anything else. In this respect, scrutiny is often not in charge of its own destiny. Internal culture and resourcing were overwhelmingly seen by respondents to our survey as the principal brakes on the function’s effectiveness (the two are obviously closely connected). We know from work we have done to support the function in many councils that good work and commitment from engaged scrutiny councillors can be fruitless when it comes up against dismissive (and occasionally antagonistic) chief executives and Leaders. We have found that plenty of people are comfortable talking the talk – making generic public pronouncements about the benefits of scrutiny – without walking the walk. 39% of respondents to our survey felt that Cabinet was broadly negative in their view of the scrutiny function – this is hardly conducive to success, and makes failure a self-fulfilling prophecy. “Walking the walk” could mean many things, but for most councils it is about: ● Having a meaningful and candid conversation with scrutiny councillors about local challenges – and being prepared to think about how scrutiny can help to tackle them; ● Being prepared to accept (and welcoming) the uncertainty that comes with scrutiny, that might cause plans to be reappraised and redesigned; ● Being prepared to accept the political consequences of allowing sometimes unwelcome voices to be heard more widely as a result of the scrutiny process; ● Making the active choice that scrutiny may make the lives of decision-makers more inconvenient. Mature and confident leaders are prepared to accept these disadvantages – and are frank about doing so – because they recognise that the benefits outweigh them. If temporary pain and inconvenience can lead to better decisions – and broader political buy-in – that is a good thing. The best scrutiny is designed in a way that mitigates and minimises this pain, because everybody in the system recognises and respects each other’s role. This ideal will be difficult to achieve in a febrile political environment, but it is at least something to aim for. It may seem like a cop-out to transfer responsibility for ineffective or unproductive scrutiny onto a council’s executive. In truth, there is a collective responsibility to make it work. Scrutiny councillors, and the dwindling band of officers who support them, need to reflect on their own priorities too. This moves us on to the second thing that our respondents thought made for successful scrutiny – prioritisation and focus. Scrutiny is, rightly, free-ranging. The legislation permits members to use scrutiny to look at anything which affects “the area or the area’s inhabitants” – a wide-ranging power (though arguably legally-redundant, given the presence of the general power of competence). This does not, of course, mean that scrutiny should look at everything that councillors find interesting. The decision as to what scrutiny looks at should be a difficult one. It should leave some councillors dissatisfied with the final decision, because tough choices have to be made. But the plain fact is that scrutiny will – with the time and resources available – only be able to make a meaningful, positive contribution in a limited, few areas every year. The decisions as to which areas they are is a critical one, and one that too many councils elide. There are two reasons for this. Firstly (and more cynically) unfocused scrutiny is easier to ignore. Secondly, focus requires that officers challenge members, and that members challenge themselves, on their choices – and in many areas councillors and officers alike lack the self-awareness and political nous to confidence exert this mutual challenge. This is a challenging (and perhaps a pejorative) message, but our experience suggests that in too many areas a wooliness still exists around work programming which actively works against scrutiny having a more forensic impact where it matters most. The trajectory for scrutiny’s impact is not upward. Confidence in scrutiny’s ability to make a difference is, in fact, down by 8.6% on 2016’s figures. This is a trend that requires conscious action to address. Monitoring Officers, Heads of Governance and other chief officers need to understand the risks that ineffective scrutiny poses and the benefits that more focused and connected scrutiny can bring; they then need to challenge themselves, and their members, to work to bring that better kind of scrutiny about. About CfPS The Centre for Public Scrutiny’s (CfPS) purpose is to improve lives and places through effective governance and public scrutiny. We work with a wide range of organisations, people and places to support them in developing a culture and ways of working which incorporate challenge, scrutiny and involvement. We also provide consultancy, training and policy support which gives people the skills, knowledge and confidence needed to design and deliver good governance. More information is available at www.cfps.org.uk. The trajectory for scrutiny’s impact is not upward. Confidence in scrutiny’s ability to make a difference is, in fact, down by 8.6% on 2016’s figures. This is a trend that requires conscious action to address. Monitoring Officers, Heads of Governance and other chief officers need to understand the risks that ineffective scrutiny poses and the benefits that more focused and connected scrutiny can bring. Local Government Lawyer Insight July 2017 LocalGovernmentLawyer 31