Agenda item

The Chair, referring to statements submitted as Public Forum, stated that any changes proposed were not part of a cost cutting exercise but were to establish more effective scrutiny with an emphasis on policy development rather than pre-decision scrutiny. He believed that Scrutiny had not played the part it should in light of the findings of the Bundred Report. He noted the Mayor’s positive message at the Mayoral Question Time regarding the importance of Councillors engaging in decision making.

The Service Manager, Democratic Engagement stated that the report was intended to open discussions and the Board was asked to consider whether it wished the Local Government Association to be involved. She pointed out that a national review of Overview and Scrutiny was currently underway and there was an option for this Council to submit evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. A Councillor raised concerns that the Scrutiny review was being driven by the need to reduce costs.  She was advised that whilst there were some modest staff reductions, the overriding reason for considering the changes was the need to work more effectively.  . She added that consideration should be given to digital ways of working (eg. Slack) and not relying on so many formal meetings  and reports.;

2. A Councillor referred to the comment ‘sustained financial pressures’ in page 9 of the report which appeared to acknowledge the context of a shrinking organisation. He asked whether the current format of reports was a statutory requirement and suggested that reports should be written in a more accessible format. Reports often included misbalanced options and needed to present a cohesive narrative moving forward.;

3. A Councillor believed that the current structure was not fit for purpose and an emphasis on policy development was needed. As the report was written before the Bundred review , it seemed premature to discuss this matter in detail until that report had been fully assessed;

4. A Councillor asked what the expectations for Scrutiny were when decisions had already been made by the Mayor and Cabinet. There needed to be recognition of the resources available to produce information for scrutiny and not make unreasonable demands on officers.

5. A Councillor stated that good scrutiny was key but it was important that it be relevant and that there was ownership of a piece of work. It was vital that all large budgets were regularly scrutinised. Consideration should be given to the imbalance of some Work Programmes, fewer but deeper pieces of work and the formalising of the Scrutiny Chairs’ meeting;

6. The Interim Strategic Director – Business Change clarified that the report before the Board did not seek to make recommendations but was intended to assist with identifying the objectives for Scrutiny and then to design a model on that basis. Clearly, the work programme needed to be aligned with Cabinet, Audit Committee and Human Resources Committee in order to form an appropriate governance structure;

8. A Councillor stated that any model should put public engagement at its heart and it should move away from alignment with structures of the Council, which meant little to the public;

9. A Councillor, in response to the point above, stated that the public tended to respond to matters important to them leaving the other less popular areas which should perhaps be scrutinised more deeply. She felt it was important that the members with the right knowledge and skills sat on the appropriate Committees;

10. The Chair suggested a way forward would be to arrange an informal workshop to develop a scrutiny proposal between the next meeting and the last meeting of the year. It was confirmed that the AGM Full Council would only be required to set up a broad scrutiny service and the detail could be worked up later. This was supported;

11. The Interim Strategic Director – Business Change proposed that a ‘hothouse’ workshop could be piloted for this meeting;

12. It was agreed to submit a statement to the Parliamentary Select Committee advising that Bristol’s Scrutiny structure and ways of working were being revised and to engage with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this matter;

13. As a result of a request, it was agreed to place the minutes of the Constitutional Working Group on Al Fresco.

RESOLVED –

1. That an informal workshop (‘hothouse’) take place between 13 March Extraordinary OSMB and the scheduled OSMB on 6 April in order to develop a proposal for the scrutiny structure and new ways of working. 

2. That the Board notes that the Constitution allows it to determine how Scrutiny operated.

3. That a Statement be submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee’s Review of Overview and Scrutiny advising that Bristol’s Scrutiny structure and ways of working were being revised.

4. That the Council engage with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this matter.

At this point, Councillor Alexander left the meeting.