Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bell, Martins, McLeod and Watkin.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The Chair circulated notes of his meeting with the Managing Director.

The Chair added that he had since been in contact with the Executive Director- Services and the work around evaluation would be required for July. On 20 March, Cabinet would be deciding whether to test the market or keep the service in-house. The Task Group could then work on the evaluation and specification should Cabinet decide to test the market. He confirmed that the process of testing the market could show that the in-house service delivered best value as the in-house team would quote as part of the process. This information would help the Task Group focus discussions for their final meetings. He suggested that the original Call-in date of 28 March could be used for a further meeting of the Task Group.

Councillor Johnson noted that nine councillors were too many for a Task Group and future work should be undertaken by a smaller group. The Chair said that arranging visits was difficult with nine Members.

The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer expressed her concern that any meeting after 26 March would fall in purdah. Agreement from the Head of Legal and Property would be required for the Task Group to meet in this period.

Councillor Jeffree said that to produce a second report by mid-May might be challenging.

The Chair informed Members that councillors could meet in May and June to agree a report for July.

The Task Group is asked to highlight areas of interest and draw any conclusions from the responses received from other local authorities to the Task Group’s questionnaire.

The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer explained that she was not in favour of a visit to Adur and Worthing to discuss their shared services due to limited time and resources and the focus that there was in the scope on outsourcing.

The Chair suggested that a further visit could be arranged for stage two of the review after May.

The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer informed the Task Group that the questionnaire had been sent to Watford’s CIPFA family authorities, the other Hertfordshire districts and a few other councils who were known to be pursuing interesting service delivery models. This was a total of 21 councils and there had been six responses.

ACTION- The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer to circulate the notes summarising the views expressed at the meeting at Three Rivers District Council (TRDC).

The Chair referred to the meeting at TRDC and the discussions around why waste was outsourced and then brought back in-house. The concerns about the service were not due to quality but in order for TRDC to have the flexibility in the contract needed to maintain the service they had to pay the contractor extra. This was a useful lesson in ensuring the contract is well-written. Money was saved at first but as extra costs were added the contract soon became more expensive than the in-house service.

Councillor Johnson asked if the Portfolio Holder at TRDC might have a different view. The Chair said he did not feel that this was the case and the explanation of the problem had been quite logical.

Councillor Jeffree recalled that these problems had been raised at the meeting with the Executive Directors. The contracts were fixed for a set period of time and when problems emerged they could be difficult to resolve. He added that he had looked at the websites of companies who offered services to councils and noted that Capita referred to a ‘flexi-contract’ which was available. Service providers seemed to be recognising councils’ need for flexibility.

The Chair suggested that Cabinet be asked the cost of testing the market.

The Task Group then considered the responses to the questionnaire.

Adur and Worthing

The Chair informed Members that he had the contact details of the officer at Adur and Worthing and could get in touch with her should the Task Group have any further questions.

The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer listed the joint committees that had been established at Adur and Worthing. These included a Joint Strategic Committee, Joint Delivery Committee, Joint Overview and Scrutiny Sub Committee and Joint Staff Committee.

The Chair noted that there had been a fear of being ‘taken over’ by the other authority. He referred to the meeting at TRDC and where there were concerns over lines of authority but no resistance in principle to further shared services. If the opportunity arose to share more services and money could be saved, TRDC would be happy for it to be investigated. With the lead authority model of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Task Group is asked to highlight areas of interest and draw any conclusions from the 2010 Budget Consultation which was sent to the Citizens Panel and residents who completed the online survey.

The Chair referred to the question about shared services and drew Members’ attention to the result that 79 percent of respondents were in favour of more shared services.

Members commented that the questionnaire showed, however, that views on the standards of services were less clear-cut. The importance of different services to the public showed that communications was not considered as important as other services. The Chair added that Adur and Worthing sent out their council news as an ezine.

This item asks how Members see their governance role in different service delivery methods.

Members are asked to consider their experiences of the governance under current service delivery arrangements for the in-house services, shared services and outsourced services.

·               What works well and should be maintained?

·               For example, what is the Task Group’s view on the Shared Services Joint Committee and the monitoring of SLM?  What could work better and how?

·               What structures would Members prefer to see in place to give greater democratic accountability (including both strategic influence and the ability to intervene when there are problems)?

The Task Group should then consider how they would like the democratic accountability to operate in the future in the following service delivery models:

·               In-house

·               Shared Services

·               Outsourcing

The Chair drew the Task Group’s attention to the questions on the agenda:

• What works well and should be maintained?
• For example, what is the Task Group’s view on the Shared Services Joint Committee and the monitoring of SLM? What could work better and how?
• What structures would Members prefer to see in place to give greater democratic accountability (including both strategic influence and the ability to intervene when there are problems)?

The Chair said that his view was that the Shared Services Joint Committee did not work well. Councillor Johnson added that he felt that there was not enough democratic accountability on the Shared Services Joint Committee; there was not a representative from the Conservative Group on it.

The Chair explained that there were three councillors from each authority; at Watford this meant two Liberal Democrats and one from the opposition groups. The main reason for the difference between the councils was that Watford was a mayoral authority.

Councillor Johnson informed the Task Group that he felt political accountability was poor in outsourced services. The Chair referred to when SLM were invited to attend the Call-in and Performance Committee. He noted that they had to justify their performance to Members.  However, scrutiny was quite a ‘heavy instrument’ to use to ensure contractors were accountable.

Councillor Jeffree expressed his concern about scrutiny being the main tool for accountability. There was no ongoing accountability and scrutiny was only involved when there was a problem. There was a lack of a ‘soft’ way for councillors to engage with contractors.

The Chair agreed that there needed to be a councillor contact for all services and delivery methods.

Councillor Greenslade noted that refuse and recycling was always going to be an expensive service due to the staff required.

The Chair commented that it could be appropriate to share a service like refuse and recycling. This would give councils greater buying power with manufacturers of vehicles and equipment.

Councillor Hastrick, a Member of the Waste and Recycling Task Group, said that the Council was not replacing the waste vehicles until a decision was made about the business case.  It had not been possible for the Hertfordshire districts to agree on a common specification to enable them to buy in bulk.

The matrix

Councillor Jeffree referred to the matrix that he had been working on. The concept was that certain delivery methods suit certain services. His view was where in-house services were performing well there was little reason to externalise them. It would be better to consider how best to exploit and market high-performing services. At the meeting with the directors, the problems with ICT were discussed and the knee-jerk reaction to outsource seemed logical as the councils lack the skills. The options of in-house, shared services and outsourcing had different advantages and disadvantages depending on the service in question. He was concerned about the idea that everything should be outsourced to save money. Decisions should be made on a department-by-department basis.  There were different factors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Task Group was asked in the original scrutiny proposal to review this document and add any questions or issues it wishes to see addressed.

The aim is to write a statement of response to the statement for inclusion in the final report.

It was agreed that the Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer would circulate the document to Task Group Members by email for comment before the next meeting. The response would be agreed at the meeting.

ACTION- Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer

Monday 27 February 2012 7pm

Monday 27 February 7pm