Agenda item

To consider a report and presentation by Ian Parry from the Centre for Public Scrutiny.

The Committee considered a report and verbal presentation from Ian Parry from the Centre for Public Scrutiny, following his review of the Council’s scrutiny function. 

Ian Parry thanked members for the opportunity to return to discuss his report, and for inviting him to review the Council’s scrutiny function.  The discussions he had had with officers and members had been open and honest, and together with the research and observations he had carried out, he had drawn out key principles on how scrutiny at Uttlesford could hold the executive to account.

Ian Parry highlighted the main points of his report, which set out strengths and areas for improvement, and an analysis of his work in reviewing Uttlesford’s scrutiny function.  He said he had not found there to be a “golden thread” recognised by those he spoke to, representing “joined up” scrutiny at Uttlesford.  He questioned whether the work programme was aligned with shaping the objectives of the Council, how it was constructively challenging the work of the executive, and what the barriers were to members engaging in effective scrutiny. He highlighted the fact that early engagement at the design stage of decision-making could avoid unnecessary surprises.  For example, assumptions made in the Medium Term Financial Plan were important to policy, and there should be confidence that they had been scrutinised before the Council’s budget was presented.  Similarly, objective input on key decisions, from the start, through all stages to the end of the decision-making process, should take place and should be regarded not as a negative challenge, but as constructive input. 

Ian Parry said he had found meetings of the Scrutiny Committee to be led in the main by the Chairman, but for effective scrutiny there should be clarity as to scrutiny members’ objectives as a team.  There needed to be clear outputs which were constructive, with key lines of questioning according to a plan.  Questions were often addressed by officers with technical expertise but the fact that Cabinet members were not always present at Scrutiny Committee meetings when an item relevant to their portfolio was considered was a deficit in holding Cabinet members to account.

Ian Parry referred members to his recommendations, which were intended to be constructive, robust and honest advice.  Recommendations included creation of a common understanding and purpose for scrutiny; that the Leader and Cabinet members be directly accountable and visible; and that the relationship of the Scrutiny Committee to Cabinet involve structured meetings to discuss scrutiny.  

Councillor Dean thanked Ian Parry for his report, and that he recognised many of the points made.

Councillor Light asked for clarification with regard to one of the suggested areas for improvement, a reference to there being “too little structured scrutiny”. 

Ian Parry said he had found Scrutiny Committee meetings tended to be information-gathering, rather than formulating a conclusion, or making recommendations for improvement and following these recommendations through.  In response to a further question as to whether this aim could be achieved via task and finish groups, or pre-scrutiny, Ian Parry said this aim could be achieved in various ways, for example offline briefings, to try to develop an outcome.  Scrutiny Committee members could be involved earlier in Cabinet decisions, so that they could explore and add value to policy, and could set up task and finish groups. 

Members discussed the way in which scrutiny of external bodies had been carried out in the past. 

Members discussed the presentation in detail.  The following main points and responses were made.

Councillor Barker said members had in the past held pre-meeting briefings when representatives of external bodies had been invited to Committee meetings, but there had been problems with quorum, as the earlier start time was difficult for some members, and people tended to arrive at different times, so these briefings were not always structured.  Such briefings had not led to a consensus of approach or the necessary depth of questioning. 

Ian Parry agreed it was preferable that Scrutiny members should meet before questioning an invited individual or body.  Using technology for remote conferencing could be an option.  In scrutinising outside organisations invited to attend the Committee, it was advisable to consider meeting a week or two before a Committee meeting, to assess what information would be sought, and who else should attend, as, by the time the agenda for the meeting was issued, time was too short.

Councillor Lemon said he had been a councillor for 15 years, but a member of Scrutiny Committee only since last year, during which time he had received no training.

Councillor Dean said training had been held on various occasions when substantial changes to the Committee’s membership had taken place. 

Councillor Howell, as Cabinet member for Finance, said the scrutiny review report was hard-hitting, but positive.  He welcomed the view that scrutiny should have the role of “critical friend”.  Scrutiny at Uttlesford did not always work as well as it could, in his view, as there should be more trust, and no politics.  He welcomed early engagement from Scrutiny Committee, in strategic participation in the Council’s decision-making.  However, sometimes scrutiny seemed inquisitorial, or aimed at producing headlines. 

Councillor Light said she echoed Councillor Howell’s comments.  She felt there was a lack of trust.  It would be an improvement to allow for greater input into policy and a forum to discuss issues could help to build trust.

Ian Parry cautioned against a “cosy” scrutiny, or public perception that this was the case.  Scrutiny should comprise friend and critic in equal measure, and be robust.

Councillor Barker said, in response to Councillor Light’s comments, that it was the benefit of the administration to make policy.  There was a difference between testing questions and persecuting questions. 

Ian Parry said policy was the prerogative of the administration, but positive questioning was the role of scrutiny.  There were arguments on both sides of this discussion, and if scrutiny produced publicity, then that should be regarded as an opportunity to explain the administration’s narrative. 

Councillor Davies said his experience of scrutinising external bodies was that often a general presentation was given, which did not make it possible in the time allowed to conduct detailed scrutiny. 

Ian Parry said this was a good point, which meant the Committee needed to give careful thought to how to achieve setting the questions it wished to ask. 

Councillor Chambers arrived at this point. He apologised for his late arrival and commented on the review. As this Council operated a Cabinet system, in his view it was good practice for executive members to be prepared to answer questions, and not to rely on officers to do so.

Councillor Dean invited the Committee to consider practical measures to take following the review.  Suggestions were made as follows: to prepare an action plan; to recommend that executive members attend Scrutiny Committee meetings; to allocate time for consideration of items included in the Cabinet Forward Plan. 

AGREED that the Chairman and Vice Chairman would work with officers to develop an action plan in response to the review.