Agenda item
WRS Joint Scrutiny Task Group - Final Report
Minutes:
Councillor R. J. Laight, the Council’s representative on the Joint Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Scrutiny Task Group and Chairman of the review, presented the Task Group’s recommendations.
During the delivery of this presentation the following issues were highlighted for Members’ consideration.
· Meetings of the group had been co-ordinated by the Council’s Democratic Services team because Bromsgrove District Council was the host authority for WRS.
· The subject had been reviewed as a joint scrutiny exercise partly because all of the 7 Councils in Worcestershire were members of the shared service. Members were also advised that it had been a requirement of the original partnership agreement that WRS would not be subject to scrutiny by the Overview and Scrutiny Boards at each partner authority.
· The review had been detailed and lengthy, holding a total of 15 meetings.
· There had been cross party consensus within the group on its final recommendations.
· The report had already been considered by Redditch Borough Council and Wychavon District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees which had both endorsed all of the group’s recommendations.
· Wyre Forest District Council had also considered the report, but had deferred making a decision.
· The report would be presented for the consideration of the Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee on 2nd October 2014. The findings of the Joint Committee would subsequently be reported back to the Cabinets at each partner authority for further consideration.
· Members were informed that meetings of the Joint Committee were open to the public. It was suggested that Members might be interested in attending the meeting of the Committee in October to observe the decision making process in action.
· Any feedback from the Board on this report would be detailed in the minutes of the meeting and attached as an addendum to the report when presented to the Joint Committee.
· Members of the group had been concerned that further reductions in partners’ financial contributions could have a detrimental impact on public safety, due to the nature of the services provided by WRS.
· The Task Group had been particularly concerned about the approach that had been adopted by some partners to funding the shared service. Members were suggesting that in some cases partners had prioritised their interests, particularly during discussions about finances, which was not necessarily conducive to effective partnership working.
· The Task Group had also been concerned about the governance arrangements for WRS and were proposing significant changes designed to enhance the shared service.
· Members had received evidence from a number of expert witnesses during the review. Councillor Laight was particularly keen to thank the Head of Regulatory Services for his constructive contributions to the review.
Following delivery of the presentation a number of points were raised during discussion of the group’s recommendations:
· The Head of Regulatory Services had advised the group that any further reductions beyond the current budget level would have an impact on service provision as there would be fewer Officers than was needed to deliver services at their current levels.
· Budget reductions would potentially lead to further job losses and could result in a reduction in Officer capacity to react to major crises (such as outbreaks of foot and mouth disease).
· A reduction in the budget available to the shared service could also impact on the potential for Officers to undertake preventative work. In this context there was a risk that WRS would become a purely reactive service.
· Concerns were raised about accountability for WRS and the difficulties that had been encountered in the first 4 years of operation. It was confirmed that the Joint Committee was accountable for the shared service as the elected Members appointed to it made decisions in respect of the partnership and monitored the performance of services.
· The partnership had been established in 2010. At that time the significant changes to local government that would subsequently occur, particularly those resulting from financial austerity, had not been anticipated and it had not been possible to predict that challenges would arise in the way that they had.
· Communication problems involving the Worcestershire Hub Service were highlighted within the review. It was anticipated that the new in house communications service would address these problems and improve the service to the customer. The designated Member Liaison Officer, if introduced, would also help to resolve this problem.
· Attempts had been made to consult with Worcestershire County Council regarding their proposed budget cuts. However, a letter sent to the Leader of the Council and relevant Officers had not been taken into account as part of the budget setting process and a response had only been received following further enquiries.
· The Board noted that the County Council and the district Councils had different statutory responsibilities in relation to regulatory services.
· Some Members suggested that if the budget reductions proposed by Worcestershire County Council were critical consideration might need to be given in future to the district Councils working together alone in order to make sure that the partnership remained sustainable. However, the Board acknowledged that this idea would need to be subject to further investigation.
· The review had not necessarily been undertaken at the most appropriate time as it coincided with significant changes for the partnership, including initial discussions about the potential for WRS to enter into a strategic partnership with an external partner.
· Some concerns were expressed that due to the criticisms contained within the report some organisations might be deterred from entering into a strategic partnership with WRS and this could therefore weaken any final partnership arrangements. However, Officers confirmed that four organisations had already ex-pressed an interest in the potential to enter into a strategic partnership with WRS, though no detail could be provided on the progress that had been made with this matter at the time of the meeting.
· Officers confirmed that any decision to enter into a strategic partnership with an external partner would need to be made by the Cabinets at each local authority.
· Members expressed an interest in learning more about the proposed strategic partnership and the implications for the future of WRS. As Officers had already delivered briefings on this subject to other partners, it was agreed that a similar briefing should be requested for Bromsgrove.
· The Council’s two elected representatives on the Joint Committee had both been consulted as part of the review. However, whilst they had been advised of the outcomes of the review it had not been felt that it would be appropriate to invite them to speak to the Board on this matter because they had been expert witnesses.
· Amanda Scarce and Jess Bayley, the Democratic Services Officers who had supported the review, were thanked for their help with the exercise. There was a suggestion that further joint scrutiny exercises would be useful in the future. However, for those to be effective, participating Councils would need to provide more constructive support to the host authority.
The level of funding reductions that had been proposed by Worcestershire County Council for the following three year period were discussed in particular detail. Members were disappointed to learn that this could lead to a significant reduction in the number of Trading Standards Officers employed by WRS and that this could have a detrimental impact on the quality of the trading standards service in the county. Members also noted that in order to manage any future crises involving trading standards WRS might need to hire staff on a temporary basis from other regulatory services which could potentially lead to an increase in financial costs for the partnership. Alongside these considerations Members expressed concerns that the proposed contribution from Worcestershire County Council would not cover the overheads and other costs of the partnership.
Members also noted that a number of district Councils had also requested that specific savings be achieved, particularly Worcester City Council and Wyre Forest District Council. Officers advised that any reductions in financial contribution would be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in service levels within those Councils’ boarders. However, Members were concerned that the cumulative impact of all these reductions would be detrimental for the partnership as a whole and, in particular, would undermine the sustainability of the shared service in the long-term.
Whilst Members concurred that the Group’s proposals should be endorsed the Board agreed that the concerns they had raised during their debate should also be highlighted for the consideration of the Joint Committee. The Board therefore
RECOMMENDED to the Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee that
1. the 12 recommendations of the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group be endorsed; and
2. the Board’s concerns, that further reductions in the financial contributions from partners could risk the future of the partnership and the safety of residents, be noted;
RESOLVED that
1. the Head of Regulatory Services be invited to a future meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board, together with the Council’s Member representatives on the Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee, to deliver a briefing on the subject of the strategic partnership plans for WRS; and
2. the report be noted.
Supporting documents:
PDF 135 KB