Agenda item

A report of the Head of Strategic Support to assist the Board in determining the Scrutiny Work Programme.

Considered a report of the Head of Strategic Support to enable the Board to agree the Scrutiny Work Programme, including considering requests from other scrutiny bodies and updates on the delivery of the Work Programme, and identify Key Decisions on which scrutiny could be undertaken, also to consider whether scrutiny of any procurement activity should be programmed (item 6 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

The Chief Executive assisted with consideration of the report.

RESOLVED

1.            that, following a request made by the Policy Scrutiny Group at its meeting on 10th July 2018 (Minute 10.4) that scrutiny of the Lightbulb Service Implementation be allocated to a different scrutiny body, scrutiny of the matter be allocated to the Performance Scrutiny Panel;

2.         that, following the Board’s decision at its last meeting that Councillor Bebbington draft a proposed scrutiny scope document for a scrutiny panel to consider the risks to all parties associated with the implementation of Universal Credit and how those risks might be minimised (Minute 8.2, Scrutiny Management Board 13th June 2018), it be noted that Councillor Bebbington met with relevant officers and concluded that a scrutiny panel was not needed;

3.         that forthcoming Executive Key Decisions or decisions to be taken in private by the Executive, set out in Appendix 1 to the report, and scheduled scrutiny of those matters, be noted, and that items be added to the Scrutiny Work Programme as follows:

·                Capital Plan Outturn 2018/19 (Overview Scrutiny Group, June 2019);

·                General Fund and HRA Revenue Outturn 2018/19 and Carry Forward of Budgets (Overview Scrutiny Group, June 2019);

·                Future Options for the Provision of Revenues and Benefits Services (Overview Scrutiny Group, 15th October 2018);

4.         that the Annual Procurement Plan (and Quarterly Updates), set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be noted;

5.         that Councillor Parsons, with the assistance of the Democratic Services Manager, drafts a proposed scrutiny scope document for a scrutiny panel to consider the likely impacts of the planned Waste Incinerator near Junction 23 of the M1 motorway, aimed at adding value in that respect, particularly for local communities, with a view to consideration of that proposed scope at the next meeting of the Board (24th October 2018);

6.         that the Scrutiny Work Programme, set out in Appendix 3 to the report, be noted and updated in accordance with the decisions taken above and at this meeting.

Reasons

1.         The Policy Scrutiny Group already had a number of items scheduled for its September 2018 meeting and had considered that, while the matter should be scrutinised, it did not fit within its remit.  Having considered the matter, the Board decided that the matter related to performance scrutiny and was therefore within the remit of the Performance Scrutiny Panel.  The Board also noted that a report on the matter was scheduled to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting in October 2018 and that it might be necessary to ask for that consideration to be deferred, to enable the Panel to look at the matter first.

2.         Having discussed the matter with officers, Councillor Bebbington had noted that implementation of Universal Credit was much closer than he had thought and he was of the view that officers had already done a sterling job in preparing for that implementation.  He concluded that the only action necessary was warning councillors about some of the problems they may be faced with. 

3.         To ensure timely and effective scrutiny.

4.         The Board had decided to consider the Annual Procurement Plan and Quarterly Updates (submitted to Cabinet) to ensure that timely and effective scrutiny of any procurement activity is programmed or to ensure that the Cabinet is informed of any views of the Board on procurement matters.

5.         The Board agreed the issue as potentially suitable for consideration by a scrutiny panel and wished for that to be investigated further before deciding whether or not to establish such a panel.  The Board noted that it was important that the scope document considered scrutiny already being undertaken (there was an established liaison committee in respect of the matter) to avoid duplication, took a balanced approach so as not to cause undue concern, and included a proposal to consider experience of incinerators elsewhere.

6.         To ensure that the information contained within the Work Programme is up to date.