[Michael Chard]

Jo, in reference to holding a joint overview and scrutiny with co-opted members from the district. I am assuming that the agreement for this committee to be able to sit as a formalised body would have to go through the constitutional processes of all the partner councils involved?

[Matthew Garrard]

"Don't wait for regulation and guidance.

That was the message from John Healy MP, Minister for Local Government speaking to the Centre for Public Scrutiny's 6th annual Conference, Public Accountability and Empowerment. In a key note speech on the Government perspective of scrutiny the...Minister told delegates that there was good work going on around the country and that local authority overview and scrutiny committees did not need to wait for the regulation and guidance before starting to use the new powers."

[Nick Beale]

mgarrard Wrote:"Don't wait for regulation and guidance. That was the message from John Healy MP, Minister for Local Government ..."

Nevertheless, with the canvassing season almost (or already?) upon us many authorities may be waiting for the 4 June elections and the appointment of new OSCs afterward.

[Sue Crosland]

Although in general I agree with John Healey's message to 'get stuck in' to scrutinising Local Area Agreements, the situation for two tier areas isn't actually that simple. Of course councils have been involving other agencies in taking part in scrutiny enquiries on a voluntary basis, and persuading them of the value of this; that's an important part of a constructive approach.

But, in the absence of the regulations, a genuine two-tier joint scrutiny committee can't be formed whose recommendations have legal weight. So the situation is not satisfactory and we will continue to press for the regulations as soon as possible. But we have not seen them in draft yet, so it will be a couple of months at best before they have been approved by Parliament. Given that, my post above tries to set out some less than satisfactory options for two tier areas which the current law allows. It's up to individual councils what action to take.

In reply to Michael, about co-option: if the county council uses co-option powers to involve district councillors, what is being created is not, as I understand it, a joint scrutiny committee. It remains a scrutiny committee of the county council. The Local Government Act 2003 made provision for councils to give voting rights to co-opted members (members doesn't mean councillors here, it could mean tenants reps, service users, whoever). To do this, the council needs to adopt a scheme for co-option. I think that would mean a meeting of the council must agree the scheme, but not that strictly speaking it has to become part of the council's constitution. So if the county council wanted to co-opt voting persons onto one or any of its scrutiny committees it needs to define such a scheme. This could allow for district councillors to become voting members of a county committee which scrutinised the LAA and used the new powers. Legally, it doesn't affect the district council constitutions at all. How the district councils influence/determine who would be co-opted by the county council committee(s) is a local matter. You would need to define an approach which had confidence locally.

It might be useful for councils which have used co-option to comment on this.

[Nick Beale]

jodungey Wrote:(1) Although in general I agree with John Healey's message to 'get stuck in' to scrutinising Local Area Agreements, the situation for two tier areas isn't actually that simple ...

(2) The Local Government Act 2003 made provision for councils to give voting rights to co-opted members (members doesn't mean councillors here, it could mean tenants reps, service users, whoever). To do this, the council needs to adopt a scheme for co-option. I think that would mean a meeting of the council must agree the scheme, but not that strictly speaking it has to become part of the council's constitution.

(1) Meanwhile we await Hazel Blears' twice-postponed decision on whether we are to remain a two-tier area or not ...

(2) Currently we only co-opt DC reps with voting powers on to the Health OSC (Health & Social Care Act 2001 powers) but wouldn't a scheme of co-option under the 2007 Act need to be in the constitution? The constitution sets out the structure and composition of committees so at the least it would need to say "and such others as the committee may choose to co-opt" - in practice members would want to keep it tighter than that, wouldn't they?

[Sue Crosland]

Not being a lawyer, I can point out that what is legally required and what is probably sensible are two quite different things. Let alone what 'in practice members would want' . . .

Council constitutions vary in the level of detail they include about scrutiny arrangements. In one place a main scrutiny committee or scrutiny management committee might have delegated powers to set up scrutiny panels (actually sub-committees) which in another council would be set out in the constitution. A factor to bear in mind is the rules (which also vary locally) about how your council's constitution can be amended. I recall (probably inaccurately) one council which set out in its constitution that scrutiny chairs would be taken by councillors from the opposition parties. The main opposition party decided to refuse chairs as a matter of political strategy, and the council was stuck with this until the AGM which was when it could amend its constitution.

So on co-option, the Local Government Act 2003 says that a scheme should be adopted by the council. Obviously this is a constitutional type issue, but whether it should be formally part of your constitution is a question for your lawyers. There is some flexibility, I think.

[James McLaughlin]

I'd like to think that we could be quite innovative and forget about (time consuming and irrelevant - in the eyes of the public) decision-making structures.

If we are doing pieces of work, and really it doesn't matter who does it, that are evidence-based and suggest improvements then getting bogged down in constitutional technicalities shouldn't really come into it. Surely, this is about actually building relationships between counties, districts, and partners to agree a local approach that is inclusive and recognises the value added through scrutiny.

Having said that, it is the day before the public holidays for Good Friday & Easter, so perhaps I'm a bit demob happy and delusional! Although I've got a call-in meeting at 7.00pm so the chances of being happy are slight, delusion, or stupidity for agreeing to it, has set in!

[Nick Beale]

jodungey Wrote:Not being a lawyer, I can point out that what is legally required and what is probably sensible are two quite different things. Let alone what 'in practice members would want' . . .

Me neither, and my career has taken me way over a safe dosage of politicians, I suspect ...

[Sue Crosland]

Of course James is right, and what matters is for scrutiny to do creative work on tackling the problems which are actually set out in Local Area Agreements - rising worklessness in the recession, housing need, why children are more likely to be obese, why poorer people are likely to die younger, how we tackle climate change. Sorting out the legal nuts and bolts is not my idea of fun. What I would hope is that the legal framework prompts partner organisations to engage in these discussions and take scrutiny recommendations seriously, and that it can be got to a place where councillors including district councillors have opportunities to be properly involved.

Happy holidays! Jo

[Sue Crosland]

The question and answer briefing is now on the LGA website:

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1878754

I've tried to write something which could be suitable for partner organisations as well as councils, so do circulate this if it is helpful. I am also thinking about what might be useful as information for partner organisations at a national level. I realise many places will already have produced guides to scrutiny locally, and the CfPS is producing good practice advice for partners. But a recent workshop at the LGA for the 'named partner' organisations involved in LAAs did seem to show a lack of awareness about scrutiny. It may help in some of the more nationally driven organisations if the right message about engagement in scrutiny is coming through to local offices and managers.

Any comments on this would be helpful