Agenda item

By means of context, the Chair stated that OSB had previously agreed to reduce the number of scrutiny panels from five to two and that Democratic Services Officers had worked hard around this change. The report before Members included consultation with both Members and officers about how successful the change had been. The Chair invited the Head of Legal (People) to speak to the report before inviting discussion.

 

The Head of Legal (People) commented it was for OSB to decide on how it wanted to proceed based on the recommendations in the report. Whichever recommendation was agreed it was not a standalone solution to the problem of effective scrutiny. Addressing the issues and barriers to effective scrutiny included examining work programming, pre-decision scrutiny and effective policy development all of which required a wider piece of work.

 

The report provided the successes and challenges over the previous 12 months and included comments made by Members as part of the Scrutiny workshops carried out several weeks before.

 

The recommendations in the report were outlined for Members and questions were invited. The Chair emphasised the decision made by OSB was for the next 12 months and was not permanent, if necessary.

 

A Member commented that health scrutiny needed to be separated from the People Panel and expressed a preference for recommendation three in the report, as Adult Social Care and Health scrutiny complimented each other.

 

The Chair commented that having two scrutiny panels meant each of their remits was too large to be effective. As the constitution referred to health scrutiny in several places the Chair felt it was preferable to have a dedicated health scrutiny panel.

 

A Member commented that a return to the previous scrutiny structure was preferable, namely having separate panels that reflected council services. The Chair stated comparisons with other Councils showed the average number of scrutiny panels was three. A discussion took place about the resource implications of supporting an increased number of scrutiny panels. The Head of Legal commented that, while a consideration for the changes implemented in 2024, resources was not the only one and that improving the scrutiny function, focussing on outcomes and objectives, was a primary driver. 

 

The Interim Democratic Services Manager pointed out that a result of the scrutiny changes was a more collaborative approach with both Members and officers and that irrespective of OSB’s decision this approach was to continue going forward.

 

A Member commented it was difficult to see how scrutiny could be effective with fewer panels with larger remits and that a return to how to scrutiny used to work was preferable. The Chief Executive commented the way scrutiny worked previously was not necessarily what was required currently. The exercise carried out, resulting in the report before Members, covered the necessary bases. It was also important to realise that a recent LGA Peer Challenge had identified that scrutiny was a fundamental element of the Council’s work, and that further work needed to be done to ensure it was effective.

 

A Member stated a preference for recommendation three in the report and stated the People panel had done a good job over the last 12 months and that panel members had worked well together. He expressed thanks to both members of the panel and Democratic Services staff. Despite this there was a need to make the remit of the People Panel more streamlined.

 

A discussion took place regarding potential scrutiny structures which included a proposal including moving back to five scrutiny panels and a corporate affairs and audit element. Proponents of this option recognised this would require additional resource but given the nature of the issues facing the Council argued this would be the most logical choice for scrutiny structure.

 

A Member queried the time commitments of Democratic Services Officers spent on Scrutiny. It was clarified that prior to 2016 there had been a dedicated scrutiny team supporting the scrutiny function.

 

The Mayor, in attendance at the meeting, stated that whichever structure was agreed scrutiny needed to align more closely with the priorities of the Council Plan.

 

A Member commented the proposed seating amounts of the panels was too large and should be reduced. Doing so may have been more conducive to an increased number of panels. A conversation took place about the timings of panels. Some Members commented the current meeting time of 4.30pm was not entirely helpful to Members that worked or did not, while others stated having daytime meetings would disenfranchise those Members that worked. The Chair stated that, depending on the agreed structure, each panel should be held on a separate day with one held during the working day.

 

The Interim Democratic Services Manager stated that, in terms of the number of seats on each panel, the intention was to maximise participation from all groups. In terms of meeting dates and times, it was suggested that more work be undertaken to understand this more.

 

A discussion took place about what alternative scrutiny structures were available after which the Chair put the options in the report to the vote.

 

ORDERED that

 

1.    Recommendation three in the report be APPROVED namely a scrutiny configuration consisting of:

·         Overview and Scrutiny Board.

·         Place Scrutiny Panel (covering Environment and Regeneration).

·         Adult Social Care and Health Scrutiny Panel.

·         Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel..

2.    Scrutiny Panels meet on different days of the week.