Survey finds officers and councillors "not especially positive” about future of local government scrutiny

A survey of officers directly involved in supporting scrutiny functions, elected members and other officers conducted by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) has shown that many respondents "do not feel especially positive about the future of scrutiny" in local government.

Despite the findings, Ed Hammond, interim chief executive of CfGS, said that for many councils, improvement is a "matter of minor reform – not wholesale transformation" and added that while councils are no longer able to employ a "phalanx of scrutiny officers" there are still practical changes that can boost scrutiny practices.

The CfGS Annual Survey 2021-22 revealed a number of areas where respondents thought improvements could be made, including scrutiny of financial matters.

Low confidence was seen when respondents were asked about how they felt about scrutiny's ability to oversee councils' commercial activity, with 48% being "somewhat confident" and 29% "not so confident". Just 11% were "very confident".

Respondents also suggested that scrutiny councillors' understanding of corporate service risk "could be better".

Just 2% of respondents agreed that councillor engagement with scrutiny was good (ie that scrutiny councillors themselves were engaged productively).

"There is a read across from this into councils' overall organisational commitment – scrutiny members' own commitment dissipates when the organisation is ambivalent, or hostile, towards scrutiny," the CfGS said.

Nearly two thirds of respondents (65%) meanwhile felt that senior officers were supportive of scrutiny – offering room for improvement. Half (47%) felt that Cabinet was supportive of scrutiny – "worryingly low but reflecting similar evidence from previous years", the report said.

The average full-time equivalent officer resource has continued to fall slightly since the CfGS's 2019-20 survey. However, the report noted that the figure "hides significant variances – many councils have no dedicated resourcing at all, and some councils employ multiple officers".

The survey also uncovered areas of improvement. For instance, responses suggested that approaches to work programming are improving. The report added that improvements are being seen in terms of access to and use of information.

Relationships with council executives, "while not fantastic overall", are improving, and relationships between scrutiny and senior council officers appear to be strengthening "particularly well", the report added.

Attitudes towards member training and development and support are positive as well, "even if the officer resourcing position for scrutiny remains fragile".

When asked about how remote meetings during the pandemic impacted scrutiny, respondents remote meetings had resulted in improvements in member engagement and improvements in the quality of scrutiny overall. The report noted that there is a "strong consensus" that having the power to convene meetings in this way again would make scrutiny more flexible and responsive.

The CfGS's report on the survey also laid out qualities that make for effective scrutiny, including:

• Dedicated officer resourcing.
• Member training, which is of high quality and integrated into councillors' ongoing work.
• A positive relationship between scrutiny and the executive driven by a clear understanding of scrutiny's role and responsibilities.
• Timely access to proportionate, high-quality information.
• Cross-party chairing "or, failing that, good cross-party relationships between scrutiny members".

Adam Carey