Agenda item - Creating and delivering a sustainable regulatory partnership for Worcestershire

Agenda item

Creating and delivering a sustainable regulatory partnership for Worcestershire

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report which detailed options and recommendations for changes to the future of Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) business model and partnership agreement in order to create and deliver a sustainable WRS partnership.  The report also highlighted the Joint Worcestershire Regulatory Services Scrutiny Task Group recommendations, as detailed in their final report, presented to the Joint Committee on 2nd October 2014.  WRS Joint Committee Members were asked to consider the proposals as set out in the report for consultation with partner authorities, WRS staff and relevant stakeholders.

 

Mr. I. Pumfrey, Chairman, WRS Management Boardintroduced the report and in doing so highlighted that a secure long term sustainable partnership for Worcestershire would contribute directly to the delivery of partner authorities’ priorities for economic, social and environmental well-being; and would include the priorities for WRS as set out in the WRS Service Plan for 2015/2016.

 

Financial pressures on local government resulting from austerity measures had resulted in some WRS partner authorities having to make challenging reductions in service expenditure.  Recently implemented changes to the WRS partnership agreement had been agreed by the Joint Committee, as not all partner councils were able to commit to sustaining a common future service level. In 2013 the WRS Joint Committee looked at a number of future options for growth for WRS to address the stresses and pressures on partner authorities due to the reduction in local government funding.  In 2014 a procurement exercise was undertaken but proved unsuccessful.  Whilst procurement did not deliver a strategic partnership with a commercial organisation, it did provide a useful insight in to the strengths and weaknesses of WRS and how WRS was perceived by the private sector.  Those insights reinforced that WRS was technically and professional robust and they had provided considerable value in charting the future course for the partnership.

 

Continuing with the current partnership arrangements was not considered a sustainable long term solution, as the polarisation in service levels and available funding between County and district partners posed significant risks to district partners’ service delivery.  The WRS Management Board had considered a wide range of possible options for creating and delivering a sustainable regulatory partnership for Worcestershire. Options included continuing with the current arrangements, dissolving the partnership and reverting to individual service delivery, restructuring the partnership and a further procurement for a strategic partnership.  The report highlighted the options explored and the WRS Management Board recommendations for changes to the future WRS business model, partnership agreement and how these could be implemented. Those proposals also responded to the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group’s recommendations, as detailed at Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Restructuring of the current partnership to a smaller partnership, consisting of those authorities who continued to have closely aligned service levels with separate distinctly defined arrangements with other councils, would offer future sustainability. A smaller partnership that continued to take advantage of the proven WRS Joint Committee mechanism, based on common or near-common service levels and interests would be capable of sustaining many of the benefits currently delivered by WRS including its specialist capabilities. Close alignment of partner interests would provide the necessary stability to continue to undertake work for other Worcestershire councils on preferential agreed terms, buffering partners from unacceptable risks to their own service delivery arrangements.

 

The WRS Management Board’s current assessment of partner service levels and financial requirements demonstrated that a smaller partnership based on the six district councils was achievable and sustainable. The County Council had indicated a willingness to consider realigning its relationship to such a partnership as this continued to provide it with a cost effective future service solution. This was therefore the WRS Management Board’s preferred future option for WRS.  In identifying a restructured, smaller partnership as the preferred option, the WRS Management Board recognised there was a need for internal change within WRS to meet both future partner service requirements and position the partnership to take advantage of opportunities for income generation.  The proposed delivery partner network would be underpinned by a combination of contracts and service level agreements.  Service level agreements for former WRS partner authorities would be on a preferential ‘at cost’ basis as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report.

 

In line with the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group, Recommendation 7, it was proposed that the Joint Committee was retained as the mechanism for governing WRS but renamed the WRS Board.  This would make its purpose more explicit to external stakeholders. It was also proposed that the membership of the WRS Board be reduced from two Elected Members to one Elected Member per partner authority, with clear arrangements for attendance by substitutes. In addition, and in response to the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group, Recommendation 7 and 8, the WRS Board would be attended by each partner’s senior officer representative (though in a non-voting capacity). This would improve strategic decision making and remove much of the work associated with supporting both the WRS Joint Committee and the WRS Management Board.  It was acknowledged though, that there would still be a need for the senior officer representatives of the councils to meet with WRS Managers to deal with routine business matters and partner liaison.

 

The financial pressures on the WRS partnership required that the implementation of these proposals needed to be rapid and at minimal additional cost to current and future partners. It was important that the proposed changes gained the widest possible support to avoid delay or derailment.  To achieve these aims, three complementary strands of implementation were recommended:-

 

Engagement - The engagement strand would concentrate on building understanding of and support for the proposed changes, with direct engagement through briefings underpinned by email circulars, etc. This work would be undertaken by WRS Joint Committee Members, WRS Management Board representatives, key senior officers and Elected Members.

 

Governance - Governance activities would concentrate on detailed negotiation of the terms of dissolution of the current partnership agreement, the preparation and engrossment of a new partnership agreement and a service level agreement covering County Council services. Input would be necessary from partner authorities’ legal teams, WRS Management Board representatives, senior financial officers and Elected Members.

 

Organisational - Organisational activities would focus on internal structural change within WRS including any appointments to new roles.  This work would be led by the Acting Head of Service, WRS and input from WRS Management Board representatives, senior financial officers and Elected Members.

 

Further discussion followed with those Members who had been involved with WRS and the Joint Committee since inception in 2010, agreed that WRS had delivered a high level of service to date.  The service had changed to address partner authorities’ financial constraints, but there was still a need to continue to change direction for the future sustainability of WRS.

 

Mr. I. Pumfrey, Chairman, WRS Management Board and the Host Authority’s Principal Solicitor Ms. C. Flanagan responded and provided clarification with regard to the following questions posed by Members:-

 

Democratic Process - 

·         What would be the democratic process with a reduction in the number of Joint Committee Members with only one Member per partner authority?

 

·         Which partner authorities rejected the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group recommendation to reduce the number of Joint Committee Members from two to one?  

 

·         With the current required quorum no Joint Committee meetings have been inquorate.  What are the potential implications if the number is reduced and a Member is unable to attend a meeting (due to unforeseen circumstances on route to the meeting), as no substitute would have been arranged?

 

·         Would there be the potential for a vote to be taken without that Member, who may have voted differently?

 

·         Could this result in decisions being made to the detriment of a partner authority or democratic deficit?

 

·         Could there be a potential for lack of democratic accountability and control over decision making if partner authorities are not represented at meetings?

 

·         Urgent Business being raised at a meeting.  Could a decision be taken on urgent business without all partner Members being present and aware of any urgent business?

 

·         Will there be a mechanism in place to brief substitute Members?

 

·         Why the need to change the governance arrangements?  The current governance arrangements had worked well since 2010.

 

Voting –       

·         Unanimity was included in the current partnership agreement at the request of each partner authority.  Was there a need to review the current partnership agreement in respect of the functions delegated that require a unanimous vote being taken?

 

·         Unanimity, potential implications if a partner authority Member is unable to attend?

 

·         Was there a need to consider each partner authorities Constitution with regard to unanimity / majority voting?

 

·         The Joint Committee as it stands consists of Elected Members, this enabled Members to look at and question any WRS Management Board decisions.  How would this work with both Elected Members and Senior Officers on the newly formed WRS Board?

 

Service Level Agreement / Contract –

·         With the potential for others to join the partnership, what re-assurance was there that the smaller partnership core group would continue to benefit through scale of economy.

 

Mr. I. Pumfrey, Chairman, WRS Management Board reassured and informed the Committee that the questions and concerns raised during the course of the meeting would be highlighted during the consultation exercise with partner authorities Members, at the forthcoming Member briefing sessions.  Following on from the consultation exercise a detailed response to the questions, as highlighted in the pre-amble above, would be included in the report to be presented to the Joint Committee at the June meeting.  

 

In was noted that whilst Joint Committee Members had taken on board the Joint WRS Scrutiny Task Group’s final report, some Members felt it should be highlighted that, whilst the recommendations from the Task Group’s final report played a part, the governance and core service was being reviewed because the service had changed and both Members and Senior Officers had realised that a new direction for the service was therefore required.

 

RESOLVED:

a)    that the proposals as set out in the report for the purposes of consultation with partner authorities, WRS staff and relevant stakeholders, be approved; and

b)    that following on from the consultation exercise; officers provide a further report, setting out the detailed recommendations to the Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee meeting on 25th June 2015.

Supporting documents: