Agenda item

To present the Committee's draft work programme for 2026/27 for adoption.

DECISION

•           To adopt the work programme for 2026/27.

The Education and Economy Scrutiny Committee's draft work programme for 2026/27 was submitted for adoption.

During the discussion, the following observations were made:

Reference was made to the length of the discussion on the Finance Performance Report earlier in the meeting, noting that a large number of questions had been raised. The view was expressed that it might be more appropriate, where possible, for performance reports to be placed towards the end of meetings rather than at the beginning. It was noted that members tended to be particularly active in raising questions at the beginning of a meeting, and that changing the order of items could assist in better management of the Committee's time.

In response, it was noted that the order of the performance reports varied between meetings, and that the reports had already been placed towards the end of some meetings. It was confirmed that the order of items could be changed in the future if the Committee wished performance reports to be considered towards the end of the meeting.

It was questioned whether the current arrangements for performance scrutiny had been reviewed since their introduction, noting that the reports created a considerable workload for members and took up a significant proportion of meeting time. It was questioned whether any assessment had been carried out to see whether the scheme was more or less effective than the previous arrangements. In response, it was noted that comments had been submitted through the Scrutiny Forum and that discussions were taking place regarding the format of the reports. It was noted that too much information could sometimes affect the effectiveness of scrutiny, and that members' comments about previous arrangements were taken into account. It was explained that this did not necessarily mean that there would be a significant change, but that the arrangements would be reviewed.

It was questioned whether the number of scrutiny meetings during the year could be increased in order to increase the Committee's capacity to carry out its responsibilities. In response, it was explained that this depended on the resources available, along with the need to conduct scrutiny investigations and task and finish groups. It was noted that the matter was one that could be considered further.

Concern was expressed that the performance reports were reducing the time available to scrutinise other items, as well as creating a very significant amount of reading  for members. The view was expressed that consideration should be given to reverting to the previous procedure where scrutiny members attended Performance Challenge meetings, but with a more formal procedure to report back to the Committee. It was noted that there had been benefits to the previous procedure, although some Performance Challenge meetings had been cancelled due to lack of availability of officers. It was noted that the current arrangement was more transparent as the scrutiny took place in a public meeting, but that the time burden was significant.

Objection was expressed to imposing an overly strict time limit on discussions. It was emphasised that while meetings could take a long time, it was important that members had the opportunity to raise their matters rather than feeling frustrated because there was no opportunity for them to contribute.

The opinion was expressed that the current system of scrutiny was not working as effectively as it could. Reference was made to previous discussions about changing the structure of scrutiny and clarification was sought of the other models that had been considered. In response, it was noted that local authorities were implementing different models, and that the arrangements in Gwynedd had been reviewed following the work of Audit Wales. It was explained that the current changes needed time to be implemented and evaluated, and it was noted that an election was due to take place in May which would result in new members joining the Council, and therefore this needed to be borne in mind when considering any changes to the existing arrangements.

It was questioned whether previous documents on the alternative scrutiny models were available to share with members. It was confirmed that reports had been submitted to the Governance and Audit Committee and to the Full Council, and they could be shared.

The view was expressed that submitting questions in advance on performance reports and receiving written responses could be another way of reducing discussion time, subject to the time available to prepare the reports. In response to this, concern was expressed that such an arrangement would limit members' ability to ask follow-up questions arising from officers' responses or other members' contributions. It was emphasised that written questions could be submitted directly to officers or Cabinet Members anyway, and that one of the main benefits of a scrutiny meeting was to be able to develop the discussion live.

The view was expressed that there might be value in scrutiny sub-committees to give more attention to departmental matters.

Reference was made to the Education items that had been programmed for December, and concern was expressed that recent performance reports had included a large number of measures but very little direct information about pupils' attainment, their results, literacy and numeracy standards and their core skills. It was emphasised that members, such as corporate parents and governors, had a responsibility to scrutinise pupils' attainment and ensure that children and young people were enabled to fulfil their potential. The view was expressed that data on attainment, including GCSE results in the core subjects, should be included in the performance report in December.

It was noted that the Committee had already made a recommendation at a previous meeting to consider including information and data on pupils' attainment in future performance reports. It was explained that there were Welsh Government restrictions on what data the Education Department could publish, but that the Department would be reminded of the request and be asked about what information could be provided.

The view was expressed that the Committee should consider scrutinising the assurance arrangements and the process of preparing Cabinet reports in complex legal matters, in light of the matters and costs that arose from the Article 4 Direction. In response, it was noted that the item had been included in the list of potential matters for scrutiny during 2026/27 but the item had not been prioritised. Reference was made to recent scrutiny by the Communities Scrutiny Committee and the committee's recommendations in relation to the need to ensure that appropriate external legal advice was received and that risks were fully considered.

Surprise was expressed that the matter had not been considered a priority, given the costs, financial risk and reputational risk to the Council. It was noted that the Education and Economy Scrutiny Committee had responsibility for scrutiny of the Legal Service, and the view was expressed that the Scrutiny Forum should give further consideration to the matter.

Consideration was given as to when it would be timely to receive an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Safeguarding Arrangements in Schools Scrutiny Investigation. It was concluded that the Chair and the Scrutiny Adviser should discuss and agree when the item should be programmed.

RESOLVED to adopt the work programme for 2026/27.