×
×
Search
Book a place at the CfGS Conference 2025

Structures, resources and formal powers - A Practice Guide

Introduction

In a complex and interconnected society, local government scrutiny holds a vital role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and effective decision-making. Scrutiny serves as both a guardian of public interest and a driver for improvement across council services. By understanding the formal and effective use of structures, resources, and powers scrutiny practitioners can influence change, make informed decisions, and advocate effectively for their communities. 

This guide provides the practical knowledge needed to harness the full extent of scrutiny’s authority, through things such as committee organisation, effective use of statutory powers, or accessing essential resources.  When used well, these contribute to a local government that is not only transparent but resilient, responsive, and focused on the public good. 

In this guide...

The function and powers of scrutiny

Scrutiny's functions and powers overall

If a council follows an ‘executive arrangement’—where a directly elected Mayor or a council-elected Leader appoints a decision-making Cabinet—it is required to establish at least one overview and scrutiny committee. 

The powers held by overview and scrutiny committees, and powers held by individual members of those committees, come from:

Most importantly, scrutiny has the power to make reports and recommendations to the council’s executive on anything affecting the area and its residents, giving it a broad and far-reaching scope. 

This broad mandate creates significant opportunities—not only to hold the council accountable as an institution but to actively engage with the community and address issues that directly impact local people’s lives. However, this wide scope also brings challenges; effective scrutiny requires careful prioritisation and a clear focus to ensure its efforts are impactful. 

Scrutiny's core functions

A council’s arrangements must make sure its scrutiny committees can carry out the following functions: 

  1. Review decisions and actions taken by both the council’s executive (decision-maker leaders) and non-executive areas. This could include scrutiny holding a ‘watching brief’ over council services. For example, looking at how decisions are implemented by reviewing performance information.
  2. Submit reports and recommendations to the executive on matters which relate to their functions.

This also applies to joint committees formed by the authority.

These provisions also explicitly cover the requirement for a council to have ‘call-in’ arrangements for executive decisions (which we cover below).

The importance of the council’s constitution

The legal powers and functions of scrutiny members and committees are given context by local information usually contained in the council’s constitution. This constitution serves as both a rulebook and a framework, helping members and officers understand their roles and responsibilities.

Rules about how overview and scrutiny operate are usually found in specific sections of the constitution, including: 

 

Where the terms of reference of overview and scrutiny committee may be set out.

Where detailed rules covering scrutiny’s powers and functions are set out.

Where rules relating to scrutiny of key decisions, including ‘call in,’ may be present.

Where arrangements relating to members’ rights of access to information can be found.

Resourcing scrutiny

Powers are pointless if there isn’t the resource in place to enable those powers to be used.

Scrutiny relies on strong policy support, which is essential for it to function well, so it is a key skill and knowledge required for effective resourcing.  There is no minimum number of staff needed for effective scrutiny. However, many councils have recently reinvested in scrutiny, creating new roles that reflect its growing importance to good governance. Despite this, some councils still struggle with limited officer support for scrutiny. 

Support for scrutiny can come from staff dedicated solely to providing policy advice, those who also handle committee administration, or staff from the council’s broader policy team. Each model has its pros and cons, although CfGS does consider that the optimum approach is to have dedicated officers provided policy support to scrutiny committees. 

It is less common for scrutiny committees to have their own budgets. A small amount may be allocated for training, development, and research, but this usually falls within the council’s broader democratic and legal services budget. 

The statutory scrutiny officer

The role of the statutory scrutiny officer

County, unitary and combined authorities must designate an officer as the ‘statutory scrutiny officer.’ This role brings with it specific duties: 

  • To promote the role of the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee or committees
  • To provide support to those committees and their members
  • To provide support and guidance to members, to members of the executive and to officers in relation to scrutiny.

Who should the statutory scrutiny officer be?

There’s no correct approach, and in practice, there is significant variability as to who this role “sits” with.  However the Head of Paid Service, the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Finance Officer CANNOT be designated as the statutory scrutiny officer.

  • The statutory scrutiny officer is often the most senior person with a day-to-day responsibility for the oversight of the scrutiny function, which in practice is likely to be someone in a middle management role. 
  • However some councils may choose to designate a senior officer who does not have direct responsibility for scrutiny but who can act more generally as a ‘champion’ for the function in senior leadership teams. 
Organising and running committees

Setting up committees

The number and terms of reference of committees

English local authorities can set up and run overview and scrutiny committees in different ways. For combined authorities, the government recommends having a single overview and scrutiny committee. There’s no ‘best way’ for councils to organise their committees. 

Some common options include:

This is a popular model for smaller authorities, and for authorities operating under the committee system. Such a committee might end up meeting quite frequently.

Task and finish groups are bodies established by committees, which investigate a specific issue for a limited period of time before reporting their findings back to the committee that commissioned them.

These can be divided in a number of ways:

  • By subject matter. For example, a ‘People’ committee covering children’s and adults’ services, and a ‘Places’ committee covering environmental and ‘universal’ services;
  • By function. For example, an ‘internal’ committee looking at the council, and an ‘external’ committee looking at partners and partnerships. CfGS has found that it can be difficult to cleanly divide business in this way. An alternative would be to have one committee focusing on ‘policy’ and the other on ‘performance.’

This is one of the more common structural options – a unitary authority might have committees covering Corporate Services, Children’s Services, Health and Social Care, and Environment and Economy. A lot of councils have three or four committees, divided up in this sort of way – some have more. Very few councils have more than six overview and scrutiny committees.

Having a ‘lead’ committee

Councils usually but not always have a ‘main’ committee that leads and co-ordinates the work of scrutiny overall. The chair of this committee will be informally regarded as the ‘chair’ of the scrutiny function overall. The chairs of other committees may also sit on this co-ordinating committee.

Where there is no formal co-ordinating committee it is common for the chairs of all the committees to come together informally on a semi-regular basis to co-ordinate their work. Some form of co-ordination is necessary, otherwise there is a risk that duties and agendas can diverge – duplication (and, conversely, gaps) in coverage can emerge.

Having a ‘standing’ panel

Some councils also have ‘standing’ panels (informal working groups whose work is continuous and open-ended), and committees which meet only as and when required.  For example:

  • A ‘Call-in Sub-committee,’ convened only when a valid call-in request has been received
  • A ‘Financial Monitoring Working Group’ or ‘Budget Development Working Group,’ bodies established to carry out ongoing financial scrutiny duties

Attending ‘joint’ committees

Many councils will send members to sit on joint overview and scrutiny committees. These may be established on an ad hoc basis, or may be standing bodies and are most commonly established to meet needs relating to health scrutiny.

Naming conventions for committees

Councils use a wide range of (sometimes contradictory) terms to describe their committees.

  • ‘Commissions’
  • ‘Panels’
  • ‘Select Committees’

The words ‘policy development,’ ‘review,’ ‘overview,’ and ‘scrutiny,’ are also used variously, and in different combinations. Irrespective of the names used, formally-constituted committees all have exactly the same powers.

Deciding what’s best

There is no right number of committees, or right description of committees’ terms of reference.

It is not the case that there is an absolute amount of work for scrutiny to ‘do’ that makes operating a model with fewer committees more difficult, or that makes scrutiny in authorities with fewer committees less effective. It is a matter of focus and prioritisation (our material on work programming expands on this point).

There is a risk that thinking about successful scrutiny focuses on the structure of committees. In our view form should follow function – an informed view of the most appropriate number of scrutiny committees can only be taken when members have a clear, shared understanding of the function they should be expected to perform.

People on committees

The sizes and membership of committees

Sizes vary significantly, from seven or eight to the high teens. Research is available on ‘optimum’ committee sizes, but that research is generally framed around the need of decision-making committees or Boards in contexts other than local government – scrutiny’s circumstances are distinct. Councils will need to consider their options carefully.

CfGS has a view that committees work best when they number between 9 and 13 members. This is not a rigorously scientific conclusion, more a figure that reflects:

  • The purpose of scrutiny as a space in which members are coming together to discuss matters of common interest, and the need therefore to ensure a decent spread and plurality of views and perspectives;
  • The need for political proportionality, especially in councils with several political groups and/or a lot of independent members;
  • The logistical unwieldiness of particularly large groups – and difficulties in ensuring the full engagement of those larger groups.
Cabinet ‘assistants’ sitting on scrutiny committees

Cabinet members cannot sit on overview and scrutiny committees. Where councils create the role of ‘cabinet assistant’ – an informal role for a wider cohort of councillors intended to offer support to the executive – these members can sit on scrutiny committees, but councils’ constitutions will generally restrict them to sitting on committees whose terms of reference do not reflect their executive responsibilities.

Statutory education co-optees

Committees with responsibility for scrutiny of education functions must co-opt four ‘statutory’co-optees (s499, Education Act 1996) – with voting rights – to represent the interests of those with a stake in maintained schools in the area.

Usually this will be:

  • An elected representative of primary parent governors;
  • An elected representative of secondary parent governors;
  • Representatives of diocesan boards of education for the area (usually representing local Roman Catholic and Church of England diocesan boards), where the area has “voluntary aided” faith schools.

Appointment of diocesan representatives is down to the diocese concerned, but the authority has a responsibility to organise elections for the parent governor representatives. This is usually carried out by way of a postal ballot of all the parent governors of relevant maintained schools in the area – arrangements for elections are laid out in the Parent Governor Representatives (England) Regulations 2001.

Statutory education co-optees hold voting rights on matters relating to education only, but in other respects can participate in the same way as other members of the committee. Because they hold voting rights, their presence influences the political proportionality of the committees they sit on (for which purpose they are usually counted as opposition members).

Appointing, and engagement, statutory education co-optees can be difficult (and councils reviewing their commitments here may want to engage with their SACRE). Many councils have reported frequent absences, and general disengagement of these members when they do attend – caused in part because councils’ education functions are now treated as very much ancillary to their wider duties around children’s services. As such, councils will need to think about how to ensure that co-optees’ needs are understood, and where particular support will be needed to ensure that they can play an active role.

Chairing arrangements

Overview and scrutiny committees must be politically proportionate, but chairing does not need to be. Whichever political group or groups hold a majority of seats at the annual general meeting of a council has the right to assign chairships as it sees fit. It is therefore fairly usual to see members of the majority party holding all chairing positions – on scrutiny, and on other committees as well.

Because chairships come with a special responsibility allowance (SRA), and with a certain degree of cachet, their allocation will often be at least partly subject to political patronage. This is inherent to local politics, although we would echo Government’s guidance that chairs should be appointed with reference to their skills, expertise and capabilities.

CfGS has carried out research over a number of years to try to determine whether opposition, or politically proportionate, chairing makes scrutiny more effective. Evidence is inconclusive, but we do know that practice across England shows a slight increase in recent years of councils seeking to ensure that opposition parties are represented in the leadership of the scrutiny function.

Electing Chairs

At the time of the original publication of the statutory scrutiny guidance in 2019, Government (and CfGS) raised the possibility of some councils piloting the election of chairs by secret ballot, mirroring the position taken in the House of Commons since the Wright Reforms of 2009.

Under this model, chairships would be allocated proportionately between parties. Members of the party to which a chairship has been allocated in such a way would be able to nominate themselves for the position and all members would vote by secret ballot. To date no council has chosen to appoint its chairs in this way, although some political groups do organise internal elections for chairships.

Other models of allocating chairships

Other than the allocation of chairships politically proportionately, or the allocation of chairships exclusively to members of the majority party, here are a number of practical approaches to the allocation of chairships between members of different parties:

  • Appointing an opposition chair for a ‘co-ordinating’ overview and scrutiny committee, with other chairing positions being held by the administration. A chair can also be chosen from a ‘minor’ opposition party rather than the main opposition;
  • Appointing opposition party vice-chairs to balance out chairing by members of the majority party. These roles may or may not attract a special responsibility allowance;
  • Appointing opposition members to a less formal ‘spokesperson’ role.
Dealing with the need for plurality in the leadership of the scrutiny function

Whatever solution is adopted there is a need for a degree of pluralism in how scrutiny is led, and managed. Chairs and vice-chairs need to work with all members of committee to design work programmes and carry out the committee’s business.

Councils and scrutiny

Scrutiny's powers within the council

This section sets out the powers of scrutiny members and scrutiny committees in councils in England. Arrangements in place for combined authorities are slightly different – the Government has produced a Scrutiny Protocol to guide those authorities to put in place effective scrutiny arrangements.

In local authorities, scrutiny can:

This is known as the power of ‘call in,’ and is discussed in more detail below. CfGS published a detailed guide on call-in which you can find here – we also provide more detail on the powers and principles applying to call-in in the section below.

Usually, this requirement will be seen as applying to senior directors and Cabinet members, and councils’ constitutions will set out the rules for attendance in more detail. Reasonable notice of the requirement should be given.

You can read more about members’ access to information in Access to information for elected members (CfGS, 2023). Members have a range of legal powers around access to information which will mean that it is unnecessary for them to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in order to secure information held by their own authority.

  • Any member can access documents which are in the possession of the executive, and which contain material relating to any business to be transacted at a public meeting. This includes some material that is exempt from publication (for example, commercially confidential information).
  • Members of overview and scrutiny committees enjoy enhanced rights of access to information relating to decisions that have already been made. This means that they can access documents, including those containing exempt and confidential information, that relate to executive decisions proposed to be made using delegated powers, if they relate to a matter that the member making the request is scrutinising. Documents requested on this basis must be provided within 10 days of the request being made.

Reports should be published – this will usually happen through the report being formally approved by the committee. A report will usually represent the findings of a task and finish group.

A committee must give notice to the executive (or the authority, of recommendations relate to non-executive functions). This notice should require a response, setting out what action is proposed to be taken, and that response should be public. A response to the report and recommendations is required within two months, and the response must comply with what requirements were set out in the committee’s original notice. In practice, this gives committees making recommendations an opportunity to be specific about the kind of response they expect.

Members’ powers to refer matters to committees for discussion

A further power, held by the members of overview and scrutiny committees, is that those members must be able to ‘refer’ a matter to the committee for discussion. This does not mean that any member can place any item they wish on a committee’s work programme, but that arrangements should be made to ensure that councillors have the right to suggest such matters, usually by way of regular discussion of the future work programme at a committee meeting.

Call-in

The power of call-in is the power for a scrutiny committee to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented. On carrying out such a review, a committee may recommend that the decision be reconsidered by the person who made it.

The call-in power is described fairly briefly in the legislation. CfGS has, with the support of LLG and ADSO, produced detailed guidance on the exercise of the call-in power

Here’s a brief summary:

Decisions to which the power of call-in applies

Many (but not all) councils have chosen to limit the power of call-in to apply only to ‘key decisions’, decisions which are particularly financially significant and which affect a relatively large part of the authority’s area.

Our recommendation is that all cabinet and cabinet member decisions should be potentially subject to call-in, as well as key decisions made by officers (if the council’s scheme of delegation provides for key decisions to be made by officers).

There is usually an exception in a council’s constitution for decisions being made urgently.

The main components of a call-in are:

Call-ins can be ‘triggered’ by a request made by a certain number of councillors, within a given timescale (usually, there is a period of five clear working days before the decision being made, when it is signed off by Cabinet or an individual, and the point at which the decision is legally deemed to have been “implemented).

Different councils have different thresholds in terms of the number, and type, of councillors making such a request for it to be valid – there is broad discretion here, but councils need to be careful not to design the requirement in such a way as to inadvertently make requesting a call-in functionally impossible.

Call-in requests may need to be justified by a rationale in order to be valid. Ultimately, the obligation on members to provide reasons for requesting a call-in is all about entrenching the fact that call-in is meant to be unusual. It is mean to be a ‘by exception’ tool used where other opportunities to influence and inform a decision have failed, and where members have sufficient concern about the decision to justify its reconsideration.

One reason for calling a decision in might be because councillors consider it has been made outside the budget and policy framework. This usually means that the decision has to be remitted to Council to resolve, rather than going back to the executive. This is extremely rare, and the council’s Monitoring Officer is best placed to make a judgement as to if and when it applies.

The validity of a request will usually be determined either directly by the Monitoring Officer, or by a relevant scrutiny chair on the Monitoring Officer’s advice. There will usually be a need to make a decision on validity near-immediately.

Councils’ constitutions usually say that a meeting be convened to hear the call-in within 10 days of a valid request. Some councils convene a special meeting of an existing committee to do this (where the call-in is the only item on the agenda). If an ordinary meeting of the relevant committee is within this time period, some councils will seek to place the call-in on the agenda of that meeting (although this can be risky, as it may hinder the transaction of other items – especially as discussion and debate around call-in can be lengthy).

Finally, some councils have as part of their committee structure a ‘call-in (sub)-committee,’ which is convened only when a valid call-in is made, with a distinct membership.

Relevant members and officers will need to be required to give evidence at the meeting. This may include people from outside the council.

Councils may or may not have a formal process for how call-in meetings should be conducted – if such a process exists it will usually be set out in the constitution.

Usually the members requesting the call-in will have an opportunity to address the meeting first. These members may or may not be members of the committee itself.

There will then be a debate and discussion framed around the reasons for the call-in.

At the end of the discussion the chair will determine which of three courses of action the committee could take.

  • Recommending that the decision be withdrawn entirely (ie that it not be implemented);
  • Recommending that the decision be amended prior to implementation (some councils do not provide for this option in their governance arrangements);
  • Recommending that the decision be implemented as it currently stands.

A recorded vote may be is taken, or the committee can resolve its approach through general agreement.

The decision with the recommendation from scrutiny is then remitted back to the original decision-maker, who will take a view on what action to take. In the vast majority of instances the decision goes on to be implemented unamended. It is for this reason that we tend to talk about call-in as a tool for delay and debate rather than for actual change.

This does not mean that call-in has no impact, however. That impact comes about in a couple of ways, and is driven by the fact that council executives usually want to avoid call-in, because it is time-consuming, causes delay in what may be business-critical issues, and can also be reputationally damaging. So:

  • The executive may seek to pre-empt call-in by opening up policy development, or opportunities for pre-decision scrutiny, on matters where they think call-in might be a risk;
  • The executive may promise to give scrutiny a larger role in the overview of how decisions come to be implemented – performance management, and so on – in a way that brings organisational focus to the issue, and hence seeks to mitigate the risks that scrutiny members might see as being present.
General powers of scrutiny outside the council

Scrutiny's general powers beyond the council

Scrutiny committees have various powers to engage external partners.

This engagement can sometimes be difficult. Partners may have a limited understanding of scrutiny, or in fact local government more generally. Scrutiny’s power to make reports and recommendations about anything that affects the area or the area’s inhabitants is helpful here, but any engagement with partners needs to be preceded with careful thinking about the nature of the relationship, committee members’ motivations and partners’ motivations.

Scrutiny has specific powers relating to health services, and community safety. Scrutiny also holds limited powers of scrutiny in relation to flood risk management, although Regulations issued to govern this form of scrutiny expired in 2017.

Beyond this, scrutiny committees can ‘invite’ witnesses to engage with it, and can require ‘relevant partner authorities’ to respond to reports and recommendations.

‘Relevant partner authorities’

Scrutiny committees can require, by notice, that certain partner authorities ‘have regard to’ its recommendations. In practice, this means that scrutiny can require specific responses to be made to recommendations made to these partners, which can make it easier to influence them and their work.

These powers also do not mean that scrutiny committees have a roving brief to investigate the general activities national and local of these organisations – the focus should be on scrutiny of the activities in which they are engaged in partnership with the council in the specific local area in question.

Who are the ‘relevant partner authorities’?

‘Relevant partner authorities’ is a term defined in legislation (Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, s104), and relates to a range of organisations operating in the same geographical area as the council in question. Scrutiny of health and of community safety is dealt with under separate arrangements.

The list of partner authorities includes:

  • A fire and rescue authority
  • A National Park Authority
  • The Broads Authority
  • Transport for London
  • A combined authority (or combined county authority)
  • Integrated Transport Authorities and Economic Prosperity Boards, where they still exist as separate legal entities
  • A joint waste disposal authority established in London or one of the former English metropolitan counties
  • A district council (if the council making the recommendations is a county council in the same area)
  • A county council (if the council making the recommendations is a district council in the same area)
  • Natural England
  • The Arts Council for England
  • The English Sports Council
  • The Environment Agency
  • The Health and Safety Executive
  • The Office for Nuclear Regulation
  • The Secretary of State, in relation to certain functions
  • The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  • The Homes and Communities Agency (the Act having not been updated to reflect the establishment of Homes England, it is unclear whether the responsibilities of the HCA in this regard have been passed over to Homes England)
Health and scrutiny

Scrutiny's powers relating to health

Local authorities have particular rights and responsibilities in respect of National Health Service bodies in England.

These “health scrutiny” powers do not need to be carried out by an overview and scrutiny committee (for example, in a committee system authority with no overview and scrutiny committee) but Government’s approach, and guidance, assumes that for the vast majority of councils the best way to carry out these duties will be through an OSC.

Some of these scrutiny powers changed significantly in early 2024. At the time, CfGS produced an explainer to summarise the key elements of these changes. Earlier in 2023 CfGS produced a document explaining health scrutiny in more detail. You can find references to further statutory and non-statutory guidance in those documents.

These changes relate to wider changes made to the health service since 2022. The creation of statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), comprised of Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and Integrated Care Partnerships (ICPs) has replaced a system where health services were commissioned at local level to one where design and commissioning happens across a far wider geographical footprint. You can find out more about the Act’s changes here.

This creates challenges for scrutiny – with major decision-making happening in a way that is arguably more remote from local communities, the need for local accountability is greater. But more of that accountability may need to be exerted jointly with neighbours – and in a way that takes account of the inevitable area-based tradeoffs that come of making decisions at a more regional level.

The law says that “a local authority may review and scrutinise any matter relating to the planning, provision and operation of the health service in its area” (Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013, as amended, Regulation 21). Its powers relate to local health partners, described generally in the legislation as “responsible persons” – these bodies include:

  • Integrated Care Systems (this includes area- and place-based teams within ICSs)
  • NHS Trusts. This includes foundation trusts; it includes trusts provides acute and community services
  • Other elements of the health service operating locally – for example, Primary Care Networks

Powers do not extend to national decision-making undertaken by bodies such as NHS England, even where that has local impacts.

In connection to this overall power, health scrutiny has some other functions and powers:

Functions

  • The health scrutiny function is obliged to have regard to information provided to it by a local referrer (Local Healthwatch or a Healthwatch contractor) – suggesting the need for a close relationship between health scrutiny and Healthwatch. Where a referral is made, the council must acknowledge it within 20 working days and keep the referrer informed of any action taken.

Where a local health service body (in the legislation a ‘responsible person’) proposes to make a substantial variation to local health services, health scrutiny must be consulted; timescales for the consultation and the decision must be given.

Since January 2024, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care may proactively intervene where the health service locally proposes a substantial variation. There is a general power held by anyone to notify the Secretary of State of concerns with regard to a substantial variation. The Secretary of State may make a decision to intervene, based on such a notice – but in doing so should have regard to the extent to which local attempts to resolve the issue have been exhausted. These local attempts will, it is expected, involve scrutiny.

Scrutiny continues to be an important partner for health service bodies where substantial variations are proposed, not least because it remains a statutory consultee.

Powers

The powers and duties set out below may also be transacted by a joint health overview and scrutiny committee (subject to certain requirements) (Regulation 30).

  • Attendance by health service partners at meetings. A member or employee of a local health service partner can be required to attend – given reasonable notice of the requirement.
  • Access to information (Regulation 26). Local health service bodies must provide health scrutiny with information “about the planning, provision and operation of health services in the area of that authority”. Requests for information must be “reasonable”.
  • Responses to reports and recommendations (Regulation 22). Health scrutiny may make reports and recommendations to local health service bodies – a response to those reports and recommendations is required within 28 days. Reports have to include an explanation of the matter reviewed, a summary of the evidence, a list of participants involved and an explanation of any recommendations.

 

How should scrutiny committees exercise these functions and powers?

In some areas, overview and scrutiny functions and local health bodies have established “memoranda of understanding” to determine how they will work together (including arrangements for the resolution of disputes).

This is particularly valuable where a large number of organisations might be involved – so they might be especially useful where a number of local authorities want to agree how they will collectively work to scrutinise an ICB.

There is no standard “form” to these memoranda or which organisations need to be party to them.

In our view, they can be important because otherwise the quality of relationships can be unduly influenced by the character of the individuals involved – particularly in the health service, where awareness of health scrutiny and its powers is decidedly variable.

Community safety and scrutiny

Scrutiny's powers relating to community safety

Councils need to have in place arrangements for scrutiny of community safety partnerships (CSPs) – the bodies that co-ordinate action between the council and its partners on matters relating to crime and disorder.

This is a duty conferred on councils by ss19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, and the Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009. In advance of the power coming into force in 2009, the Home Office issued statutory guidance on this form of scrutiny, which remains in force.

Scrutiny of the community safety partnership (CSP) is not the same as scrutiny of all the activities of the organisations that make up that partnership. Scrutiny is limited to the contribution that those partners make to the work of the partnership (so, CSP scrutiny does not involve generalised scrutiny of policing, which is the role of the relevant Police and Crime Panel).

Functions

Overall, councils’ duties here include:

  • The obligation to review and scrutinise decisions made by CSP partners relating to their crime and disorder functions;
  • The obligation to designate a scrutiny committee as the one that will be carrying out this work;
  • The obligation to undertake scrutiny of the CSP at least annually (Regulation 4).
Powers
  • Attendance by partners at meetings. With reasonable notice, a representative of a partner organisation can be required to attend meetings of the committee (Regulation 6);
  • Access to information. Partners are required to provide information where requested, subject to (reasonable) deadlines set by the committee. Information provided should where necessary be depersonalised and should not include information that might prejudice future legal proceedings or operational policing/crime and disorder activity (Regulation 5);
  • Responses to reports and recommendations. Reports and recommendations can be made to a partner (or co-operating person or body), and responses to those reports and recommendations must be made in writing and within 28 days (Regulation 7).

All resources