[Jane Garrard]

We don't currently operate this model, but are currently in the process of deciding on the practicalities of how it could work here with a view to potentially introducing it for the forthcoming year. Our view is that education co-optees would only be involved for education related issues and not in other areas.

[Josh Mynott]

In Lancashire, we faced the same problem when we restructured last year. We came to the conclusion that, we needed a main "Scrutiny Committee" to cover bascially everything (other than health) and a separate health scrutiny committee.

We felt that, because of the wording of the guidance on Education co-opteds, that we had the choice of them sitting on the main committe or maintaining a separate Education Committee. We felt that the difficulties of them sitting on the main committee (political balances, involvement in non-education issues, overall size of the committee) were too great, and so we set up a committee to deal just with education, which only meets three times a year.

I'd happily discuss pros & cons of our experience, if you're interested.

Of course, the best answer would be for the government to be persuaded to drop the requirement to have education co-opteds in the Localism Bill. It's an anomaly anyway, and runs contrary to the principles of local discretion over governance arrangements.

[Jane Garrard]

I would be interested in views on the pros and cons of having a separate education committee within this type of structure. In discussing a new arrangement here, proposals have been put forward for having a separate education committee particularly with a view to incorporating the education co-optees on a committee. I have some concerns about this, not least the disproportionate emphasis then placed on education within the overall structure and the advantages/ disadvantages of separating education issues out to be considered on their own.

I have some similar thoughts in relation to having a separate health committee. Currently there is clearly a distinct role for this to carry out in relation to NHS scrutiny, LINk engagement etc and also the benefits of expertise built up in such a committee in relation to its specific role, but in relation to broader health issues (that so often link to other policy areas such as housing, crime, transport... there must be disadvantages in separating health issues out to be considered on their own.

If there is to be a main overview and scrutiny committee that takes a strategic overview and then either carries out work/ commissions work on the basis of that strategic overview and the relative priorities within the strategic overview, surely it makes sense to have the potential for that to encompass the whole?

[sara turnbull]

Jane/Josh,

Thanks for your replies, really helpful for us in reviewing our processes.

Jane - I can see that there is a case for having a separate education committee, I think the disadvantage of doing this is as you say it may give disproportionate focus on education, also may require more resource to support.

Josh - I agree with you that it would be better for the education co-optee requirements to be dropped, as does seem odd to have to operate this with a single overarching committee model. Interestng to hear that your Council reached the conclusion that it was too difficult to include them in the main committee.

Sara

[Ed Hammond]

We plan to suggest to CLG that the requirement for statutory education co-optees be repealed. I think we can put forward a strong case - based in part on the concerns that you have raised.

Far more effective for governors' representatives to sit, where appropriate, on task and finish groups, looking at specific issues.

I have contacted the National Governors' Association to advise them of our approach. If they agree, I think it will be almost certain that we can persuade CLG to get rid of this requirement.

[Paul Tedstone]

Here in Wolverhampton our Constitution provides for 8 Co-opted Members (7 Statutory and 1 non Statutory) to serve on the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel. The Constitution states that where the Panel deals with matters other than those relating to education functions, the Co-opted Members shall not vote on those matters although they may stay in the meeting and speak.

[Tim Young]

When I was Head of Scrutiny at Camden, with a single OSC commissioning task and finish groups, our education co-optees participated in all business at the OSC but could vote but only on 'education' issues (although in practice votes were relatively infrequent at OSC - barring call-ins - and very rare in task and finish groups). They also sat on task and finish groups where they thought they could make a contribution to the topic (and the most active ones were good).

One of those task and finish reviews was on the potential redevelopment of a local school using PFI, which I'm sure involved confidential papers - but the education co-optee had to abide by the same code of conduct and protocols as councillors regarding this and similar material. Making sure they were acquainted with what they could and couldn't do was part of their induction (they were also invited to participate in any O & S training).