Agenda item

Full Council were being requested to consider proposals to change scrutiny committee arrangements and the Scrutiny Procedure Rules following consultation and recommendations received from the Democracy and Standards Committee. The proposals had been subject to both internal and external consultation. The Monitoring Officer had considered consultation responses when drafting the final proposals for Full Council; these responses were detailed in Appendices B & C accompanying the report.

 

As North Northamptonshire Council operated an executive model of governance it was required under statute to operate at least one scrutiny committee.

 

The purpose of the scrutiny function was to influence policies and decisions made by the Executive and other organisations delivering services to the public. This was achieved by reviewing key decisions made by the Executive, investigating important service delivery and strategic policy issues (i.e. through task & finish groups) and where appropriate through the call-in procedure challenging key decisions made.

 

Since May 2021, the Council had operated with two scrutiny committees. The Scrutiny Commission was an overarching body which was able to establish topic-specific task & finish groups undertaking work on the approved Scrutiny Workplan. The Finance & Resources Scrutiny Committee specifically scrutinised and monitored the finances of the Council, with particular attention to in-year monitoring of spend and input into consultation on the draft budget for future years (as part of the budget-setting process and consultation). It also monitored performance.

 

As the Annual Scrutiny Report 2021/22 recently presented to Council demonstrated, the scrutiny function of the Council had developed well since May 2021 with some important work undertaken. It was recognised however that the quantity of work required to be undertaken exceeded existing capacity and that there was a need to review scrutiny arrangements at both member and officer level. In particular, it was recognised that scrutiny’s role in relation to other public service providers required enhancement and that a more outward focussed scrutiny was needed.

 

A report was considered by Democracy and Standards Committee in November 2022 which commenced a consultation on proposals to change the structure of scrutiny. All Members were given the opportunity to attend a presentation on the proposals. They were able to feedback verbally and in writing. Senior Officers were also consulted on the proposals.The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny was asked to provide its comments on the proposals and respond to verbal feedback. The Constitutional Review Working Group which was a cross party meeting, considered both the initial proposals and the feedback and Procedure Rules prior to the Democracy and Standards meetings.

 

There was a need to ensure greater effectiveness and transparency in relation to the workload of the scrutiny function within the council. Current arrangements could lead to potential delays in undertaking work and duplication. Arising from member feedback and discussion at the Governance and Standards Committee, the following proposals were detailed in the report before Council: -

 

Scrutiny Management Board

 

It was recommended that a Scrutiny Management Board was established to avoid unnecessary delays, ensure strategic ownership of scrutiny remained with members and stopped duplication. It was expected that the Board would comprise the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees and would strategically drive forward the scrutiny function.

 

It was proposed that the Board would manage the workload of the scrutiny function, agree agenda items and the Workplan, complete the Annual Scrutiny Report and lead on the member development programme for scrutiny members.

 

There had been positive feedback from members on this role and the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny were also supportive of an overarching Board which was commonplace in many large authorities. Transparency was important to the Council, and it was therefore proposed that the Board was a formally constituted body which was open to the public. This meant that the Board would be politically balanced.

 

Following consideration by the Democracy and Standards Committee it was proposed that the Scrutiny Management Board would determine call-in requests. The benefits of this were that there would be a streamlined process and the members of the Board would build expertise in dealing with such requests. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny felt that having a single space for call-ins was likely to prove most productive. The alternative was that the individual Committees determine call-in requests.

 

Scrutiny Committee – Health

 

The Council had a statutory duty to scrutinise health. There was a strategic role in reviewing how the integration of health, public health and social care was working to ensure maximum outcomes could be achieved for the benefit of the public. This was a statutory role and there had been no negative responses that this needed to be enhanced in any future scrutiny structure.

 

The original proposal suggested that crime and disorder and scrutiny of the Community Safety Partnership should be undertaken within this Committee due to the link between crime and disorder and health outcomes. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny felt that this was a better fit than in the Place and Environment Scrutiny Committee. The proposed change was supported by the Democracy and Standards Committee.

 

It was recognised that scrutiny needed to be outward facing as well as considering the Council’s own service delivery. The relationship with key partners was important particularly with partners such as the NHS, the Police etc. The Scrutiny Management Board would have a key role in ensuring partner engagement was enhanced in any new structure and that the agendas were outward facing as well as inward. This was also raised in member feedback as a priority.

 

Scrutiny Committee - Place and Environment

 

In relation to the Council’s corporate objectives around Place and Economy it was recognised that there were a number of significant projects ongoing and some key elements of service delivery requiring regular review of performance e.g. the highways contact. It was therefore proposed and supported by the Democracy and Standards Committee that a Place and Economy Scrutiny Committee be created.

 

Scrutiny Committee – Corporate

 

Corporate scrutiny was currently being undertaken by both the Scrutiny Commission and the Finance & Resources Scrutiny Committee. It was widely accepted that this could cause duplication of effort.

 

There were a number of comments during the consultation period around whether this Committee would have the capacity to ensure strong financial scrutiny and whether instead there should be a specific Committee to focus entirely on the budget. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny commented that it had not proved necessary in other councils to have a dedicated Budget Scrutiny however good financial management was key to any organisation.

 

Scrutiny of the annual budget had been undertaken in an intensive and structured way since the new authority was established. The Council was keen that this continued so that it could evidence good control of its budgets. This work would not be diluted in the new structure and the meetings for this piece of work was built into the Calendar of Meetings on an annual basis. This work would be considered to be a long-standing Panel under the Procedure Rules.

 

The Corporate Scrutiny Committee would mirror the work of the current Finance and Resources Committee, in that it would scrutinise finance and performance which were integral to each other. It would also scrutinise external partnerships and companies such as the Children’s Trust. Currently the Children’s Trust was scrutinised across Committees which did not allow members to collate a rounded view of it.

 

Panels

 

Panels were defined within the draft Procedure Rules as being either long standing groups or task and finish. Long standing panels such as scrutiny of the annual budget and the annual review of Outside Bodies would not be included in any maximum number of Panels that could be established. This therefore left a maximum amount of 4 that could be established throughout the year to undertake more detailed work unless there were exceptional circumstances. The recommendation previously from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny was that a maximum of 3 was recommended and therefore this was a formal increase to current arrangements.

 

Whilst it was proposed that the Scrutiny Management Board agreed the establishment of Panels, it would direct the formal establishment of it to be undertaken by one of the three Committees, which would formally establish it and set out the name of the Panel, and the terms of reference including relevant dates for completion. This would give ownership of the Panel to the relevant Committee.

 

General

 

Feedback from members was included at Appendix C. There was feedback in relation to the political chairmanship of the Committees which was a decision for Council and was not therefore dealt with in this report.

 

There was also useful feedback on how scrutiny should operate at the Council and whilst this was outside of this review, it would be useful for the Board to consider so that scrutiny continued to add value to North Northamptonshire. A learning and development programme would be created and delivered to all scrutiny members in the new municipal year to ensure that they were supported to have the skills and knowledge for excellent scrutiny.

 

Some comments were received about the effectiveness of the Executive Advisory Panels which had been subject to a recent review. As these were created at the Leader’s discretion, these were not in scope for this review or report.

 

The Democracy and Standards Committee considered the frequency of meetings and agreed to include bi-monthly meetings for the Committees and monthly meetings for the Scrutiny Management Board. Whilst the current Scrutiny Commission had struggled with capacity, the Finance and Resources Committee had managed its budget workload through a Task and Finish Group which had worked well. The removal of duplication of performance scrutiny would have an immediate impact on capacity. Consideration of the workplan in meetings, agreement to items for the Workplan and the collation of the Scrutiny Annual Plan which would move the Board would also free up capacity for the Committees. More meetings could be added if the Board felt that this was necessary.

 

This would amount to 30 meetings per annum in the Calendar of Meetings (excluding Panel work which was extensive), compared to 19 meetings (excluding Panel work) in the current arrangements.

 

The number of members on each Committee was considered by the Democracy and Standards Committee following feedback from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. A figure of 9 has been included for all Committees (except for Health which has 11 due to the statutory consultees) within the draft Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

 

The recommendations were MOVED by Councillor Lora Lawman and SECONDED by Councillor Andy Mercer.

 

Councillor Lawman drew Council’s attention to the increase in scrutiny committees and welcomed the future ability to scrutinise a wider array of topics in more depth. Comment was made that opposition Members should be considered to chair scrutiny committees.

 

A Motion without Notice for “the question now be put” was defeated.

 

There was general support for the recommendations and the proposal to look at external issues in more depth, working with partners.

 

It was noted by the Leader of the Council that the previous role of opposition Members chairing scrutiny would continue and was welcome.

 

The expansion of the number of scrutiny committees, the role of the Scrutiny Management Board and the increase in dedicated officer support was noted.

 

 RESOLVED that: -

 

(i)               The Scrutiny structure as detailed in Appendix A be approved;

(ii)              The Scrutiny Procedure Rules as detailed in Appendix D be approved;

(iii)            Delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Democracy and Standards Committee, to action any ancillary and/or minor amendments in the Council Constitution resulting from (i) & (ii) above; and

(iv)            The changes agreed in (i-iii) above are effective from the commencement of the 2023/2024 Municipal Year (25.05.23).

 

(A Guillotine Motion was MOVED by Councillor Smithers, SECONDED by Councillor Howell, to extend the meeting until completion of all reports and motions detailed on the agenda. The meeting approved this extension of time).