Written evidence submitted by Leeds City Council [OSG 043]
Leeds City Council welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s consideration of whether overview and scrutiny arrangements in England are working effectively and whether local communities are able to contribute to and monitor the work of their councils.
Leeds City Council operates a Leader and Cabinet form of Executive governance – although importantly without individual decision making authority delegated to Executive Members. In Leeds Executive decisions are either taken collectively by our Executive Board or by Officers under comprehensive delegation (and sub delegation) schemes.
Leeds City Council has fully embraced the requirements of the 2000 Act in respect of the categorisation of Key Decisions (a financial impact of £250k or significant impact on an area comprising one ward), Call in arrangements for Key Decisions and the publication of other decisions (significant operational decisions) to aid transparency and scrutiny.
The authority has also positively implemented the requirements of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 which require publication of decisions in relation to certain Council functions. Whilst not providing a mechanism for Call In by Scrutiny the approach enables access by councillors and the public to details of how the council’s policies are being implemented thereby providing a ‘hook’ for scrutiny. Leeds City Council was a leading authority in implementation of the regulations and many authorities sought to learn from the practice and procedure adopted.
Leeds City Council has operated varying structures of overview and scrutiny arrangements since they were introduced by the Local Government Act in 2000. The arrangements have been either been broadly based upon Executive Member Portfolio responsibilities or with direct reference to Officer Executive delegations.
Both approaches have provided a counterweight to the decision-making powers categorised by the executive arrangements introduced in 2000. The Communities and Local Government Committee has posed a range of questions which are responded to below in turn. This submission is informed by input from our Scrutiny Chairs and the Deputy Leader of Council.
Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision-makers to account and the effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations
This is the most fundamental aspect of the questions being posed as part of the CLG Inquiry.
Scrutiny is sometimes perceived to be ‘the opposition’. This is not the case. Strong and effective governance arrangements should incorporate robust scrutiny and there should be no conflict between the ambition of council to be the best that it can and the role of scrutiny in driving improvements in services. This was demonstrated in 2015 when the effectiveness of the scrutiny function in Leeds was assessed as part of the Ofsted inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services.
The Centre for Public Scrutiny’s ‘Good Scrutiny principles’
Have been incorporated into our Constitution and we would recommend that this is the norm for all authorities.
Given the increasing enabling role of local authorities we are convinced that the future strength of scrutiny lies in its outward looking nature, including assessing the role of external partners in delivering services.
Nationally high profile shortcomings have been exposed through the scrutiny process, including child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, poor care and high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and governance failings in Tower Hamlets. At Leeds City Council we too have led detailed scrutiny which has identified shortcomings of significance. Leeds was the lead authority for a Yorkshire and Humber Councils’ Joint Health Scrutiny Committee to respond to the national review and consultation around proposals for the organisation and delivery of Children’s Cardiac Surgery Services.
Established in March 2011, the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC), led and supported by Leeds City Council, was established to make an assessment of and, where appropriate, recommendations on the potential options to reconfigure the delivery of Children’s Congenital Heart Services in England.
The JHOSC – made up of representatives from all the 15 top-tier local authorities across Yorkshire and the Humber – published its first report in October 2011. This sent a very clear message to the Secretary of State for Health, as well as those responsible for carrying out the review, that children and families across Yorkshire and the Humber would be disproportionately disadvantaged if the existing surgical centre in Leeds was not retained in any future service model.
In response to the decision to close the Paediatric Cardiac Surgery Unit in Leeds, the JHOSC published a second report in November 2012 referring the matter to the Secretary of State for Health for detailed consideration. The Secretary of State for Health commissioned the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) to undertake a full examination of the Safe and Sustainable review process and associated decisions.
Both of the JHOSC’s reports helped form the basis for a successful judicial review of the decision to close the Unit, led by Save Our Surgery Ltd. and were taken as evidence by the IRP in its review commissioned by the Secretary of State for Health.
On 12 June 2013, in his statement suspending the Safe and Sustainable review process, the Secretary of State for Health confirmed the findings of the JHOSC, stating:
“The Safe & Sustainable review was based on a flawed analysis of the impact of incomplete proposals, and leaves too many questions about sustainability and implementation. This is clearly a serious criticism of the Safe & Sustainable process. I therefore accept their recommendation that the proposals cannot go ahead in their current form and am suspending the review today.”
The JHOSC sought to use the full extent of its health scrutiny powers to initially challenge the proposals and then refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Health. The concerns and criticisms highlighted by the JHOSC were vindicated by the IRP’s findings, which subsequently resulted in the reversal of a decision that, otherwise, may have gone unchallenged. Other examples are contained in our annual reports to our full Council. The last three years’ reports are attached.
The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
Yes in Leeds it does. Scrutiny Boards are represented by all major party groups. Discussion and decision making are non-political. There’s clear understanding their functions are separate from each other and Chairs of the Board come from the three largest political groups (3x largest political group, 2xlargest opposition group, 1x next largest).
Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised and whether 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)
As CLG will be aware there are requirements placed on local authorities to designate which overview and scrutiny committee has responsibility for:
• Scrutiny of NHS bodies;
• Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder.
In respect of NHS scrutiny, changes to the way in which the NHS is organised and/or organises itself can have resource and other implications for local authorities. For example, the recent and ongoing development of Sustainability and Transformation Plans across footprints (determined by NHS England) that cut across local authority boundaries. Such developments not only increases the need for formal joint scrutiny arrangements to be in place (an additional activity and competing demand for resources), but there are examples where local authority areas are split across different STP areas. For example, areas with the North Yorkshire County Council boundary form part of three separate STP areas. The associated increase in demand for resources is not within the direct control of local authorities. While there are example of very effective joint scrutiny (see above), CLG might want to give some specific consideration to whether the need for joint scrutiny is likely to increase (particularly in relation to scrutiny of the NHS) and how such arrangements are resourced effectively.
In addition the Scrutiny function comes under focus from Ofsted as part of their inspection regime of local authority services for children. In 2015 Ofsted inspectors sought reassurance that the Director of Children’s Services in Leeds received robust support and challenge through effective scrutiny. This was evidenced, and their findings were incorporated in the published inspection report.
Taken alone these functions are substantial and when added to the wide range of other statutory functions of local authorities which require oversight CLG may wish to consider a method or formulae by which dedicated resources might can be ring-fenced to support independent scrutiny functions.
Leeds is fortunate in that within the overall reduction in resources the authority has been creative and continued to have 6 separate Scrutiny boards with independence. There is broad equality of officer support to those boards. However resources have been tough in the last couple of years and now 3 dedicated members of staff to support those 6 boards which does provide concern due to large work load pressures being placed on individuals, with no back-up cover for any unplanned absences. It is true to say that recent reductions in local authority budgets have had an impact on resources available to Scrutiny. In Leeds our Scrutiny chairs have commented that we are at the point of becoming potentially less effective as a result.
We do in Leeds however understand the wider financial pressures and scrutiny in that respect is no different to other local authority service areas.
How chairs and members are selected
In Leeds there are 6 Scrutiny Boards – the ruling Administration determines the number of Chair roles to be undertaken by opposition groups and which Boards will be chaired by those groups (the Board covering Children’s Services functions being routinely chaired by an opposition councillor).
Chairs are nominated differently by different party groups. E.g. Labour Group Chair nominees are elected (with Executive Members being unable to vote) whereas in the Conservative group the Chair is nominated by the leader of the group and in the Liberal Democrat Group the Chair is nominated by election. In all cases full Council formally appoints the nominees.
From our experience at Leeds City Council we do not see the need for government to legislate or provide guidance around these matters.
Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate
As previously mentioned, we are convinced that the future strength of scrutiny lies in its outward looking nature, including assessing the role of others (businesses, voluntary and community groups, and other public sector bodies) in delivering outcomes for local people. However, existing legislation does not provide for local authority scrutiny to have a recognised and legitimate role in scrutinising external partners and particularly other public sector bodies when their actions have an impact locally. As such, we have to rely on the goodwill of external partners to engage with scrutiny and this can often frustrate the scrutiny process whenever invitations are declined.
We are able to demonstrate this in relation to a particular scrutiny inquiry that was undertaken surrounding the management of a local landfill site that had a longstanding history of breaching its environmental permit standards. In tracking the recommendations arising from this inquiry, further questions were raised by scrutiny regarding the robustness of the approach taken by the Environment Agency (EA) in regulating this particular landfill site. The EA was therefore recently invited back to a public meeting of the Scrutiny Board. However, the EA had refused to commit any further resources to attending meetings of the Scrutiny Board on this matter and agreed to only respond to any questions in writing.
The EA set out its position in a letter directed to the Chair of the Scrutiny Board (Link to EA letter to Scrutiny). However, as the Scrutiny Board continued to voice its concerns regarding the lack of attendance by the EA, a separate working group meeting was eventually held with the EA which enabled the Scrutiny Board to gain a better understanding of the key challenges and to also identify appropriate next steps together.
Work undertaken by local scrutiny continues to have strong links to decisions and actions made by other public sector bodies, for example, we are continuing to scrutinise the local impacts of the government’s welfare reform programme and in doing so, have already raised concerns regarding the robustness of the new centralised systems being administered by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). We are also undertaking an inquiry into tackling air quality in Leeds to explore robust initiatives required to achieve compliance with National Air Quality targets by 2020. In particular, Leeds has been identified by DEFRA modelling as being at risk of non-compliance with this target and therefore the government will be implementing legislation that will mandate Leeds to introduce a Clean Air Zone by 2020.
The Head of the Joint Air Quality Unit at DEFRA/DfT was therefore invited to attend a local scrutiny meeting to discuss the implications of this requirement which proved to be of mutual benefit.
Evidence from the Department for Transport was also essential to provide a clear understanding about major transport scheme that recently failed approval at public inquiry.
We strongly believe that local authorities must have the powers to require external organisations to give evidence rather than just relying on their good will. We see this as necessary for public bodies funded directly from the public purse and for those organisations funded to provide public services – including a requirement on Civil Servants from Central Government to attend and give account to local scrutiny board inquiries. We also see merit in there being a requirement in law for those individuals/bodies to respond within a reasonable time period to the recommendations made by overview and scrutiny committees.
Linked to this, we believe there should also be a clear escalation route for local government scrutiny to share any relevant concerns with central government rather than feeling having to either lobby local MPs to act on their behalf or relying on the goodwill of the relevant Secretary of State to respond to any specific letter from a Scrutiny Board. Such an approach may also assist central government in picking up on particular trends in terms of issues that are being raised by local government Scrutiny.
There is a requirement for relevant NHS bodies to engage with local authority scrutiny bodies and to involve scrutiny in the planning of local health services. In Leeds, these arrangements work relatively well – although recent changes to NHS structures and the creation of Health and Wellbeing Boards (as a result of the Health and Social Care Act (2012)) have caused a degree of confusion and misunderstanding of the role of scrutiny and the responsibilities of NHS commissioners and providers.
In addition, where some NHS bodies operate on a broader footprint (i.e. nationally), there is some evidence that such bodies do not fully appreciate their responsibilities in relation to local authority scrutiny when considering proposals/ decisions with local implications. Recent examples of this include the decision of NHS Blood and Transplant to close a blood donor center in Leeds, with ineffective attempts to engage with the relevant local Scrutiny Board, and no formal public consultation on the proposed closure of a local facility.
There is also evidence of NHS England’s recent failure to engage with the relevant local Scrutiny Board in Leeds prior to commencing a procurement process that will seemingly result in the reduction in the number of Community Dentist.
The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
The role of Scrutiny is not to campaign, it is to scrutinise. Scrutiny needs to be able to balance a wide range of considerations before coming to a balanced view. In this respect scrutiny may provide a conduit through which service user views are expressed (either by way of inviting witnesses or co-opting user groups to Boards). However scrutiny should not be commissioned as a champion of particular service users as conclusions reached (often relating to the reduction of services in the face of service cuts/reconfigurations), may not always be supportive of service user views. That said as part of the routine process of scrutiny, the use of public money, whether that spend is effective and secures efficiency, should always be challenged and assurance sought that the services being provided are right for the public.
In respect of scrutiny of the NHS, there has been a long-standing commitment that the relevant Scrutiny Board in Leeds co-opts service user representatives onto the Board. In recent years, this has involved the appointment of local HealthWatch representatives as co-opted members of the Board. This helps to ensure the voice of local services users is routinely included as part of the Scrutiny Board’s work programme.
How topics for scrutiny are selected
Topics for Scrutiny are selected by Members of the Boards and managed through a work programme. Topics are sourced in a variety of ways:
- Suggestions from Executive Board
- From Chairs and members of the Board
- Request for Scrutiny from other elected members
- Request for Scrutiny from Public
- Encouragement by professional stakeholders e.g. delayed discharge of Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, where the trust was keen to see issue discussed.
Topics are selected through joint decisions amongst the board and the relevant Director. Often topics discussed can be areas which the director feels need support. The profile of topics can also be raised through their selection at Scrutiny.
Also key to the direction of scrutiny’s work programme is the Best Council Plan. This helps to assist in targeting a proportion of scrutiny resource into future planned activities and so gives scrutiny a stake in reviewing proposals in advance of decisions being made and assisting in the wider understanding of proposals, and the potential impact on service users and for partners.
Our Scrutiny Annual Reports to full Council provide a commentary on how scrutiny has assisted with the delivery of the Plan.
What use is made of specialist external advisers?
Yes we do make use of Specialist external advisers on specialist topics e.g. Professor Sean Duffy on Cancer. Specialist advisers have also assisted on Men’s Health issues. We receive internal specialist advice as well e.g. Public Health and have also engaged closely with colleagues in Public Health England (Yorkshire and the Humber region) who are based in Leeds
We have also developed a working relationship with the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) to help facilitate early discussions and advice in relation to the development of proposed service changes and/or developments across local NHS bodies.
We have also maintained strong links with the local universities to help provide specialist advice. More recently this has proved particularly helpful in our air quality inquiry which included input from the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds.
However, we are again reliant on the goodwill of specialist advisers to contribute to the work of local scrutiny as we are restricted financially to offer any remuneration for their services.
The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities
Due to the responsibility and accountability that devolution will bring, it is important that scrutiny is undertaken of devolution deals that are proposed. There are many layers to these decisions and scrutiny is likely to focus on a) how a ‘deal’ might impact a particularly local authority district and b) by the existing combined authority scrutiny arrangements on the merits of any proposed deal that government might offer.
Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well
Our annual Scrutiny Reports for the last three years are attached to help inform the committee’s deliberations:
http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s147514/Scrutiny%20Annual%20Report%202015-16.pdf
http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s133966/Draft%20Scrutiny%20Annual%20Report%202015%20v3.pdf
http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s117696/Draft%20Scrutiny%20Annual%20Report%202014.pdf
If it would assist the committee a number of our scrutiny chairs and our deputy leader have indicated they would be happy to attend and assist the committee in any future evidence gathering sessions that might take place.
March 2017