Introduction
This page talks about the various models for overview and scrutiny committees in English local authorities – their number, their size, and their chairing and membership arrangements.
In respect of combined authorities, Government has provided guidance to CAs that they should have a single overview and scrutiny committee.
There’s no “best way” for councils to organise their committees.
Some common options involve:
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.
Here a single committee carries out work in meetings but is likely to have a busy and varied programme of task and finish work. This provides an opportunity to “flex” resources to meet priorities.
Subject matter 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. We are not huge enthusiasts for this model because in our experience it is difficult to cleanly divide business in this way. An alternative is to have one committee focusing on “policy” and the other on “performance”;
… divided up by subject matter. 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.
As an adjunct to the options above councils may operate other structures – 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.
Many councils will send members to sit on joint overview and scrutiny committees. Joint committees may be established on an ad hoc basis, or may be standing bodies. They are most commonly established to meet needs relating to health scrutiny.
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.
Naming conventions
Councils use a wide range of terms to describe their committees, like…
- “Commissions”
- “Panels”
- “Select Committee”
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.
The size 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.
How do you decide who chairs?
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.
Government, in the statutory guidance, 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. To date, no council has done this.
Ways to bring more plurality to leadership in scrutiny
There are a range of ways to increase plurality in how scrutiny is led.
- 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.
The size 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.
There are two other constraints that can influence how committee membership is managed.
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.
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. 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.
Councils can put in place schemes to co-opt non-voting members onto overview and scrutiny committees, but this is uncommon. More common is the practice of co-opting members of the community onto task and finish groups.
All resources