Agenda item

To receive the Centre for Public Scrutiny review.

RESOLVED to accept all the recommendations in the Centre for Public Scrutiny report as presented to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee of 27 March 2018. 

Members considered the report of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, which had been presented to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee of 27 March 2018.

The report sought Cabinet’s views on the recommendations and an indication as to how Cabinet wished to be involved in developing the Council’s response to the proposals, so as to inform discussions between officers and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, so as to prepare an action plan for presentation at a future meeting of the Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Howell gave his response to the report.  He said the role of Scrutiny was an important one, and whilst the report acknowledged some strong positives, it was also important to reflect on areas identified for improvement.  He recommended that in reading the report, members should not “cherry-pick” points which endorsed their own view. 

Councillor Howell referred to the phrase “Scrutiny’s job is to hold the executive to account”, and said he found it frustrating that this aspect could be used to permeate almost everything:  it was important to take the document as a whole, rather than just that one element.  One of the key aspects of Scrutiny was to improve decision-making, and it was in that area that he considered Scrutiny had a particularly valuable role to play.  There were examples where Scrutiny had done that well, specifically, when the decision had been taken to invest in Chesterford Research Park, and in relation to the call in of a contentious decision regarding De Vigier Avenue.  Scrutiny had functioned best where political hats had been left at the door. 

Councillor Howell said he recognised the critical role the Chairman had played in the culture of the Scrutiny Committee.   Councillor Dean was highly knowledgeable and very experienced, as a longstanding councillor.  It was important that the Committee tried to avoid a narrow political agenda or “headline grabbing”.  He very much welcomed the report.  He noted the recommendations of the CfPS report in addressing the weaknesses in current arrangements, two or three of which related specifically to the Cabinet, that is, that the Leader and Cabinet members should be directly accountable and visible, and that there should be structured meetings to discuss Scrutiny, which he endorsed.  He would continue to attend Scrutiny, if invited; he was keen to continue to discuss the budget, the consultations on Local Council Tax Support, budget priorities, all other aspects that came up.  He moved the recommendation that Cabinet accept the recommendations of the CfPS report.

Councillor Lodge suggested that one of his Group’s members of Scrutiny Committee be invited to join in discussions as to actions arising from the report. 

Councillor Rolfe said this was a matter for the Scrutiny Committee. 

Councillor Dean said if Cabinet were in broad agreement with the recommendations, then discussions should be arranged outside this meeting.  Those discussions, with Councillor Howell, if he was representing the Cabinet, should aim to agree what needed to be done.  There were other members of the Scrutiny Committee such as the Vice Chairman who might need to be involved. 

Councillor Dean said, in response to Cllr Howell, there was need for offline discussion, in relation to one or two points.  One point came out of the CfPS conference, regarding the way local government was working these days, particularly in relation to finance-raising other than through Council Tax and central Government grants, for the need for a Scrutiny mechanism.  Unless he had missed something, prior to the decision to invest in Chesterford Research Park, there had been no involvement of Scrutiny.  Independent Scrutiny was one area where pre-scrutiny in future did need to engage better.  A further point for discussion offline was what was meant by “holding the Cabinet to account”?  Discussion was needed on that, and Cllr Howell has expressed concern at “headline grabbing”.   This aspect could be a good thing, it had been identified by the CfPS report author, and should be discussed.

Councillor Dean said that if Cabinet did accept these recommendations, he considered officers should arrange dialogue to turn them into reality, to avoid carrying on as usual.  The Committee was willing to change, but it was necessary for both parties to learn how to do so, in which case he would be delighted.

Councillor Rolfe said he applauded the initiative of commissioning the report.  It was important to take the package as a whole.

RESOLVED to accept all the recommendations in the Centre for Public Scrutiny report as presented to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee of 27 March 2018.