Agenda item

Consideration was given to the Cabinet’s Response to the Refuse and Recycling Scrutiny Report which included extra suggestions made by the Cabinet regarding additional work in relation to value for money of the service, together with more general suggestions relating to future scrutiny reports.

It was noted that the Portfolio Holder for Street Scene and Recycling, Councillor Mrs. Sherrey, was not in attendance to present the response and in particular, answer questions to clarify what the Cabinet was suggesting in relation to future scrutiny reports.

Members of the Scrutiny Steering Board were satisfied with the Cabinet’s Response to the Refuse and Recycling Scrutiny Report and understood the Cabinet’s proposal for the Scrutiny Steering Board to request the Task Group to undertake further work to include a value for money analysis of the service.  However, there was a concern by the Board that Member Training on Value for Money was required before this particular scrutiny investigation took place to ensure a thorough scrutiny.  It was stated that, following the suggestion at a previous Scrutiny Steering Board Meeting for Value for Money training to be provided, it had since been agreed by the Modern Councillor Steering Group that it would be incorporated within the Member Training Programme to be held during the first quarter of 2008/09.

There was also a concern over the Refuse and Recycling Task Group’s terms of reference for the additional work and it was suggested by officers that detailed terms of reference with specific outcomes should be compiled to prevent any confusion on what was expected.  It was further suggested that this could be compiled by the Task Group itself for the Board to consider and agree at a later date.

The final point discussed in relation to the additional scrutiny work for the Refuse and Recycling Task Group was that sufficient time would need to be given to enable the scrutiny work to be completed.

In relation to the general recommendations, the Board believed that ensuring scrutiny recommendations were prioritised as being low, medium or high in future scrutiny reports to indicate to officers the order in which any approved recommendations should be implemented was a good suggestion.  However, there was some confusion in relation to the final two suggestions in the report which the Board felt clarification from the relevant Portfolio Holder would have been helpful.

There was a lengthy discussion in relation to the final suggestion which asked the Board to consider opportunity costs when agreeing recommendations.  The majority of the Board believed that all recommendations would have an opportunity cost and although it was understood that officer time would be required to implement approved recommendations, it was felt that the financial implications stated in Scrutiny Report referred to direct costs which affected the budget.

RESOLVED:

(a)    that the response from the Cabinet relating to the Refuse and Recycling Scrutiny Report be noted;

(b)    that the Refuse and Recycling Task Group be given approximately 10 weeks to complete its work from the date of its first meeting;

(c)     that suggestions on the way forward for this Task Group, including the preparation of specific terms of reference and the need for Value for Money training, be discussed and agreed at the next meeting of the Board; 

(d)    that, in future, the scrutiny recommendations contained within scrutiny reports be prioritised as being low, medium or high priority so to indicate to the Cabinet and officers the order in which the recommendations (if approved) would need to be implemented;

(e)    that the third suggestion (listed as 18 in the Cabinet Response) relating to (i) making clear which scrutiny recommendations involved officer actions which were already being undertaken and the Task Group would like to see continued; and (ii) issues which were considered by the Task Group but which did not form part of the final recommendations be made clear in a separate section of the report, should not be implemented; and

(f)      that the fourth suggestion (listed as 19 in the Cabinet Response) relating to taking account of opportunity costs (e.g. officer time) of certain recommendations within future scrutiny reports should not be implemented due to the reasons discussed by the Board.