Meeting documents

Members will receive an update on the draft proposals/business plans for the joint trading standards service with Surrey County Council for comment as requested at the 13th May meeting.

Amanda Poole, Trading Standards Manager, BCC

Steve Ruddy, Surrey County Council

Martin Phillips, Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Amanda Poole, Trading Standards Manager, BCC and Steve Ruddy, Surrey County Council, were welcomed to the meeting.

Ms Poole began by explaining there is a slight discrepancy in the covering report and business case.  Paragraph 5 of the report advises ‘the cashable savings (removing 10% of generation)’.  This figure should be 11% as stated in the business case.

In terms of developments since the proposed plans to create a Joint Trading Standards Service with Surrey County Council were presented at the May meeting of the ETL Committee, a Project Board has been set up to oversee the development of the joint service.  Membership of the Project Board includes the Members and Officers from each of the two Local Authorities. Some of the more contentious areas of the joint service have been taken to the Project Board for discussion and debate i.e. the governance structures and preferred options for the Joint Service. The Board meets on a monthly basis.  Legal advice can be sought between meetings if required.  The Inter-Authority Agreement is the legal document which underpins the Joint Committee. Detailed discussions have taken place to discuss the financial and legal aspects of the joint service. Engagement has also taken place with members and officers.

During the update, the following questions were asked.

There are two governance models in the report.  What was the thought process behind these models? Ms Poole explained that the two governance models in the report are Joint Committee and Lead Authority Merged Services.  Initially a variety of governance models were looked at i.e. could Trading Standards be its own Trust and delivery vehicle which was separate to the County Council and could contract services. Unfortunately there are complications around regulated services such as the employment of staff where a private delivery of this vehicle is not allowed. North Tyneside is part of a wider group of services where some Trading Standards staff are seconded.  The Barnet model is also part of a wider group where there is joint contracting between the Local Authority and Capita.  Whilst this was felt to be theoretically and practically possible, it would take longer to deliver this model and would not bring in benefits.  It was also felt that the Joint Committee model was more Authority managed.

In comparison to BCC, Surrey County Council is larger by half.  The staffing levels are also different. How can assurance be given to BCC staff that the plan is to TUPE them over, taking into account future budget reductions and that they are not the first on the list if any redundancies were to be made. Mr Ruddy explained that the model is designed to be a partnership; hence the Joint Committee model which would deliver services locally and generate efficiencies. Any cuts to overheads would be governed through the Joint Committee i.e. policies.  It is difficult to imagine a scenario or reason why the joint services and partnership would be unbalanced.

Ms Poole said her understanding is that legally it would not be possible to target one set of staff over the other.  The two groups of staff come together and would all equally be affected if there were redundancies. Following concern expressed from a small number of staff, we are in the process of meeting all staff groups to talk about proposed changed to Terms and Conditions. Staff will be given the option to change Terms and Conditions but this is not compulsory. If redundancy from a particular Authority is a continuing concern, the possibility of enshrining this in the Inter-Authority Agreement could be looked into.

How do you look at where staff training and experience comes from?  Is there a pool for recruitment in Surrey and Bucks?  Mr Ruddy said in terms recruitment, we are still talking about local service delivery.  There is still the need to recruit locally i.e. to vacancies based in Aylesbury or Redhill rather than looking to recruit all new posts in either location. Having said this, one of the benefits of working in this way might be having legal specialism or administrative support in one place as vacancies arise.

Where do you see efficiencies can be obtained and how are you going to be driving this forward and what protection will be given to Trading Standards in Buckinghamshire? The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement said one of the advantages of a joint service is the added expertise of staff members which Bucks residents could tap into as staff numbers would increase from 23 to 70.  In terms of savings, different models are being looked at.  The preferred option at the present time is a model whereby we take on the Trading Standards business from small Authorities such as Berkshire and we get paid to do so. Having a larger Trading Standards service makes us a more important player in the national programme and gives us an increased saleable expertise to other Authorities. Combining back office functions such as HR and wages etc. may be looked at but there are not massive savings to be made by combining back office staff such as HR.  The figures show that over three years, the total savings for both Authorities is approximately £660,000. The aim is deliver a better Trading Standards service for the residents of Buckingham.

In terms of Bucks residents being able to tap into a wealth of knowledge, how will local requirements be controlled and how will the required expertise be provided?  Ms Poole said if a positive decision is reached, the aim would be to fully create the Joint Service to enable a go-live from 1 April 2015.  BCC Trading Standards staff would be employed by Surrey County Council as from 1 April 2015.  It is anticipated that Joint Committee will set the joint priorities for the service based on the priorities from both Councils.  Cabinet effectively controls the requirements.

Who directs the overall requirements to carry out specific operations? Mr Ruddy explained that there will be one service which links in with partners and delivers services locally. There will be a Joint Management team which reports to the Joint Committee. There will also be mechanics in place to report to Select Committee for scrutiny.

There will be a single management team to deal with practical decisions on a day to day basis. Staff will be employed by Surrey but Buckinghamshire and Surrey will both be paying for a joint service. The whole point of this is a partnership approach to the Joint Committee.

If staff are TUPE’d, the concern is over time the make-up of the Board will become one rather as there will not be Buckinghamshire staff and Surrey staff as part of the joint venture.  How can it be ensured that Bucks priorities are managed jointly and fairly? Ms Poole said the Board is anticipated as being similar to the BCC Project Board. Membership will include representation from the Joint Committee and Senior Officers from both Councils.  The Senior Officers wouldn’t be the staff that are TUPE’d over. They would be a Bucks employee and hold the Board to account. This would be the long term intention. Details of the Joint Committee and Board are shown on page 41 of the agenda pack

There has already been a reduction in the number of Trading Standards staff in Buckinghamshire. Why hasn’t the possibility of a Joint Trading Standards service been considered before now? The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement explained that conversations about the possibility of a joint service have been taking place for a long time. In order to protect the Trading Standards service in Bucks, work needs to take place with another Authority to enable the service to become more efficient and generate income. Better expertise would make the service more saleable to other Authorities. Details of the expertise within Surrey County Council Trading Standards are to be circulated to Committee Members.

Action: Steve Ruddy/DSO

The Joint Trading Standards Service will be a saleable item but Surrey will benefit not Bucks. The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement said that the income generated will be pro rated according to investment.

Ms Poole explained that the underpinning Inter-Authority Agreement sets out the percentage distribution of any income the Joint Service model makes. A copy of the Inter-Authority Agreement is to be circulated to Committee Members.

Action: Amanda Poole

The Committee is looking for reassurance that Bucks will be an equal partner in the Joint Service and the benefits accrued by selling services to other organisations. Mr Ruddy explained that this issue has been discussed with the finance leads from Bucks and Surrey.  Investment is a on a two thirds/ one third ratio.  The income and savings generated are also shared on that basis.

If we are going sell Trading Standards services to other counties, is this going to be provided from existing resources or are we going to be taking on their resources as well? The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement said selling Trading Standards to other smaller Authorities is an aspiration. If the service was expanding and service were being provided for other Authorities, expansion of the service would be looked at.

The figures shown at the top of page 36 of the agenda suggest an income generation of £400, 000 but there is no explanation of how this will be achieved. Ms Poole referred Members of the Committee to tables on pages 49/50 of the agenda which shows anticipated income generation opportunities and saving opportunities broken down into themes and potential areas for financial savings. 

Paragraph 4 on page 28 of the agenda refers to the duration of the agreement and the Project Board currently recommending 5+10 years.  Could you clarify 5+10 years? Mr Ruddy explained this wording is as such as a 5 year minimum contract plus 10 years was envisaged. Following discussions with Legal and Finance teams, the decision was made of an initial contract of a minimum of 5 years. In terms of any agreements, a minimum of 12 months’ notice need to be given. In effect we are saying that we need to create a partnership of a minimum term of 5 years which will continue indefinitely with a 12 month termination period.  The 10 years becomes redundant. This will need to be firmed up as part of the Inter-Authority Agreement. The views of the Members of the Committee are welcomed on the length of the agreement.

The Chairman summarised the key concerns of the Committee;

·         Clarity that Buckinghamshire is robustly and fairly represented on the Joint Board

·         Clarity on the direction of being TUPE’d and that Buckinghamshire representation is clear

·         Concerns are that a draft of the Inter-Authority Agreement has not been seen by Committee and ensuring that the agreement covers issues such as contract time, TUPE’d staff, staff retention and recruitment

·         The split of profile and loss and who would pick up the loss

·         How local priorities are represented at the Board

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Ms Poole and Mr Ruddy for attending the meeting.