Scrutiny is intended to be independent of an executive. So why should council leaders concern themselves with what is going on in their scrutiny committees? An interesting question; but given the views I've heard recently it is one that needs to be addressed.
Right at the start of the scrutiny era, the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) established four principles on which good scrutiny should be based: providing the service of a critical friend; carried out by "independent minded governors"; enabling the voice and concerns of the public; and, driving improvement.
That they remain valid to this day indicative of the care taken in laying down these first foundation stones. Quite rightly, the first two principles exist to ensure that sure scrutiny can work in an environment where it is independent but a friend. The remaining two are connected to engagement and improving our services. Given this purpose, they should form part of any leader's toolkit.
To help council leaders establish whether they are making the most of their scrutiny function, they should ask themselves the following questions:
• Is scrutiny one of your performance management tools?
• How integral is scrutiny to your public engagement strategy?
• How do you scrutinise your scrutineers?
• How do you develop your scrutiny members?
• Do you use scrutiny to help you identify potential cabinet talent?
• What are you doing to get the best out of your scrutiny officers?
• How do you ensure recommendations are followed up?
Scrutiny is sometimes wrongly perceived to be the opposition. When I was appointed to head of scrutiny, a senior opposition member told me I was "on their side now", drawing attention to the challenge I faced in demonstrating that scrutiny at the council was independent and an apolitical function.
On the other hand, I had no problem with the council leader who told me he wanted robust scrutiny because he saw it as one of his performance tools – and a way to keep his executive members on their toes. The only time he ever interfered in a scrutiny committee was to tell his own members they were being too protective of other cabinet members.
In an ideal world there should be no conflict between the ambition of a council leader to make their authority the best and the role of scrutiny committees in driving improvements in council services, including those being delivered by partner organisations.
I could expand on all seven of these questions, but the central concern for any council leader should be whether scrutiny is helping to make a difference to her council, not whether it is giving her executive an easy life. After all, there is little value in resourcing meetings if they are nothing more than talking shops. And even the best constructed recommendations or most erudite of scrutiny reports are of little value if destined to gather dust on the council bookshelf.
My seven questions can be summarised in one simple ask: how effective is scrutiny in helping your authority engage with the public and improve public services? However good the answer might be, there will always be room for improvement.
David Moses a director of ELGH and the former head of governance for two county councils
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Sign up for our newsletter for more comment and analysis direct to your inbox
