Agenda Item: 10 Appendix A - Monmouthshire County Council · developing effective joint scrutiny...

Goo

Wale

PhaCouove

Docume

Issued:

This doevaluatdirect pMonmois suppits arranin relati

od Scru

es Aud

ase 5 uncil’serview

ent Referen

June 2013

ocument hasing their ow

product of thouthshire Colied in confingements aon to any o

utiny?

dit Offi

– Mons fina

w and

nce: 300A20

3

s been prodwn arrangemhe Wales Auouncil as padence sole

and performoffice holder

Good

ce Scr

nmoual self-

scrut

013

duced usingments for ovudit Office. art of work ply for the pu

mance. No rer or employe

Quest

rutiny I

uthshi-evalutiny a

g data produverview andThis docum

performed inurpose helpesponsibilityee in their in

tion!

Improv

re Couationrrang

uced by Mod scrutiny. Tment is for thn accordan

ping the reciy is acceptendividual ca

vemen

ounty n of themen

nmouthshirThis self-evahe internal uce with statipient organed by the Wapacity, or a

t Stud

heir ownts

re Council waluation is nuse of tutory functinisation to im

Wales Audit any third pa

y

wn

when not the

ions. It mprove Office rty.

Agenda Item: 10 Appendix A

- Good Scrutiny? Good Question! - Phase 5 – Monmouthshire County Council’s final self-evaluation of their own overview and scrutiny arrangements

Background 1. Scrutiny has a key role in promoting improvement, efficiencies, and collaboration

across public services. This is increasingly the case in responding to the challenge of the global financial situation whilst continuously seeking to improve services, and in developing effective joint scrutiny arrangements for new and emerging collaborations. The changes brought about following the local government elections in May 2012, the introduction of the Local Government Measure 2011, together with improving self-scrutiny and regulation, mean that it is now timely to work with local government to support and develop stronger scrutiny arrangements. This year’s study will provide a baseline for new councils to assess and demonstrate their scrutiny improvement journey over the next five years and take stock of their improvement journey to date.

2. The Auditor General in his letter to chief executives on 13 March 2012 stated: ‘I plan to conduct a number of all-Wales improvement studies each year, focusing on those issues that most hinder transformation and give rise to the greatest inefficiencies. My aim is to identify areas of common learning that will support councils’ efforts to improve and help resolve some of the tensions between central and local government that often impede progress. Where further work is necessary or would be valuable, there will be scope to provide more detailed and tailored local assessments. My improvement study themes for the coming year will focus on issues of transparency and openness to challenge. It is my view that if we can oil the wheels with effective shared learning and real insights, the delivery of the whole range of council services will benefit.

I want to explore the extent to which challenge and scrutiny are operating effectively in local government in Wales and, alongside this, to review the approach to the preparation of annual governance statements. This work will complement my report on the issues arising and lessons learnt from the preparation of local government accounts. ’

Wales Audit Office and local authorities working together 3. The Wales Audit Office will work together with the local government sector over the

next year in a way that provides a valuable opportunity for all involved to further improve scrutiny in a sustainable manner. Together we will achieve this through facilitating the gaining of insight, sharing knowledge, developing skills, building and strengthening relationships, and identifying new opportunities for working together with other councils and partners. The study will also support councils in responding to the Welsh Government’s programme for scrutiny over the next three years, and to shape the proposed Key Characteristics of Effective Overview and Scrutiny that the WLGA and partners have crafted from existing good practice guidance. As a result, by April 2013, Wales will have in place an agreed set of key characteristics of effective overview and scrutiny that can be used consistently by all practitioners, stakeholders, regulators and inspectorates.

4. This programme of activity differs from a traditional audit approach in that it involves real-time shared activity and working together, self-evaluation, and peer learning exchange opportunities. The focus is upon gaining insight and supporting and developing sustainable continuous improvement, not just on providing assurance.



Purpose of this document This document has been prepared using the data produced by Monmouthshire Council in their self-evaluation of overview and scrutiny arrangements. Their self-evaluation was submitted to the Wales Audit Office through an electronic evaluation tool. This is the third and final document in a series that will help each Council evaluate its own overview and scrutiny arrangements and to learn from others to further strengthen its own arrangements over the next few years. These three documents are part of a six phase study plan. The six phase project plan is:

• Phase 1 Collaborative scoping • Phase 2 Initial self-evaluation (first document) • Phase 3 Regional workshop 1 • Phase 4 Fieldwork through peer learning exchange teams (second document) • Phase 5 Regional workshop 2 and final self-evaluation refinement (this document) • Phase 6 National reporting and on-going dissemination

Method of data collection

The Wales Audit Office built a web-based tool that enabled Council contacts to complete their own evaluation of their respective Council’s arrangements for the overview and scrutiny function. Key milestones for the completion of the self-evaluation tool were:

18 April 2013 Web-based tool went live, with an email sent to all Council contacts providing log in details and a hyperlink to the tool

22 May 2013 Reminder emails sent to all Council contacts that had not completed their peer evaluation of the approaching deadline

31 May 2013 Deadline for Councils to have submitted their final self-evaluation using the web-based tool.



Contacts for this study Gwent Non Jenkins,

WAO Performance Manager [email protected]

Louise Fleet Gwent Lead Co-ordinator

[email protected]

Blaenau Gwent Sian Steadman, Scrutiny Officer tel. 01495 355023 e-mail:[email protected]

Caerphilly Jonathan Jones, Democratic Services Manager

tel. 01443 864242 e-mail:[email protected]

Monmouthshire Hazel Illett, Scrutiny Manager tel. 01633 644233 e-mail:[email protected]

Newport John Thomas e-mail:[email protected] Torfaen Lynne Williams, Head of Improvement tel. 01495 742158

e-mail:[email protected] Mid and West Wales Colin Davies,


Chris Bolton Mid and West Wales Lead Co-ordinator

[email protected]

Carmarthenshire Bernadette Dolan (Scrutiny & Consultancy)

e-mail: [email protected]

Ceredigion Lisa Saycell e-mail:[email protected] Merthyr Tydfil Howard Jones e-mail:[email protected] Pembrokeshire Marc Forster e-mail:[email protected] Powys Wyn Richards

(CSP - Scrutiny Services) e-mail: [email protected]

Rhondda Cynon Taf Karyl May e-mail: [email protected] North Wales Huw Lloyd Jones,


Ena Lloyd North Wales Lead Co-ordinator

[email protected]

Conwy Simon Hensey tel. 01492 576004 e-mail:[email protected]

Denbighshire Steve Price, Democratic Services Manager

tel. 01824 712589 e-mail:[email protected]

Flintshire Margaret Parry-Jones tel. 01352 702427 e-mail:[email protected]

Gwynedd Vera Jones tel. 01286 679267 e-mail:[email protected]

Isle of Anglesey Bev Symonds tel. 01248 752078 e-mail:[email protected]

Wrexham Keith Lea, Scrutiny Manager tel. 01978 292257 e-mail:[email protected]

South Wales Steve Barry, WAO Performance Manager

[email protected]

Helen Keatley South Wales Lead Co-ordinator

[email protected]

Bridgend Rachel Harries, Scrutiny Manager Tel. 01656 643694 e-mail:[email protected]

Cardiff Paul Keeping, Operational Manager (Scrutiny Services)

tel. 029 2087 2953 e-mail:[email protected]

Neath Port Talbot Neil Evans, Principal Scrutiny Officer tel. 01639 763747 e-mail:[email protected]

Swansea Dave McKenna, Overview & Scrutiny Manager

tel. (01792) 636090 e-mail:[email protected]

Vale of Glamorgan Jeff Wyatt, Operational Manager Democratic Services

tel. (01446) 709408 e-mail:[email protected]



Handling This document and the copyright comprised therein is, and remains, the property of the Auditor General for Wales. Except as expressly permitted by law, neither the document nor any of its content may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system and/or transmitted in any form or by any means, or disclosed to any person other than the original recipients without the prior written permission of the Wales Audit Office. It must be safeguarded at all times to prevent publication or other improper use of its content. Unauthorised use or disclosure may result in legal proceedings. Handling in relation to freedom of information In the event of receiving a request for information to which this document may be relevant, attention is drawn to the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Code sets out proper practice in the handling of requests, including consultation with relevant third parties. In relation to this document, the Auditor General for Wales is a relevant third party. For further information, please email [email protected]


HinderingPartly

supportingPositively supporting

Significantly supporting

Positively supporting


Partly supporting


Partly supporting


Partly supporting



Partly supporting

Partly supporting


Partly supporting

Q4. Does O&S have a clearly defined and valued role in the council’s self‐evaluation, performance management and improvement arrangements?

Q5. Is there regular and effective two‐way communication between O&S and external/internal auditors, regulators and inspectors?

Q6. Does O&S have clear governance arrangements that are understood and applied effectively?

Q7. Are O&S chairs and executive members actively promoting the role and value of the scrutiny function to a variety of internal and external stakeholders?

Q8. Do O&S members have access to development and training opportunities focused on need, as part of the council’s wider commitment to member support and development?

Q9. Does O&S have a sufficient level of dedicated support from officers who are able to research independently and are able to provide O&S members with high‐quality, objective analysis and support?

Q10. Is the role of officers directly supporting scrutiny activity well‐understood and valued within the organisation?

Q11. Does the O&S process receive effective support from the council’s wider officer corp as and when required?

Q12. Is information provided to O&S relevant, robust, balanced, meaningful, responsive to requests, of high quality and provided in a timely and consistent manner?

Q12e. Section One, Scrutiny Environment: Does the environment that Overview and Scrutiny operate in support improvement?

Q3. Is there a well‐defined and constructive relationship between O&S, the executive and senior officers?

Monmouthshire: Final self‐evaluation

Scrutiny Environment

Q1. Is there a clear and shared understanding and application of the role and purpose of Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) amongst executive and non‐executive members, senior officers, scrutiny officers and key local partners?

Q2. Does O&S enjoy a high status and is it held in high esteem, trusted and respected both within and outside the Authority?



HinderingPartly





Partly supporting



Partly supporting


Partly supporting



Q14. Do O&S members identify appropriate topics for challenge or policy review/development and develop outcome‐focused forward work programmes?

Q15. Do O&S members constructively yet robustly challenge policy and decision‐makers and implementers (including partners etc) through effective questioning, listening and analysis, and develop a good understanding and knowledge of the subject under scrutiny?

Q16. Are O&S inquiries/reviews in‐depth, rigorous and draw upon independent and objective perspectives from a wide range of sources (including making use of benchmarking information) within and outside the council?

Q17. Does O&S regularly engage with members, officers, the public and other external stakeholders in planning and conducting its work?

Q18. Does O&S have a balanced and focused work programme that is developed by O&S members, following consultation with the public and partners and discussions with executive members and senior officers?

Q19 Do O&S members plan their work considering the appropriateness of a range of scrutiny methods/methodologies, use of clear terms of reference and realistic project plans?

Q20. Are scrutiny forward work programmes routinely shared with auditors, inspectors and regulators to influence planning of improvement activity?

Q21. Does O&S play a key role in the council’s self‐evaluation and assessment arrangements and regularly evaluate itself to ensure that it continues to learn and improve how it adds value and impact?

Q21.e Section Two, Scrutiny Practice: Is Overview and Scrutiny practice effective?

Q13. Does O&S provide evidence‐based, constructive challenge; operate objectively, apolitically and with independence from executive decision‐makers?

Scrutiny Practice



HinderingPartly



Partly supporting


Partly supporting

Partly supporting


Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Q24. Does overview and scrutiny challenge poor performance and its causes and alert senior officers, the executive, full council or partners to instigate remedial action as appropriate whilst continuing to monitor progress to remedy this?

Q25. When conducting in‐depth inquiries/reviews into areas of poor performance, does overview and scrutiny help shape responses to improve performance and the performance of other public sector providers?

Q26. Does overview and scrutiny ensure that the ‘voice’ of local people and communities across the area is heard as part of local decision and policy‐making processes?

Q27. Does overview and scrutiny enhance democratic accountability through regular, robust, constructive and public challenge of local decision‐makers/deliverers of services in the local area (including other public service providers / providers of ‘shared services’)?

Q28 Section Three, Impact of Scrutiny: Does the Overview and Scrutiny activity have impact?

Q23. Does overview and scrutiny identify instances where agreed policies are not being implemented effectively and recommend appropriate remedial action to whomever is responsible within or outside the Council?

Impact of Scrutiny

Q22. Does overview and scrutiny regularly contribute to the improvement of proposed/existing policies for the benefit of the area and its local communities?


1. Scrutiny Environment

Is there a clear and shared understanding and application of the role and purpose of Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) amongst executive and non‐executive members, senior officers, scrutiny officers and key local partners?

Q1.a

There is a clear understanding of the role of scrutiny amongst Scrutiny Members, the Executive and Senior Officers, but not necessarily local partners. Less senior officers have lesser understanding or appreciation of the role of scrutiny or the Council's wider decision‐making process. Supporting evidence of this is the WAO Review of Monmouthshire's Scrutiny arrangements undertaken in 2010.

Findings and supporting evidence

Q1.b

Members are proactive and they lead and own the scrutiny process.

Positive Aspects

Q1.c

There is a need to raise scrutiny's profile and ensure its role in the decision‐making process is understood and appreciated, an example is of this is ensuring officers populate the Cabinet Forward Planner and schedule in opportunities for pre‐decision scrutiny.

Areas for Improvement

Does O&S enjoy a high status and is it held in high esteem, trusted and respected both within and outside the Authority?

Q2.a

Scrutiny currently has developed a positive reputation, through work with the chairs to ensure constructive challenge. There is evidence of more effective scrutiny meetings, as witnessed through the WAO study peer observations.


Q2.b

Whilst a political dynamic is likely to remain, the Council has moved to a new HQ and Members feel more settled.

Positive Aspects

Q2.c

We need to consider how we can more effectively engage the public and external partners in the work of scrutiny.


Is there a well‐defined and constructive relationship between O&S, the executive and senior officers?

Q3.a

Relationships between scrutiny and the executive and scrutiny and officers have become more effective. We have a protocol that governs our relationships and how the Executive should respond to scrutiny and we have recently updated this and are seeking formal agreement of this protocol to ensure mutual expectations are understood.


Q3.b

The protocol on how the Executive should respond to scrutiny is successful and as a result, we always receive cabinet responses to scrutiny recommendations.

Positive Aspects

Q3.c

We have worked with officers to significantly improve the Cabinet Forward Planning process to ensure Scrutiny has advance notice of decisions coming forward. The Cabinet Forward Plan now features on every scrutiny agenda and Members receive a weekly email detailing any additions to the plan, so that Members can consider whether they wish to undertake pre‐decision scrutiny. If we can build a culture that is open, we can start to develop more confident and cooperative relationships.


Final self evaluation of Monmouthshire Page 1 of 9


Does O&S have a clearly defined and valued role in the council’s self‐evaluation, performance management and improvement arrangements?

Q4.a

We are doing substantial work on this at present to ensure scrutiny members understand their role and responsibilities in relation to performance management and risk management.


Q4.b

We have built Outcome Based Accountability into the performance management framework so that we can give scrutiny members a clearer picture of what the performance indicators maybe can't tell us i.e. 'the story'. We have trained all Members very recently on this in their scrutiny committees.

Positive Aspects

Q4.c

We need to ensure that Members understand the information being presented to them in order to ask the right questions. We delivered performance management training and the WLGA Scrutiny Questioning Skills Training to emphasise the need to direct challenge towards the appropriate people. i.e. the Cabinet Member and Senior Officer as opposed to the Improvement Officer bringing the information to Members. We are planning to establish a rolling Programme of performance management training to further develop and hone Members’ skills.


Is there regular and effective two‐way communication between O&S and external/internal auditors, regulators and inspectors?

Q5.a

External regulators are invited to scrutiny committees when there is an item relating to an inspection on the agenda, but our communication channels could be strengthened. We used to have a more defined relationship with internal and external auditors when we had an Audit and Accounts Select Committee but this was disbanded 2 years ago and some of the roles and responsibilities were passed to the select committee and others were assumed by the statutory Audit Committee and contact with internal auditors and regulators has diminished.


Q5.b

We have had several reviews by the WAO relating to scrutiny and I believe there is a positive relationship between scrutiny and the WAO, the WAO have facilitated some action learning sessions with members and officers as a consequence of their review into our scrutiny arrangements in 2010 and this work was very effective.

Positive Aspects

Q5.c

In terms of scrutiny becoming more involved in self‐regulation, we have significant room for improvement. There is also scope to work more closely with internal Auditors to ensure Members are scrutinising the right areas, possibly via a meeting once a year to highlight areas that could benefit from further scrutiny.


Does O&S have clear governance arrangements that are understood and applied effectively?

Q6.a

The governance arrangements in place are fit for purpose and support effective scrutiny. The Call‐in procedure may be reviewed in line with the current review of our constitution.


Q6.b

The governance arrangements are appropriate and support effective scrutiny.

Positive Aspects



Q6.c

We need to ensure more effective use by scrutiny members of the existing governance arrangements. There tends to be an attitude amongst some Members that "the Executive will not allow us to do xyz" which suggests some Members do not fully realise the extent of their capability. We are developing a Scrutiny Handbook for Members as an outcome of the WAO study.


Are O&S chairs and executive members actively promoting the role and value of the scrutiny function to a variety of internal and external stakeholders?

Q7.a

Prior to the election, the Scrutiny Champion played a pivotal role in promoting scrutiny internally to the Executive and to Officers in order to build relationships this was a direct result of WAO work on scrutiny. More recently, we have established regular meetings of the scrutiny chairs in order to promote the role and value of scrutiny.


Q7.b

The chairs are meeting as a group and can now take issues forward with a group identity.

Positive Aspects

Q7.c

The scrutiny chairs have the potential to play a significant role in promoting scrutiny externally.


Do O&S members have access to development and training opportunities focused on need, as part of the council’s wider commitment to member support and development?

Q8.a

We have enhanced the Member induction programme and have built into scrutiny committee’s specific training on budget monitoring, performance monitoring and risk management to ensure maximum exposure to training. However, there is a need to identify specific needs based training for Members.


Q8.b

Members have had significant scrutiny training following the election and outcome of the training is clearly apparent at scrutiny meetings where more effective questioning is evident.

Positive Aspects

Q8.c

An approach based on competencies would assist in highlighting areas where training is required.


Does O&S have a sufficient level of dedicated support from officers who are able to research independently and are able to provide O&S members with high‐quality, objective analysis and support?

Q9.a

Scrutiny support is 1 officer at present, but there is democratic services support for any task and finish groups and improvement officers also play a role in supporting overview and scrutiny by bringing high quality specialist advice to members, however, capacity could pose an issue as further collaborative scrutiny arrangements become established.


Q9.b

Support is independent, impartial and objective and experienced in scrutiny and joint scrutiny.

Positive Aspects

Q9.c

There is the likelihood that the scrutiny remit will expand and resources may need to match this.




Is the role of officers directly supporting scrutiny activity well‐understood and valued within the organisation?

Q10.a

Partially... there is a lack of understanding around the role of the scrutiny officer amongst newer members and also some officers, this tends to be amongst those who have little contact with members or the decision making process.


Q10.b

The Scrutiny Officers' attendance at meetings enables them to offer guidance and help the committee focus.

Positive Aspects

Q10.c

We need to improve the understanding of the governance arrangements and the decision making process across the Council and reinforce key messages.


Does the O&S process receive effective support from the council’s wider officer corp as and when required?

Q11.a

There is in the main effective support from officers when required.


Q11.b

When asked to attend scrutiny, some officers rearrange their agendas and attend as a priority, whilst some others do not see scrutiny as a priority.

Positive Aspects

Q11.c

Officers need to better understand the role of scrutiny in order to be able to better support it e.g. by bringing the information that Members need. At present, some officers pitch information correctly, whilst others do not. The Scrutiny Manager will be working with officers more closely to ensure information is pitched appropriately.


Is information provided to O&S relevant, robust, balanced, meaningful, responsive to requests, of high quality and provided in a timely and consistent manner?

Q12.a

The standard and format of information brought is generally good and allows Members to debate issues constructively if they so wish.


Q12.b

Information is usually balanced and Officers tend to be honest about the picture being presented to Members and seek to ensure it is a fair reflection.

Positive Aspects

Q12.c

Officer reports need to remain focused and not blind Members with information that can divert them off on a tangent. Reporting needs to be concise and provide a full picture.




2. Scrutiny Practice

Does O&S provide evidence‐based, constructive challenge; operate objectively, apolitically and with independence from executive decision‐makers?

Q13.a

Scrutiny operates independently from the Executive there is a protocol on the relationship which outlines parameters for working.


Q13.b

The protocol seems to work effectively.

Positive Aspects

Q13.c

Challenge could be more constructive and Members have received training from the WLGA on how to challenge constructively.


Do O&S members identify appropriate topics for challenge or policy review/development and develop outcome‐focused forward work programmes?

Q14.a

Work programmes are determined by Members although they receive suggestions from officers, but if the committees choose to focus their attention on particular areas, they exercise that judgement and agree a direction.


Q14.b

Scrutiny Members own and lead the process.

Positive Aspects

Q14.c

Officers tend to suggest items for scrutiny through the year which impinges on the work programmes Members have agreed and can at times cause a scrutiny overload, which can hinder effective scrutiny. We are working with the Chairs to ensure they take ownership of the workload of their committees.


Do O&S members constructively yet robustly challenge policy and decision‐makers and implementers (including partners etc) through effective questioning, listening and analysis, and develop a good understanding and knowledge of the subject under scrutiny?

Q15.a

The process is still developing and Members are becoming more skilled in questioning and analysis this is as a result of the training they have received.


Q15.b

The training has developed the skills of some Members and that is evident at meetings.

Positive Aspects

Q15.c

Members need to further improve their listening skills, in order to effectively continue challenge e.g. asking follow up questions until satisfied with an answer.


Are O&S inquiries/reviews in‐depth, rigorous and draw upon independent and objective perspectives from a wide range of sources (including making use of benchmarking information) within and outside the council?

Q16.a

We have conducted numerous reviews, which have followed an evidence‐based approach with recommendations being based upon the evidence received through the inquiry, whether via experts, key stakeholders or service users.




Q16.b

We have a scrutiny inquiry approach that is tried and tested and has produced robust pieces of work.

Positive Aspects

Q16.c

Investigations are often lengthy and take time to complete and this can mean scrutiny misses the boat in terms of the impact it can make or the added value that can be achieved through a review. We are endeavoring to embed other means of challenge i.e. short scrutinies whereby Members call in relevant Members and Officers and challenge directly.


Does O&S regularly engage with members, officers, the public and other external stakeholders in planning and conducting its work?

Q17.a

We do engage with the public in our scrutiny work, either through co‐opting people onto our committees or holding meetings with them to seek their views. We have a process for involving key stakeholders in our calling procedure and we also have pre‐decision scrutiny process that allows public and key stakeholder involvement. In addition, we have a work programming process, which defines how we set our scrutiny work programmes, who we need to consult with and how we should prioritise items for scrutiny.


Q17.b

We also hold a public open forum at all of our scrutiny meetings to enable the public to speak and through this mechanism, they can influence the scrutiny process.

Positive Aspects

Q17.c

Arising from the measure, we will in future engage with the public when considering which items to scrutinise and will develop a mechanism for the public to comment on agenda items as they are published prior to the scrutiny meeting.


Does O&S have a balanced and focused work programme that is developed by O&S members, following consultation with the public and partners and discussions with executive members and senior officers?

Q18.a

We have a work programming process that enables Members to take many aspects into consideration before developing their work programmes. We have a clear criteria to prioritise topics for scrutiny to ensure maximum impact and added value. Members do accept officer suggestions onto work programmes but also focus their attention on what they feel is important to the community. Work programmes tend to align with the direction of the Council and look to actively support it.


Q18.b

Scrutiny Members lead and own the scrutiny process.

Positive Aspects

Q18.c

Work programmes need to begin to become more outward focused in line with the measure, e.g. LSB scrutiny.


Do O&S members plan their work considering the appropriateness of a range of scrutiny methods/methodologies, use of clear terms of reference and realistic project plans?

Q19.a

Yes, we have a clear process for how to conduct a scrutiny inquiry and this includes defining terms of reference and clear objectives for any piece of work. Project plans are then developed after inquiries have been scoped and are deemed feasible.




Q19.b

We have a clear process for inquiries and task and finish groups.

Positive Aspects

Q19.c

Sometimes Members choose difficult subject areas where the answers they are seeking are unlikely to be found and this can frustrate Members when they complete their work and their findings are inconclusive.


Are scrutiny forward work programmes routinely shared with auditors, inspectors and regulators to influence planning of improvement activity?

Q20.a

Work Programmes are shared with auditors, inspectors and regulators on an occasional basis.


Q20.b

Our work programmes are public documents and can be accessed any time via our website.

Positive Aspects

Q20.c

There is scope to further share scrutiny work programmes with auditors, inspectors and regulators.


Does O&S play a key role in the council’s self‐evaluation and assessment arrangements and regularly evaluate itself to ensure that it continues to learn and improve how it adds value and impact?

Q21.a

Scrutiny has produced 2 self‐evaluation / self‐reflection reports over a period of 4 years. In addition, 2 reports have been completed by the WAO specifically on the scrutiny function and the Council's scrutiny arrangements feature as part of the Council's corporate assessment.


Q21.b

We continually evaluate our effectiveness and make adjustments to our arrangements as necessary.

Positive Aspects

Q21.c

We are in the early stages of implementing a process whereby at each scrutiny meeting, we summarise the outcome of the meeting and assess our own performance in challenging the issues on the agenda, but further work needs to be undertaken to roll this approach across all scrutiny committees.




3. Impact of Scrutiny

Does overview and scrutiny regularly contribute to the improvement of proposed/existing policies for the benefit of the area and its local communities?

Q22.a

We conduct pre‐decision scrutiny on new policies or changes to existing policies and where possible, gathers views of key stakeholders.


Q22.b

We are embedding the pre‐decision scrutiny process so that Officers understand the role that scrutiny can play in the wider decision‐making process.

Positive Aspects

Q22.c

We need to provide training to officers on scrutiny so that they better understand the scrutiny role. Too often there seems insufficient time for scrutiny to conduct robust pre‐decision scrutiny.


Does overview and scrutiny identify instances where agreed policies are not being implemented effectively and recommend appropriate remedial action to whomever is responsible within or outside the Council?

Q23.a

Scrutiny has identified policies that were not being implemented effectively and several policy reviews have recommended remedial action. On occasions, policy reviews have too long to complete, which has led officers to address the issues prior to scrutiny completing its work. This can mean scrutiny fails to get the recognition it deserves.


Q23.b

Scrutiny Members have a clear understanding of issues on the ground and use this knowledge to inform their investigation.

Positive Aspects

Q23.c

Members need to become familiar and comfortable with other ways of challenging service delivery and recommending improvement i.e. sometimes it may be more appropriate and timely to challenge officers and the Executive Member directly rather than establish a task and finish group that may take too long and mean scrutiny misses the boat in terms of its impact.


Does overview and scrutiny challenge poor performance and its causes and alert senior officers, the executive, full council or partners to instigate remedial action as appropriate whilst continuing to monitor progress to remedy this?

Q24.a

Scrutiny Members are beginning to challenge officers and the Executive on performance but this role is still developing.


Q24.b

The improved process for reporting performance information to scrutiny members is assisting Members in identifying performance issues and is providing them with the right amount and type of information to challenge constructively.

Positive Aspects

Q24.c

Members need to gain confidence in their approach and become effective in challenging those responsible at times, questioning can lack clarity and Members may concede rather than pursue a line of inquiry.




When conducting in‐depth inquiries/reviews into areas of poor performance, does overview and scrutiny help shape responses to improve performance and the performance of other public sector providers?

Q25.a

We are not yet effective in scrutinising poor performance. We have identified poor performance issues relating to other public service providers and have made recommendations to them, but responses have been poor. Until the implementation of the recent Measure, scrutiny has not felt it has the power to hold them to account.


Q25.b

The recent Measure should offer scrutiny such power.

Positive Aspects

Q25.c

Challenging other public sector providers will be a key area for improvement and will be assisted by the Measure. We need to work with Welsh Government to ensure guidance is given to partners. We also need to work with our respective partners to prepare them for scrutiny.


Does overview and scrutiny ensure that the ‘voice’ of local people and communities across the area is heard as part of local decision and policy‐making processes?

Q26.a

Scrutiny does ensure the public voice is heard it actively seeks public involvement in its scrutiny reviews, it ensure it hears from service users when conducting its work, it has a public open forum on the agenda of every scrutiny meeting, it involves the public (service users and key stakeholders) in pre‐decision Scrutinies and in the Call‐in process as and when required.


Q26.b

Members are keen to ensure the public have every opportunity to participate in its work and have sought to engage them in scrutiny work via press releases and open surgeries / focus groups.

Positive Aspects

Q26.c

Whilst the public are interested in attending a meeting if the subject matter is of relevance to them, they are largely unaware of what scrutiny is and what scrutiny Members do and there is a need to promote this to ensure the public understand the decision‐making process and can see scrutiny as a vehicle through which to become involved. As an outcome of the WAO study, we will be developing a scrutiny webpage which will contain all pertinent information.


Does overview and scrutiny enhance democratic accountability through regular, robust, constructive and public challenge of local decision‐makers/deliverers of services in the local area (including other public service providers / providers of ‘shared services’)?

Q27.a

This has been undertaken on a few occasions and is a developing role. The response from public service providers (if any) was mixed. Until the recent Measure, Members did not feel they had sufficient power to hold them to account.


Q27.b

The Measure should assist the development of the accountability mechanism.

Positive Aspects

Q27.c

Ensuring local decision‐makers / public service providers understand the new powers afforded to scrutiny to scrutinise wider public services is a priority, although how this can and should be done remains unclear.




1 <‐Lan1

Var 1 to 2

Var 2 to 3 Hindering

Partly supporting


Significantly supporting Hindering

Partly supporting


Significantly supporting Hindering

Partly supporting






Partly supporting



Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting




Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting


Partly supporting


Partly supporting







Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting




Partly supporting


Partly supporting

self‐evaluation


Q1. Is there a clear and shared understanding and application of the role and purpose of Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) amongst executive and non‐executive members, senior officers, scrutiny officers and key local partners?








Q9. Does O&S have a sufficient level of dedicated support from officers who are able to research independently and are able to provide O&S members with high‐quality, objective analysis and support?




Final self‐evaluation

Monmouthshire ‐ Scrutiny Environment

Peer learning exchange evaluation


Var 1 to 2


Partly Supporting

Positively Supporting

Significantly Supporting Hindering

Partly Supporting



Partly Supporting


Significantly Supporting






Partly supporting


Partly supporting





Partly supporting


Partly supporting



Partly supporting

Partly supporting









Q21. Does O&S play a key role in the council’s self‐evaluation and assessment arrangements and regularly evaluate itself to ensure that it continues to learn and improve how it adds value and impact?



Monmouthshire ‐ Scrutiny Practice

self‐evaluation Peer learning exchange evaluation

Q15. Do O&S members constructively yet robustly challenge policy and decision‐makers and implementers (including partners etc) through effective questioning, listening and analysis, and develop a good understanding and knowledge of the subject under scrutiny?

Q16. Are O&S inquiries/reviews in‐depth, rigorous and draw upon independent and objective perspectives from a wide range of sources (including making use of benchmarking information) within and outside the council?


Q18. Does O&S have a balanced and focused work programme that is developed by O&S members, following consultation with the public and partners and discussions with executive members and senior officers?



Var 1 to 2


Partly Supporting



Partly Supporting



Partly Supporting


Significantly Supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting




Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting




Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting

Partly supporting



Q23. Does overview and scrutiny identify instances where agreed policies are not being implemented effectively and recommend appropriate remedial action to whomever is responsible within or outside the Council?

Q24. Does overview and scrutiny challenge poor performance and its causes and alert senior officers, the executive, full council or partners to instigate remedial action as appropriate whilst continuing to monitor progress to remedy this?

Q25. When conducting in‐depth inquiries/reviews into areas of poor performance, does overview and scrutiny help shape responses to improve performance and the performance of other public sector providers?


Q27. Does overview and scrutiny enhance democratic accountability through regular, robust, constructive and public challenge of local decision‐makers/deliverers of services in the local area (including other public service providers / providers of ‘shared services’)?


Monmouthshire ‐ Impact of Scrutiny

self‐evaluation Peer learning exchange evaluation



0

4

17

10246810121416182022

Hindering effective scrutiny Partly supporting effectivescrutiny

Positively supportingeffective scrutiny

Significantly supportingeffective scrutiny

Q1. Is there a clear and shared understanding and application of the role and purpose of Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) amongst executive and non‐executive members, senior officers,

scrutiny officers and key local partners?

Monmouthshire All of Wales

0

7

14

1

0246810121416182022






0

6

16

00246810121416182022








0

7

12

3

0246810121416182022






0

15

7

00246810121416182022






0

4

13

5

0246810121416182022








0

16

5

1

0246810121416182022






0

3

15

4

0246810121416182022






0

3

14

5

0246810121416182022




Q9. Does O&S have a sufficient level of dedicated support from officers who are able to research independently and are able to provide O&S members with high‐quality, objective

analysis and support?




1

6

13

2

0246810121416182022






0

8

11

3

0246810121416182022






1

8

13

00246810121416182022








0

7

14

00246810121416182022






02

15

5

0246810121416182022






1

5

13

3

0246810121416182022








0

7

15

00246810121416182022




Q15. Do O&S members constructively yet robustly challenge policy and decision‐makers and implementers (including partners etc) through effective questioning, listening and analysis, and

develop a good understanding and knowledge of the subject under scrut


0

5

12

5

0246810121416182022




Q16. Are O&S inquiries/reviews in‐depth, rigorous and draw upon independent and objective perspectives from a wide range of sources (including making use of benchmarking information)

within and outside the council?


0

13

8

1

0246810121416182022








1

10 9

2

0246810121416182022




Q18. Does O&S have a balanced and focused work programme that is developed by O&S members, following consultation with the public and partners and discussions with executive

members and senior officers?


0

4

15

3

0246810121416182022






3

18

0 1

0246810121416182022








1

13

7

10246810121416182022




Q21. Does O&S play a key role in the council’s self‐evaluation and assessment arrangements and regularly evaluate itself to ensure that it continues to learn and improve how it adds value

and impact?


0

5

15

1

0246810121416182022






1

10 10

1

0246810121416182022








1

911

10246810121416182022




Q23. Does overview and scrutiny identify instances where agreed policies are not being implemented effectively and recommend appropriate remedial action to whomever is

responsible within or outside the Council?


1

810

3

0246810121416182022




Q24. Does overview and scrutiny challenge poor performance and its causes and alert senior officers, the executive, full council or partners to instigate remedial action as appropriate whilst

continuing to monitor progress to remedy this?


1

810

3

0246810121416182022




Q25. When conducting in‐depth inquiries/reviews into areas of poor performance, does overview and scrutiny help shape responses to improve performance and the performance of

other public sector providers?




1

18

3

00246810121416182022






0

119

10246810121416182022




Q27. Does overview and scrutiny enhance democratic accountability through regular, robust, constructive and public challenge of local decision‐makers/deliverers of services in the local

area (including other public service providers / providers of ‘shared


0

8

11

1

0246810121416182022







Agenda Item: 10 Appendix A - Monmouthshire County Council · developing effective joint scrutiny...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Item: 10 Appendix A - Monmouthshire County Council · developing effective joint scrutiny...