Inaugural Meeting of the Network of North West Scrutiny Support Officers' Network

11th May 2004

Commenced: 10.00am
Terminated: 12:40pm

Present:

• Howard Boots and Sarah Challoner - Tameside
• Sheila Brown and Tracey Graham - Allerdale
• Paul Conlon - Blackburn with Darwen
• Graham Canning - Knowsley
• Alan Darnell - Bury
• Jacky Denning - West Lancashire
• Eric Dickson - Burnley
• James Doble - Lancaster
• Steve Dugdale - Preston
• Bob Fletcher - Blackpool
• Elaine Fisher - Trafford
• Andy Glover - Lancashire
• Kath Haydock - Pendle
• Peter Hughes - St. Helens
• David Jones - Vale Royal
• Peter Jones - Rochdale
• Sue Jones and Jacqui McCormack - Oldham
• Peter Kidd - Salford
• Chris McConville - Rossendale
• John Mallinson - Carlisle
• Katy Master - Stockport
• Dave Shaw - Warrington
• Alex Villiers - Halton
• Chris Walsh - Liverpool
• Robin Roberts - Cheshire

Also in Attendance:

• David Davies - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
• David Fletcher - AGMA

1. Introduction

Howard Boots, Head of Scrutiny at Tameside MBC welcomed everyone to the meeting, introduced Katy Master from Stockport MBC and Mr Bob Fletcher from Blackpool and explained the background of scrutiny at Tameside. Those present introduced themselves and presented information regarding the structure of the scrutiny function within their authority, together with any prevalent current issues.

Tameside - The Council had a long standing Labour majority, which currently had 47 of the 57 seats and a Leader who had been in position for 23 years. There were four Scrutiny Panels modelled loosely on the Select Committee system, supported by a Unit of eight people, which included a Research and Support Officer for each panel, two Panel Co-ordinators who undertook a very enhanced Democratic Services role and a Website/Office Administrator.

Stockport - Controlled by the Liberal Democrats by a small majority.

There were four Committees with one Co-ordination Committee. There had been 13/14 Call-Ins. The Scrutiny Unit had four and a half officers, with administration support from the PA to the Assistant Chief Executive and from the Democratic Services Unit.

There was a budget of £250,000, (this included salaries).

Blackpool - Labour majority of eight. A Service Delivery Management Committee co-ordinating the six service development committees :

• Regeneration and Tourism (9)
• Lifelong Learning and Children's Services (9)
• Social Services and Health (11)
• Urban Environment (9)
• Culture and Leisure (10)
• Partnerships, Business

There are three full time scrutiny support officers working on scrutiny and performance review, with Democratic Support Officers servicing the agenda, minutes and member administration and training angles. Budget 2004/5 is £104,500. Chief Officers attend agenda forming meetings at which topics for scrutiny or information provision can be identified and any items due for reporting progress on can be identified and agreed. A standard agenda operated that included an opportunity for the portfolio holder to be questioned about future and past decisions and performance and budget to be questioned.

Oldham - There were four cross cutting Overview and Scrutiny Committees which did not mirror cabinet portfolios. The majority of work was undertaken by Committee Services. There were no dedicated staff for Scrutiny. During the previous year, the scrutiny function had looked at 217 items. The budget for scrutiny was between £80 -£120,000.

Bury - Three Policy Officers were involved in the work of scrutiny, albeit not on a full time basis, as they were too busy to be fully involved. There were four Scrutiny Commissions and a Co-ordinating Panel. Bearing this in mind, there had been no in-depth reviews or research to date. There had been no call-ins within the council.

Blackburn with Darwen - Support was provided by Committee Services, and the Chief Officers led the five Scrutiny Committees that didn't affect their service area. During the previous year the Committees had made 92 recommendations, out of which 80 had been implemented. Blackburn College would be looking at the effectiveness of scrutiny and undertaking research. Scrutiny had a dedicated budget of £25,000. They had produced an Annual Report and a Scrutiny Tool Kit.

Rochdale - Scrutiny was mainly supported by Democratic Services, and one Research Officer from the Policy Unit. Members adopted a range of individual responsibilities including Best Value; call-ins; policy development; and performance monitoring.

Lancashire - The council had been working for twelve months on a new committee structure, however the proposals had recently been vetoed by the Leader and there were currently major issues to resolve in this matter. Work had been undertaken with other District Councils and consequently, the Lancashire Scrutiny Partners Forum had been established.

Cheshire - Cheshire was politically late introducing the scrutiny function, which was very member led. The scrutiny function was supported by a Scrutiny Policy Manager and the County Secretary. Although it was felt that this support was insufficient, scrutiny was managing to keep its "head above water". There were currently three specialist Scrutiny Committees and a Performance and Overview Committee.

Allerdale - Scrutiny was officer led and was managed by two Democratic Services Officers, however there were no dedicated staff or resources to support the scrutiny function. There tended to be a tense relationship between Scrutiny and the Executive. The Scrutiny Committee had two co-chairs and met every two weeks, mostly monitoring the forward plan.

Carlisle - Carlisle had three thematic Committees, which were supported by two Support Officers and Democratic Services, who undertook the administration work. A sum of £5,000 was allocated for research. Main issues involved the relationship with the Executive and the capacity of elected members.

Warrington - There was one Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a separate Sub-Committee, and four cross cutting Advisory Groups. There had been one call-in. Although Scrutiny had the support of half a research officer, this position was not particularly involved in reviews. The Democratic Services Unit provided administrative support. Scrutiny reviews were officer led.

Congleton - One Senior Scrutiny Officer undertook research, visits, servicing of meetings etc, for five Select Committees. Three other staff assisted in general support. The lack of staff resources did present a problem, and the relationship between the Executive and Scrutiny was tense.

Salford - Scrutiny was supported by a dedicated team of five officers, who undertook policy development and held the executive to account. This team was separate to Committee Services.

Preston - There were three dedicated scrutiny staff from Committee Services who supported Review Boards, which undertook scrutiny work, with a budget of £10,000.

Lancaster - The entire Overview and Scrutiny Committee system had recently been abolished and Lancaster now had one Committee with a number of Task Groups. The scrutiny function was supported by two Administrative Staff from Democratic Services who undertook research and serviced the meetings. There was a budget of £4,000 for research.

St. Helens - There was one Overview and Scrutiny Commission with five Panels. Elected members were becoming much more enthusiastic and more involved in reviews.

Knowsley - Although Knowsley had six thematic Scrutiny Committees there was currently no dedicated support unit. Consultants were presently looking at the existing structure.

West Lancashire - Eight Commissions acted as mini committees in the old committee structure style. They carried out external reviews with a budget of £1000.

Liverpool - The Chairs of eight Select Committees were currently receiving targeted training. The scrutiny function was managed by the Committee Section, comprising one Principal Officer and five Support Staff. They had produced a guide to Work Programmes, newsletters and annual reports. There was still a good deal of work to undertake especially to build Members' capacity.

Pendle - The Management Committee and three Review Committees were themed and mirrored the portfolios of the cabinet deputies. There were no dedicated staff for scrutiny, and the committees were lead by Directors. All non-executive councillors had the opportunity to undertake scrutiny work.

Halton - The scrutiny function was supported by one Scrutiny Advisor and the Committee Services Section. Halton had six Policy and Performance Boards, which originally were service based, but now were based more on priorities. There was a Member Scrutiny Co-ordinator.

Rossendale - Rossendale felt that they were late developers with regard the introduction of the scrutiny function, which had been in existence for about 18 months. Main issues included the lack of public involvement, capacity of elected members and new political structures.

Vale Royal Established in 2001, there was one Overview Committee, three Scrutiny Committees, and individual Task Groups. Elected members wrote their own reports. A budget of £2,000 was available for consultants. Reviews were linked to Best Value Reviews. Support work was undertaken by Committee Managers who were also involved in election work and emergency planning. There was a Conservative/Liberal Democrat alliance.

Trafford - There was no overall political control in Trafford. The scrutiny function was undertaken by a dedicated scrutiny team who also undertook Audit work. There were four Committees, which had undertaken some very successful reviews. Elected members were very dedicated to scrutiny and reviews were member lead, with more and more tasks being delegated to Panel Members.

Burnley - Two and a half Democratic Services Officers. No research support. To date, twelve reports have been produced.

General - Following discussions, it was evident that each local authority had their own unique methods of undertaking scrutiny, which fitted in with their individual structures. It would therefore be difficult to introduce standard evaluations for measuring performance indicators and benchmarking, as each authority was so different. The group agreed that other means of benchmarking and measuring performance indicators would have to be examined which reflected authorities' own priorities.

2. Shared Learning

There was some initial discussion about benchmarking and work programmes at this first meeting.

Benchmarking

Bob Fletcher from Blackpool had prepared a briefing paper on the potential for benchmarking the scrutiny function across other authorities.

This proved to be a very complex and almost controversial issue given the variety of different structures and approaches to scrutiny. It was agreed that there would be some value in attempting to establish some benchmarks even if these were to be used by authorities internally to compare performance over time rather than against other local authorities. It was felt that it was important to avoid creating competition between authorities.

Work Programmes

Participants gave the examples of how their authorities have identified topics for the work programme and gathered suggestions form the public. These included surveys, complaints systems, local radio station and area committees.

Warrington had developed a "PICK" list for identifying topics for the work programmes. Issues should have the following qualities as far as possible:

Topics should be of Public Interest

The review should have an Impact

Reviews should examine Council performance

Reviews should be Kept in context

Tameside presented their checklist for a successful scrutiny review which has been developed by officers and scrutiny panel members following a particularly productive review. The checklist will be used to predict how successful a review will be based on the number of characteristics it has from the developed list.

The group also discussed the need for work programmes to include issues that are of real important and that scrutiny can have a real impact upon. There was also some discussion of the need to consider the cost-benefit of carrying out reviews into certain areas.

3. Proposals for Network for North West Scrutiny Support Officers

Ms Master reported that following discussions with other local authorities, it had become apparent that there could be some benefit in establishing a Network of North West Scrutiny Support Officers, in order that general issues could be aired at a suitable forum. This forum would also consider the following proposals:-

1. Benchmarking - to introduce a scrutiny benchmark, which would measure impacts and outputs;
2. Share good practice;
3. Establish a professional network and possibly arrange joint training on scrutiny matters;
4. To reinforce the a member network, organised by the North West Employers Organisation;
5. To establish a channel for information and good practice.

Mr Davies discussed the possibilities of raising standards in scrutiny and reported that although good practice did exist amongst local authorities, this could be enhanced. He added that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister could assist in capacity building.

There was a general consensus that the establishment of a network would be welcomed, and it was agreed that some Terms of Reference would be approved at the next meeting.

4. Issues for Discussion at Future Meetings

The officers identified issues and topics which they considered would merit further discussion at future meetings, and the following subjects were highlighted:-

1. Member training/staff training (building capacity);
2. Creating and maintaining the work plan;
3. Agenda and meeting content and style;
4. Holding the executive to account
5. relationship with the executive;
6. Overview and scrutiny role in policy
7. who scrutinises the scrutineers ?
   protection of objectivity;
8. Innovation vs. not reinventing the wheel;
9. Co-option of experts;
10. Capacity building;
11. Publicity of review reports/media;
12. Health scrutiny;
13. Scoping (including utility or otherwise of the North West Employers Organisation Scoping Exercise Pro Forma);
14. Project management
15. Engagement;
16. Measuring quality;
17. Investigation techniques/interviewing techniques;
18. Possible funding opportunities for scrutiny;
19. Joint working arrangement with NHS;
20. Benchmarking data;
21. Tips for changing member and officer culture from old style committee mode;
22. Dynamics of groups eg. size, make-up, officer involvement;
23. Involving/utilising frontline staff.

5. Date and Venue of Next Meeting

It was agreed that the next meeting be held in July at Preston