Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided information regarding the terms of reference for the shared services Joint Group between the City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdon District Council and the business cases for ICT and Legal services. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

     i.        Approved the business plans for each of the shared services attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of the Leader

    ii.        Approved the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 2) for the Shared Services Joint Group, to enable that Group to operate in a formal committee setting from September 2016, prior to which they will continue to be held on a quarterly basis in shadow format.

 

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 Director of Business Transformation.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.             Questioned how works would be funded between the shared services and the different authorities.

ii.            Questioned how the scrutiny process would work with the Shared Services Joint Group.

iii.           Asked what the costs would be of the Shared Services Joint Group.

i.             The financial information should be provided in the same way in each of the reports on the three services and identify the costs and savings for each of the 3 authorities.  Speed of service needed to be agreed as an objective for all 3 services.  The ICT objectives needed to include value for money.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Business Transformation said the following:

i.             There was an inter-authority agreement which governed the relationship between the authorities who shared services. In relation to ICT and investment this would have to be judged on a case by case basis however the general principle was that costs would be shared however if there was a unique requirement of this Council, then this Council would bear the costs arising from the asset required.  Similarly if there was a unique investment required by another authority then the City Council would not pay anything towards that asset.

ii.            Referred to 4.6 of the Terms of Reference which stated that overview and scrutiny would still have a role in the decision making processes of the Council.  Officer contacts for each service would be made available.

iii.           The Chair of the Shared Services Joint Group would rotate between the authorities and the Democratic Services support would be undertaken by the Authority whose member was the Chair.

iv.          In the inter-authority documents ‘value for money’ may need to be stated more clearly.  In terms of speed, requirements may vary between the authorities. At this stage the Council did not have the necessary analysis to have key performance indicators.

 

The Leader made the following comments:

i.             The Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee would still get reports regarding ICT and Legal services.

ii.            Shared services were required in order to achieve savings as there were challenges regarding the Council’s budget from 2018.

iii.           Looking strategically at Legal and ICT the Joint Committee may need to consider the standardisation of terms. 

iv.          The City Council would still be in charge of the services that the City delivered.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendation at the meeting. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the recommendation by email after the meeting.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor and the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor or the Leader.