Cornwall Council

Background and Context

Our default position has been that when something’s not working, it must be the structure, rather than ways of working, behaviour, or culture. We wanted to look at what improvements could be made, as issues around consistency had been noted, along with ways of working and how we had value through scrutiny. As our Chief Executive coined it, the so what of scrutiny.

Following our Annual Member Survey in 2022, we commissioned CfGS to lead a Scrutiny Impact Review (SIR) with us. For context, Cornwall Council has been a unitary authority since 2009. We used to have 123 members which – since 2021 – is now 87.

At time of the review we had five overview and scrutiny (O&S) committees: two were people-centred, two were place-base and one focussed on resources.

Challenges and Opportunities

The key issues and challenges we faced were:

Lack of consistency across the five O&S committees and how they work
Relationships and culture
Lack of constructive relationships between scrutiny and decision makers
Political footballing
Blaming the structures for not working – you can change these as much as you like but it won’t work if you don’t have appropriate methods of working in place and the right culture and behaviours in place, it’s not going to work.

Opportunities through this SIR were to learn from CfGS expertise and best practice and statutory guidance to coalesce members behind what we’re doing. Having the experts in to give independent steer was helpful the way they phrased their questioning, their wealth of knowledge, knowing which questions to ask and how to ask them, having answers in place about things that members and officers might grumble about – was a really positive part of this process. Our members are used to us, so a wider knowledge base and best practice from other councils was a real benefit.

Initiatives and actions taken

The main area for reform was what scrutiny is doing to make a difference to Cornwall residents – that’s the crux of it – service delivery and improving outcomes. Prior to the review, we had few substantive outcomes. It was nice to have discussions and briefings about topics, but there was no real making a difference.

The CfGS SIR is a tried and tested process, which includes a member survey, desk work, meeting observations and interviews. This came alongside loads of other methods of engagement for officers and members, including an all-member briefing. This enabled us to build that essential evidence base, so that we could achieve outcomes and impact.

Outcomes and Impact

Members on the journey

The detailed findings report that came through had a number of recommendations that went to our formal Constitution and Governance Committee. Prior to this we set up a cross-party working group with members from each of the parties, chaired by the vice chair of the council who acted as the a-political conscience of the council. This meant it was held neutrally; all parties were involved in the scrutiny relationship, without skewing in a particular political direction. That worked really well and was one of the main elements that was critical to success. It ensured that what we were doing made sense. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer were involved too – relationships gravity leads to cultural change – everyone took it very seriously.

Quote from Kate Kennally, Chief Executive

Given the raft of challenges that all Councils are facing, a strong and effective overview and scrutiny function has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the Council is effective and trusted, providing a key mechanism for the wider membership of the Council to shape policy and hold the executive to account. The CfGS review has enabled the authority to look afresh at how overview and scrutiny works and the impact it has made with a practical focus on how work programmes are shaped and prioritised and the importance of being clear on what it wants to achieve in its own right and how sometimes ‘less can definitely be more.’ Arising from the review, there is a much clearer understanding of what effective scrutiny looks like and a commitment across members and officers to embed the recommendations and build a stronger scrutiny culture within the Council.

New Overview and Scrutiny Protocol

For each of the CfGS recommendations, we set out a programme and delivery plan, which we set out into a number of meetings. For each meeting, members had a brief outline of what had been done previously and benchmarking information to help them plan how to take the recommendations forward. A lot of the recommendations that went forward form a new Overview and Scrutiny Protocol which I’m really proud of.

It includes a section on cabinet and scrutiny relationships, plus a new informal meeting of scrutiny and audit, to understand and avoid duplication of roles. It aims at giving clarity on who’s responsible for what.

We’ve introduced a new work programming suggestion tool. Scrutiny is meant to be Member led and we knew that officers used to make a lot of the suggestions previously, so we have a new mechanism for any member, officer and the public to a make suggestion using a template. This means the focus is on scrutiny being Member led and the voice of the public can be heard. It gives another way for everyone to influence and participate in democracy.

Alongside the tool is a method for prioritising suggestions, linked with making a difference to the public and has demonstrable outcomes. It’s working. We are now receiving suggestions from members of the public who are utilising the online forms.

Culture is changing

This combination of changes laid out in the protocol has given our committees a new approach to developing a work programme for scrutiny. If anyone wants to put something up for scrutiny, they have to be clear what it is and what the purpose of scrutiny is.

Change in the constitution

Other changes from CfGS recommendations informed updates to the constitution. An example coming into effect in 2025, is having opposition chairs/vice chairs involved in scrutiny; not just having chairs/vice chairs from the administration.

Unplanned outcomes

We now have a good scrutiny foundation. It will support stronger member scrutiny induction for the new council in 2025. We have a member development strategy which we’ve amended recently, making it mandatory to complete scrutiny training before sitting on a scrutiny committee.

Most significant outcome

For this work, culture and behaviours have to work in line with the protocol. Getting members and officers to buy into the procedures is starting to fall into place. People don’t always respond well to change. We are drip feeding it as a way to take people on the journey. By the time we get to 2025, the process will be well tried and tested, promoting consistency, structure and how to work within the structure. It’s this way or the highway now!

Lessons learned

Maybe the biggest learning was having an independent scrutiny expert team leading the support of the process.

Guidance was in place, with ideas of what to do and how to do it and there was always a supporting slide deck for each step we took. Questioning members with proper scrutiny questions and tackling difficult questions was key to success. CfGS provided a sanity check – having someone else say it was really helpful.

The SIR Report is a pillar of how it needs to be done. Now we aim to get evidence, make an analysis and then follow through with recommendations. Our scrutiny will improve immeasurably, and we can show what difference has been made. I found it a very positive experience. I’ve done so many reviews of governance, so getting the experts in means we don’t have to keep redoing it.

At a time when budgets are constrained, it’s money well spent and a valued added process having the experts in.

Quote from Councillor Jordan Rowse:

As Vice Chairman of this Council, I was proud to chair the recent review of how Cornwall Council carries out its scrutiny function, working closely with the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS).

This was an excellent, extensive and thorough piece of work conducted by a cross-party group of senior councillors from across Cornwall Council’s membership. It is a piece of work that should futureproof our council for years to come. To make this piece of work a success we needed the buy in from members and officers. We needed both the members and officers to embrace these changes so Cornwall Council can finally get scrutiny right, once and for all.

Scrutiny has the best chance of success if the culture and behaviours displayed are in adherence to the principles of good scrutiny, and I do believe we are making good progress towards this.

So far, a few months on, I would say the review has been a hugely successful piece of work, has helped enable meaningful scrutiny and I look forward to seeing the new council post May 2025 elections, embrace the full set of positive changes. I am incredibly proud to have led this review.

Future direction

“Scrutiny works best when it has a clear role and function”[1]

Having a clear role and function is what the Scrutiny Improvement Review has supported us to do. This is my key takeaway.

Our members were dissatisfied with scrutiny, partially because they didn’t understand what it was. They also experienced frustration with trying to make things better and more efficient with best use of resources. We’ve addressed this by taking recommendations from the review forward. I see it as reaping dividends now, with a better starting point. The protocol is far wider ranging than the previous one and more helpful for signposting, with updated resources on our intranet to support our officers interacting with scrutiny.

[1] The quote, “Scrutiny works best when it has a clear role and function. This provides focus and direction…” is from the “Overview and Scrutiny: Statutory Guidance for Councils, Combined Authorities and Combined County Authorities” published by the UK Government. You can find the full document on the official UK Government website here (GOV.UK)

Top tips

Recognising the need for a review – knowing when something isn’t working
Getting buy-in and engagement of key players, members and officers.
Being open throughout the process, to feedback on what is said. It can feel critical, but you can’t take things personally – take it in the spirit in which it’s meant.
Embrace the process and the outcomes – can’t pay lip service to this!

By Anita Searby – Democratic Lead and Statutory Scrutiny Officer, Cornwall Council.

CfGS’s support to local government improvement brings with it a contractual requirement to produce case studies of recent improvement activity funded by Government. The content of these case studies has been developed by CfGS and councils’ jointly. They should not be taken as reflecting a formal evaluation of the impact of the work described, but as a way of highlighting and describing to other authorities lessons learned from these projects that might have wider application for the sector.

All case studies