Supplementary memorandum by Department
for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (LGA 22(c))
EVIDENCE SESSION
ON 14 MAY
Q525. Please provide us with an example of
good practice in overview and scrutiny
Perhaps the best way of getting a feel for the
effectiveness of scrutiny is to ask individual councils. I attach
a table indicating some places and issues where we understand
that scrutiny has added value. It is based on informal understanding
and reporting, and not meant to be at all comprehensive. If the
Committee wants to examine a single example more closely, you
might want to consider a Kent County Council scrutiny committee's
work on modernisation of hospital services in East Kent. I attach
a copy of a letter from East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust to the County
Council suggesting this was a well-prepared exercise with a constructive
outcome.
Q532. Please provide us with an example of
an occasion where a council decision has been revised or policy
changed as a result of overview and scrutiny
In addition to the examples mentioned in the
table, we understand that a further example of a council changing
its decision is provided by Doncaster Borough Council, where the
cabinet changed a proposed course of action in the light of scrutiny
and debate.
In September 2001 the executive was proposing
to close a residential unit within a special school. This was
in line with a previous decision for the Council to cease maintaining
residential facilities for pupils with moderate learning difficulties.
In November 2001 the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee
identified this proposal as an issue from the Forward Plan and
referred it to the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Sub-Committee for
further investigation. At a November meeting of the sub-Committee
members considered the report and took evidence from Education
officers. In a December meeting, the Committee took further evidence
from Education and Social Services officers as well as from the
head of the school. At its January meeting the Committee debated
the evidence and considered possible options. The sub-Committee
found that a corporate approach to the issue of residential care
for children with special needs was needed, with a more integrated
approach between Education and Social Services. The Committee
recommended reversing the original closure decision, as a reflection
of a need to adopt this more joined-up approach. The executive
agreed and the original decision was reversed.
Q539. Please clarify:
(a) whether local authorities will be given
total flexibility over the definition of a key decision in future
or whether the Government has decided to leave the current (March
2002) definition in place and not to give further guidance on
"significant" expenditure;
(b) whether the two-stage test will be removed;
and
(c) whether the guidance set out in paragraph
7.15-7.22 (inclusive) in New Council Constitutions: A Guidance
Pack will be removed or changed in the foreseeable future
There are no immediate plans to amend these
paragraphs, to remove the two-stage test or give further guidance
on the meaning of "significant" expenditure. As announced
to the House on 8 February 2001 and 21 March 2002, there are plans
to review the operation of the access to information arrangements,
including the operation of key decisions. The review is planned
for this summer with findings to be promulgated in November. The
review may lead to changes in guidance if a good case is made,
or an unacceptable degree of variation in practice, not justified
in relation to local circumstances, becomes apparent.
It is worth emphasising that local authorities
have the flexibility to decide what constitutes a key decision
within the broad definition as it stands. Further statutory guidance,
for example on how "significant" expenditure should
be defined, would tend to reduce flexibility, and it is always
open to scrutiny committees or others to challenge practice they
think falls short of reasonable openness and opportunity for debate.
We intend to work with local authorities to develop and promote
best practice on defining key decisions.
Q201. Please provide us with a note on the
costs of implementing the 2000 Act
Research teams will examine and compile data
on costs of specific aspects of the 2000 Act policies through
the evaluations on which I have already sent papers. These evaluations
will cover new council constitutions (eg overview and scrutiny
and delegation of functions) and local strategic partnerships
(eg developing community strategies and new partnership structures).
However it would be wrong to suggest that the evaluations can
isolate every potential element of costs resulting from the 2000
Act, nor will the studies be able to trace and attribute every
increase or decrease in general efficiency arising from the reforms
and build it into a national estimate. An overall cost-benefit
analysis of the reforms is therefore unlikely to flow from this
work, although it may be possible to identify examples of councils
whose approach is particularly cost effective or offers good returns
in terms of more effective deployment of resources, or increased
focus and effectiveness in service delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Another issue on which you may welcome a technical
note is the availability of alternative arrangements as the fallback
option in any future mayoral referendums (Qns 458-466).
As established by section 31 of the Act, alternative
arrangements are only available as an option for district councils
in the area of a county council, where the district's population
on 30 June 1999 was less than 85,000 (as estimated by the Registrar
General).
For local authorities other than these small
shire districts, the only route to alternative arrangements when
new constitutions were adopted was if they were specified as the
fallback in a mayoral referendum which resulted in a "No"
vote. This was possible under s25 and s27 of the Act, although
only Brighton and Hove took that course.
Once councils have implemented a new constitution
under s25, the rules as to future changes to those arrangements
are governed by regulations made under sections 30 and 33 of the
Act. For England, these are the Local Authorities (Changing Executive
Arrangements and Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations
2002 (SI 2001/1003). As before the possibilities are different
for small districts, which have the option of moving between executive
and alternative arrangements if they so decide. But so far as
other councils are concerned, if they have already moved to a
new constitution and decide to revisit (perhaps because of a petition)
the mayoral option, they may only specify as the consequence of
a "No" vote retention of the executive arrangements
they are operating at the time of the referendum.
In summary, therefore, the legislation provides
that now new constitutions are—or shortly will be—in
place, only small shire district councils may move away from executive
arrangements and back to a committee system.
A D Whetnall
| 
