[David Hair]

Hi Ross

This is a really important issue for us and one we continue to monitor on a regular basis. The obvious benefit of early scrutiny, either as a policy development item or part of a consultation process, is that members can help shape a policy or decision before plans are finalised. Scrutiny just prior to decision allows members to comment on the final report and to consider the same information that decision-makers will be considering. In an ideal situation both opportunities would be made available, particularly on important issues. If only one opportunity is possible then in my view this would be scrutiny just prior to the decision taking place when the full detail of the decision or policy is known.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards

David Hair

Lincolnshire County Council

[Laura Latham]

Hi,

My view is that both options are equally valid and where possible should be incorporated into the policy development process.

However, the political context of the issue being scrutinised prior to decision making is the most important consideration particularly where the subject matter may be a 'hot potato' issue or something likely to cause political fall-out. In which case, getting scrutiny on board as early as possible in the policy development process can smooth out some of the contentious areas early on and avoid conflict later in the process.

As with all pre-decision scrutiny, the real crux of the matter is ensuring that scrutiny does add value and isn't seen as another hurdle to be negotiated round.

Thanks

Laura

[Jackie Sayers]

It's tenant scrutiny. So imagine a friend asking your opinion on a house he's thinking of renting. He has to decide tomorrow if he wants it. He says he can just about afford it and it's on his bus route for work. That's all he knows, so that's all you know.

Imagine if you'd had time to visit the place, chat to the neighbours and check the furnishing and running costs, comparative rents, community facilities, crime stats, flood risk etc. You could have added so much more value to his decision-making.

[Earl Piggott-Smith]

laura.latham Wrote:Hi,

My view is that both options are equally valid and where possible should be incorporated into the policy development process.

However, the political context of the issue being scrutinised prior to decision making is the most important consideration particularly where the subject matter may be a 'hot potato' issue or something likely to cause political fall-out. In which case, getting scrutiny on board as early as possible in the policy development process can smooth out some of the contentious areas early on and avoid conflict later in the process.

As with all pre-decision scrutiny, the real crux of the matter is ensuring that scrutiny does add value and isn't seen as another hurdle to be negotiated round.

Thanks

Laura

I agree with Laura's about the need to consider of the poltical context. I would also add that the purpose of asking for pre-scrutiny in advance or before a decision should be clear. There are too many examples of either pre-scrutiny resulting in no new information being provided or a policy decision remaining unchanged as result of scrutiny being involved. It is important that a high threshold( but not too high!!) is set before an application is made so regardless of when it is made it is taken serioulsy as a opportunity for officers to explain the reasons more clearly behind the policy and for scutiny members to carry out their responsibilties.

[Sunita Sharma]

Laura and Jackie make the case well for input at key times within decision making process. Errol is right to stress the poltical context - the context being for you what matters to tenants, when and how they want to be involved in policy type decisions and review. How and what they want to challenge the Board on...

You might want to suggest to the Tenants Scrutiny Panel to develop a relationship with the council's scrutiny panel/committee to add value to each others scrutiny role, share evidence and so on. In some ways like the council's relationship with PPIFs and LINKS where this has worked well.

Sunita

[Sunita Sharma]

ssharma Wrote:Laura and Jackie make the case well for input at key times within decision making process. Errol is right to stress the poltical context - the context being for you what matters to tenants, when and how they want to be involved in policy type decisions and review. How and what they want to challenge the Board on...

You might want to suggest to the Tenants Scrutiny Panel to develop a relationship with the council's scrutiny panel/committee to add value to each others scrutiny role, share evidence and so on. In some ways like the council's relationship with PPIFs and LINKS where this has worked well.

Sunita

Sorry Earl, I renamed you!

Sunita

[Earl Piggott-Smith]

lol, no problem Sunita. I would add that with restructing at senior level and less officers available there is need for the best use to made of officer time when pre-decision scrutiny is being considered, which may suggest that the timing of pre-decision will become increasingly important.