Agenda item

The Chair invited Dennis Skinner (DS), Director of Improvement, to introduce the report.

DS reminded members that early emerging findings from the Review had been brought to the October 2022 Board meeting and since then, discussions had taken place with Lead Members, National Lead Member Peers and the Political Group Offices. A detailed action plan had been drawn up, which had since been updated to respond to Lead Members’ direction that progress be expedited, in particular in relation to additional provision of mentoring training and work to support members to update their peer profiles. A further detailed discussion was due to take place at the Performance Support Panel meeting following the Board involving the Heads of Political Group Offices, National Lead Member Peers, Lead Members and the Principal Advisers. IIB would be kept fully updated on any further developments.

Members’ comments and questions:

·       Members felt that it was important to strike a realistic balance between a robust and professional process whilst at the same time ensuring that it didn’t become over-burdensome and bureaucratic, potentially driving away potential new peers. Similarly, it was considered important that more stringent requirements around training didn’t have the same effect.

·       It was important that all political groups strive to achieve greater diversity and representation in their pools of member peers. DS agreed and said that this needed to start with better data collection and a less cumbersome method of collating member profiles.

·       It was also important to recognise that peer challenge was a two-way process, with peers themselves gaining a huge amount of learning.

·       Cllr Prior reported that the Independent Group had set up a working group to look at the issues raised by the review. He requested that the action in theme 1 - “Consider the respective roles of the Group Office and the Improvement directorate in addressing challenges related to the supply and development of Independent member peers” – be strengthened. The working group would be looking at addressing some of the challenges unique to the Independent Group that were within their control but requested greater input from the Improvement directorate.

·       The impact of the timing of local elections on the actions in the plan was raised and whether some should be brought forward on that basis (e.g. those around the role of the Political Group Offices), and others pushed back. DS agreed that the ordering of some of the actions could be looked at again in this context.

DS thanked members for their input and emphasised that the review had found that the overall corporate peer challenge offer could be improved by introducing more rigour into some of the processes. However, he recognised that there was a balance to be achieved and he didn’t want to make the delivery of the LGA’s support too difficult or onerous. Whilst it was accepted that there were differences in the way that each of the political groups approached the process, there was clearly best practice that should be shared between the groups and the Improvement directorate that would enhance the LGA’s offer.

Decision:

Improvement and Innovation Board noted progress in implementing actions arising from the peer support review.

Action:

Officers to further review the Review Action Plan in the light of members’ comments.