Agenda item

To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed work programme, training updates and to receive any further information which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.

The DSM outlined the upcoming Overview & Scrutiny Committee work programme, reminding members that the Treasury Management Strategy would be coming back for consideration once the requested training had been provided.

The Chairman informed members that himself and the Vice-Chairman, Cllr Penfold, had discussed the LGA Peer Review recommendations relating to Scrutiny and how they could be addressed. They had agreed that it could be beneficial to engage an external facilitator, possibly from the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny (CfGS) to lead members through a constructive workshop-based process to consider the key observations highlighted by the Peer Review report. He asked members to indicate if they were supportive of such an approach. It was agreed that arrangements would be put in place to proceed on this basis, once the new Scrutiny Officer had started in post in early January. In response to a question from the CE regarding the scope of any work, the Chairman clarified that the intention was to focus on the Peer Review recommendations relating to scrutiny specifically, rather than the report as a whole.

Cllr J Toye, Chairman of the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC) commented on the Peer Review and the references in the final report on the need for clarification on the division of the roles and responsibilities between Overview & Scrutiny Committee, GRAC and Cabinet. The Chairman replied that this was one of the wider aspects of the Peer Review that would be picked up as work progressed. The DSM advised that the ongoing review of the Council’s constitution would include a review of the terms of reference for each of the main committees, ensuring that the functions were set out clearly and that there was no duplication.

Cllr J Boyle said that as the Council’s appointed representative to the Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC), she felt it would be beneficial for regular updates on the work of NHOSC to be provided to Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The DSM advised that minutes from the NHOSC meetings had been circulated to Overview & Scrutiny Committee members in the past and this was one option. The Chairman said that he didn’t feel it would always be appropriate for the committee to receive an update. A lot of the work undertaken by NHOSC was at county level and not always relevant to NNDC. He suggested that information should be circulated to members on relevant topics, as they arose. He proposed that Cllr Boyle sent any NHOSC information to the DSM who would then assess it and share it with members, as appropriate.

The Committee then considered a request from the DFR to move the next meeting back by a week to allow more time for the finance reports to be prepared. An additional week would also allow time for treasury management training to be arranged. Members supported this request and it was agreed to cancel the January meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny scheduled for 17^th January and reschedule it for Wednesday 24th January.

Cllr M Hankins asked about adding an item to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee work programme. He had noticed in the budget papers that the Council made a significant financial contribution to the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and given the recent issues with flooding in various parts of the District, he felt that it would be beneficial for a representative from the IDBs to attend a meeting of the committee and provide an update to members on the work that they were doing and future plans. The Chairman said that the IDBs were on the Council’s list of outside bodies and there were several NNDC representatives appointed to each IDB. One of the responsibilities of being appointed as a representative to an outside body was providing updates to members. He suggested that Full Council was the appropriate forum for this. Cllr N Housden said that he was an appointed representative to the Rivers Internal Drainage Board and it was challenging to scrutinise the flooding issues. Although the rivers operated under the wider auspices of the farming community, the main drainage responsibilities sat with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water. He offered to provide members with the minutes from the last meeting of the IDB but said that it was a very complex issue and it would be difficult for any committee to effectively question the IDB as they were dependent on the work and subsequent reporting of the EA and AW.  In conclusion, he said it was not a straightforward situation. The Chairman reiterated his earlier comment that it may be more appropriate for appointed representatives to both IDBs to provide an update to Full Council or circulate information via email to all members.