Agenda item

To consider a paper reiterating the role and remit of the Scrutiny Panel.

The Panel considered a report from Andrew Down, Future Oxfordshire Partnership Director which set out advice from the Monitoring Officer of Oxfordshire County Council regarding the role and remit of the Panel as set out in its current Terms of Reference.  The advice had been sought by officers following discussions by members at previous meetings.

The Panel was informed that the advice had confirmed that the Panel did not have the same statutory powers as a Scrutiny Committee in any of the councils represented on it to commission its research work and that the Panel’s remit should be interpreted narrowly and linked solely to the actions and deliberations of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, (FOP).

It was highlighted that the terms of refence of the FOP would continue to evolve as its role and remit changed. This would have a consequential impact on the terms of reference and remit of the Panel.

A summary of points and questions raised by members during discussion:

·           Flagging of items not in scope - Was there a way in which agenda items to the Panel which could only be investigated by the individual authority scrutiny committees were flagged in advance? A note could also be made in the Panel’s minutes so it was clearer when the Panel could not take an issue further and was referring it to a scrutiny committee/s. Officers indicated that they could be clearer regarding which items were or were not in the Panel’s scope.

·           Duty to Cooperate – What was the role of the FOP in facilitating this, particularly around the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision?  Officers confirmed that the FOP had no formal role or status in the Duty to Cooperate, but it was an environment where best practice could be shared between the councils and strong relationships maintained.

·           Purpose and scope of the Panel and use of resources – a member of the Panel commented that they were disappointed with the response of the Monitoring Officer as in their view, the language used within paragraph 1.1 of the Panel’s Terms of Reference around its role was broad did allow for a fuller Panel role. Taking the Monitoring Officer’s interpretation, the Panel had very limited teeth. It was also felt that officers had a conflict in that they were deciding the scope and constraints of the Panel, contrary to overview and scrutiny best practice. Agenda setting powers were a key component of good scrutiny practice without which scrutiny on behalf of taxpayers was effectively being constrained.

·           If the role of Panel was to partly assist in the coordination between the district and the county council, the interpretation of the Panel’s scope limited its ability to fulfil this aim. A considerable amount of officer and member time had already been spent on issues such as Vision Zero which officers had initially said was in scope. 

·           Future of the Panel – a member commented that if the Panel did not have the powers it needed to undertake its role, one solution could be to transfer its role to the County Council’s Place Scrutiny Committee which did have statutory powers and that advice from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny should be sort on how the Panel could best deliver its role for taxpayers. Officers agreed that it was sensible to look at future development options going forward and to seek appropriate scrutiny best practice advice and to also seek the collective views of the Monitoring Officer Group.

·           Ability to make recommendations- a member of the Panel commented that they were clear that the Panel could respond to the papers it considered and could if it was so minded make recommendations to the FOP.

·           End of the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal – a members commented that it was clear that the Panel had been set up as part of the governance around the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal with its remit linked to the Deal.

·           Meeting virtually – comment was made that meeting virtually limited the remit of the Panel, but it was noted that that the Panel’s powers were the same whether it met virtually or not.

·           The FOP was also not a formal committee. Officers responded that the FOP had been established as formal Joint Committee under local government legislation.  It was able to take formal decisions if those decisions were delegated to it by the partner local authorities. In practice, this power had not been exercised but it could be.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair suggested that given the concerns raised by members regarding what was considered to be some inconsistency between advice received on the Panel’s remit and its terms of reference the terms of reference should be reviewed in time for the new municipal year.

RESOLVED: That the Future Oxfordshire Partnership notes that the Panel has asked Officers to initiate a review of the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Panel prior to the first meeting of the 2024/2025 municipal year. The review to take account of:

1.     The evolving role of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership and impact of this on the scope and role of the Panel, and the Panel’s Terms of Reference.

2.     Appropriate professional advice on overview and scrutiny best practice.