Agenda item

The Interim Manager of Democratic Services was in attendance to provide the Board with a presentation in relation to scrutiny work planning. 

 

Background was provided in relation to the scrutiny function and changes to the scrutiny structure in Middlesbrough, as agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Board at its previous meeting on 7 May 2024.

 

It was highlighted that, as the parent body, the Overview and Scrutiny Board would continue to oversee the work of the two newly formed Scrutiny Panels – People and Place.  The scrutiny process itself would largely continue as it had done previously, with the relevant Directors attending each of the Panels’ first meetings in July, to provide a service overview of the areas within the Panels’ remits, whilst highlighting priorities for the forthcoming year. 

 

Both Scrutiny Panels would also consider a Work Programme report setting out relevant topic suggestions that had been received as part of the consultation exercise seeking suitable topics.  The Panels would set their own proposed work programmes and this would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Board for approval.  It was suggested that the Panels should chose no more than three topics.  Democratic Services Officers would meet with Chairs and Vice Chairs during August to scope the selected topics and reviews would commence in September.

 

Reference was made to the role and responsibilities of Scrutiny Chairs which included providing regular updates on the Panels’ work to the Overview and Scrutiny Board and presenting Final Reports to the Executive.

 

Prior to commencing a scrutiny investigation, Chairs would be expected to work with the Panel to determine key lines of enquiry and terms of reference for the topic and to hold planning meetings with the Democratic Services Officers.

 

During the course of a review, in conjunction with Democratic Services Officers, Chairs would ensure that the review adhered to the terms of reference, ensure any witnesses were briefed accordingly and to consider the format of the meeting.

 

During Scrutiny Panel meetings, the Chair would be expected to introduce the meeting and guests and to explain the purpose of the meeting.  It was important to ensure the meeting did not become confrontational and stayed on topic, avoiding personal and/or Ward issues unless relevant to the review, to identify and allocate any tasks and to recap at the end of the meeting to identify any actions.

 

All Scrutiny Panel Members would be invited to contribute towards:-

 

·         Agenda Setting – suggesting areas for investigation and to identify relevant witnesses that would contribute to the current topic.

·         Preparation – ensure meeting dates were in their diaries; read through the agenda pack prior to the meeting; prepare questions/possible areas of challenge; stick to the agenda and stay on topic.

·         Evidence Gathering – research the topic, question witnesses, visit other organisations/relevant witnesses and report back to the Panel.

 

The role of Democratic Services Officers would be to arrange the meetings; prepare and publish agendas, reports and minutes; undertake research when requested by the Panel; liaise with officers and external organisations/services regarding input into the review and to brief witnesses attending meetings to give evidence; support Chairs to write Final Reports and arrange for submission to OSB and Executive; monitor progress of scrutiny recommendations and feed back to the Panels.

 

Under the new scrutiny arrangements, each of the Scrutiny Panels and the Overview and Scrutiny Board would be supported by two Democratic Services Officers in order to try and maintain continuity and to avoid meeting cancellations where possible, for example, during periods of holiday or sickness.

 

During the course of discussion, the following issues were raised:-

 

·         It was queried which scrutiny panel would scrutinise the areas of finance and legal and democratic services.  It was confirmed that as they were central services of the Council this would usually be OSB.

 

·         In response to a query regarding how many final reports had been submitted to the Executive from the Scrutiny Panels last year, it was confirmed that just three final reports had been submitted to Executive from the five scrutiny panels, two of which had been carried over from the previous year. 

 

·         In response to a question around the completion of the previous Environment Scrutiny Panel’s final report, it was confirmed that, at its first meeting, the new Place Scrutiny Panel would have the opportunity to determine how it wished to proceed and whether it wished to continue to finalise a report for the Executive.

 

·         Reference was made to monitoring progress on scrutiny recommendations and clarification was provided that this would commence from the current year, however, should Members wish to be provided with an update in relation to previous recommendations, the relevant service area could be asked to provide an update.

 

A Democratic Services Officer, continued the presentation, providing further details in relation to work programming and referred to guidance issued by Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS).  This included:-

 

·         What makes a good scrutiny topic – critical to the Council’s strategic plan; a big priority or concern to the community – affecting all or many people in the town; a major potential risk or threat; important opportunity or policy change.

·         Forming a good work plan that should be Member-led with leadership from Chairs with clear process and methodology and an end goal/objective in mind.

·         Knowing where ideas from the work plan should come from, such as the Council’s corporate plan, strategic documents, executive forward plans and key decisions, suggestions from officers, Members and other stakeholders through consultation exercise.

·         What makes a weak scrutiny topic – politically motivated, repetitious, micro-managing, backward looking.

 

It was highlighted that the criteria for selecting suitable topics should include topics that fell within corporate or community priorities, topics identified by partners that were of joint concern, where the service was performing poorly or high levels of dissatisfaction, where a review was likely to result in improvements for local people. 

 

Criteria for rejecting topics included where a topic had already been addressed in the last 12 months; the topic was purely to provide Members with information; the topic was unlikely to result in improvements for the community and where scrutiny activity was unlikely to add value to Council priorities.

 

Information was provided on implementing the work plan which should be flexible to reflect changing or emerging priorities and also to manage the work programming process in terms of identifying key witnesses and how many meetings the review was likely to take.  Outcomes from the review should have a high impact.

 

A discussion ensued and the following issues were raised:-

 

·         Reference was made to instances where scrutiny may only need to hold one meeting to consider the issue it wished to examine, or a one-off meeting to consider an urgent matter, and it was queried whether the same process would apply in terms of producing a final report.  It was stated that where any recommendations came out of the meeting, these could be compiled into a briefing note with recommendations for the Executive to consider.

 

·         It was acknowledged that liaison between Overview and Scrutiny Board and the Executive was critical and it was queried whether external organisations could be required to attend scrutiny as there had been occasions where, after agreeing to attend scrutiny meetings, they had failed to attend.  It was clarified that internal Council officers and Members and representatives of other public bodies, such as the Police and Health Services, could be required to attend scrutiny meetings.  External organisations could be invited to attend but could not be ordered to attend.

 

·         Reference was made to not focussing review topics on one specific ward and it was queried how issues in that ward could be dealt with.  It was suggested that Ward Councillors could speak to neighbouring and other area ward councillor to determine whether those issues existed elsewhere in the town and, if so, whether it was a matter for scrutiny or needed to be dealt with through the correct processes. 

 

The Officers were thanked for their presentation and the information provided.

 

AGREED that the information provided be noted.