Archived decisions

Item 8

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. A Hampshire Scrutiny Conference was held in April 2009 involving scrutiny Members from Hampshire District and Borough Councils and the County Council. This event was held as part of the work of the Policy & Resources Select Committee in relation to developing relationships with partners and responding to recent legislation affecting scrutiny (see contextual information below). The event provided a valuable networking opportunity for Hampshire Scrutiny Members, and produced constructive discussion around how Hampshire can respond to the emerging agenda for scrutiny. Next steps were discussed, and opportunities for developing networks at both Member and Officer level have been identified.

1.2. It is expected relationships with Districts/Boroughs and other partners will continue to be part of this committee's planned work programme. Further work will need to be undertaken to develop joint scrutiny and scrutiny of partners and partnerships in Hampshire. Regulations are awaited to clarify the powers scrutiny committees have in relation to these areas. Hampshire County Council's response to these arrangements will be developed in discussion with District and Borough colleagues.

2. Contextual Information

2.1. The Policy and Resources Select Committee undertook a Review of the existing arrangements supporting the scrutiny function at Hampshire County Council during 2007/08. One of the recommendations from this review, endorsed by the Cabinet in 2008, suggested that:

"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."

2.2. Since October 2008, the Chairmen of the Select Committees have been involved in visits to their scrutiny colleagues at Hampshire District and Borough Councils, in order to share information and build constructive working relationships with their fellow Scrutiny Members.

2.3. As a result of these meetings, it was decided to hold a Hampshire Scrutiny Conference, to provide an opportunity for all Hampshire lead Scrutiny Members to network and share views regarding the direction of travel for scrutiny in Hampshire. This conference was held on 21 April 2009, and every District and Borough in Hampshire was represented. A note of what took place on the day is attached at Appendix 1.

2.4. This conference was timely due to elements of recent legislation coming into force in April 2009 which amend scrutiny powers.

3. Emerging Legislation

3.1 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (hereafter LGPIH Act 2007) gave more powers to local government to request information from other partner organisations, including bodies such as the Environment Agency. It also brought in other provisions that affect how scrutiny committees work, including powers over the creation of joint committees, and powers to resolve local problems through the Councillor Call for Action (hereafter CCfA). In addition, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill was published in December 2008 and is currently progressing through parliament, and elements of this Bill add to/amend provisions in the LGPIH Act 2007.

3.2 The CCfA powers came into force on 1 April 2009 and have subsequently been supported by regulations and statutory guidance (a more detailed report on this element is a separate item on the agenda at this meeting).

3.3 Another element of the LGPIH Act 2007 which, along with the CCfA provision, supports Members role in relation to helping address problems on behalf of their local communities, is section 236. This allows that `arrangements may be made in accordance with this section' to provide for decision making power to be delegated from the Executive to a local member, in order for them to take action about a local matter. This provision came into force on 1 April 2009. Regulations and guidance have been produced to support this provision, and give examples of what type of powers might be delegated under this part of the act such as street repairs and providing grants to local community projects. At the March meeting of the Policy & Resources Select Committee Members requested a briefing note be prepared on this provision and be circulated to all members. This is currently being developed.

3.4 Regulations are currently being drafted regarding other aspects of the LGPIH Act 2007, relating to District Council powers to scrutinise aspects of the Local Area Agreement, and local authority powers to request information from partner authorities. These regulations are expected to be confirmed before parliamentary summer recess.

3.5 The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill (hereafter LDEDC Bill) is currently progressing through parliament, and elements of this bill add to/amend provisions in the LGPIH Act 2007. It is anticipated the Bill will receive Royal Assent before parliamentary summer recess, and that regulations and guidance will be developed in the autumn. Elements of the LGPIH Act 2007 regarding joint scrutiny committees and scrutiny of partnerships/partnership working have not had regulations made yet, because the LDEDC Bill potentially extends the scope of these elements. Discussion groups were held at the conference regarding how Hampshire may respond to the direction legislation is leading for scrutiny in relation to joint scrutiny and scrutiny of partners/partnerships.

3.6 The LDEDC Bill also includes provisions to strengthen how local authorities respond to petitions. This has a potential impact on scrutiny, as the Bill provides for a petition to be brought to a scrutiny committee for the committee to review the adequacy of the steps taken by the authority in response to the petition. During consultation local authorities have expressed concern regarding how petitions might be managed, and it is expected guidance and regulations would be produced to support this element of the Bill, to assist local authorities in developing procedures to respond to this duty.

3.7 Another element in the LDEDC Bill is a proposed requirement that local authorities (with the exception of District Councils in two tier areas) designate one of their officers a `scrutiny officer'. The intention is that this raises the profile of scrutiny by making this role a statutory requirement.

3.8 Legislation affecting scrutiny was also contained in the Police and Justice Act 2006, which introduced provisions for the establishment of Overview & Scrutiny Committees for crime and disorder matters. Supporting regulations came into force on 30 April 2009, and guidance on this was published in May 2009. A report was presented to County Council on 15 June 2009 regarding amendments to the constitution, including an amendment to the terms of reference of the Safe & Healthy People Select Committee to include scrutiny of crime and disorder matters within its remit, in order to comply with this legislation. A report on the crime & disorder scrutiny powers is due to be presented to the Safe & Healthy People Select Committee on 24 July 2009. However, the legislation allows for the option of crime and disorder scrutiny being undertaken via a joint committee involving more than one local authority. This possibility was discussed at the conference.

4 Outcomes from the Conference

4.1 Three discussion groups were held at the Hampshire Scrutiny Conference held in April relating to key areas emerging from recent legislation: Scrutiny of Partnerships, Approaches to Joint District/County Scrutiny, and Approaches to Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder. Feedback from these sessions suggest that the following next steps would be helpful:

· Set up an officer e-group across all Hampshire Local Authorities to facilitate information sharing (e.g. of work programmes, good practice, latest policy information etc). This would also provide a forum for discussion as new legislation/regulations emerge - it is anticipated this will be up and running by August

· Create a `who is who' directory of scrutiny leads in Hampshire at Member and officer level, with contact details and information about each Local Authorities scrutiny committee structure. This will be shared with all Hampshire Local Authorities/made available online - it is anticipated this will be available by August

· Consider existing arrangements for joint health networks (such as the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee) and whether these could be adapted to form the basis of a Hampshire scrutiny network - County and District/Borough lead Scrutiny Members and relevant officers to be consulted on a proposed terms of reference for the network, seeking to reach agreement on the way forward by the end of September

· Hampshire Local Authorities scrutiny representatives to agree a local approach to Crime and Disorder Scrutiny following the publication of the relevant guidance. If a joint network has been established this forum may be appropriate to discuss how we take this forward in Hampshire - a meeting of the joint network, if agreed, will be arranged for the autumn to consider this

· Once guidance/regulations are published regarding scrutiny powers in relation to partners and joint scrutiny, Hampshire Local Authorities scrutiny representatives will be invited to consider Hampshire's response to these powers.

5 Conclusions

5.1 The committee is requested:

· to note the contents of this report

· to endorse follow up on these issues being part of this committee's ongoing work programme

· to commission the Scrutiny Team to progress the actions as indicated in section 4 above, as regulations and guidance emerge

5.2 In particular, the committee is asked to approve the proposal to discuss with District & Borough colleagues the possibility of a Hampshire Scrutiny Members Network being established, with a view to holding a meeting in the Autumn. Hampshire Select Committee Chairmen will be kept informed about this, as will their District/Borough equivalents.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy

Other Significant Links

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS: Not required as this report is not seeking a decision

Hampshire Scrutiny Conference

Date: 21 April 2009

Venue: East Horton Golf Centre

1. Introduction

Cllr Michael Cartwright, Chairman of the Policy & Resources Select Committee at Hampshire County Council, opened the day by welcoming the delegates and introducing the content of the day. He noted it was good to see all the Hampshire districts/boroughs represented.

2. Scrutiny, Democracy and Improvement - What is the point of scrutiny?!

Key note speaker Chris Lawrence-Pietroni from the Local Government Association gave a presentation about the current context of scrutiny. He put forward the view that scrutiny is important for democracy and improvement, and acknowledged that scrutiny is a difficult job. He noted that many members still regret the loss of the old committee system, and feel that scrutiny is a pale imitation of being involved in decision making, although he did not agree with this point of view. He then went on to describe the value of scrutiny, the following summarises key points:

Scrutiny can help with democratic renewal and service improvement, as well as partnership working. Unelected quangos can be held to account. Scrutiny can make a real difference to the lives of residents when it is used to ask the right questions. Local government lacks visible accountability in some areas e.g. Comprehensive Area Assessment, Local Area Agreements. These processes can be officer led and lack democratic representation. Scrutiny can help bring accountability to this. Trust and faith in public elected officials is in decline at present. The media scrutinise decision makers but in a way that is not necessarily helpful as their main agenda is selling their product. As an individual member of the public it is hard to hold public services like the NHS and the police to account, but this can be done through scrutiny. Scrutiny doesn't have to be negative, it can show up excellence, and it can shed light on issues of public interest e.g. plans for salting of the roads.

In relation to improvement, do we want national regulators to tell us whether what we are doing is good or bad, or do we want to do it ourselves? We can drive local improvement by taking responsibility for performance and undertaking this role ourselves (although it may be uncomfortable). Scrutiny is not easy, particularly in two tier areas, but it is useful.

A Question and answer session followed:

Q: Scrutiny lacks `teeth' to make the Executive accept recommendations.

A: Scrutiny is not a way of making decisions by the back door, it is there to open a window on decisions on behalf of the public. A well argued and evidenced report can be influential.

Q: Regarding the ability to scrutinise quangos, how could we do that?

A: Various agencies are now under a `duty to co-operate', scrutiny has the right to ask them for evidence when scrutinising topics. Furthermore, scrutiny committees shouldn't be limited by legislation, you can scrutinise anyone.

Q: Scrutiny can be successful when carefully scoped and doesn't duplicate. Some agencies are difficult to engage though e.g. Environment Agency

A: Some agencies will resist. Officers could brief Members on the opportunities available to them in relation to scrutinising other agencies. Scrutiny doesn't have to be confrontational. Can simply be a means to get people together and think about a subject differently.

Q: Fluoridation review was ignored by the Health body that made the decision.

A: The public may know the scrutiny took place and vote accordingly.

Q: Role of the media with scrutiny?

A: The media can be negative, but can be used to publicise scrutiny helpfully, though using the media can cause issues within councils.

Q: Scrutiny can get stuck in detail, lots of reports that `tick boxes', how to stand back from this and consider the issue?

A: This can happen, there are times when digging into the detail is necessary. Independence is important, not just accepting what senior officers say, and bringing the views of your residents into consideration.

3. Influential Scrutiny in Hampshire

Pauline Owen, a consultant from Concilio Associates, gave a presentation on the future direction of scrutiny. The following summarises key points:

Scrutiny has an essential role in looking at how public sector organisations work together and can help with the new duty to promote democracy. Scrutiny should be time well spent and useful. With increasing partnership working, behaviour will need to change to operate successfully in this way. When working with other organisations you don't always get your own way, and need to appreciate that different organisations work differently. Scrutiny will increasingly need to look outwards not inwards. Need to ask ourselves, what would success look like for scrutiny?

Challenging new legislation is imminent introducing the Comprehensive Area Assessment, the Councillor Call for Action, and the Duty to Involve etc. The CAA will look at ongoing relationships with other agencies, and is looking for outcomes not just paperwork. There is increased expectation to work in partnership. Scrutiny can be a learning process for the organisation to look at what it could do in the emerging climate.

CCfA will benefit from a check list of steps to go through before taking it to scrutiny and guidance regarding in what circumstances one may be rejected e.g. if vexatious. The CCfA was piloted in Kirklees, and focused on their arrangements for local level neighbourhood working, not many reached the scrutiny level.

Q: What scope do we have for impact on issues outside our control like post office closures?

A: There is scope to raise issues over anything there is public concern over which is public service related. The duty to participate gives scrutiny a wider remit of public services to engage in scrutiny. Hampshire working together is better than one organisation trying to tackle issues on their own.

Q: Reaching the public is hard, they rarely come to committee meetings

A: Need to use all tools available to communicate with the public including modern internet capabilities. Public meetings may have had their day.

4. The Hampshire Local Area Agreement

Robert Ormerod, Community Strategy Manager at Hampshire County Council, gave a presentation on the Hampshire Local Area Agreement. Vince Johnson, partnerships lead from Eastleigh Borough Council, contributed to the presentation to provide the district perspective. The following summarises key points:

The LAA is the main way that Government agrees priorities in each area and targets for local government and its partners, and is central to the way local government and its partners will be assessed from now on. The LAA contains local improvement targets. There is a potential role for scrutiny to check the systems in place to achieve them are working effectively, and to help ensure all partners are pulling their weight. Partnerships are complex and variable, some are formal, others are informal. Details were given of the partner agencies signed up to the LAA. The LAA process is here to stay regardless of political change nationally. There was a very demanding national timetable to get LAAs in place. The LAA was recently refreshed, which gave the opportunity to reflect any changes to the indicators included.

The County Council is the lead authority and had to sign off the LAA at full council. The LAA Board initially set priorities, but wasn't representative of all districts. The Hampshire Senate now provides the democratic direction setting role for the LAA. Strategic management of the LAA is done by the LAA Executive, an officer body chaired by HCC's Chief Executive. There are also individually named theme leads who assume accountability for targets within their theme (see below table). Delivery is by a range of agencies and partnerships.

The current LAA runs from April 08 to March 2011. Priorities are arranged under 8 themes. Progress will be measured using 33 national indicators and 13 local performance indicators (as well as 10 statutory education and early years targets). Targets have been agreed for all these indicators. The LAA isn't a new set of priorities or activity - moreover it consolidates the main joint priorities in a single place and promotes further alignment of activity and resources of partners behind these. The themes and priority areas were described. The variation in delivery was indicated, for example the Children and Young People theme is `owned' by the Children's Trust through the Children and Young Person's Plan, whereas most of the targets in the Accessibility and Transport theme are led and largely delivered by HCC's Environment Department without formal partnership arrangements. Vince Johnson from Eastleigh Borough Council indicated EBC were initially sceptical but now see the LAA as useful, recognising that the LAA priorities largely reflected local priorities for the council and the LSP.

Web addresses were provided for further information:

www.hants.gov.uk/localareaagreement

www3.hants.gov.uk/hampshire-senate.htm

LAA Themes and Leads:

5. Discussion Groups

a. Scrutiny of Partnerships

Background:

Provisions under the new legislation and guidance enable district overview and scrutiny functions to have an active role in scrutinising LAA targets and partners. Whilst regulations will ensure similar powers to the responsible authority (HCC), duplication should be minimised. Many authorities may also wish to review non- statutory partners. The primary focus in exercising these powers is intended to be openness and accountability and achieving positive outcomes for public services in an area. This is underpinned through Comprehensive Area Assessments which recognises the role of overview and scrutiny and looks for evidenced outcomes.

Questions considered by the discussion group:

· How do councils currently engage partners in their overview and scrutiny processes?

· What should be scrutinised; given the intense performance monitoring regime many agencies already face how do we add value without overburdening?

· Are there examples of good practice, co-option, communication and co-operation approaches, raising awareness of the benefits of scrutiny for partners?

Key Points from discussion:

· Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee has co-opted district members, chairman of the Local Involvement Network, specialist advisers

· Hart - developing scrutiny for Local Strategic Partnership using guidance from Progress through Partnerships (South East Employers) - involves an assessment of the partnership, embraced by the Leader and opposition Leader (chair of scrutiny)

· LAA - District scrutiny might focus attention on relevant issues for the area. Needs to be clear about what the LAA means for that district

· 2-3 districts may work together or may be asked to join county arrangements to provide a local perspective

· Fareham has clarified its key issues and commitments in relation to the LAA

· Experience of scrutinising health partners (not relating to the LAA)

· Fareham - Some unfortunate experience of county scrutiny of Hasler and delays caused by submission to Secretary of State resulted in other local facilities suffering (although there was involvement from Fareham)

· Experience of HOSC is positive and inclusive, information easily accessible - need to use and build on this model

· Good examples of witness days and scrutiny of wider public services e.g. Network Rail, Post Office etc

· Hampshire Action Teams might have a role in facilitating communications.

Areas for Follow up:

· Information and communication - Can we look at work programmes together to make opportunities to reduce duplication and join up including on how we scrutinise the LAA

· Also need to evaluate where scrutiny has been effective and share good practice

· Need to avoid disrupting partnership arrangements, focus on the outcome and ask the difficult questions about how the partnership is adding value

· Little capacity for support in Districts - need to share capacity

· Practicalities of daytime/evening meetings

b. Approaches to Joint District/County Scrutiny

Introduction:

How do we ensure that we set up joint committees in a way that is relevant and meaningful- ensuring that recommendations are properly directed to the `responsible authorities' to generate action and improvement. There are a number of `nuts and bolts' issues to consider as we take this work forward- as well as how we deal with a massive agenda around LAAs and building our local networks. Consideration needs to be given as to whether a standing joint committee is the way forward, or whether ad hoc joint pieces of work through joint task and finish groups is more appropriate.

Joint Committee arrangements:

· Consideration needs to be given to who is on the Committee and the timings of meetings, noting that districts tend to meet in the evening whilst the county meetings are generally during the day- a key principle of accessibility and inclusiveness needs to underpin any arrangements established.

· Thought needs to be given to who is the Chairman of any Joint Committee set up and how the agenda is managed/controlled

· What about political proportionality

· Consideration needs to be given to whether it is helpful for the scrutiny work of the Joint Committees to be subject to party political influence- this could undermine working relationships and credibility. There are excellent examples of members from different parties working together to agree a response to an issue of local concern.

· Where will the meetings be held?

· Feedback from meetings needs to be targeted- being escalated or `down and out' as appropriate.

We will need to:

· Understanding the priorities of any committee will be essential

· Think through how we ensure that the county wide issues are addressed without being parochial- whilst recognising the work that needs to take place in a more local context (e.g. single or 2-3 districts)

· Give thought to how and when we engage with the public- bearing in mind the difficulties that many members have in generating public interest in their work

· Understand the key roles and responsibilities that we each have- this will stop us blaming each other about an issue over which there may be no opportunity to influence

· Think through what success may look like, bearing in mind that we may not be able to change the outcome of a decision

· Communications will be vital- how do we feed issues to each other

Possible next steps:

· Set up a `who is who' directory for scrutiny leads in Hampshire- could initially be hosted be HCC (or HIOWLA?)- who is the lead for scrutiny in each Hampshire Local Authority

· Build understanding of district/county collective responsibilities

· Engage with and build trust across partners in the system- ensure that scrutiny is not seen as a way of penalising others

· Set some realistic goals based on what is achievable and pragmatic- go for an early win- scope work with care

· Shape public and partner expectations of what can and can't be delivered by scrutiny

· Do as much as possible virtually

· Be transparent and open in the conduct of scrutiny

· Don't increase workload of partners/ each other unless we are clear about the benefits/improvements to be achieved

· Look at arrangements for Joint Health networks in Hampshire and South Central- could these be adapted?

c. Approaches to Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder

Introduction:

The Police and Justice Act 2006 introduced provisions for the establishment of Overview and Scrutiny Committees for crime and disorder matters. Regulations regarding crime and disorder scrutiny are due to come into force on 30 April 2009. The key provisions in the Act relating to Overview and Scrutiny include:

- all local authorities will be expected to put in place arrangements, either individually or jointly with other local authorities, for committees which will review, scrutinise, and report on the decisions made and action taken by `responsible authorities' under the Crime and Disorder Act i.e. by the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership/Community Safety Partnership (CDRP/CSP) partners

- there is no requirement on a local authority to set up a separate committee if it already has one that includes crime and disorder

- enables the crime and disorder committee to set up one or more sub-committees and arrange for the discharge of its functions by any such committee

- allows crime and disorder committees or sub-committees to co-opt people who are not members of the authority

Questions the discussion group considered:

· How are Crime and Disorder /Community Safety issues scrutinised at present across the County ?

· What plans do local authorities have to implement the new Crime and Disorder overview and scrutiny responsibilities (Police and Justice Act 2006, and Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009)?

· Are there any examples of good practice in respect of matters included in the Regulations e.g. co-option, frequency of meetings, information, responding to recommendations?

Key Points from the discussion:

· LGIU conference message was that the regulations are intended to be flexible and the duty can be accommodated within existing structures - an existing committee could take on this role and that would be acceptable

· Expecting guidance to come out soon to support the regulations, which are due to come into force at the end of April 09

· The legislation on this originated from the review of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships which recognised the issue of their public accountability. The intention is to focus more on the partnership working aspects of this area of work, not just on specific issues

· The regulations require 1 meeting a year where C&D issues are considered

· At Hampshire County Council Crime and Disorder issues come under the remit of the Safe & Healthy People Select Committee, intend to use this committee to meet the regulations

· Went round the table and found that how C&D issues are scrutinised at present varies across authorities, and is often subject specific

· Interest was expressed in the potential for a joint committee that could look at common/collective C&D issues and share good practice, and potentially look at partnership working issues in this area not just topics that fit under the C&D umbrella

· Would be good to avoid duplication e.g. police being called in by various authorities about the same thing, would be good to have a way of filtering up issues of interest/concern to see if there is a wider issue and a possible broader solution

· Safer neighbourhood teams, feedback received that these work well and involve residents

Follow Up:

· General agreement that it would be helpful for our authorities to get together again when the guidance is out to discuss further how we might take forward Crime and Disorder scrutiny in Hampshire.

· Question raised regarding if the accountability for the LAA lies with the Leader of authorities, if other Executive Members could sit on scrutiny panels looking at these issues

6. Close

Representatives from each discussion group fed back the key points from their discussion to all delegates. Cllr Michael Cartwright thanked everyone for coming and contributing to a productive day. It was noted that this event was the first steps of an ongoing piece of work to develop scrutiny in Hampshire in response to new legislation, and that anything taken forward as a result would be done together.

PRESENT

Tom Smith - Chairman, Hampshire Local Involvement Network

Chris Lawrence-Pietroni - Local Government Association

Pauline Owen - Independent Consultant, Concilio Associates