Agenda item

 To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive - report circulated.

The Chair reported on the conclusions of the working party set up by this Committee to review scrutiny arrangements. The conclusions of the working group had included:-

·             update reports, for example, on the RAMM project and the Riverside Valley Park and certain performance management reports such as those on Ethnic Monitoring and Homelessness to be circulated to all Members via Extract;

·             all Performance Management reports be reported to Committee annually only, but at different times of the year, unless in-year changes were significant. Where unusual patterns emerged reports would be brought forward to the next available Committee, subject to prior consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Portfolio Holder;

·             officers be requested to circulate relevant ward information to all Members as and when necessary, making use of electronic means as much as possible;

·             the establishment of more working groups to scrutinise individual issues be supported; and

·             as far as possible, reports be evenly spread throughout the year, with lengths reduced if feasible.

She invited Members’ comments on the Scrutiny process. Members made the following points:-

·             process requires sharpening up by, for example, providing a forward plan of topics to be included on agenda, an enhanced role for portfolio holders by including them at the table in order to participate in debates and/or respond to issues raised by Committee Members rather than the current system of question and answers and the creation of more working groups for in depth consideration of individual issues. The Chair suggested that some portfolio holders were frustrated that they could not participate around the table. One Member suggested that the portfolio holders should be available to report at every meeting rather that twice a year as suggested in the report. Another Member felt that twice a year was sufficient. One Member explained that portfolio holders were not currently included in the round table discussions as it had been felt that their presence would mitigate against the efficient undertaking of the business on the agenda;

·             opposition Members should be offered Chairs of all Scrutiny Committees;

·             many backbench members feel that they have little ownership of the scrutiny process and that although issues are debated there is seldom any significant change to policies and little impact on Executive deliberations;

·             welcome updates on for example RAMM and Riverside Valley Park by other means than the Committee agenda;

·             there should be an even spread of reports throughout the year to avoid excessive number of reports going to any one meeting;

·             improved reporting of performance indicators for example comparison of progress with year end targets which hopefully would be addressed by the new performance management system. Performance management reports should be placed at the beginning of the agenda. Some Members opposed this suggestion. With regard to the reporting of statistics, the Director Community and Environment advised that, generally, targets were met and that the few exceptions were always highlighted. Crucial targets such as housing rents and re-cycling were monitored as often as every two weeks;

·             review timing of Committee meetings within Committee cycle with consideration to be given to timetabling extra meetings. It was noted that the timetable was influenced by the need to keep the election period clear, the unavoidable gap after the Annual Meeting and the August recess;

·             establish more working parties for in depth consideration of issues;

·             retain certain reports on the agenda with Members asked to raise issues with officers separately outside the meeting thus mirroring the practice of the Planning Committee where Members are requested to advise the Development Control Manager or Head of Planning Services of any questions on the schedule of planning applications determined under delegated powers and applications that have been withdrawn prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee.

The Chair advised that the above views would be reported to the next Executive with the views of the other Scrutiny Committees on the scrutiny process and that there would be a further meeting between the three Scrutiny Chairs and the Assistant Chief Executive. She supported a Member’s suggestion that research be carried out into the operation of scrutiny at other Councils including those similar to Exeter to inform the review. Members specifically supported the proposal that progress reports on RAMM and the Riverside Valley Park be included in future editions of Extract.

Scrutiny Committee - Community requested that the above views be reported to Executive.

(Report circulated)