[Dunc]

Hi I'm a member of Bolsover DC where the solicitor has just issued guidance on the forward plan which seems designed to negate pre-decision scrutiny. It says “Members should not generally seek to bring a matter before the relevant scrutiny committee prior to decisions being made by the Executive as this undermines both the role of the Scrutiny Committee and that of the Executive” and “It would be inappropriate to scrutinise those plans where the right exists to call-in the item after the decision has been made”.
Has anyone else encountered this problem or have any views on it, I intend to raise it at Council. The full advice is attached.

Duncan

[Ed Hammond]

I personally disagree with the advice where it states that it is inappropriate to consider an issue as it is being formulated, before a decision is made. This can often be a valuable exercise since (as you would expect) scrutiny can make suggestions that lead to improvements in the decision.

The longer in advance scrutiny is able to input into decisions this way, the more useful it will be in terms of value added. For major business issues anywhere between six and nine months prior to an expected Cabinet decision is usually a good time to try to get involved. This kind of approach minimises the risk of call-in, which as many recognise can be a blunt tool (albeit a useful one in extremis).

As an aside, use of the Forward Plan for this purpose can often be of minimal value - I can't speak for yours, but I have a low opinion of Forward Plans generally as items tend to appear on, and disappear from, them arbitrarily. Your council probably operates using programme management principles whereby major projects, strategies and plans are developed and delivered further to a corporate programme - this document, which will be used for management purposes by CMT - is probably a more accurate and valuable source of information for scrutiny as it will provide more detailed information on where in the process scrutiny can and should get involved in the process in a way where it can make a positive and constructive contribution.

As a large caveat to all of this, I should stress that while I can happily talk about general principles, scrutiny can and should work differently in different authorities, and there may well be a compelling organisational reason which isn't cited in the report why it is thought inappropriate for scrutiny to be formally involved in policy development in this way - for example, there may be other methods for non-executive members to feed in.

[Peter Marrington]

(07-02-2012 12:19 PM)Ed Hammond Wrote:  I personally disagree with the advice where it states that it is inappropriate to consider an issue as it is being formulated, before a decision is made. This can often be a valuable exercise since (as you would expect) scrutiny can make suggestions that lead to improvements in the decision.

The longer in advance scrutiny is able to input into decisions this way, the more useful it will be in terms of value added. For major business issues anywhere between six and nine months prior to an expected Cabinet decision is usually a good time to try to get involved. This kind of approach minimises the risk of call-in, which as many recognise can be a blunt tool (albeit a useful one in extremis).

As an aside, use of the Forward Plan for this purpose can often be of minimal value - I can't speak for yours, but I have a low opinion of Forward Plans generally as items tend to appear on, and disappear from, them arbitrarily. Your council probably operates using programme management principles whereby major projects, strategies and plans are developed and delivered further to a corporate programme - this document, which will be used for management purposes by CMT - is probably a more accurate and valuable source of information for scrutiny as it will provide more detailed information on where in the process scrutiny can and should get involved in the process in a way where it can make a positive and constructive contribution.

As a large caveat to all of this, I should stress that while I can happily talk about general principles, scrutiny can and should work differently in different authorities, and there may well be a compelling organisational reason which isn't cited in the report why it is thought inappropriate for scrutiny to be formally involved in policy development in this way - for example, there may be other methods for non-executive members to feed in.

Not allowing pre decision scrutiny, in my mind, is crazy! Unless you want an endless tream of Call Ins. Why have a forward plan. Pre decision scrutiny is the one area our members want to do more of, in order to engage members who may otherwise consider themselves to be out of the decision making process! Just saying.

[Shelley Burke]

On the face of it, this sounds like officers trying to control scrutiny by wrapping it in rules. I haven't read your attached advice but did just have a quick look at your scrutiny procedure rules and I would argue that the advice as you describe it contradicts 4.5.11 b which talks about scrutiny being free to respond to exec consultation on key decisions coming through the forward plan. My tactical advice would be to use the process for requesting agenda items (4.5.8) and force the issue a bit. Clearly, you'd need to be careful about selecting items that have some real purpose and genuine cross-party and/or community interest so you can test and explore where the resistance is coming from.

HTH

Shelley Burke
Head of Scrutiny, LB Southwark

[Ed Hammond]

Thanks Shelley - that was a good spot!

[Dunc]

Thanks to you all for your advice it has been invaluable. I let you know what happens at the Council meeting.

Best wishes,

Duncan