Agenda item

To submit the report of the Head of Democracy Services.

Adopt Option 1 – which is to adhere to the current scrutiny committee arrangements and approve the actions to improve efficiency contained in Appendix 2 of the report.

The Head of Democracy Services submitted the report which asked the Council to

adopt Option 1 following the review of Scrutiny arrangements. He reported that he was

submitting the report on behalf of the Governance and Audit Committee, which had

approved this option at its meeting in January, subject to work being done to improve

the efficiency and operations of the Scrutiny Committees.

The members were thanked for their attendance and their contribution at the

workshops held last year and reference was made to the report which summarised the

messages deriving from the workshops before the Scrutiny Forum had met. Councillor

Paul Rowlinson, on behalf of the Scrutiny Forum, was invited to elaborate on the

considerations of the Scrutiny Forum.

Councillor Paul Rowlinson reported that there was no clear consensus at the

workshops or at the Scrutiny Forum, with different members favouring different options.

He also noted that the input of Audit Wales had been positive on the whole; reference

was made to examples where Scrutiny input had improved the Cabinet's decisions.

He expressed that Audit Wales did not suggest changing the current structure or the workload of the Scrutiny Committees. Nevertheless, it was noted that some members had referred to the workload of the Education and Economy Scrutiny Committee, noting that it was excessive.  After summarising the comments, a proposal was made on behalf of the Scrutiny Forum to adopt option 1.

Members were given an opportunity to make observations and ask questions.  The following matters were raised by individual members:-

Reference was made to the last action in the appendix where it referred to reporting back. It was asked whether this would mean that a report was created which showed members how Scrutiny observations relating to wording changes in reports were considered and accepted or refused. The member wished to see a process of reporting on this in existence so that members were informed as to whether observations were accepted or not.

·        In response, the Head of the Democracy Services noted that attention should be drawn to this provision regularly.

One member noted that he had been a member of the Communities Scrutiny Committee for 12 years and of the 13 items that he had submitted, he did not believe that any of the items had been resolved. He questioned whether the Scrutiny Committees were needed at all since they scrutinised the work of the Cabinet members and it was believed that there was no point to that because Plaid Cymru members had the majority of seats on the Scrutiny Committees.

·        In response Councillor Paul Rowlinson noted that the members did not act as a party or specific political group when scrutinising. He noted that it was a statutory requirement on every Council to have a Scrutiny system and that the purpose of Scrutiny was to seek to improve the decisions of the executive. He believed that there were many examples where the decision of the Scrutiny Committee had had a positive effect on the Cabinet's decision. He added that it was illegal to operate based on a political group.

A member and former chair of the Care Scrutiny Committee for four years commented; he wished to express that Scrutiny worked. He reported that he had worked very closely with a member of a different political group as vice-chair of the Care Scrutiny Committee and that this working relationship had been successful. He wished to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Care Scrutiny Committee for their work and expressed a desire to continue with the existing Scrutiny procedure. He believed that the system worked and referred to a positive relationship with the Cabinet Member for Adults, Health and Well-being and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, who were supportive of the work of the Care Scrutiny Committee and the Committee were supportive of them. He believed that many good things were being done as a result of the Care Scrutiny Committee and that it was a good example of cross-party collaboration.