Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

Auditors have welcomed Caerphilly County Borough Council’s plans to improve how policies are scrutinised by elected representatives and the public.

Current scrutiny arrangements had only a “limited impact” due to gaps in understanding, the effectiveness of training and meetings, and the level of public engagement, Audit Wales said in May.

At a meeting of the council’s democratic services committee, on Thursday September 11, members heard the auditors were happy with planned improvements.

“Having considered that response, Audit Wales is satisfied that the findings and recommendations have been properly considered,” said the organisation’s Rachel Harries. “The response is sufficiently specific, the timescales are clear and reasonable, and it’s clear who’s responsible for the actions set out.”

Recommendations included improving “minimal” public engagement in how policies are scrutinised.

Lisa Lane, the council’s head of democratic services, said the council plans to “actively promote scrutiny meetings and increase its presence on the council website and social media platforms”.

Recently, the council began live-streaming meetings on its YouTube channel, CaerphillyCBCTV.

Audit Wales also recommended councillors should be more aware of their roles and responsibilities and make sure they read reports before they attend meetings.

Cllr Andrew Whitcombe, who also serves as the chairman of the council’s housing and environment committee, said councillors’ attendance at pre-scrutiny meetings could also be improved.

“The one thing that always disappoints me is I can practically guarantee which members will be there and who’s going to ask questions,” he said. “The vast majority of members do not attend pre-scrutiny, and that’s regardless of which political party you’re in.

“So when it comes to the debate in the chamber, very often that debate is skewed by what people want to ask on that platform – not what they’ve asked in pre-scrutiny. And the pre-scrutiny process is basically to tease out a line of thought to ask the officers.”

Cllr Whitcombe also said scrutiny meetings should be to discuss overall policy, rather than act as a platform for members to raise ward-specific matters.

He also said public involvement in scrutiny meetings tended to be “on specific one-item issues” and suggested they could be more appropriately debated at full council meetings.

Cllr Greg Ead raised concerns about the workload of elected representatives, adding he didn’t believe there was “anywhere near enough assistance provided” by officers.

This included “dense” documents which are “full of jargon” and “not accessible for people with visual impairments”.

He suggested “plain language summaries would help” councillors engage with reports.

Emma Sullivan, the council’s democratic services manager, told councillors that “in terms of accessibility, there is an awful lot we can do to assist with that”, including screen enhancements.

The council’s published reports are read-enabled PDFs which can be played out loud, she added.

Cllr Whitcombe and Cllr Tudor Davies both defended the support from officers, with the former calling it “exemplary” and the latter speculating that “hardly anyone” approaches the democratic services department for advice.

Cllr Colin Mann, chairing the meeting, noted the auditors’ recommendation that members should address questions directly to cabinet members – while officers should only be approached for factual clarification.

“I’ve asked questions of cabinet members and they’ve been promptly passed on to the relevant officers,” he said. “So even when you ask an elected member for an answer, you don’t always get one from [them].”

Ms Lane said the committee had raised “lots of food for thought for the scrutiny leadership group – together with officers – going forward to discuss and iron out, and improve the service and the process where we can”.