Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Democratic Services Manager, Mr Tautz, introduced the report that came out of the recent meeting held between the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen Select Committees (the O&S Co-ordinating Group) where they considered the work programmes of the various committees for the coming year. The identification and prioritisation of scrutiny activity was essential if it was to be successful and of value. Work programmes should also be realistic and retain capacity so that unplanned matters could be addressed.

 

The coordinating group considered that it would be appropriate for work programme priorities to be derived from a wider range of evidence. This would enable scrutiny activity to more effectively meet the work programme requirements of the Constitution and focus less on cyclical reporting, whilst also addressing a perception amongst some members that reports were presented for ‘noting’ only.

 

The co-ordinating committee considered that scrutiny of the key decision list was something that worked both ways and the cabinet was at liberty to ask scrutiny to look at some aspects of their workload.

 

The group also considered the use of the PICK forms and thought that scrutiny should be more flexible in their use, including accepting relevant correspondence and emails as well as the forms. This would include proposals from members of the public although they would have to be scoped out in the same way as other proposals.

 

They also thought that the scoping of proposals should be more robustly undertaken to establish matters that would be of most benefit, had clear objectives and took account of resources; and in the end would it add value to the Council and/or the wider community.

 

They considered the use of the compliments and complaints forms as sources of potential scrutiny starting points as well as any petitions and freedom of information requests that threw up wider considerations.

 

In considering presentations and scrutiny of external organisations the co-ordinating group thought it important that clear objectives were set for any presentations given. It was considered that at present this was not always the case and the presentations often appeared to have no clear reference. The group suggested that the Committee should take a more critical approach to the selection of outside organisations to be scrutinised, ensuring that invitations were issued to organisations where there were public concerns. It was also suggested that flexibility should be applied where scrutiny of an outside organisation might better be conducted by a select committee rather than the Committee itself.  They also looked at the questioning of the outside organisations and thought that an item should be put in the agenda of the meeting before the presentation was due to enable members to adequately scope out what they wanted covered and what questions they were going to ask.

 

It was noted that we needed the agreement of Essex County Council if we wanted to scrutinise any of the local health providers and that this had not proved to be a problem in the past.

 

The group had suggested three items for possible inclusion in the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme for 2016/17, they were:

(a)  Central Line services and infrastructure within Epping Forest District (TfL);

(b)  Princess Alexandra Hospital services for residents of the District , subject to the agreement of Essex County Council; and

(c)  Highways Services and infrastructure within the District (ECC).

 

The group had also identified issues for possible inclusion in the work programmes of three of the four select committees, Governance, Neighbourhoods and Resources.

 

Councillor Murray commented that this was a good report and good ideas had come out of it, especially recommendation 5. He noted that the health scrutiny that we have carried out had been very useful but expressed concerns that we had to ask the ECC for permission to carry it out. Mr Tautz replied that it was the legal position that we had to seek ECC’s agreement in order to scrutinise any health matters, but we did so as a matter of courtesy and did not go begging for permission. Mr Macnab noted that we had a good working relationship with them.

 

Councillor Avey said that the Central Line was an absolute disgrace, but what real difference would it make to have TfL here. Councillor Sartin added that we have had TfL officers here before to talk about the Central Line. Councillor Stallan added that we had very bland presentations from them. Their answers were not consistent over the years that they came to us. It was important that we now narrow down what we wanted from them.

 

Councillor Patel declared an interest in health scrutiny as he was a health provider. He noted that we had an aging population and wanted to know how our money was being spent in our district. Councillor Sartin replied that was different from scrutinising health provision or other social care.

 

Councillor S Kane said that we needed to develop targeted, focussed questions before hand. Maybe this new co-ordinating group could be set up before the start of a new municipal year. Councillor Sartin agreed; this would enable the Select Committees to start their new work programme from the start of their first meeting.

 

Councillor Surtees said that presentations needed to be focused on what we wanted and not what they wanted to tell us. Also we did not want ‘death by PowerPoint’. We needed time to review any presentations before the meeting and we needed to narrow down what we wanted from them. Councillor Sartin noted that officers always aimed to get the PowerPoint to members before the meetings but Mr Tautz added that officers could not always guarantee that. It should be remembered that these organisations were under no obligation to respond or attend our meetings.

 

Councillor Knight noted that the Communities Select Committee had the new Police District Commander coming to their November meeting and they would be discussing their questions at their September meeting. Please let her know if there were any questions that you wished to be asked.

 

Councillor Stallan said we needed to tell them what we wanted their presentation to be about or even if we did not want one. It was within the power of members on how they had their presentations. He suggested that we amended recommendation 5 to say “…appropriate lines of questioning and presentations, if any, for external organisations…” This was agreed.

 

Councillor Girling noted that we had not given our guests actions on what we wanted them to resolve for us.

 

Councillor Surtees noted that the Central Line was important but we also had busses provided by TfL. He also noted that the Princess Alexandra Hospital was currently discussing the way forward. The meeting agreed that this should be looked at towards the end of the year.

 

Councillor Stallan noted that that ECC Highways officers had attended the Governance Select Committee last year, would this be a duplication of work? He was told that they came to specifically cover highways and planning issues and therefore this would not be duplication.

 

The Committee then considered what questions they would like to ask the TfL and the ECC Highways section and came up with the following list:

 

Central Line Services and Infrastructure within the Epping Forest District (Transport for London):

 

Staffing:

(a)       the current levels of staffing at local Central Line stations, particularly with regard to ticket offices;

 

Capacity:

(b)       the infrastructure of the Central Line, particularly in terms of increasing user capacity;

(c)       the frequency of Central Line services eastbound to Epping;

(d)       the split of Central Line services operating eastbound from Leytonstone Station and the perception that fewer services run through to Epping than to Hainault;

(e)       what was the capacity of the current system and could it be increased; and

(f)        was there the money to be invested to improve capacity?

 

Infrastructure:

(g)       the ongoing concern of the Council with regard to platform access at local Central Line stations for people with disabilities;

(h)       the current position with regard to the rectification of signalling breakdowns that adversely affect Central Line services on a regular basis, particularly given the significant investment made in signalling infrastructure;

(i)         the age of the rolling stock currently in use on the Central Line, particularly with regard to issues pertaining to the operation of automatic doors and unacceptably high temperatures in carriages;

(j)         the introduction of air-conditioned rolling stock;

(k)       the introduction of new rolling stock – when would this happen?

(l)         the provision of public toilet facilities at local Central Line stations;

(m)     the provision of Wi-Fi access in underground sections of the Central Line and at local stations;

(n)       the possible reinstatement of Central Line services between Epping and Ongar, as proposed by the Mayor of London;

(o)       the current CCTV coverage of public areas in the vicinity of local Central Line stations and plans for the extension of such coverage;

 

Car Parking:

(p)       the extension of car park facilities at local Central Line stations;

(q)       an update on the provision of car parking at Epping station;

(r)        the management of car parks at local Central Line stations and of the public areas in the vicinity of the stations;

 

 

Highway Services and Infrastructure within the Epping Forest District (Essex County Council);

           

          Communication:

(a)       the operation of Essex County Council’s online facility for the reporting of highway defects;

(b)       the enforcement of licence provisions by the County Council, to ensure minimal disruption to highway users and others;

(c)       was it possible to have the contractors come to a scrutiny meeting?

(d)       the County Council’s approach to ensuring that highway works carried out by statutory undertakers did not cause unnecessary disruption to highway users and others;

(e)       the need for improvement in communications between Highway Services and local authorities.

 

Repairs:

(f)        the County Council’s approach to the repair of footpath defects, particularly in relation to securing the safety of people with disabilities;

(g)       the County Council’s approach to ensuring the quality of highway reinstatement following works carried out by statutory undertakers;

(h)       the management of the County Council’s own ground crews undertaking the repair of highway defects, to ensure the quality of highway reinstatement and what criteria was used for choosing what to repair;

 

Disruptions:

(i)         the issue of licences or other approval by the County Council for temporary traffic lights or other forms of traffic management;

 

Strategy:

(j)         the County Council’s approach to the design of highway schemes;

(k)       the County Council’s winter gritting strategy and priorities.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That, from 2017/18, the development of annual work programmes for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the four Select Committees, be commenced during January/February in each preceding year, on the basis of the evidence sources presented in this report and other appropriate corporate or community priorities.

 

(2)       That the annual overview and scrutiny work programmes be agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its first meeting in each municipal year.

 

(3)       That, from 2017/18, all Portfolio Holders be requested to present the priorities and service challenges arising from the annual business plan for their portfolio to overview and scrutiny, at the first cycle of meetings in each municipal year.

 

(4)       That, in order to ensure that scrutiny activity complements the Council's policy framework or other priorities and achieves maximum value, all member scrutiny proposals (including presentations) be submitted through the existing PICK process and be fully scoped and prioritised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, prior to the inclusion of any proposal in the work programme for the Committee or a select committee.

 

(5)       That the development of appropriate lines of questioning  and the scope and focus of presentations (if required), for external organisations invited to attend before overview and scrutiny, be formally undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a preceding meeting, through the inclusion of an appropriate standing item in agenda for all ordinary meetings of the Committee.

 

(6)       That the following matters set out at paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report be agreed for inclusion in the overview and scrutiny work programme for 2016/17, subject to the scoping of specific matters at a future meeting:

 

(a)         Central Line Services and infrastructure (Transport for London);

(b)         Highway Services and infrastructure (Essex County Council).

 

(7)       That scrutiny of the services provided to residents of the district by the Princess Alexandra Hospital  NHS Trust be deferred for the time being to await the issue of a forthcoming inspection report by the Care Quality Commission.

 

(8)       That arrangements for bi-annual joint meetings of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and each of the select committees, be established on a formal basis to:

 

(a)       consider arrangements for the effective identification of overview and scrutiny work programme priorities for each municipal year;

 

(b)       support the development of appropriate overview and scrutiny activity for each year, informed by relevant corporate objectives, service aims and member priorities, to ensure that the Council’s services and functions are appropriate and responsive to the needs of residents, service users and others; and

 

(c)       consider and coordinate other appropriate matters to ensure the effective management and operation of the Council’s overview and scrutiny function and responsibilities. And

 

(9)       That attendance at such joint meetings by the chairman and vice-chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and each of the Select Committees be deemed an approved duty for the purposes of the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme.