Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader of the Council introduced the report which summarised the progress which had been made on the 2020 Vision for Joint Working since Cabinet had received a report in June 2014. He explained that due to cuts in the Council’s core funding from central Government which were expected to continue beyond the next election, there was an ongoing need to find savings. The Council had been very proactive to date in responding to the challenge of reduced funding and had been successful in delivering savings and additional income from its approach to commissioning of services including sharing services with partner councils. It was now being proposed to progress the partnership with the GO councils. The Leader reported that the consultants Activist had provided a detailed report on the options on how the project should progress and there were some initial recommendations which required further work. A further report would be considered in September 2015 in terms of any recommendations for future governance arrangements of the partnership venture and which services would be included.

The Leader also reported that the Council was undertaking some work with regard to alternative options. This work would be concluded in the New Year and would be taken on board as part of the Vision 2020 process.

He also added that the Vision 2020 work had attracted £3.8 m of Government funding which had been received in 3 tranches. This funding would facilitate further work which was required.

The Leader reported that in the meantime various issues had been raised for consideration including the importance of democratic input from members and scrutiny and which services would be included. In terms of the latter it was important to instigate the commissioning process not on the basis of the savings which could be generated but in terms of the distinctiveness of the service for Cheltenham.

The Leader also made reference to the Regulatory and Environmental Services (REST) project which was running alongside the Vision 2020 process.

In summing up he stated that there was no quick fix but hard work and investment was required through the process. He was aware of concerns and unease which had already been expressed but this was the sensible approach at this stage in the process.

Members that spoke in support of the project recognised the savings that GO had achieved above and beyond what had been anticipated and the annual savings of £1.759 m annually from all shared services.  It was now important to carefully consider further the Vision 2020 project so that the council could still provide existing services and it was important to involve and engage with members.

Some Members, whilst acknowledging that in the current financial climate further efficiencies were required and that the delivery of shared services had been successful, believed that it should not be assumed that all shared services would experience the same success. The decision to proceed with Vision 2020 should be taken with full information of the risks and issues involved. It was pointed out that the risk assessment in the report covered the risks of not pursuing this route but did not consider the risks of taking this course of action. It was also essential to take account of the uniqueness of Cheltenham as an urban council compared to the other partners. In this respect the REST project was important to ensure that services could be fully resourced and delivered and this may not solely be applicable to regulatory services. The collection of existing shared service arrangements should also be clarified as the partners were not always the same. Any process which was being followed now should be compared to an alternative which should be equal in importance. It was important for Cheltenham to have the best possible service delivery arrangements recognising its needs and interests and to facilitate decisions on this each and every Member should have the fullest information in order to make a sensible decision.

The recent LGA peer review process was highlighted in terms of the need for proper scenario planning which emphasised that Plan B should be fully considered. It also recognised the specific culture in Cheltenham and praised the political leadership of the Council which was a credit to all Members of the Council. Taking a lead should be very high up on the agenda. Some members also highlighted that there should be full and proper scrutiny of Vision 2020 and the Plan B Option. The principle of joint working was supported but democratic accountability was essential. As an example it was questioned whether joint working in the context of the Joint Waste Committee was being properly scrutinised.

In summing up the Leader recognised the unease of some members. He highlighted that the commissioning arrangements being pursued in Vision 2020 was not necessarily a “one size fits all” approach but would be different in design. Part of the work being undertaken in “Plan B” incorporated what services should be included and excluded. He also understood the concerns expressed with regard to existing shared services as each one operated slightly differently with varying degrees of complexity. It was important therefore to undertake further work on achieving a more standard approach. Finally he stated that all members would need to know how they could input into the design of the services and how they should operate. In addition the involvement of scrutiny was paramount to the process. The Leader believed that the decision at this stage was an appropriate step and partners were trustworthy in approach.

RESOLVED THAT

1.    A shared services partnership venture be established in early 2015 between the 4 authorities, managed by a joint committee operating under a Memorandum of Understanding (for an interim period pending a further report being considered in the autumn of 2015 as set out in Recommendation 1.8)

2.    It be noted that a further report be brought back to the Council to finalise the Memorandum of Understanding

3.    The 2020 Programme Board be authorised to allocate the principal roles of Interim Lead Commissioner, Interim Managing Director of the partnership venture and the appointment of the Programme Director

4.    The principle of the two principal interim roles, the heads of paid service in each authority, and the Programme Director sharing collective responsibility for the successful delivery of the programme be agreed.

5.    The creation of a project to develop effective commissioning arrangements for each authority be agreed, including exploring the potential for sharing commissioning functions where possible

6.    The review of the statutory posts of Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and S151 officer be endorsed during the course of the 2020 Vision implementation programme including the potential for sharing where appropriate and practical with further reports to be considered by each Council as appropriate

7.    The principles and recommendations proposed in the Activist report as set out in Appendix 2 to this report be endorsed

8.    That a further report be considered in the autumn of 2015 regarding any recommendations for the future governance arrangements of the partnership venture

Council be recommended to approve

9.    As part of the 2015-16 budget process, the total allocation of £1.095M one-off funding over 5 years as set out in section 6 of this report.