[Alysa Martel]

Hi,

That looks a useful report - we are due to review our structure and procedures soon so it will be handy to have your report as a reference of what goes on elsewhere.

On the recommendation that Scrutiny should be given dedicated staff not involved in policy work for the Executive; where would the line management of those staff sit? Some of my Scrutiny Committee Members have previously expressed concern that although the officers here (all 2 of them at the moment!) are a dedicated resource for Scrutiny work, we are still civil servants and line-managed by the States Chief Executive Officer. Personally it has never been a problem as we have never experienced any attempts at interference with our work.

I just wondered, when there is talk, as seems to occur frequently, of making Scrutiny and its officers more independent, how independent does "independent" have to be?

I'm surprised you don't have ring-fenced budgets for Scrutiny work. Are there public records kept of how much is spent though? It would be difficult to prove that Scrutiny work is value for money if there is no real idea of how much it costs.

Thanks for sharing this report.

Alysa.

[Nick Beale]

An interesting report whose conclusions align with much other research on the subject. We now have nearly 10 years experience across hundreds of authorities to tell us how scrutiny actually works in practice. We can all learn form each other but my heart sinks when I read a witness's comment that: "a great deal more change is needed before scrutiny becomes really effective."

What basis is there to assume that the deficiencies/limitations which repeated research identifies are those of councils' performance rather than flaws in the system itself? The people who dreamt up the 2000 Act were only guessing and it is entirely possible - indeed probable - that they were wrong about some aspects of how executive arrangements would pan out. Councils may have done a remarkable job with the tools they were given.

Recommendation 1 suggests that: "action is needed to embed a positive approach to scrutiny and overview within all local authorities in Wales." But might not councils' achievements under "executive arrangements" be seen a lot more positively if the infallibility of the original concept were not so often taken as read?

[Ed Hammond]

Having read the report I don't agree with Rachel Ashworth's somewhat glum view of scrutiny in Wales. But obviously the function is facing some big challenges at the moment. One of the big pluses in Wales is the fact that there has been a clear, conscious, and coherent steer from the Assembly Government around scrutiny and how it relates to partnership working. This means that scrutiny of partnerships (LDAs and LSBs both) is getting off the ground much quicker in Wales than it did in England a couple of years ago. This all bodes well.

The issue of ring-fencing is an interesting one. I gave evidence to the Committee and they asked me about it. I did say, and I still think, that ring-fencing is not really a go-er in many authorities simply because the arguments for it could be made with regard to any number of council services. Obviously scrutiny can put forward the case that it needs financial independence from the executive but it's unclear how this ring-fenced amount would be set and whether it might make executives more antagonistic towards scrutiny. It also seems quite arbitrary.

[John Ross]

Dave,

yes its an interesting round up of issues and opportunities in scrutiny which - as others have

commented - could be usefully used by many LAs. Pls pass on thanks to National Assembly for Wales.

Best wishes John
Paras I liked:

2.14 Scrutiny Development Fund of £100k - great name - how about the CfPS having one?

3.10 officers: the question of skills/roles - performance,policy, consultation and independence

3.14 members: the distinction between challenge and opposition is nicely made by the Auditor of Wales

3.36 using consultants - another interesting one - anyone that saw the annual conference last year at the BBC scrutiny function - this is - very quickly- what they do - choose a topic - appoint consultants to write report and they make recommendations

3.40 The School for Scrutiny - great name and worth reading. Also there are lots of academic units up and down the country with an interest in this - perhaps we could start with links from CfPS to academic section?

[Dave Mckenna]

Not my report of course ... thank those nice people in Cardiff Bay

Although the size of the Welsh policy community is a very manageable one an we probably all know each other...