LGA Scrutiny Peer Challenge

Home , Wiltshire Council

Cllr Simon Killane, Chair, Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee Maggie Rae, Corporate Director Carolyn Godfrey, Corporate Director Carlton Brand, Corporate Director

Wiltshire Council Bythesea Road Trowbridge BA14 8JN

23 March 2015

Overview and Scrutiny Peer Challenge 10 and 11 March 2015

On behalf of the peer team I would like to say what a pleasure and privilege it was to be invited to Wiltshire Council to deliver the peer challenge as part of the Local Government Association (LGA)’s Sector Led Improvement work.

Peer challenges are delivered by experienced councillor and officer peers. The make-up of the peer team reflected your requirements and the focus of the peer challenge. Peers were selected on the basis of their relevant experience and expertise and were agreed with you. The peers who delivered the peer challenge at Wiltshire Council were:

 Cllr Glen Sanderson, Northumberland Council  Cllr Heather Kidd, Shropshire Council  Simon Harper, Head of Democratic Services, Gloucestershire County Council  Ann Reeder, Adviser and Regional Advocate, Centre for Public Scrutiny  Anne Brinkhoff, Programme Manager, LGA

Scope and focus of the peer challenge

The framework for our challenge was five headline questions:

1. What is the common understanding of the role and purpose of overview and scrutiny? 2. How effective are the relationships between Executive and Scrutiny? 3. How effective is the structure and operational arrangements for Scrutiny? 4. What is the capacity, commitment and skills of members to lead and direct the scrutiny function, and how well are they supported? 5. How can Scrutiny increase its value in pursuing the objectives in the business plan to the purpose of Wiltshire Council? 1

It is important to stress that this was not an inspection. Peer challenges are improvement focused. As peers we used our experience and knowledge to reflect on the information presented to us by people we met, things we saw and material that we read.

This letter provides a summary of the peer team’s findings. It builds on the feedback presentation delivered by the team at the end of their on-site visit. In presenting this feedback, the team acted as fellow local government officers and members, not professional consultants or inspectors. We hope this recognises the progress Wiltshire Council has made during the last year whilst stimulating debate and thinking about future challenges.

1. Headline messages

Members and officers have responded well to the recommendations of the two recent peer challenges in September 2013 (Corporate) and October 2014 (Health and wellbeing). The Scrutiny function has changed its focus and is more purposeful and outcome focused. It is well aligned with the key actions in the Council’s Business Plan and there is now a real focus on important policy areas as well as partnerships whose work will significantly affect the outcomes for local communities. Examples are the emerging work with the LEP, School Improvement, Dementia and Health and Social Care integration.

Relationships between the Health Select Committee and the Health and Wellbeing Board are being strengthened and the recent ‘Integration Inquiry Day’ has been beneficial in developing members’ understanding and in agreeing topics for future scrutiny. There is commitment to putting in place a formal protocol between the two committees and other stakeholders, including Healthwatch, to create clarity on respective roles and responsibilities and ways of working together.

Our conversations highlighted a strong degree of ambition among members which needs to be reconciled to the resource available. This requires effective prioritisation to ensure that reviews continue to focus on outcomes. While it is the substantive work, particularly of the Task Groups, which excites and motivates Members, it is nonetheless important to capture and communicate the impact of reviews, not least as this will instil confidence in Members and the public about the importance of Scrutiny.

Overall the peer team consider that the Scrutiny process is evolving well and the new approach needs to be given time to bed-in. We would recommend a ‘health check’ ahead of your elections in 2017.

2. What is the common understanding of the role and purpose of Overview and Scrutiny?

Members and officers we spoke with were able to clearly articulate the role and purpose of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny1 function. While individuals had their own wording, we found a strong degree of commonality in what members and officers consider as the key role and purpose of Scrutiny, ie:

 ‘holding the administration to account’  ‘enabling the non-Executive to influence decision making and policy of the council’  ‘not a tick box exercise’  ‘must add value to decision making’  ‘outcome focused’  ‘business plan focused’  ‘evidence led - not politically led’

The strong focus on outcomes and the need to link the work of Scrutiny to the Council’s Business Plan is reassuring, particularly given the recommendations of the Corporate Peer Challenge in September 2013.

Somewhat surprisingly, there were four key aspects of the role and purpose of Scrutiny that were mentioned less frequently. These are:  Providing assurance to the public;  Engaging with and holding partners to account  Driving improvement in services and helping to find savings; and  Engaging with the public to uncover user experience and resident satisfaction

In practice, there is strong evidence that Select Committees and Task and Finish Groups are increasing their work with partners, for example the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Military Civilian Integration Partnership.

Given the Council’s ambition and sincerity about improvements to Scrutiny it would be appropriate for it to re-enforce the common understanding by articulating and publishing a definition of the purpose and role of Scrutiny within Wiltshire Council.

3. How effective are the relationships between Executive and Scrutiny?

Relationships between the Executive and Scrutiny are good. There is on-going engagement and sharing of information between Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs and the political and corporate leadership. Examples are formal agenda planning

1 For the remainder of the report we will refer to the term ‘Scrutiny’ 3

processes and informal conversations to ensure that Scrutiny can fulfil its purpose of holding the Executive to account and reflect Council concerns. We heard that most Scrutiny members are committed to evidence based working and are able to work outside a party political context. This is a genuine strength and is a key condition for Scrutiny to add value to and improve decision making in the longer term as opposed to short term political opportunism.

The above enables a mature approach to Scrutiny with few Call-Ins and a confirmation that the majority of Scrutiny recommendations are accepted and valued by the Executive.

While relationships are good, we heard that there could be even greater clarity of the interface and partnership between Scrutiny and Executive, using both informal and formal engagement, for example through regular timetabled meetings. In particular we heard that there could be greater alignment between the Cabinet Forward Plan and the Scrutiny Work Programme to allow better topic selection and prioritisation. We felt that there could be more consistent attendance of Chairs of the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee and Select Committees at Cabinet and of Cabinet Member/Portfolio Holders at Scrutiny to enhance the flow of information and mutual understanding.

There are some potential risks associated with the position of Scrutiny members on Project Boards. Project Boards play an important role in the operation of the Council as a means to explore and deliver specific objectives and outcomes. Often they include Scrutiny members in a non-Executive capacity to ensure that they develop their knowledge and understanding of specific projects and are able to feed this back into the Scrutiny process. While this can have a positive impact, there is a danger that Scrutiny members are compromised in their role as ‘independent scrutineers’. We suggest that there must be a clearly defined role of Scrutiny members on Project Boards that identifies them as ‘independent observers’ and that there is a formal mechanism for them to provide feedback to the wider membership of the Council. The Council needs to be cautious that non-executive members do not become associated with both decision making and Scrutiny of the same subject. The Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee is well placed to develop a protocol in liaison with the Cabinet, the wording of which is mutually agreed. This could include a recognition that reporting from Project Boards to Scrutiny is carried out by the relevant Cabinet Member/Portfolio Holder and that any non-executive member on a Project Board is not on the Select Committee or Task Group that would be scrutinising the project.

4. How effective is the structure and operational arrangements for Scrutiny?

Wiltshire Council has adopted a clear and common structure for its scrutiny function. It involves an Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee, Select Committees for Health, Children and Environment and Overview & Scrutiny Task Groups. In addition, there is a standing Financial Planning Task Group. Arrangements are clearly set out and well understood. They allow some 90 per cent of non-executive members to be involved in the Scrutiny function.

There are good opportunities for opposition members to provide leadership to the Scrutiny function. The Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee is chaired by a member of the Independent Group and Select Committees are able to elect their own Chairs. Two out of the three Select Committees are chaired by a member of the opposition, and the chairmanship of Task Groups is not determined along party political lines. This indicates political maturity as it is an important condition for Scrutiny to be non-party-political.

We found a strong practice of using co-opted members on Task Groups, bringing diverse perspectives and expert knowledge where appropriate. Examples are the work on Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and the ‘Continence’ Task Group. In some cases, co-opted members are chairing Task Groups. This is innovative and can provide strong subject leadership but needs to be reconciled with the democratic mandate of elected members on Scrutiny and external contributors need to receive appropriate support to fulfil these duties.

Relationships between the Health Select Committee and the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) are developing. Much work has been done to address the recommendations in the recent health and wellbeing peer challenge Peer Challenge (October 2014), including the importance of the Chairs of the HWB and Health Select Committee considering their Forward Plans jointly, and for the Health Select Committee to focus on priorities across the whole system. Over the last four months regular meetings between the Chairs of the two committees have been established and the Health Integration Inquiry Day, facilitated by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, has been a valuable exercise in determining the approach and topics for future Health Scrutiny as well as developing the understanding of scrutiny members. The Integration Inquiry Day resulted in agreement to draft a protocol between Health Scrutiny, the Health and Wellbeing Board and other key partners and identified six topics for inclusion in the Committees’ Forward Work Programme.

Joint working with neighbouring Councils is strong to ensure scrutiny of topics that span more than one local authority boundary. Examples are the scrutiny of the work of the Mental Health Trust through the Avon and Wiltshire Partnership (including Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol and Swindon) and the Local Enterprise Partnership with Swindon. In particular the peer team welcome the

Council’s early efforts to develop effective scrutiny arrangements of the LEP, as the key partnership to promote prosperity and allocate significant government funding.

There are evolving links between Scrutiny and the Council’s 18 Area Boards. Area Boards are chaired by local Members and each Area Board also includes other local councillors, community area managers, democratic service officers and a member of the Cabinet. The local NHS, fire and emergency services, police, town and parish councils, community area partnerships and other groups also engage. The Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee has started to attend the meetings of the chairs of the Area Boards to ensure there are appropriate mechanisms for Select Committees and Task Groups to engage with local communities where this is appropriate for their reviews and to influence the work programme of Scrutiny.

However, many people we spoke to felt that ‘Scrutiny needs to get out of County Hall more’. There is recognition of the practicalities of meetings held in County Hall in terms of facilities such as web-casting and its central location in Trowbridge. However, Task Groups in particular will be able to engage better with communities and partners if they are (and are seen to be) meeting away from County Hall. It will strengthen their independence and will change the tone and feel of meetings.

Providing assurance to the public is an important purpose of Scrutiny and the engagement of the public in scrutiny reviews is an important mechanism to achieve this. There are many good examples of engagement with the public, for example in the recent review of the provision of Youth Services. However, Task Group members, Scrutiny Members and Chairs of Committees told us that you could be more ambitious in engaging the public. It is crucial to consider how to and with whom to engage in the planning and scoping of Scrutiny reviews and to think carefully and creatively who the witnesses ought to be and how best to engage them. We heard that whilst Scrutiny could make use of the Council’s communications team to inform the public of the outcomes or impact of Scrutiny reviews, this did not always happen. Giving more credit to the Scrutiny function will strengthen the public’s confidence in the Executive’s ability to be challenged and improve decision making as a consequence.

There is a perception that some aspects of Scrutiny is often reactive (or evaluative) rather than proactive (or formative). Examples mentioned to us included the review of Hospital Transport (Hopper Bus) or the recent review of the Street Scene Contract. We did find a good degree of awareness among Committee Chairs and officers and the intention to shift to reviews that are more forward looking and that engage Scrutiny at an early stage. Projects in the Forward Work Plan, in particular for Children’s and Health Select Committees is testimony to changing ambitions. It will now be the responsibility of Select Committee and Task Group chairs, supported by Scrutiny Officers and Associate

Directors, to ensure that reviews are scoped carefully to ensure that they carry sufficient impact.

The implementation of Scrutiny recommendations is not formally tracked and reported back to the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee at regular intervals. This does not need to be resource intensive but will allow Members, partners and the public to demonstrate and acknowledge the impact of Scrutiny reviews. It will also provide a useful tool to systematically account for and communicate the impact of Scrutiny more broadly, for example through the regular Newsletter and reporting to Council. Similar working practices to other councils (including Gloucestershire County Council) for tracking Task Group recommendations and reporting to full Council might be worth considering.

The evaluation of the work of Task Groups could be strengthened further. It is standard practice for Task Groups to evaluate their work at the end of each review. This is positive in that it allows Members to reflect on their work and formally ‘close’ it. The process could be developed by formalising the evaluation and by identifying learning points more systematically and using these to inform the scoping of future reviews. In particular, formal evaluation could review the role of co-opted members as well as the ability to engage with the public as part of reviews.

5. What is the capacity, commitment and skills of members to lead and direct the Scrutiny function, and how well are they supported?

The Council’s Scrutiny function is well supported by the current team of a Scrutiny Manager and two dedicated Senior Scrutiny Officers, and a further officer is being recruited. The team is skilled, committed and supportive and is valued by Members. Given the independence of Scrutiny, efficient and committed support that is dedicated to the Scrutiny function is a crucial success factor.

The Scrutiny Team is located within the relatively new Corporate Office, which hosts a number of corporate support functions, including the policy team and Democratic Services. This is positive as it not only provides additional support but also enables Scrutiny officers to access a variety of experiences and skills and to be more effectively mainstreamed.

There are a large and growing number of Members who are engaging in Scrutiny. We heard that 90 per cent of non-Executive members are involved in either Select Committees or Task Groups which provides a significant resource. We heard that meeting attendance is high, and many Members come well prepared and are keen to develop their skills and expertise. These are considerable strengths.

Members and officers are keen to learn from others. This included attendance at Scrutiny Conferences and events and strong engagement in the South West Overview & Scrutiny and Health Scrutiny Network. The decision to commission a Scrutiny peer challenge further confirms this strength and is testimony to a corporate culture of learning and development.

There are some good mechanisms to showcase the work and impact of Scrutiny. The Scrutiny Team has recently started a Scrutiny newsletter and publishes an Annual report. These documents could be further strengthened by focusing on outcomes and impact but are a good vehicle to raise the profile of Scrutiny.

Despite the strong support of officers that was evidenced, limited capacity is holding back Member’s ambition to cover more topics and run more Task Groups and work with other councils. It also restricts Scrutiny’s potential contribution to the Council’s policy development. The team recognise the Council’s financial challenges and the imperative to deliver more with less. This reinforces the need for effective adjustment of the Select Committees’ Work Programmes to ensure that reviews have the right support from Scrutiny Officers. There is good evidence that this is happening in Health with two significant reviews on Transfer to Care and Help to Live at Home. Care needs to be taken to apply a similar approach in Children’s and Environment Select Committees without curtailing the ambition and enthusiasm of Members. At a time of austerity, Scrutiny can play a supportive role in the council to identifying savings and reviewing services.

Better prioritisation of meetings will ensure greater depth of Scrutiny and greater impact. Given the passion and enthusiasm of Members and the significant changes in the health and social care economy, the desire to cover many items is understandable. Our observation of the Health Select Committee and conversations with committee members confirmed the need to ensure a good balance between the breadth and depth of agendas to ensure robust and effective questioning at meetings. It would be helpful to review agenda setting, to consider the optimum number of items on an agenda, to consider more offline reporting of matters for noting and to prepare for meetings through sharing proposed key lines of enquiry.

The establishment of the Corporate Office is regarded as a strength and we commented positively on the opportunity for Scrutiny to draw on expertise from other corporate functions (and vice versa). We consider that there may be scope to broaden the role of other officers in the Corporate Office, particularly those already working with Members as part of the Democratic Services Team, so that they are able to undertake research and provide support to the Scrutiny process rather than attend only to take minutes. This will improve the capacity of the Scrutiny Team and help in succession planning for officers involved in this specialist area.

Building on the good practice in Children’s Select Committee, there could be a more consistent approach to providing member briefings on specific topics that are about to be scrutinised. This ensures that questioning is more robust, the non-executive challenge to decision makers is more robust and that the work of Scrutiny is more evidence based.

6. How can Scrutiny increase its value in pursuing the objectives in the Business Plan to the purpose of Wiltshire Council?

Since the time of the Corporate Peer Challenge in September 2013, there has been a significant shift of the focus and work of Scrutiny to outcomes for the public and wider policy agendas. The current Work Programme shows a clear alignment of the Scrutiny work plan with the 12 key actions in the Council’s Business Plan. It also includes several topics that are complex and systemic including Obesity and Child Sexual Exploitation. We did not have time to discuss the scope of these reviews in detail but there was a strong sense from Members and officers that these reviews were relevant and were adding value to delivering the Council’s objectives.

Scrutiny is increasingly having an impact in improving decision making. For example, the recent review of the Youth Services influenced the proposed service model significantly by including the introduction of 18 professional community youth workers in order to provide Area Boards with professional advice and support. Another example is the review into the 20mph speed limit which highlighted that the assumed benefits of the proposed speed limits across Wiltshire would have not been delivered, and where evidence gathering changed the mind of Scrutiny and led to their acceptance of the original proposals.

An innovative process for Budget Scrutiny is evolving and was regarded as valuable by many Members we spoke with. The Council has a standing Financial Planning Task Group which is responsible for monitoring the revenue and capital budgets and scrutinising performance information throughout the year. The key changes for the 15/16 budget Scrutiny process included a separate budget briefing that was open to all Councillors, and Scrutiny of both the published budget proposals and the amendments to the budget proposals from the main political opposition group. Both were considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee and reported to Council. This process enabled a more informed and thoughtful challenge and was welcomed by the majority of Members we spoke with. Building on the positive experience of Budget Scrutiny, the Council may want to strengthen the links with Select Committees on specific budget areas that affect their remit. That will better utilise Members’ expertise and strengthen their input into Budget scrutiny. The budget Scrutiny process could also be developed through earlier sight of the Cabinet and opposition groups proposals by Scrutiny and by developing the structure whereby all groups’ proposals are scrutinised, rather than on an ad hoc basis.

While the Council is right to encourage Scrutiny to have a focus on outcomes, it is nonetheless important to remember that not all of the statutory duties for Scrutiny are covered in the deliverables of your Business Plan. In considering the future Work Programme, Members and officers need to be mindful in preserving capacity to deal with statutory requirements, for example NHS substantial variations, and to be flexible enough to accommodate and address unexpected but urgent challenges.

The remit of the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee is significant and includes receiving feedback of Task Groups on significant reviews, for example the LEP and Military Civilian Partnership, as well as the management of the Scrutiny process itself, including the Work Programme, communication and training. The peer team consider this remit too extensive and would recommend for you to free up the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee to oversee the Scrutiny process, including the Work Programme, decision tracking and communications, leaving the management and monitoring of the Task Groups to Select Committees.

7. Moving forward - recommendations

Based on what we saw, heard and read we suggest the Council and particularly its Executive and Scrutiny functions consider the following actions. These are things we think will build on your main strengths and maximise your effectiveness and capacity to deliver ambitions and future plans for Scrutiny and the work of the Council:

1. Articulate the role and purpose of Overview & Scrutiny and communicate this widely

2. Continue to develop formal and informal relationships between Executive and Scrutiny

3. Free up the O&S Management Committee to oversee the Scrutiny process including the Work Programme, decision tracking and communications

4. Continue to develop pre-budget Scrutiny and the encouragement of wider Member involvement through the Select Committees

5. Introduce a formal decision tracking process to report on progress with implementing recommendations of Scrutiny reviews

6. Further develop the Scrutiny newsletter, reporting to Council (beyond the Minutes and the Annual Report) and other communication to demonstrate achievements and the impact of Scrutiny

7. Make the best use of the Corporate Office to support Scrutiny

8. Continue to develop the capacity of Members

9. Recognise that Scrutiny is evolving well and that the new approach is successfully bedding in; give it time and undertake a ‘health check’ ahead of your 2017 elections

8. Next steps

The Council will undoubtedly wish to reflect on these findings and suggestions before determining how the whole system wishes to take things forward.

We are keen to continue the relationship we have formed with you and colleagues through the peer challenge to date. Andy Bates, Principal Adviser, South West is the main contact between your authority and the Local Government Association. Andy can be contacted at [email protected] and can provide access to our resources and any further support.

In the meantime, all of us connected with the peer challenge would like to wish you every success going forward. Once again, many thanks for inviting the peer challenge and to everyone involved for their participation.

Yours sincerely

Anne Brinkhoff Programme Manager – Local Government Support Local Government Association

Tel: 07766251752 [email protected]