Agenda item

We received a report from the Scrutiny Manager to present the Scrutiny Service Plan 2015-2018 (updated for Quarter 2) in order for Members to monitor the performance of the function and assess the fitness of purpose of the Council’s Scrutiny arrangements.

The report recommended:

·         That the Audit Committee considers the robustness of the Scrutiny Service Plan 2015-2016 together with ‘Key Scrutiny Milestones 2014-2015 in ensuring continuous improvement in the scrutiny function.

·         That the Audit Committee considers the Council’s recent response to the recommendations made to all Welsh Authorities following the WAO Scrutiny Study 2013-2014.

·         That the Audit Committee considers the views of the WAO on scrutiny in Monmouthshire during the Council’s Annual Improvement Corporate Assessment Report 2014-2015, making recommendations (if appropriate), to address any areas of Member concern.

Following the presentation Members were invited to comment.

A Members raised a question regarding the Council’s reduction of attendance on Select Committees, and if the effectiveness of scrutiny was being watered down. The number of special meetings was also queried.  The Scrutiny Manager agreed that the membership of scrutiny committees had reduced but felt that the scrutiny process had become far more effective over recent years.  It was not thought that there was an overall reduction of members actually attending meetings and therefore reducing the membership had helped the situation.  In terms of special meetings, we heard that the reason for the increase in the number of special meetings was due to the amount of work taking place, and the fact there was no longer task and finish groups.  Also, in order to scrutinise effectively in a dynamic council environment, Members focused on pre-decision scrutiny and the scrutiny of proposals ahead of Cabinet decisions as opposed to long in-depth investigations.  The workload of the Children and Young People Committee had increased due to the Estyn inspection.

A Member suggested that it would be more helpful if the evaluation form, as well as highlighting areas of success, showed areas of weaknesses and failures to provide a more balanced view.  In response the Scrutiny Manager confirmed that the weaknesses were areas for continued focus, which were contained within the report.  However, the report was due to be updated and the information would be provided as requested.

Further clarification was sought regarding the highly successful engagement on budget scrutiny.  We were informed that the Council engaged heavily with the public on the budget proposals ahead of them being considered.  Many consultation events were held, along with communication via social media.  Views were heavily influenced by members of the public.  Members heard that not all councils enabled the public to speak at scrutiny meetings and that MCC enabled public participation through the Public Open Forum of its’ ordinary meetings.  The Committee was advised that the opportunity for the public to speak as part of the Call-in process is a unique feature offered by scrutiny at Monmouthshire County council. 

A Member asked the Scrutiny Manager if there was confidence that the information received was robust, as without robust data the scrutiny process may be flawed.  IT was noted that there had been issues with the robustness of data, particularly for the Children and Young People Select Committee, but the Scrutiny Manager felt that the concerns had been addressed by working with the EAS and officers in the CYP department to improve the quality of data coming forward to Members.

A Member, as Scrutiny Champion for MCC, commended the Scrutiny Manager for her continued hard work, and agreed that there had been a gradual improvement in scrutiny. 

A question was raised if, with the plethora of meetings over the last 6 months, we were scrutinising the right portfolios.  In response, we were informed that the four select committees were set up appropriately in order to scrutinise cross-cutting issues and that the key benefit of having bespoke scrutiny arrangements that are not directorate-focussed is that the Select Committees can perform more outward-focussed scrutiny, for example, engaging with the business activity on increasing and sustaining economic growth.  The expectations of scrutiny to engage with external partners and stakeholders are highlighted through the Local Government Measure (Wales) 2011 and as such, the Scrutiny Manager advised that she felt that the scrutiny arrangements are fit for purpose and that MCC operates a streamlined scrutiny process that supports and develops Members to scrutinise the right thing at the right time.  The Committee were satisfied with the report and agreed to await a future update towards the end of the year.