Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The meeting resumed at 4.35pm.  Councillors Coleman, Holliday and Williams were no longer in attendance.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the commissioning protocol which set out the principles and practices introduced by the Council as part of the strategic commissioning approach that had been adopted in December 2010.  The short protocol described how commissioning would be approached and monitored.  He felt the content of the report was self explanatory and invited members to accept the recommendations.

A number of members raised concerns about the draft protocol that was being presented for approval.  Concerns included the way in which the council was approaching commissioning.  Some members felt that this was not being undertaken in a cohesive manner and the way in which priorities were established and decisions made did not demonstrate a consistent approach. 

The principal concern of these members was that of accountability.  They considered it nonsensical for officers of Cheltenham Borough Council to respond to concerns or complaints from the public advising them that their concern/complaint would be dealt with by a third party (e.g. UBICO).  This also raised the issue of ward member’s ability to resolve issues.  Ultimately members felt that the Lead Cabinet Member should be accountable to scrutiny and were this reflected in the protocol they would feel able to support the recommendations.  Whilst supportive of the principal of keeping costs down, the worry was that the approach would compromise the council’s ability to deliver the quality of service expected by the public.

Members speaking in support of the recommendations did so as in their view there was no question of the Lead Cabinet Member abdicating their responsibilities or accountability.  They considered that in some circumstance,s UBICO for example, would be better placed to respond to a query or complaint than officers within the Commissioning Division, though admitted that this was a practical issue that should be monitored and Overview and Scrutiny would be crucial in this process.  The formation of any shared service, Local Authority Company, etc, would not be a conclusion but rather a beginning.  

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services was comfortable that his regular attendance at Overview and Scrutiny meetings would provide a degree of accountability and as part of the Joint Management Liaison Group he would maintain an overview of commissioning.  It was his aim to communicate the ongoing gains of commissioning and assured members that seminars, of which there had already been 7 or 8, would continue to be organised to ensure members were informed, engaged and able to raise any concerns. 

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services agreed that the roles and responsibilities of the Lead Cabinet Member as set out on page 4 of the protocol would be amended to state ‘is accountable to scrutiny’ in place of ‘updates scrutiny’. 

Upon a vote it was CARRIED with 1 abstention and 1 against.

RESOLVED that;

1. The commissioning protocol as amended be endorsed by Council;

2. Monitoring and review of the commissioning protocol be delegated to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.