance over the last year eg. flooding in February 2009.

The Committee decided that they could not do justice to the topic through real-time scrutiny at a quarterly meeting, so decided to timetable dedicated time outside the quarterly meeting cycle for after the elections eg. late summer.

10. Who are the key stakeholders in this area ?

    · the public

    · county, district and borough councils

    · partnerships eg Flood Emergency Response Group,

    · Health

    · Fire and Rescue

    · Police

    · Water companies

    · Environment Agency

11. To what extent would the people Hampshire or the reputation of Hampshire County Council be at risk if this area is not improved?

Through its Hampshire Flood Response Plan, Hampshire County Council aims to ensure that, through working with partners, a co-ordinated and structured multi-agency response to flooding is in place, to protect residents, and the natural and built environment in the time of an emergency.

The potential hazards associated with flooding have been identified, assessed and ranked according to the severity of the potential impact and the likelihood of the occurrence; these appear in the Community Risk Register.

Seeking transparency, through scrutiny review, in the arrangements for ensuring that all that can be done is being done in Hampshire , particularly in the light of national developments during the last twelve months and the recently published Draft Flood and Water Management Bill (April 2009), will contribute towards increased public confidence.

Please add any information you have about the following:

12. Please give details of any previous or planned reviews of this topic area that you know of.

Pervious real-time scrutiny by HCC Environment and Transportation Select Committee - July 2008 (see para 5)

Various scrutinies focused on different aspects of flooding by other authorities eg. Devon 2008, Nottinghamshire 2007

13. Are there any imminent changes locally or nationally which are likely to have impact on this area?

A Draft Flood and Water Management Bill (April 2009) is going through Parliament; this is part of the government's response to the Pitt Report on the summer 2007 floods, and develops the existing national water strategy further. The aim of the Bill is to help protect people better from flooding, to manage water more sustainably, and to improve services to the public. The introduction of legislation will depend on the availability of parliamentary time.

The consequences of the Act, once passed, will impact on the county and its work with partner agencies. HCC is preparing a response to the consultation on the draft Bill.

14. What is the financial significance of this review area?

 

15. Any ideas about who should be involved in this review.

(see para. 10)

Please add any additional comments / information you want put forward in support of this proposal:

Scrutiny Officers will do any additional research necessary to complete this section:

16. Freshness of subject

Subject is very current

17. Recent or imminent similar reviews

Real-time scrutiny of the subject in 2008 by the Environment and Transportation Select Committee. See para 12.

18. Fit with Corporate priorities

Fit with Sustainable Community Strategy long term aim: Hampshire is acclaimed for conserving and using natural resources more efficiently, and for reducing and adapting to the effects of climate change

Fit with Local Area Agreement Environment Theme G: Adapt to consequences of climate change

Fit with corporate priority: Enhancing our Quality of Place

19. Financial management issues

Scrutiny team budget to be available to support expenditure incurred during the review. Eg. refreshments.

20. Estimated size of review, proposed method (& size of group) with rationale

Light touch scrutiny: half or full day review: scale and range to be agreed with new Environment and Transportation Select Committee chairman, after the election.

Invitation to Districts and Boroughs to be observers on the review group.

Public sector representatives and key partner agency representatives to be invited to present evidence on the day to a pre-agreed programme reflecting the objective and desired outcomes (paras 3 and 7)

Open to all County Councillors to attend

21. Suggested scope of the review

(see paras 5,6,7)

22. Possible Success Criteria

        - the provision of answers to the questions posed

        - the achievement of outcomes identified (para 7)

        - the formulation of recommendations, as appropriate, that are communicated to relevant decision making agencies and individuals

        - considered response to the review group's recommendations by decision making individuals and agencies

Name of Scrutiny Officer: Philippa Smart