Minutes of the North West Scrutiny Support Officers’ Network

Friday, 15 July 2011

Manchester City Council

Present:

Blackpool - Steve Sienkiewicz (Chair) and Georgina Atkinson
Bolton - John Addison
Burnley - Eric Dickinson
Cheshire - East Mark Nedderman and Mark Grimshaw
Cheshire - West and Chester David Jones
Knowsley - David Moran
Lancashire - Claire Evans
Lancaster - Stephen Metcalfe and Jenny Kay
Local Government Association Councillor - Richard Kemp CBE
Manchester - Courtney Brightwell and Caroline Whewell
Oldham - Sheila Bowater and Jo Charlan
Pendle - Kath Haydock
Ribble Valley - Bill Alker
Rochdale - Peter Thompson
Rossendale - Carolyn Sharples
St Helens - Joanne Heron
Stockport - Craig Ainsworth and Nicola Ward
Trafford - Helen Mitchell
Warrington - Helen Stanley
Wyre - Sharon Davis

Apologies:

Blackburn with Darwen - Ben Aspinall, Diane Hill and Paul Conlon
Blackpool - Laura Latham
CfPS - Su Turner
Cheshire East - Denise French
Chorley - Carol Russell and Diane Scambler
Eden - Gillian Kartack
Lancashire - Wendy Broadley
Rossendale - Patricia Couch
Sefton - Debbie Campbell, Michele Wainwright, Ruth Harrison
Tameside - David Berry
Warrington - Julian Joinson
West Lancashire - Jacky Denning
Wigan - Gary Finch
Wirral - Alan Veitch
Wyre - Peter Foulsham

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and everyone introduced themselves. 

1. Notes of the last Meeting

The notes of the previous meeting of the network, held on 19 March 2011 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

2. Councillor Richard Kemp

Councillor Richard Kemp CBE explained that he was a member of Liverpool City Council since 1975, Member Champion for the Association of Democratic Support Officers (ADSO) and Vice-Chairman of the Local Government Association (until August 2011). He presented the Network with an overview of his thoughts relating to Government’s localism agenda:

• Up until 2007, Central Government had been increasingly prescriptive in local government business, with powers being transferred from local councils to Whitehall. Extensive performance monitoring via Key Performance Indicators that had been imposed by Central Government were costly to local authorities and were often an inaccurate reflection of performance.
• Powers started to return to local government following the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
• The Act had been the catalyst for further decentralisation by the Coalition Government in 2010. The introduction of the Localism Bill and the concept of ‘Big Society’ was a ‘bottom-up’ (rather than ‘top-down’) decision-making process to empower local communities.

Councillor Kemp considered that the spending cuts were a major challenge for local government. He acknowledged that the major expansion of the public sector by the Labour government had been necessary to avoid an economic depression; however, that level of expansion was unsustainable. He explained that previously 50 per cent of GDP had been via the public sector, which had now reduced to 41 per cent – a figure that remained higher then other Western European countries.

Local government now had more discretion in the allocation of budgets. The removal of ring fenced grants, together with the return of business rates to local authority control, were of significant value. The introduction of ‘Community Budgets’ to deal with approximately 120,000 families with complex needs hoped to reduce costs through effective co-ordination of partners and less duplication.

Councillor Kemp offered his thoughts on the three Bills that were due for implementation on 1 April 2012:

• Health and Social Care Bill – the most important issue focused on the extent of localising the health service. The introduction of Health and Well-Being Boards would increase local government involvement and there was an essential role for scrutiny within the new arrangements.
• Localism Bill – with regard to the planning function, there was currently extensive guidance which restricted the power of local authority planning committees. The Planning Inspectorate could also overrule decisions taken. These prescriptive rules would be lifted under the Bill. The Bill also included the provision for local residents to request a Neighbourhood Plan, a process which would need to be effectively facilitated by ward councillors.
• Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill – the idea of directly elected Police Commissioners was flawed; however the introduction of Police and Crime Panels was a positive move towards greater involvement of local councillors in policing priorities.

With regard to the concept of ‘Big Society’, Councillor Kemp considered that the aim was to empower local communities to run local services, such as libraries. In practice, this would be difficult to effectively operate and manage.

Overview and Scrutiny

Councillor Kemp offered his thoughts on how overview and scrutiny could adapt to the forthcoming changes in local government:

• The scrutiny function needed to be transferred from Democratic Services to a separate Strategic Research division of local authorities. Scrutiny needed the capability to view a wider continuum of changes to local services from a more strategic perspective.
• Scrutiny reviews needed to consider the extent that local government services were ‘future proof’. In a rapidly changing environment, scrutiny would need to consider the needs of society in the future, in order to determine how services should be shaped and improved. The focus of scrutiny should be more forward-thinking, rather than retrospective.

Councillor Kemp considered questions from the Network appertaining to the practical issues of the localism agenda. The key issues raised included:

• Community confusion over localities and ward boundaries.
• The capacity of local government to effectively adapt to localism, including the capability of officers and elected members.
• The positioning of scrutiny within local government and how it could be championed at a higher level.
• Whether the local government structure was still appropriate and able to effectively support localism.
• The capability of scrutiny to become more innovative and proactive, rather than reactive.
• The culture of local government, the perception of scrutiny and how it was championed within the authority.
• The implications of returning to the old committee system.
• The paradox between the concepts of ‘Total Place’ and ‘Big Society’.

The Network thanked Councillor Kemp for taking the time to attend the meeting and present a realistic view of forthcoming legislation.

3. Scrutiny Arrangements at Manchester City Council

Courtney Brightwell, Scrutiny Team Leader, provided the Network with a presentation on the scrutiny arrangements at Manchester City Council.

In 2007 the Council had introduced a structure of six Overview and Scrutiny Committees that were linked to the themes of the Local Strategic Partnership. This ensured that work undertaken by scrutiny actively contributed to the Partnership’s objectives. Each Committee, which met ten times per year, included either 14 or 15 Members.

There was no overarching management committee; however there was an informal co-ordinating group that would forward plan the work of the Committees. An overview of the achievements of the new scrutiny model was outlined to the Network.

The Committees were able to establish time-limited Sub-Groups that would undertake detailed scrutiny investigations and reviews. The most recent reviews included the following:

• Finding Out Young People’s Concerns
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Commissioning and Contract Management
• Support for Small Businesses

With regard to officer support, Courtney explained that there were three Scrutiny Support Officers who were ‘twin-hatters’. Ad hoc support was also provided from other Council services.

An overview of recent developments within the scrutiny structure was provided to the Network, which included the following:

• Review of the Local Strategic Partnership
• Review of Committee names
• Equality Impact Assessment

A discussion took place with regard to the independence of scrutiny at Manchester City Council and the capability to effectively hold the Executive to account under the arrangements. Courtney explained that there had been no particular issues relating to independence, although he acknowledged that there was a possibility that such issues could arise in future. It was considered that the culture of a local authority, its attitude towards scrutiny and the strength of scrutiny members were influencing factors in the level of independence that scrutiny could realistically achieve.

The Chairman provided a brief outline of the new scrutiny arrangements that had been introduced at Blackpool Council. From May 2011 a commissioning model of scrutiny was introduced that included a Scrutiny Committee and a Health Committee. The Scrutiny Committee acted as a management committee and would commission Scrutiny Panels to undertake review work. Six Members of the Scrutiny Committee, who had been appointed as Lead Members with a key area of responsibility, would lead the Scrutiny Panels.

4. Current Scrutiny Review Topics

The Network did not raise any topics for discussion.

5. Items for Future Agendas

Steve Sienkiewicz welcomed members to submit suggestions for agenda items.

The Network was satisfied with the level of information that had been circulated regarding developments in the Localism Bill, Health and Social Care Bill and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The Centre for Public Scrutiny had encouraged scrutiny practitioners to submit comments and views on both Bills as they passed through Parliament.

It was hoped that the Chief Executive of the Police Authority would attend a future meeting of the Network to present views on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.

It was suggested that a review of scrutiny restructures be undertaken, particularly in authorities where the number of committees had been significantly reduced. The review could consider both the achievements and flaws of restructures in order to share experiences across the Network. This would be a piece of work for future consideration, once the outcome of restructures could be assessed.

6. Any Other Business

Georgina Atkinson advised the Network that the Association for Democratic Support Officers (ADSO) was currently creating a training programme. The courses would be delivered by experienced practitioners and could be on specific areas. Costs for the training courses were £90 for non-ADSO members and £50 for ADSO members. The Network was invited to offer suggestions for training courses.

7. Arrangements for the next Meeting

The next meeting of the Network had been scheduled for Friday 18 November 2011, from 10.00 a.m. (for a 10.30am start) at South Lakes District Council (Kendal).

Future meetings of the Network had been scheduled, as follows:

• Friday 16 March 2011 – Wyre Borough Council
• Friday 13 July 2012 – venue yet to be indentified.