Less than two years after the adoption of the controversial decision to have just one Scrutiny Committee in Brent proposals are to go before the Cabinet to have two Scrutiny Committees. If adopted this would go to the May Council AGM.
The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:
The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:
.
The
purpose of moving to a single Scrutiny Committee meeting on a frequent basis
was to enable a more consistent, holistic and streamlined approach to all
scrutiny activities commissioned by a single committee. The introduction of a
single committee to replace the previous four themed scrutiny committees also
made a considerable saving in terms of member allowances. Prior to May 2014
each scrutiny committee had a chair, vice-chair and six members with respective
allowances. The annual potential cost of each committee was £38,020 in member
allowances, making a total for the whole scrutiny function of potentially
£152,080. The current cost of member allowances for a single scrutiny committee
is potentially £36,190 making a potential saving of £115,890 on the previous
model. These costings are maximum potential costs only as members already in
receipt of a special responsibility allowance would not be entitled to a second
special responsibility allowance for their scrutiny role. The costings
nonetheless provide a useful illustration of the indicative costs implications.
.
It
was considered that operating separate scrutiny committees produced a
fragmented approach to scrutiny with each committee developing its own work
programme which did not always reflect the cross-cutting aspects of complex
policy issues. It was also felt that a single committee would be a more
effective use of the finite officer resources available to support scrutiny
given the pressure on resources.
. However after nearly two years of operating the single Scrutiny Committee
structure, the anticipated advantages have not outweighed the logistical issues
of monthly meetings and has resulted in a concentration of scrutiny activities
into a relatively small group of members and officers.
. Having one committee responsible for all scrutiny activities has meant
that the committee has not developed in depth specialism and understanding of
services or key policy agendas. With a wide variety of issues being considered
at each meeting the agendas can be incoherent and this makes it difficult to
develop continuity on specific subjects or issues between committee meetings.
. In particular the move away from themed committees has resulted in less
active engagement of service areas in working constructively with scrutiny
members as there is less perceived ownership of one corporate Scrutiny
Committee. This has both distanced service departments from scrutiny and meant
that less members overall are activity engaged in debate and discussion on the
policy issues and performance of Council services. In practice the current
model means that only eight members are actively engaged in scrutiny discussion
on a regular basis (although other members who are not part of the formal
scrutiny committee do contribute to task groups). Previously around 30
non–executive members regularly contributed to a scrutiny committee at least
once a quarter.
. The single Scrutiny Committee model has also impacted on the development
of a productive scrutiny relationship with statutory partners, particularly in
relation to the duties of the Council to scrutinise the provision of local
health services and partnership work on community safety. It has proved
difficult to accommodate a consistent work programme on health issues,
children’s services and adult social care within the single work programme.
This has limited the development of an in depth understanding of these complex
and critical service areas, which was noted in the findings of the recent
Ofsted inspection of Brent’s Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s services.
. The disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not
necessarily have been foreseen. Brent is still the only Council in London to
operate a single scrutiny committee structure, although three others have a
main committee with themed sub-committees. However as the Council enters the
next phase of change with the development of the Brent 2020 Vision and the
programme of outcome based reviews, it is vital that we reconsider the most
appropriate scrutiny structure which will facilitate the effective engagement
of members in shaping the future direction of the Council via the Scrutiny
function. This is particularly important given the political composition of the
Council and the challenging nature of the issues the borough faces.
The report goes on to propose a two committee structure to remedy the situation after setting out the role of Scrutiny:
.
There
are a number of key objectives which any new scrutiny structure should be
designed to achieve. These are:-
· To enable non-executive members to
develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues which
supports effective and constructive scrutiny of performance and decision-making
across Council services and meets the statutory requirements of scrutiny.
· Maximises the number of Members
engaged in regular scrutiny activities and enables non-executive members to
contribute to the shaping of Council policy at the right point in the policy
development process.
· A structure that covers both the
breadth of internal and external issues but also provides sufficient scope for
the committee to develop specialisation and become experts in their subject
areas.
· The frequency of scrutiny meetings
is aligned to the decision-making timetable and enables high quality reports to
be produced with scrutiny input made at the right time in the development of
options and proposals.
· Can take a holistic view of
partnership, performance and resourcing issues in relation to the individual
service or issue under scrutiny.
· Enables clear accountability of Lead
members and senior officers for decisions and service performance.
· The scrutiny function should be responsive
to the views and concerns of service users and residents, actively seeking
their opinions to shape their work programme.
· Is properly resourced and supported
by senior officers and services within the Council and the contribution of
scrutiny members is a valued part in the process of defining the Council’s
future policy direction.
.
3.15
In order to achieve these objectives it is therefore proposed that the
future Scrutiny committee structure should, as set out below, be more closely
aligned to the organisational structure of the Council as well as providing
more opportunity for in-depth scrutiny.
Proposed Scrutiny Structure
The proposal is to have two scrutiny committees combining the following
remits:-
· Community and Well being Scrutiny
Committee
This
committee would cover Housing, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the
statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local health services and
major reconfigurations of provision. It would also scrutinise the children and
young people’s service, partnership work undertaken by the Children’s Trust and
scrutiny of Safeguarding arrangements. The committee would be composed of eight
elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member
which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). The four
voting education co-opted members and the two non voting education co-opted
members would be part of this committee.
· Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny
Committee
This
committee would cover corporate resources, (including Customer Services,
Policy, Partnerships and Performance, Procurement and IT) as well as
regeneration, environment and community safety. The committee would be composed
of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group
member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements).
The
indicative cost implications in respect of special responsibility allowances
are set out below. As previously stated, however, these costings are potential
maximum costs only and actual costs are likely to be lower as some of the
members will already be in receipt of a special responsibility allowance.
In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Allowance
Scheme, a 1% uplift in allowances has been factored in. On this basis the total
potential costs are £40,614 higher than the current scrutiny structure.
2 x
Chairs allowance at £14,140
2 x Vice Chairs at £5,050
12 x SRA allowance for
committee members at £3,202
Total
£28,280
£10,100 £38,424
£76,804
The full report can be found HERE
