Issue - meetings

Public Speaker

 

Liz Brennan, Unison representative, addressed the Committee and asked the following questions on behalf of staff:

 

     i.        Was the savings target for the first 6 to 12 months realistic?

    ii.        Would IT hold up the process?

   iii.        Staff had not seen the risk document. Was there a risk from the lack of key personnel factored in?

  iv.        Was the EQIA Cambridge specific?

   v.        What arrangements were in place for the scrutiny of the future business plan?

 

The Chief Executive responded as follows:

     i.        The targets were realistic and recognised the transition period.

    ii.        The risk register would be shared with staff. Risks surrounding staffing issues were included.

   iii.        The EQIA was Cambridge specific and had been produced for this Committee.

  iv.        Staff would be involved in all future developments.

   v.        Detailed staff consultations would follow.

 

Councillor Herbert stated that there would be on-going staff consultations. He invited Ms Brennan to raise any staff concerns and undertook to answer their questions.

 

Matter for Decision

 

In July 2014, Huntingdon District Council (HDC), South Cambridgeshire District Council (SDC) and Cambridge City Council (CCC) agreed in principle to work as a partnership to deliver a range of shared services over a number of phases, building on existing collaborations.

 

The report outlined the overall approach that had been taken to the development of these shared services proposals.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Executive Councillor agreed:

 

     i.        That the approach to shared services outlined in the report be endorsed.

    ii.        That approval be given to the establishment of a Joint Committee without delegated powers to oversee the delivery of shared services.

   iii.        That the Leader be confirmed as the Council’s representative to this committee and a deputy be appointed

  iv.        That the proposed sovereignty guarantee in section 8 be approved

   v.        That the approach to cost sharing principles and partnership agreement as outlined in section 9 be approved.  

  vi.        That the approval of the final partnership agreement be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Chair of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and Spokes. 

 vii.        That, subject to the approval of the business cases for IT, Legal and Building Control Shared Services, formal consultation commences with Trade Unions/Staff Council and affected staff on 24 July 2015, closing on 1 September 2015.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive regarding the Shared Services Overview.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Executive stated that:

     i.        Shared Waste Services were not part of this report as they were already in the pipeline and had already established a shared governance arrangement. However, this might be rationalised at a later date.

    ii.        The Lead Authority had been agreed in preference to other models as this allowed the individual authorities to keep control of the decisions. The authority to make decisions would remain with the Executive Councillors.

   iii.        Differences in approaches to staff negotiations, such as the fact that Huntingdon had a staff council but did not recognise unions, had been considered and harmonisation discussions were on-going.

  iv.        The powers and functions of the Joint Committee would reflect current delegations.

   v.        Recharging individual authorities for services used would require consistent information about costs and service consumption.

  vi.        A detailed exit strategy and notice periods would be included in the partnership agreement.

 vii.        Initial costs of moving to a shared service, such as redundancy payments for senior managers, would be met by the individual authorities.

viii.        A formula for allocation and mechanisms for repaying host authorities for services was under development. All three authorities would be both providers and users of services and therefore, had vested interests in agreeing fair mechanisms.

  ix.        The employing authorities would set pay policy for staff. However, work would be needed regarding harmonisation of policies.   

   x.        The Transformation Challenge Award funding was a government grant.

 

Councillor Herbert confirmed that the move to shared services would present issues and challenges. The proposals would allow individual authorities to retain sovereignty over decision making whilst minimising lead in time and risks. Lessons would be learnt from existing best practice. Existing pay bargaining arrangements would be honoured for TUPE’d (Transfer of Undertakings [Protection of employment ]) staff. 

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.