[Nick Beale]

Ehammond Wrote:John Denham gave a speech on scrutiny yesterday at a conference I attended. The full text can be found here - http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/c...itlements.

From the transcript he seemed very keen to stoke up expectations of how much scrutiny councils will be able to do - using all that spare time members complain of having - and what effect it will have on outside bodies. Interesting also to see that bit about "don't nag me, nag your OSC." (slight paraphrase there, obviously)

[Mala Mistry]

HI all

Just wondered whether anyone had amended or were in the process of amending their Council Constitution in light of provisions contained in the Strengthening Local Democracy Consultation and Local Authority (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill 2010, particularly in respect of putting in information about the statutory scrutiny officer. Did anyone have any thoughts about where this information would go? - in the Overview and Scrutiny Section of the Constitution or under the Officer delegation part or both?

Out of interest, does anyone have anything about scrutiny support in their current constitutions?

Ed - it would be useful on whether you have any more information on the passage of the Bill and whether it is likely to get passed before the dissolution of Parliament.

Best Wishes

Mala
Scrutiny Officer
Wolverhampton City Council
01902 551259

[Nick Beale]

mala.mistry Wrote:Just wondered whether anyone had amended or were in the process of amending their Council Constitution in light of provisions contained in the Strengthening Local Democracy Consultation and Local Authority (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill 2010, particularly in respect of putting in information about the statutory scrutiny officer. Did anyone have any thoughts about where this information would go? - in the Overview and Scrutiny Section of the Constitution or under the Officer delegation part or both?

Out of interest, does anyone have anything about scrutiny support in their current constitutions?

We just added "Scrutiny Officer: N Beale" to the page setting out the management structure. It's amongst the functions listed for the Office of the Chief Executive.

[Ed Hammond]

Hi all,

I have learned that committee stage, oddly, happened yesterday, although knew nothing about this.

Only minor amendments were made, and not the ones we were looking for. MPs knew the amendments we were looking for and our Chair, Nick Raynsford, took part, but ideally had we had more notice we would have chosen to carry out more work to lobby MPs in advance of the committee date.

This is obviously extremely irritating and we will be investigating to see why notification of the meeting was not disseminated beforehand.

Ed

[Nick Beale]

Ehammond Wrote:I have learned that committee stage, oddly, happened yesterday, although knew nothing about this.

Thanks, Ed. I just picked this up from the transcript:

"We also intend, initially, to extend the enhanced scrutiny regime to two new sectors by designating energy - gas and electricity - and transport providers, such as train, tram and bus operators, as being subject to the regime. I am pleased to confirm that the Government will consult widely before making such regulations."

What about water companies, I wonder?

Then there's this informative exchange:

Barbara Follett: "Just to make it clear ... district councils are excluded, but there should be local arrangements in place to allow them to contribute to joint scrutiny in two-tier areas."

Mrs. Lait: "I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. The point that I made in my few remarks is that the regulations for joint scrutiny have not yet emerged."

Barbara Follett: "I am aware of that. Obviously there will be a timing issue, which we will have to look at."

[Nick Beale]

And from Brian Brinley MP in the Committee Stage debate on the Bill:

"I served as scrutiny chairman for a sizeable time ... I am a supporter of scrutiny. It plays a vital part in local government and if we did not have scrutiny, many elected councillors would not have much to do. One of its purposes is to ensure that they are at least kept busy and off the streets."

[Matthew Garrard]

There's now a handy summary on the Bill, not quite pocket size but helpful

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/res...10-024.pdf

[Heather Smith]

The Chaytor "issue" seems to have been overcome - the latest research paper says that Nick Raynsford is to take the bill through the remaining stages.

Does CfPS have a view on the likelihood of changes being made - given that none were made a the committee stage? I am still holding out in the hope that logic will prevail on the role of executive members...

[Josh Mynott]

mgarrard Wrote:There's now a handy summary on the Bill, not quite pocket size but helpful

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/res...10-024.pdf

Having just skimmed through this, I note that it does refer to this very forum. So, to make it clear to any MPs who may be reading this forum:

The proposal to allow members of the executive to sit on an overveiw and scrutiny committee is just plain worng and ignores the nature and essence of partnership working in local government. There is perfectly good existing provision to have exec members attend as witnesses, if we want them there at all. This part of the Bill should be dropped.

There. That's them told. Perhaps someone from a district would like to get them told on that score as well.

[Ed Hammond]

Given that we actually know about report stage in advance (!) and that we know for a fact that MPs know that these are practitioners' chief concerns, I would hope that getting some amendment should not prove too difficult. I would especially hope that this will be possible given that our Chair is now the sponsor of the Bill!

I can say something on the districts angle - an approach which actively seeks to marginalise and disenfranchise elected members from district councils, and to cut them out of scrutiny of issues which directly affect their constituents, makes no sense. District councillors bring huge expertise to this kind of work and excluding them will significantly harm effective scrutiny in two tier areas. I have yet to hear a convincing (or even semi-convincing) policy rationale behind this proposal. John Denham offered an explanation at a conference a couple of weeks ago that was, to put it charitably, less than compelling (the risk of duplication and confusion).

We will continue to try to get these changes made. Letters have gone out to relevant MPs so we shall have to see what happens.