The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board met to discuss the progress of the Crisis and Resilience Fund and to review the draft Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025-26. The Board noted the work programmes of the various scrutiny committees and its own work programme.

Crisis and Resilience Fund

The Board reviewed the progress of the Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF), a three-year initiative funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to support low-income households facing financial shocks and to build long-term financial resilience. Lincolnshire has been allocated approximately £9.9 million per year, rising to £11 million in its third year. The fund is structured across four strands: Crisis Payments, Housing Payments, Resilient Services, and Community Coordination.

An additional £1.8 million in top-up funding was announced for areas with high numbers of households using heating oil. This funding is being administered by the Lincolnshire Community Foundation, with applications opening on 1 April 2026. As of the meeting, 977 applications had been received, with 725 approved, distributing £217,500. It is anticipated that over 5,000 households will benefit from this specific heating oil support.

Concerns were raised by councillors regarding the process of the fund's implementation, particularly the timing of decisions and the perceived lack of prior scrutiny for the heating oil support. Councillor Martin Hill OBE questioned why a meeting that could have discussed the heating oil fund was cancelled and expressed issues with the process and openness. Councillor Anne-Marie Scott, Assistant Director of Public Health, explained that the funding was specifically for oil heating and that other energy-related crises could be addressed through the main crisis payment scheme.

Discussions also focused on the eligibility criteria for the fund, with a household income threshold of £36,000 per year before housing costs and limited savings (£6,000) being a key factor. Councillor Richard Graham Davies raised technical questions about the efficiency of processing applications, how people were finding out about the scheme, and the administrative costs. He also questioned the requirement for households to fund the difference between the £300 voucher and the full cost of an oil delivery, which could be an additional £300. Anne-Marie Scott confirmed that the £300 voucher was intended to cover the pressure point difference and that the Lincolnshire Community Foundation was exploring options with oil providers to potentially offer reduced rates for batch applications. The cost per applicant for processing was estimated at around £40.

Councillor Hill also raised concerns about the flexibility of the scheme, particularly for those who are working but may fall just outside the eligibility criteria. Anne-Marie Scott indicated that within the wider scheme, district councils have some discretion to consider individual circumstances. It was noted that 222 applications had been declined, with reasons including not using heating oil and failing to meet financial criteria. The Board ultimately resolved to review the report and seek assurance on the progress of the Crisis and Resilience Fund delivery plan.

Scrutiny Annual Report 2025-26

The Board considered the draft Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025-26, which details the work undertaken by scrutiny committees between May 2025 and March 2026. Councillor Philip Roberts, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, highlighted the key achievements of scrutiny, including its role in the budget-setting process, ensuring oversight of the property rationalisation programme, recommending withdrawal from the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, and raising concerns that led to a revised Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy.

However, several councillors expressed concerns about the report's content and the effectiveness of scrutiny. Councillor Richard Graham Davies felt that the report contained significant errors and inconsistencies in its use of statistics and did not adequately reflect the work of scrutiny. He argued that the report was too broad and failed to highlight scrutiny's performance effectively. Councillor Martin Hill OBE echoed these sentiments, stating that scrutiny should be seen as an opportunity for constructive challenge rather than a threat. He noted a dearth of papers and a lack of detail in reports, which hindered effective scrutiny. He also pointed out that specific examples of scrutiny influencing decisions, such as the Grantham High Street issue, were not mentioned.

Councillor Michelle Grady, Executive Councillor, acknowledged that scrutiny can be uncomfortable for officers but stressed its value. She noted that the report was a draft and an opportunity for the Board to provide input. Councillor Davies suggested that the report should include specific examples of policy reviews and changes made as a result of scrutiny feedback. The discussion also touched upon the reduction in the length of report papers, with some councillors arguing for more detail to be included, while others suggested that conciseness and the removal of jargon were beneficial.

The Board ultimately agreed to submit the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025-26 to the County Council for final approval, with amendments to be discussed with officers.

Scrutiny Committees' Work Programmes and Overview and Scrutiny Management Board Work Programme

The Board noted the planned work programmes for the various scrutiny committees, including the Adult Care and Public Health, Children's and Culture, Community Safety, Environment, Growth, Health, and Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committees. It was also noted that the Board would be discussing its own work programme further.

A specific point of discussion arose regarding the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, with a significant issue noted concerning the council's response times. It was agreed that this item would be brought to a future Overview and Scrutiny Management Board meeting to outline the council's plans to resolve this issue.

The Board also discussed property rationalisation, noting that it would be scrutinised by the Growth Scrutiny Committee. A brief overview of the plan for property rationalisation was requested for the current meeting.