Agenda item

To consider the final report of the Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Review Task and Finish Panel introduced their final report to the Committee. They were set up to review the O&S arrangements within the Council with particular reference to working relationships with the Cabinet. He thanked Ian Willett, the lead officer, for his help during the review.

He noted that they covered a large range of topics starting with the appointment of the Chairman for Overview and Scrutiny, consulting with the Leader, improvement of the work programme and the scrutiny of external organisations. They also looked at the Scrutiny Panels and had a discussion on call-ins and made some suggestion on their arrangements. They noted that the County was responsible for the scrutiny of the NHS, but the Panel felt that for particular items of local interest, EFDC would like the option to approach County to ask if we could scrutinise our own area.

They Panel noted that they would like the public profile of O&S raised and that any training requirements for O&S should be arranged early in the new municipal year. They also looked at the constitutional changes needed and this was shown as an appendix to the report. If approved, this report would then go on to Council for agreement.

Councillor Jacobs queried the part of the report that suggested that the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel should not get involved in the detailed scrutiny of budget matters but look at the overall policy matters. Councillor Angold-Stephens said that there was too much duplication between the Finance Cabinet Committee and the Scrutiny Panel.  They would like the Scrutiny Panel to take a more strategic, wider view of finance.

Councillor Murray noted the recommendations of who should be the chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He would still like it to be a member of a minority group. He endorsed the view that the various Portfolio Holders should be encouraged to attend the respective Scrutiny Standing Panels and noted that the Housing Portfolio Holder was very good at doing so. Also, that the word ‘Standing’ be omitted from the name of the Panels. Councillor Angold-Stephens replied that they had discussed the Chairman at some length. O&S should be a non political process and to this end they would need someone with the correct skills and experience regardless of which political group they were members of. Councillor Murray agreed that the Chairman should not be an overtly political position.

Councillor Chambers commented on the NHS scrutiny proposals. He noted that the NHS was scrutinised by other bodies and that we should be cautious about this. We should make more use of our representatives on the County and West Essex Committees. Councillor Angold-Stephens replied that members would value scrutiny at a local level or have comprehensive feedback from our representatives at County.

Councillor Philip noted that the O&S Committee need not always consider the PICK forms. Mr Willett commented that eventually all PICK forms would go to Committee, but some may need tidying up by officers and some would be inappropriate and be screened out.  But eventually they would all come to this meeting.

Councillor Girling agreed that it was important that O&S had a high public profile and he welcomed the issued raised by the Panel on this matter. He also wondered if a summary of our conversations with guests could be put in the member’s bulletin. Mr Macnab, the Deputy Chief Executive replied that a summary was reported to the Cabinet and the Council and it was also webcast.

Councillor Stallan was grateful to Councillor Murray for saying that he attended his Scrutiny Panel as the relevant Portfolio Holder.  He noted that the attendance of Portfolio Holders had improved over the years. As for members of the public, people would only attend when it was something important to them. He was also grateful that the Panel had not gone for a total revamp of the O&S system but just looked at modifying and improving the system.

He was grateful that they had formalised the call-in procedures, but as a Portfolio Holder and an ordinary member of Council he had been involved in 5 call-ins on both sides. He would like to propose the lead call-in signatory be allowed to speak and that they be followed by the Portfolio Holder and then the other 4 signatories have their say. That is, he would like (b) and (c) in paragraph 3.23 swapped around.

Councillor Angold-Stephens was happy to go along with this suggestion and add that the Portfolio Holder be allowed to answer the next 4 signatories after they spoke and to respond to any new points raised, as he recognised that otherwise it would put the Portfolio Holder at a disadvantage. Councillor Murray wanted it emphasised that the Portfolio Holder should only respond to any new points raised by the other 4 speakers. Councillor Philip understood the arguments and suggested that this arrangement should be mirrored at the end of the debate. He would support the changing in the order of points (b) and (c). Councillor Jacobs noted that there could be some long speeches from the 4 signatories and he would therefore like them to get together before the meeting to present a unanimous view.

Councillor Angold-Stephens said that the present rules allow the Chairman to vary the format but it does say that the lead petitioner can sum up at the end of the debate.  Councillor Philip said he would like to see it put formally. Councillor Lion added that he would like to see the Chairman have some responsibility for the format of the debate.

AGREED: Councillor Angold-Stephens proposed that the recommendations were changed and that items (b) and (c) were swapped around and that the lead petitioner is formally requested to wind up the debate just prior to the Portfolio Holder closing the debate. This was agreed by the Committee.

Councillor Waller summed up that he agreed with Councillor Murray’s statement that the default position should be that the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny should be a member of a minority or independent party.  He noted that O&S was better at getting outsiders to speak than getting the executive scrutinised. He noted that he had attended a meeting at County discussing a possible call-in and that this resulted in the call-in being withdrawn. This may mean an escalation in call-ins if it resulted in a pre meeting with the Portfolio Holder before it was formally considered at a Committee.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That a report be submitted to the Council recommending the proposals arising from this review and as amended by this Committee be approved;

(2)          That the amendments to the constitution with amendments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be approved and recommended to the Council for adoption; and

(3)          That this report be submitted to the Audit and Governance Committee as requested.