Written evidence submitted by Worcestershire County Council [OSG 033]

The following comments were gathered during a designated workshop, to which all of the Council's members were invited. A Notice of Motion agreed at Council asked for a whole-Council workshop to be held, to gather members' views and contribute to the Select Committee Inquiry. Comments were sought on the specific issues listed in your terms of reference.

Particularly given the timescales, it was not feasible to seek or obtain a consensus on all the points and so the various views of members have been collated and presented, although they do not necessarily represent a consensus or majority viewpoint within the Council unless stated to do so.

The Overview and Scrutiny structure at Worcestershire County Council is made up of an over-arching Scrutiny Board, supported by four Panels and a separate Health Committee, and time limited task and finish groups.

Q1 Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision-makers to account

Councillors held various views:

• Many councillors think that scrutiny committees are not effective at challenging decision-makers. 'Holding decision-makers to account' is not the same as checking if things are going well, and the fact is that people don't like being scrutinised
• A common view is that scrutiny task and finish groups work well where the detail of an issue can be understood, and are a better mechanism than formal scrutiny committees
• Given the role of scrutiny, there can be a lack of outcomes, as all decisions remain taken by the executive
• There was a danger if an authority has an over-arching Scrutiny Committee, that it may be over-controlling and too prescriptive and Scrutiny Committees should have more flexibility to determine their own work programmes and respond to new issues
• Scrutiny needs sufficient resources, profile and status to be effective, acting through scrutiny officers with sufficient seniority/status in the organisation
• For Scrutiny to be effective, Directorates need to 'buy-in' to the role of Scrutiny , as they owe duties to the whole Council, not just the executive, and need to provide detailed, accurate information, and provide ready access to relevant staff – 'Knowledge is power'
• To be effective, Scrutiny needs to be able to take direct evidence from more providers and service users
• Lack of enthusiasm from members is an issue
• Member training is important, especially how to chair meetings and how to question witnesses
• Scrutiny relationships should be challenging not confrontational
• Building a knowledge base is important, requiring more preparation, research and information before looking at an issue, for example on policy, finance and staffing – more work should be done outside of a meeting than in it, with members prepared to do this
• Scrutiny should be evidence-based; it is only as good as the evidence submitted

Q2 The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives

• Looking deeply into an issue with cross-party membership reduces political partiality
• Party politics doesn’t come into it – it is about improving services for residents and investigating genuine concerns
• There are no political group discussions before scrutiny meetings, but in terms of policy development - there will be political partiality
• There have never been any party whips in our scrutiny
• Members should try to be apolitical but inevitably and realistically, there may be times when political points are made especially when the press are present in public meetings

• Opposition groups should scrutinise and the ruling administration shouldn't have seat on the over-arching Scrutiny Committee

• Attendance of members at panel meetings is an issue
• The role of the church and education representatives needs reviewing as they rarely attend meetings

Q3 Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised

• There is a clear consensus that the answer is 'Yes, definitely'
• Status and seniority of scrutiny officers in terms of information gathering and gaining cooperation from witnesses can be an issue

Q4 How chairs and members are selected

• The chairman should be the most capable person to do the job irrespective of political party
• A number of opposition members felt that all Chairmen of Scrutiny bodies should be opposition members, as they are more able to challenge than members of the administration, due to the nature of politics
• They should be appointed by the Scrutiny Panel itself, rather than the Council
• Opposition chairman would be a gesture if panels were politically balanced

Q5 Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate

• Powers are adequate; very few instances of witnesses not attending; health organisations are particularly co-operative
• There should be some powers in scrutiny to call back senior staff (who have left employment) for questioning eg. contractual or legal power
• Cabinet Members should attend scrutiny when requested
• Cabinet Members should routinely attend scrutiny
• Clearer powers to summon external organisations may be helpful
• Better publicity of scrutiny would aid its reputation

Q6 The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users

• 5000 responses were received in response to the request for issues to scrutinise when settling the last work programme
• Should issue a press release before every scrutiny meeting to encourage public attendance
• Formal meetings are intimidating for service users; it's better to go to their environment

Q7 How topics for scrutiny are selected

• Panel
• Work Programme Consultation
• Scrutiny requisition form for members is a good idea
• Cabinet Member Reports to Council should go to Scrutiny
• Scrutiny Chairman should attend directorate performance management meetings
• Some Cabinet Members tip off scrutiny about any concerns they may have
• The process of identifying topics for scrutiny is an issue and the notice of motion mechanism is used more than the opportunities given to put ideas forward
• Scrutiny should be about scrutinising policy, not developing policy
• Scrutiny should be helpful

Q8 The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)

• Scrutiny needs a top level officer champion and it would be good to have someone senior at the table during meetings
• There are benefits in having directorate scrutiny liaison officers acting as a link

Q9 What use is made of specialist external advisers

• Helpful to have the ability to call on them, but used little in practice, cost implications
• External expertise can be instrumental in forming recommendations

Q10 The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations

• Health Scrutiny works well, through a specialist HOSC
• Little done outside the Council's own functions and should do more
• Becoming more of an issue as services are commissioned out

Q11 The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities [less relevant for this Council, and no comments]

Q12 Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well 

• A common view is that task groups are more effective in getting into the detail of an issue, developing understanding, gathering evidence and obtaining better outcomes
• The following are examples of where scrutiny has worked well, all of which were via task groups: Malvern Hills Outdoor Education Centre becoming a Community Interest Company, Malvern Youth Centre, Highway Maintenance, Flooding – involving other partners, Anti-bullying

March 2017