From Compliance to Impact: Improving the Overview & Scrutiny (2026–2027)

[Audio] From Compliance to Impact, Improving the Overview and Scrutiny function for 2026 to 2027.

[Audio] The current scrutiny environment faces several pressures that limit its ability to deliver in depth, value‑adding oversight. Committees are routinely confronted with overloaded work programmes where breadth has overtaken depth, leaving insufficient time to interrogate complex issues meaningfully. One of the most significant operational barriers is the persistent 'seven‑day squeeze', where reports arrive only a week before meetings, providing Members with inadequate timeframes to analyse information, explore underlying issues, or prepare effective questions. This creates a reactive culture and reducing scrutiny to a procedural exercise rather than a driver of improvement. Performance reporting remains heavily exception‑based, often highlighting only areas of concern without providing full trend data, often no alignment to council plan priorities, no clear targets or goal parameters, no assessment of financial implications, or associated risk contexts. Without SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time‑bound) targets and linked resource profiles, scrutiny committees cannot reliably track progress or assess value for money. This partnering of data is considered the golden thread in the scrutiny environment and ties together everything members need to undertake the scrutiny role effectively. The lack of timely minutes and action logs, sometimes taking weeks rather than days, further compounds the challenge, as Members lose momentum our follow‑up actions risk becoming diluted or overlooked, weakening accountability. Under these conditions, scrutiny cannot consistently influence decision‑making at formative stages and therefore significantly reducing scrutiny's potential impact. The conclusion to take from these issues is that while compliance to the required frameworks as set out by governing legislation and association bodies is achieved there are still these noted governance risks and while compliance is a necessary baseline our delivery of successful improvement and impacts will only be supported with higher degrees of good practice which are often recommended by the LGA and CFGS. So, improving on known governance risks in particular the delayed dissemination of meeting minutes, making everything preplanned, laid out and presented in a fashion that can only result in scrutiny within a limited discussion forum, are issues of long-standing recognition and have been noted before by the majority of groups of council members. Some of us have come to consider the arrangements with the analogy of "dining on a buffet of pre-chewed food". This diagnostic reflects the constraints that this improvement programme seeks to address by embedding earlier engagement, better information flows, and member‑led prioritisation..

[Audio] The improvement programme introduces a clear transformation of scrutiny from a reactive, Officer‑timed function into a proactive, Member‑led system grounded in forward planning and robust evidence. This shift firstly requires aligning Overview and Scrutiny Committees (OSCs) with the key objectives of the new council plan and closely with the council directorates that are designed to deliver them. This helps us in ensuring that scrutiny mirrors organisational accountability structures and can more meaningfully track delivery against strategic ambitions. A key component of this mandate is strengthening Members' information rights so that scrutiny receives not only earlier reports but richer, SMART‑aligned content that includes financial data, risk assessments, and delivery timelines. This enables Members to interrogate not just outputs and outcomes but resource utilisation, and cross‑cutting impacts. The new programme emphasises early engagement, via a structured pre‑meeting processes (working groups) ensures scrutiny influences decisions at formative stages, reducing reliance on call‑in and improving policy design. An intelligence‑driven approach also requires committees to operate consistent principles of risk‑based prioritisation, reducing agenda overload and enabling deeper, more consequential examination. The Task phase therefore sets out an ambitious but essential cultural and procedural shift, placing Members at the centre of shaping the scrutiny programmes, while embedding the evidence standards needed to effectively hold Cabinet and the Directors to account..

[Audio] Structural Actions: Aligning Governance, Processes, and Committee Functions. The delivery of meaningful scrutiny improvements requires a coherent set of structural adjustments and the approval of the full council in the endeavour. Specifically changing the constitution. Changes to Article 6, Part 3A, and Part 4E of the Constitution are required. Alignment of OSCs to the council plan objectives and directorates provides clarity of remit, reduces duplication, and strengthens accountability by ensuring committees shadow the relevant areas of council operations. The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (COSMB), set at an 18‑Member composition, becomes the strategic integrator that coordinates cross‑cutting themes and ensures scrutiny maintains coherence across the organisation. I have also acknowledged that scrutiny committees need to have a reduction in headcount I have recommended here and in the constitution a reduction to 12 members for each committee. Attendance suggests we operate at this number in the current reality anyway. This arrangement will be coordinated by a monthly Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs' meeting another recommended activity. This can be held on teams and can be self managed. The improvement programme clarifies statutory scrutiny roles, Health scrutiny under the Adults OSC, Crime and Disorder scrutiny under the Neighbourhood & Community committee, and the involvement of education representatives for Children and Young People's work, ensuring legal duties are both preserved and made more visible. A major structural innovation lies within the introduction of the 10‑working‑day minimum Workgroup cycle, formalised within Part 4E. This creates a disciplined, repeatable workflow in which Working Groups receive draft reports early, interrogate them, track data from previous reports on the same subject, formulate written questions, and receive written responses from officers prior to publication. Committee chairs are also empowered to delay a report from being added to an OSC meeting agenda, if insufficient time has been provided. The Work Groups which are formed and organised by the OSC committees themselves, produce public addendums that include questions and answers of the officers producing the report and the directorate's leadership. Workgroups may set out findings, issues, recommendations and suggested lines of inquiry for the committee meeting. This approach does not replace formal committee decision‑making but enhances it by ensuring that meetings begin with sharper focus and Members arrive already briefed on the key issues and evidence. These actions collectively modernise scrutiny's structure and operational method..

[Audio] Scrutiny Committee Realignment. The previous scrutiny structures were thematic or themed to a catalogue of issues, they tried to look at everything and therefore scrutinised nothing in depth. This led to duplication of efforts, cross‑cutting gaps late or poor‑quality information, shallow questioning, fragmented risk oversight and Member overload. The new system resolves these issues by aligning each OSC to a directorate and the new Council Plan ambitions, while still feeling familiar for current committee members. Putting SMART, finance and risk‑linked reporting as the format for reports. We will look further at this in a subsequent slide. Embedding the 10‑day minimum Working Group cycle, empowering Chairs with deferral and sign‑off powers. Creating a coherent scrutiny architecture through Corporate OS Management Board. Replacing reactive, officer‑led scrutiny with proactive, Member‑led scrutiny governance. These changes fully implement national best practice and directly address the governance weaknesses identified in the previous system. Essentially Officers create reports that follow the national governments objectives and outcomes methodology which are beneficial for government comparing councils with other councils. What we need is reports that show delivery of our goals. Mildly put we need a Rosetta Stone that will help members and officers communicate in the same language and a language our residents in County Durham can also follow. This realignment also reduces the overlap in remits and therefore the need for special joint meetings which lacks purpose and focus. In the new model any overlaps can be scrutinsed by the two scrutiny committees in their normal meetings and reported separately to Scrutiny Management Board and the Cabinet for consideration, keeping the context of the feedback within the terms of reference of that committee..

[Audio] Workgroup Timeline: Embedding Early Evidence and Member Preparation. The new Workgroup cycle is central to modernising how scrutiny prepares for meetings, ensuring that Members receive reports early enough to shape the conversation rather than simply react to information. Report authors submit draft reports via the scrutiny officer directly to the workgroups. The workgroup is devoted to Member‑led analysis: reading the draft, identifying gaps, and drafting targeted and evidence‑based questions. The Workgroup lead, sends formal written questions and data requests to officers, ensuring clarity on what additional information is required. Officers return written responses, providing Members with crucial insights ahead of publication and supporting more informed scrutiny. The work group compiles a concise but influential Addendum that sets out findings, key questions, and potential recommendations; this is published with the report. The final agenda includes both the report and the work group Addendum, meeting the legal five‑clear‑days requirement for publication, while enabling considerable Member preparation. Finally, the committee meeting follows a disciplined format: a brief officer introduction, a three‑minute Work group summary, and a session devoted almost entirely to Member‑led interrogation. This timeline ensures scrutiny is evidence‑rich, anticipatory, and strategically prepared, while able to cover a larger agenda by reducing presentation repetition..

[Audio] SMART Performance Framework: Embedding Evidence into Scrutiny. What is wrong with the present reporting methodology? The current reporting method relies heavily on exception‑based reporting, meaning officers only present the issues they choose to highlight, while all non‑exceptional performance; good, bad, or declining, is hidden from Members. This creates gaps in the dataset and prevents scrutiny from seeing trends, baselines, finance, risk, or outcomes across the whole service over time. More importantly is allows Officers the ability to decide what good looks like after the fact and allows the possibility of work to be undertaken without regard to the priorities laid out in the council plan. Reports arrive only a week before meetings, leaving Members unable to prepare or analyse properly. Many reports are duplicated, narratively inconsistent, and lack a single author, resulting in a confused flow where graphics appear without context and key points are repeated without new evidence. The result is a scrutiny environment that is reactive, officer‑led, and structurally incapable of identifying systemic issues, undermining the Best Value duty and leaving scrutiny without the data it is legally entitled to request. SMART objectives; Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time‑bound, are the mechanism that turns the Council Plan ambitions into operationally measurable outcomes. They create the golden thread the Local Government Association, Centre for Governance and Scrutiny and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities insist councils should maintain: from high‑level strategic ambition, to service objective to indicator, to delivery action, to budget and workforce allocation. Under today's method, Cabinet and Scrutiny receives narrative reports and exception KPIs with no limited links to the Council Plan ambitions, and scrutiny cannot test whether resources match intended outcomes. SMART objectives solve this by giving each ambition a baseline, target, timeframe, cost profile and risk statement, enabling Scrutiny, Cabinet and officers to speak the same performance language. This allows early intervention, transparent reporting, real‑time corrective action, meaningful prioritisation of budgets, and a performance culture rooted in evidence, not anecdotes. A fully effective scrutiny function relies on performance information that is transparent, structured, and actionable. This improvement programme mandates that all performance reports must adopt a SMART approach, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time‑bound, for Cabinet and Scrutiny, ensuring that objectives are not vague aspirations but clearly defined deliverables tied to the Council Plan. Each SMART objective must include baseline data, multi‑quarter and annual trend information, measurable targets which include resource allocations, and explicit links to risk registers. The financial context becomes a non‑negotiable component, allowing scrutiny to evaluate value for money and understand the resourcing implications of progress or shortfalls. Reports must also identify delivery milestones and provide a realistic appraisal of barriers and mitigating actions. Embedding this model provides Members with a repeatable performance lens, enabling committees to move beyond narrative reporting and instead probe outcomes, efficiencies, and impacts. This approach strengthens accountability, improves strategic oversight, and aligns scrutiny with national expectations for evidence‑led evaluation..

[Audio] A Current Objective KPI example as recorded today from the existing performance framework: "Visitors to the county – benchmarked against regional and national averages." What this objective does and doesn't tell Scrutiny or Cabinet. It shows we will compare ourselves to other councils, but not why. It gives no baseline, so Members cannot see the trend (improving? declining?). It gives no target, so Members cannot judge whether the council is succeeding. It gives no link to our Council Plan ambitions, so scrutiny cannot test strategic delivery. It provides no cost or resource context (are we spending more to get less?). It provides no value‑for‑money assessment (Return On Investment of events, marketing, capital investment). It includes no risk statement, so Members cannot see pressures or failure points. Benchmarking often hides local context: rurality, transport limitations, seasonal variations. In short: benchmarking tells Members where we sit, but not whether the council is doing well. It is therefore passive, incomplete, and unsuitable as the backbone of modern scrutiny reporting. A SMART Objective will give us the Who, what when where and why of the objective for example as in this slide and continued on the next slide Specific: focuses on increasing visitor volume, value, and year‑round activity. Measurable: States what the measuring tools and KPIs will be. I havent put in a KPI for each metric here but as an example I could say 24 to 26 million visitors annually to County Durham is the target by 2030, from a baseline at the start of the Destination Management Plan in 2023, where the figure was at 20.15 million visitors. On the next slide we cover the achievable element to look at why that might be a reasonable goal..

[Audio] So to continue here we have the A of SMART which is Achievable: Item 1 here is that we have a full plan on delivery called the Destination Management Plan which is a 30 page document on how this will be delivered. Again I left of KPI figures as this SMART objective is generic in essence but as mentioned an example visitor target of 24-26 million visitors by 2030 from the 2023 figure of 20.15 million is due to regard for the visitor number trends. The 2023 figure was itself a 12% increase of the year before 2024 was a 7% increase to 21.56 million which shows a trajectory already set to achieve this. Most of the efforts are to prevent slippage and ensure our offer in county durham competes with other counties for attraction and the infrastructure to support visitors coming to County Durham. Relevant: this objective directly underpins the key objective of the "Supercharging Our Economy" ambition but also supports connected communities and people living long and independent lives, where transport infrastructure is concerned. Time‑bound: deadline of March 2030 is the plans ambitions. Some objectives might be short runs others need to have longer durations because projects in infrastructure can take several years to complete and we will need the project in place at the end point and beyond to measure the results, and as a lessons learned exercise inform our future activities. What this SMART version enables Scrutiny can analyse quarterly or annual performance against this target. Cabinet sees whether investment in events, marketing and assets is working. Officers must provide supporting budget, risk, trend, and resource data. The public can see a clear and transparent measure of progress. This is the "golden thread" in action: Council Plan ambitions underpinned by multiple SMART objective for each KPI listed, fed into comprehensive SMART presented performance reporting, which in turn enables scrutiny challenge, improved Cabinet decision making regarding prioritising efforts and therefore, improved outcomes for residents..

[Audio] Successful implementation of the scrutiny improvement model will deliver a cultural and operational transformation in how committees work, engage with information, and influence decisions. Scrutiny agendas will shift from overloaded agendas many of which are items or low risk or from areas of little or no influence and control to focused, risk‑based programmes. In practical terms it will mean we will investigate and interrogate data that demonstrates the council's delivery against the goals and objectives of the council plan, against government legislative requirements and on subjects that ar, but not limited to, the most public facing and accounting for the most important elements of our public reputation. Meetings will become more purposeful, with time spent interrogating evidence rather than passively receiving presentations. The availability of trend data, financial context, and SMART‑aligned measures will empower Members to challenge assumptions, test delivery claims, and track progress rigorously. Faster production of minutes and action logs, targeted at five days or fewer, will restore tactical agility and strengthen follow‑up. Early engagement via the workgroups will reduce reliance on call‑in, ensuring scrutiny influences policy formation rather than stimulating retrospective challenge. A refreshed Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board will ensure that cross‑cutting issues such as climate, finance, or digital transformation receive consistent and integrated oversight. Overall, success means scrutiny becomes a force for improved governance, transparent performance, and better outcomes for residents, shifting permanently from compliance to impact. OSC Chairs and Vice chairs in conjunction with the committee members are already empowered to develop a programme of work for their OSC. The new OSC structures and terms of reference ensure that focus is directed, Chairs and Vice chairs can set up standing work groups for regular items and task and finish groups for avenues of investigation. Management and discussion for these groups can take place online and outside of OSC meetings, which retain the decision-making meeting for recommendations to be either agreed from officers, created by the committee or adopted from the workgroup's proposals..

[Audio] To embed the reforms, several next steps must be executed systematically. First, the constitutional amendments across Article 6, Part 3A, and Part 4E must be formally adopted, ensuring that governance arrangements reflect the reformed scrutiny model. Standing Workgroups for each OSC need to be convened, with schedules created for the 10‑day pre‑publication cycle to ensure consistent operation. Officer briefings should be delivered across all directorates, clarifying new expectations for SMART reporting, written response protocols, and WG engagement. COSMB should approve the first risk‑based work programmes and confirm cross‑cutting themes requiring joint attention. The Council should roll out new minute‑production processes to meet the five‑day turnaround target, ensuring action tracking is embedded in directorates' workflows. Digital collaboration tools, such as Teams‑based WG sessions, should be utilised to streamline evidence gathering. Once these steps are in place, scrutiny will be equipped to operate the new model consistently, reinforcing a culture where Member‑led, evidence‑driven scrutiny becomes the standard across the authority..

[Audio] Article 6 changes. The revised Article 6 brings the Council's scrutiny arrangements into clearer alignment with the widely‑used national model constitution originally developed through the LGA framework, ensuring all statutory scrutiny powers are expressed explicitly and coherently at the Article level. This strengthens the constitutional foundation for scrutiny by making its legal authority visible and unambiguous, because the more clearly a Constitution states scrutiny's powers, the more confidently scrutiny can exercise those powers. Summary of Part 3A Changes The updated Part 3A strengthens the Council's Overview and Scrutiny arrangements by fully aligning the scrutiny structure to the Council's organisational directorates and to the priorities set out in the Council Plan 2025 to 2030. Each Overview and Scrutiny Committee OSC now has a clearer, more focused remit directly linked to one of the five strategic ambitions; Caring for Our People, Building Better Communities, Supercharging Our Economy, A Practical Environmental Stewardship, and Reforming the Council. Also paired where applicable with a directorate of the council, with the exception of Environment OSC which doesn't have a whole council directorate devoted to it. This alignment ensures that scrutiny activity is purposeful, integrated and strategically coherent. Key governance improvements include modernised Terms of Reference for all OSCs, statutory clarity where required (Health Scrutiny; Crime & Disorder), and a reconstituted Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Management Board of 18 Members to provide stronger strategic oversight, cross‑committee coordination and whole‑Council governance assurance. The OSCs themselves have been reduced to 12 Members which including the Management Board's Chair and Vice‑Chair on each committee to achieve consistency, proportionality and operational efficiency. The new Part 3A also embeds the constitutional framework for Standing Working Groups and Task & Finish Groups, cross‑referencing to Article 6 and the detailed procedures in Part 4E. This enables more effective pre‑committee work, evidence‑gathering and performance scrutiny, including the use of SMART‑aligned objectives as recommended in your performance framework proposal. Together, these changes modernise scrutiny, strengthen accountability and put the Council on a clearer path toward risk‑based, intelligence‑led and outcomes‑focused governance. The revised Part 4E modernises our scrutiny procedure rules in line with national best practice and the aims of the scrutiny development project, embedding risk‑based work programming, Standing Working Groups, clearer pre‑decision engagement, SMART‑aligned performance scrutiny, and coordinated cross‑committee working. It reflects the Government's statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny from 2019 and April 2024 updates and LGA councillor development materials that promote evidence‑led, well‑planned scrutiny..

[Audio] The proposed constitutional amendments are fully compliant with statutory requirements and national guidance governing Overview and Scrutiny. The early access to Information does not affect the 5 day prior to a scrutiny meetings publication rule, which remains intact, as the Minimum 10‑working‑day Working Group cycle operates entirely as an internal process, enhancing evidence quality while respecting legal publication requirements. Statutory scrutiny functions, health scrutiny, crime and disorder scrutiny, and education representation are preserved and made more explicit to meet obligations under the Local Government Act 2000, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, associated scrutiny regulations, and education co‑optee rules. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities' Statutory Guidance on Scrutiny 2019, updated April 2024 emphasises culture, planning, independence, information rights and evidence sessions. Each of these principles are operationalised within the amended Article 6 and Part 4E, which establish coordinated governance, early engagement, and enforceable evidence requirements. Committee structure in Part 3A provides coherence with service delivery and aligns with national practice. The amendments therefore not only comply with all legal standards but elevate the Council's scrutiny arrangements into alignment with contemporary best practice..

[Audio] Implementing the constitutional reforms requires coordinated action across Members, officers and governance teams. The first step is Constitutional Working Group's approval of the revised wording for Article 6, Part 3A and Part 4E, confirming structural remits, statutory designations and procedural rules. Though this is a custom rather than a requirement as the motion can always be put to the full council if proposals are thought to have been diluted or undermined by the Constitutional Working Group's process. This is an active concern that seems to have prevented Scrutiny reform in previous years. Once approved, the changes must be presented to Full Council for adoption anyway, usually in May. During the first implementation month, Standing Working Groups should be established, Members and officers briefed on new evidence and SMART requirements, and a forward schedule issued for the 10‑working‑day cycle. Officers must be trained to produce SMART‑compliant reports, including baseline data, targets, financial implications and associated risks. Cabinet must support the SMART objectives and ensure they align to the objectives in the council plan. Chairs must begin applying deferral powers and overseeing sign‑off processes. Corporate overview and scrutiny management board must implement improved cross‑cutting coordination and call‑in monitoring. The Constitutional Working Group will be asked to approve the wording, Corporate overview and scrutiny management board should endorse the go‑live timetable, confirm transitional arrangements for report cycles, and instruct governance support to update procedural documentation. These decisions are critical to embed the model and deliver consistent, high‑quality scrutiny..

[Audio] These reforms give Members the scrutiny system we have consistently asked for: clearer powers, stronger independence, better information, and a culture that places Members in the driving seat. To deliver this, we need unambiguous political approval, and we need to protect the reforms from being weakened through process, reinterpretation, or dilution. Approval today means adopting the constitutional amendments as written, endorsing the full implementation plan, and formally committing to SMART reporting so that scrutiny receives transparent, complete and measurable information. This decision secures a Member‑led scrutiny model that meets national guidance, strengthens accountability, and ensures officers provide the full evidence base we require to hold the organisation to account. At this point Id like to see if we have a consensus to move forward with this. Officers have been trying to make a version they would prefer, so this version has competition. There is a full report and the new versions of the Constitutions sections to be disseminated following this briefing..