MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SAFETY AND GOVERNANCE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1/2/3, CIVIC OFFICES, ANGEL STREET, BRIDGEND ON THURSDAY, 24 JULY 2014 AT 9.30AM

Present:

Councillor N Clarke – Chairperson

D M Hughes M Jones H E Morgan E M Hughes J E Lewis M Thomas R M James J R McCarthy

Officers:

R Harries - Senior Democratic Services Officer - Scrutiny G Jewell - Democratic Services Officer - Scrutiny M A Galvin - Senior Democratic Services Officer - Committees

Invitees: Councillor M E J Nott OBE

- Leader

D Mepham - Chief Executive P A Jolley - Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services D Exton - Group Manager - Finance H Selway - Principle Adviser, Employee Relations Councillor R Williams - Chairperson of the Council’s Licensing Committee J Isles - UNISON Secretary

98 APOLOGISE FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from the following Members:-

Councillor K J Watts Councillor R L Thomas

99 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None.

100 APPROVAL OF MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of a meeting of the Community Safety and Governance Overview and Scrutiny Committee dated 9 June 2014 be approved as a true and accurate record subject to the word “at” being inserted in the penultimate line of the fourth paragraph on page 108 between the words ‘look’ and ‘school’.

Appendix H - Bridgend and Cardiff Scrutiny

1

101 REGIONALISING REGULATORY SERVICES PROJECT

The Senior Democratic Services Officer - Scrutiny presented a report, that provided an update for the Committee on the progress being made to create a shared regulatory service between Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan Councils, and provide Members with an opportunity to make any comments on the report prior to it being reported in turn to Cabinet and Council.

Following the Senior Democratic Services Officer - Scrutiny giving a résumé of the report, the Chairperson then welcomed to the meeting the Invitees.

The Chief Executive opened debate by giving a PowerPoint presentation entitled Regulatory Services Collaboration Update.

He commenced his submission, by advising that the proposed collaboration would result in a fully integrated Regulatory Services function working across the above mentioned three local authorities, operating within one Management Structure and that the scope of the joint service would include the statutory functions of:-

Trading Standards Environmental Health Licensing

The Chief Executive added that currently these services employed over 200 members of staff and had a collective budget of approximately £9m serving approximately 625,000 people.

He then explained that the main objective of the collaboration, was to ensure that all the Councils benefit operationally and financially from the project. The project would look to increase service resilience across the regions; generate savings comprising of efficiencies and budget reductions, and focus upon customer service via a more integrated and co-ordinated approach.

In terms of the anticipated benefits of the project, the Chief Executive advised that these would be:-

A resilient structure with the flexibility to respond to emergencies; Introducing new ways of working that will deliver efficiencies and more

risk-based approach to regulation; A greater capacity for income generation; Sharing costs of the required investment between the three

participating councils, and Delivering the significantly greater savings than the other options over

the future medium term.

With regard to testing and developing the vision of the proposal, the Chief Executive confirmed that this has been analysed by employees from the Departments of Human Resources, Finance, ICT and Legal, together with the appointment of external support i.e. W S Atkins Ltd (Atkins), who had produced a Target Operating Module, a supporting Business Case and Implementation Plan. The Chief Executive added that the above colleagues and external adviser had also looked closely at the validation of the proposal, including the production of a blueprint.

He then advised Members of the options that had been considered, which were (i) ‘do nothing’ and let the Authority continue working alone in this service area as it

2

currently does, (ii) ‘Collaborate only’, with a joint management structure, but retaining otherwise existing service provision, (iii) Change only and develop a new operating model as individual authorities for the future delivery of the service, or the route that had been chosen, which was (iv) ‘Collaborate and Change’, as this was deemed as the best option for the future resilience of the service and any potential returns from this.

He then confirmed that Atkins had completed work on certain future outputs of the collaboration that included a Target Operating Module (TOM) to see what the new service would look like; and as stated, an Implementation Plan to look at ways to make the change. Information regarding the above three main drivers for the collaboration were included in Appendix A to the report, whilst Appendix B included further updates on financial elements of the collaboration.

In respect of the Operating Model, the Chief Executive advised that this would entail:-

1. A single management structure with integrated teams delivering across three Council areas;

2. The introduction of a ‘Core Plus’ model balancing standardisation with local need;

3. A dispersed work force, locally based to include mobile working.

4. A risk based approach to the collaboration that would be intelligence led.

In terms of service delivery of the proposed model, this would consist of three service areas, e.g. Neighbourhood Services, Commercial Services and Enterprise and Specialist Services (where income would be generated), and a central administration function that would be adopted for Regionalised Regulatory Services.

With regard to governance arrangements, the Chief Executive stated that there would be a delegation of identified functions from Councils to Joint Committees (through a Joint Working Agreement). It was intended that the Vale of Glamorgan Council would be the host employing authority and the rationale of this was outlined in Appendix ‘A’ to the report.

The Head of Service in the collaboration would report to a Joint Committee, whilst an Officer Management Board would be established to ensure service delivery meeting requirements. There would be special arrangements for certain licensing functions and these would be considered and subsequently introduced through a decision(s) of Council.

With regard to updating the Business Case, the Chief Executive advised that by April 2014 it was hoped to realign the Operating Model and Implementation Programme to deal with the new arrangements, and subsequently by June 2014 the Shadow Joint Committee would consider the Model as originally proposed, in relation to modifications that have recently been made to it.

In terms of finance related issues, the aim was to deliver a minimum £1.4m revenue saving by 2017, (Appendix ‘B’ to the report referred), though initial investment would be required to change the model of operation, and these costs would be split between the participating authorities. The Chief Executive added that the return on investment would begin in 2016/17, where it was projected that Bridgend would save approximately £250k in the first year. Costs/savings would be shared between the

3

three authorities in proportion to population, though it was important to note that there would be risks encountered if the financial assumptions anticipated were not realised.

There would be implementation costs arising from the Regional Collaboration in the form of redundancy costs due to a smaller workforce, though it was important to note the Chief Executive explained, that these would be more costly if the Council made these as a stand-alone Authority.

There may also be the need to incur costs for changing service delivery methods (e.g. through new ICT systems), though these would obviously be shared, delivering the project on time, though these would be partly offset by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) Regional Collaboration Fund. The Chief Executive added however, that the funding from WG could not be used to supplement staff redundancies.

The contributions would be calculated on the basis of population within the three local authorities (e.g. Cardiff 57.04%), and the budgetary areas of the collaboration would be overseen by the introduction of a Joint Committee referred to earlier in the meeting.

In terms of staffing, the Chief Executive confirmed that appointment and selection protocols (and systems) would be agreed through Human Resources, and staff would be transferred to the host employer through TUPE arrangements. It was estimated that there would be a reduction in the overall staffing numbers from 204.67 full time equivalent (FTE) staff to 178.4 (FTE), i.e. a minimum of 13%, though some reductions would be made through vacancy management opportunities. There would be further investment committed to staff in the form of training, in order for the Business Model to be successfully delivered.

In terms of other Human Resources local issues, staff would obviously be moved to/from the employing authority, and terms and conditions of all staff affected by the Project would be harmonised accordingly.

There were options to look at in respect of the overview and scrutiny process, i.e. Scrutiny Committees in each of the Authorities continuing to look at the collaboration separately, or establishing a joint committee with joint membership comprising of Members from each authority.

There were risks associated to the project, which were explained the Chief Executive, savings not being realised, issues regarding TUPE, Human Resources and staff engagement and performance levels not being realised for communities as a result of the implementation of the project.

The next steps therefore were:- July / August 2014

Pre-decision scrutiny; Staff engagement; Trade Union engagement; External stakeholder engagement.

September / October 2014

Cabinet consideration of proposal;

4

Council consideration of proposal; Decision upon project implementation.

Following this added the Chief Executive, the following timetable would look to be put in place:-

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 (a) Appoint Senior

Management; (a) Staff transfer; (a) Planned savings delivered;

(b) Begin ICT changes; (b) Financial savings begin to be realised;

(b) Further efficiencies identified;

(c) Agree a three year Business Plan.

(c) Business transformation complete;

(c) Review service model with partners.

(d) Service using a centralised ICT regime.

Finally, in conclusion of his presentation, the Chief Executive advised that without collaboration the above statutory services already under pressure within each of the 3 Council’s would face more financial pressures, particularly whilst they run the services independently as individual authorities. The current and forecast budget challenges were likely to result in some elements of the service being discontinued, particularly those that were non-statutory, and the levels of protection available for the vulnerable would eventually become unpalatable. The Chairperson thanked the Chief Executive for his presentation, following which she invited the UNISON representative, Jane Iles to have a window of five minutes as agreed to by Committee in advance of the meeting, to comment on the report.

She commented as follows:-

“Draft Cabinet Report

UNISON is concerned at the current time frame being implemented in order to afford staff adequate time to digest, analyse and interrogate the huge amount of information provided. That is to say that staff had access to this information on 17 July 2014 and assume the same concern would apply to scrutiny. There is a mass of information here;

Page 320 point 7.5 of the first report points to an increase in income from an increase in harmonising of charges, acquisition of external grant funding and other generating opportunities. However these have not currently been secured and will need actively pursuing and close monitoring.

Page 321 point 7.7 savings on indirect costs have not been quantified;

Page 321 point 7.10 there will also be an element of TUPE protection going forward for staff and similarly on page 328 point 9.2 it refers to ‘TUPE like’ process. This causes considerable concern and I am unable to identify anywhere within the report what process will be utilised to transfer staff;

Page 323 point 7.8 it refers to the fact that the Vale of Glamorgan Council will incur an estimated cost of £180k reflecting the policy to protect the salaries of adversely affected employees for one year which could lead to equal pay claims;

5

Page 329 point 9.11 states that ‘where possible the assimilation of staff into

positions congruent with their existing status and grade’ but that does not sit well with the content of point 81 which refers ‘a net movement from professional to technical roles’;

Atkins Report

Page 26 point 19 on what basis should the proportion of enforcement work be carried out by Technical Officers with appropriate levels of competence increased

Page 35 refers to the staff workshops which were held last year, however having spoken to staff there was no mention of EHOs and TSOs being replaced by Consumer Service Officers and Consumer Service Technical Officers;

Page 93 refers to the advantages of multi-skilled teams and in some areas of Bridgend’s Regulatory Service it has been and is working well, however we are sceptical as to how well this approach would work in the area of Trading Standards, i.e. would it be viable;

Page 95 point 5.11.2 (second bullet) The Food Law Code of Practice which is a legal requirement states that certain establishments should be inspected only by EHO of Officers holding the Higher Certificate in Food Premises Inspection. Which exemplifies the fact that certain critical enforcement action can only be undertaken by EHOs. If the intention is to train non-qualified officers up to the Higher Certificate Level (which is expensive and time consuming) has this been costed;

Page 96 second paragraph refers to Business Compliance Officers reducing the burden on business when the expectation would be for these to refer on matters to professionally qualified staff who would have the competency to deal with such matters;

Page 144 details the proposed model for collaboration and change across the three local authorities you have listed five Commercial Services Team leaders, 24 Commercial Services Officers, 35 Commercial Services Technical Officers and 12 Business Compliance Officers, however, if you contrast this with Appendix B page 272, in the updated structure you have listed 4 Commercial Service Team Leaders, 18 Commercial Services Officers, 28 Commercial Services Technical Officers. A significant reduction from 71 to 50 in one essential team. The Business Compliance Officers are no longer listed;

Pages 149 and 150 give examples of case studies in Buckinghamshire and Great Yarmouth but no examples of good practice within Bridgend, Vale of Glamorgan or Cardiff;

Pages 185 and 190 of Appendix I details the job description and personal specification for the Chief Officer, Regulatory Services and for the Service Manager, both new posts but not for the Neighbourhood Services Officer, Neighbourhood Services Technical Officer, Commercial Services Officer, Commercial Services Technical Officer, Business Compliance Officer, Primary/Home Authority Officer etc.

6

Page 217 Appendix N, why have the grades been blanked out when a significant saving is to be gained via staffing costs.

Appendix B

Page 253 EHO training for metrology. Trading Standards say that this is an intense and expensive course that usually costs around £2,000;

Page 253 training for Business Compliance Officers now is listed as £0;

Why is all the training mentioned irrespective of what course it is at the same price of £300;

Page 254 the total number of Consensual Terminations as 21 FTEs with 3 FTEs over 55 and18 FTEs under 55. How can this data be provided when most of the age profile information is missing from page 5 of the EIA;

Page 254 the total number of consensual terminations and compulsory redundancies has risen from 29 (original Atkins report page 190) to 34 FTEs. Is this upward trend likely to increase?

Page 268 - 271 Salary comparison - why has this been blanked out.

General Observations

Where would the Williams Commission sit alongside this for Bridgend. The White Paper recently published by Welsh Government is not helpful, and it seems that a final determination on where Bridgend will sit will not be made until early 2015 prompting fears that this set of staff would be subject to two sets of re-organisation within a relatively short period of time. Staff are not wholeheartedly resistant to change and acknowledge that change is required, but that there are significant differences between the original Atkins report and information contained within Appendix B, and there is a dearth of information relating to due process as to how staffing matters will be addressed.

The Chairperson thanked the Union representative for her submission, and the Chief Executive confirmed that Invitees would respond to the points that she had made, outside of the meeting.

A Member referred to page 20 of the papers i.e. the first page of the Executive Summary of the Collaboration i.e. the Atkins report. He noted that the Williams Report on Welsh local government re-organisation, has directed that Bridgend County Borough Council, be amalgamated with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to the West. However, the Regulatory Services Project was travelling in the opposite direction i.e. to the East with Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan Councils. He asked Invitees how they felt about the project and local government reorganisation proposals effectively travelling in opposite directions.

The Leader advised that though the Williams Report has recommended specifically that Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot Councils combine as one authority, the Welsh Government Collaboration Agenda is encouraging local authorities to work generally together where they can on projects, to continue delivering services jointly in a less prescriptive and more holistic way across administrative boundaries. He added that money had been made available through the Welsh Government Regional

7

Collaborative Fund to provide a joint delivery model for Regulatory Services, and savings were required to be made by each of the three authorities in this and other service areas, in any event. More savings would be required if they each provided the service as a stand-alone authority, as opposed to providing this collectively.

The Leader concluded by stating that local government re-organisation was also not going to be in place for another four or five years, and therefore, it was a sensible option to achieve savings by combining Regionalised Regulatory Services now, as was proposed.

The Chief Executive added that savings in this service were required now, as was making the service more resilient, and after local government re-organisation the service could be maintained together with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, as well as keeping on board Cardiff City and the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Councils.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services further added that the Williams Report advocated the continuation of authorities working together to deliver services, in areas where this was successfully achievable.

A Member raised concern over Bridgend County Borough Council staff being relocated to the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council as host authority, and any repercussions this may have on them following re-organisation with a different local authority to this.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services advised that there need not really be any complication with this, in that staff involved in the Regulatory Service Collaboration Project would transfer to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, or alternatively staff from Neath Port Talbot in Regulatory Services would be added to the Project. In terms of where staff will be located, this was dependent on what types of different services were being delivered in the different areas of each authority.

A Member noted from the papers that staff in Regulatory Services had been informed of the proposals only very recently, i.e. on 17 July.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services advised that staff had been advised then of some of the finer detail of the Project, but had been aware of the regionalisation proposals for quite some time. He added that details regarding the proposal had changed and evolved as the Project was moving forward, and the Atkins Report had been refined in order to accurately reflect these changes.

He explained that the appropriate local Members and staff in each authority, had also been informed of the details of the Project and any changes to this at the same time, through staff briefings, the Overview and Scrutiny process and eventually onto Cabinet and Council.

Informal consultations with staff had progressed and a formal consultation process would then follow, including with trade union representatives. The findings and outcomes of the consultation process would then be further shared with Members through the above political channels in due course.

The Chairperson assumed that staff from Bridgend would transfer to the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council under TUPE arrangements, and she asked what impact there would be on staff as a result of transferring.

8

The Principal Advisor, Employee Relationships stated that the combining of the service with other authorities to effectively provide a single service, would impact upon some staff, however, departments in most if not all areas of Directorates of the Council were having to be restructured to provide savings required under the MTFS, and these proposals were also resulting in a rationalisation of the overall Council’s workforce.

A Member noted that though part of the regionalisation of Regulatory Services was being funded by Welsh Government grant funding, the 3 Authorities were still having to supplement this, at a time where there were significant financial restraints.

The Group Manager, Finance confirmed that each authority included in the Project would be required to commit up-front investment to enable the collaboration to progress.

She reiterated however that the combining of the services would result in fewer cases of redundancy (pro-rata) when compared to continuing to provide the services alone as a single Authority. Regional Collaboration Funding to supplement the Project was available for at least this and next year. She emphasised however, that any cases of staff redundancy would be funded by the Authority, and not from Regional Collaboration Funding.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services added that he had to find £1.6m in cuts to Regulatory Services, and that the easiest way to make cuts of this magnitude were through working collaboratively as had been successfully achieved through parts of his Legal Services team working under joint arrangements. £1.6m was a third of the overall Legal and Regulatory Services budget, and unlike certain other Directorates of the Council, the only real avenue to pursue to make the savings required under the MTFS was through a reduction in posts/staff.

A Member asked if the main driver for the collaboration proposals therefore was savings required under the MTFS.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services confirmed that the reasons for Regionalising Regulatory Services were two fold; to maintain the service and make it more resilient, and to produce the required budgetary savings within his Directorate. He added that the Council could not achieve the above if it continued to provide the service alone, and due to this further cuts would have to be made to the service.

A Member asked why the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council had been selected as host Authority for the Project, as opposed to Bridgend or Cardiff City Councils.

The Chief Executive firstly advised that there was no gain for being the host Authority in the Project, financially or otherwise. He added that Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council’s did work together collaboratively in other areas, as did Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff City Council. Cardiff and Bridgend he added, did not currently provide services jointly in any area of work, and this was the main reason for selecting Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council as lead Authority in the Project.

The Leader confirmed that the Business Case of the Project prepared by Atkins, as included in Appendix A to the report was sound, and largely addressed the points

9

made by Members at today’s meeting. These and the Overview and Scrutiny Committees conclusions, together with the points made by the UNISON representative earlier in the meeting, he assured would firstly be considered in due course by Cabinet, and then debated further subsequently at full Council before the Project was given the full go ahead.

The Chairperson asked if all the services currently provided individually by the three authorities would be retained as a result of the Project and it providing increased capacity, and by what methods the Project would introduce income generation.

An example of income generation savings in the future service advised the Chief Executive was the Dog Warden service. Presently Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council’s provided this service jointly, whilst Cardiff City Council contracted the service out. The combining of the service would allow sufficient scope for it all to be provided internally hence making a saving. Income opportunities would occur as a result of the service provided under the Project covering a far wider geographical area than it currently does under the 3 stand-alone authorities, which would allow the Project to attract more business opportunities including through trading with the private sector, particularly through the regulatory side of the Project.

A Member enquired if there would be compulsory redundancies as a result of the Project.

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services confirmed that this was likely, though there would also if the Project did not go ahead.

In response to a further question from the floor in respect of harmonising or regularising policies relating to issues such as Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle licences, and certain other services provided, the Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services advised that issues such as the way work was processed and services were presently being delivered by each Authority, were being looked at in order to apply a more consistent delivery of these services in the future under the collaboration agreement. He added that it was highly likely that the licensing functions being provided by each Authority in-house would be maintained and not significantly altered, though these stand-alone services would probably be governed by a single Licensing Policy.

A Member asked how the collaboration would be overseen from an Overview and Scrutiny perspective, ie would each of the 3 Authorities maintain their own scrutiny process or would they have a joint arrangement.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Regulatory Services confirmed this could be an either or arrangement, adding that it would probably be more beneficial if the service area was monitored by way of a joint arrangement.

The Chairperson noted from the report that there could be significant Capital Expenditure commitment for the provision or support of an ICT System to support the proposed service area. She asked the Invitees if they had yet identified a suitable system.

The Group Manager – Finance confirmed that whilst all three Authorities currently used the same system, they all used it slightly differently. Should the collaboration go ahead, she added that there were two alternatives either to go out to tender for a new

10

system, or alternatively, retain the existing ICT system and for the 3 Authorities to all operate it in a more consistent way.

The Chairperson enquired if April 2015 was realistic in terms of the Project being implemented, and were the savings anticipated from this expected to be realised.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Regulatory Services replied that though the date for the coming together of the Project was aspirational, it was also to a large degree achievable.

The Chairperson noted from page 235 of Appendix B to the report, that since the Atkins report was first produced, Cardiff City Council had realigned their income derived from granting applications for taxi licences by £200k and she asked what the reason was for this.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Regulatory Services advised that he was not certain of the reason for this, however, he added that it could have resulted from a judicial review in response to the Council’s decision to increase their income through fees for the issuing of licences to people who apply to be taxi drivers.

As this concluded debate on the report, the Chairperson thanked the Invitees for their attendance, following which they retired from the meeting.

Conclusions:

The Committee considered the report and wished to make the following comments:

The Committee acknowledge the need for change in order to ensure the service is as resilient as possible and understand that change cannot be implemented without an element of risk. Therefore, Members endorsed the implementation plan for the creation of a shared regulatory service based on the ‘collaborate and change’ model.

In light of the potential changes to services, Members emphasised the need for wider public engagement in order to inform residents of what the likely impact of the changes would be, and to ensure that it can be seen that each of the local authority areas are being treated equally.

The Committee agreed in principle that joint scrutiny arrangements should be developed, but the specific format of any such arrangements should be subject to further political discussion between the Leaders of each of the participating local authorities.

In addition to the above, it was noted the executive would provide a response to the specific points made by the Unison representative in due course.

The meeting closed at 11.45am

11

12

Fy Nghyf / My Ref: NRS/PM/PB/05.08.14 Dyddiad / Date: 5th August 2014 Councillor Phil Bale Leader, City of Cardiff Council County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4UW.

Dear Councillor Bale,

Joint Environmental and Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee –

Regionalising Regulatory Services Project – 29 th July 2014

On behalf of the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee and the

Environmental Scrutiny Committee, who met jointly on Tuesday 29th July 2014 I

would like to thank you and the officers for attending the Committees’ joint meeting.

As you are aware the meeting considered pre decision scrutiny of the Regional

Regulatory Services Project, prior to a report being taken to Cabinet in the City of

Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend County Borough Councils.

Members note that the report submitted for their consideration was a draft Cabinet

report, and as such there is an opportunity for the comments, suggestions and

recommendations made in this letter by the Joint Committee to be taken into

account.

Recommended Model

The Joint Committee recognises that it is not an option for the Council to ‘do nothing’

and that services will be subject to significant reductions if no change takes place.

The Committee therefore recognises that the Council must move in the direction of

collaboration, and therefore accepts that the best approach set out within the report

is the ‘collaborate and change’ model, and the acceptance of related

recommendations within the draft Cabinet report.

The Joint Committee however felt that additional information must be made available,

both in order for the Cabinet to be able to make a fully informed decision regarding

13

the recommendations in the report, and to reassure Members that the decision to

endorse this course of action is correct. These information requests are detailed later

in the letter.

Host Authority

The Joint Committee wishes to express its reservations about the case presented as

a basis for the Vale of Glamorgan Council to be chosen as host authority. It is evident

from the Atkins report that no firm decision could be recommended, and

consideration of the pros and cons for each authority acting as host does not provide

a substantial case for the Vale to be chosen. That said, the Joint Committee is not

questioning the ability of the Vale of Glamorgan Council to be selected as host

authority, but rather feels that the Cabinet should expect to receive a far more

informative and robust case in order to convince them that services are best hosted

in the Vale of Glamorgan Council and for Cardiff Council staff to be transferred

accordingly.

That said, the Committee accepts that Cardiff Council cannot always be seen to use

its size as the basis for control of such projects, and must allow other authorities to

lead on projects if it is to truly embrace collaborative working.

The Joint Committee also recognises that significant levels of work have already

been undertaken on the basis that the Vale of Glamorgan will be host authority, and

that the success of the project and achievement of projected savings cannot afford

the delays associated with reassessing this position.

Future Scrutiny Arrangements

The Joint Scrutiny Committee recognises the need for robust ongoing scrutiny of the

shared regulatory service, however the Members do not wish for scrutiny to be

carried out by existing separate Scrutiny Committees as outlined in the draft Cabinet

report (para 97). Members feel the appropriate scrutiny mechanism is the

establishment of a Joint Scrutiny Committee, which mirrors the proposed Joint

Committee and has equal representation from each local authority. This Committee

needs to be established as a matter of priority if a decision to proceed with a shared

14

service is made by Cabinet and Council, allowing for the project implementation

stages to be effectively scrutinised by Members from each authority.

Additional Requests and Recommendations

The Joint Committee wishes to express its concern that the draft Report presented

contains some grey areas, where important information is either unclear or not

available. Members do not feel this will allow for the Cabinet to make such an

important decision on the future delivery of regulatory services in Cardiff.

Following the discussions at the meeting, Members wish for the following requests

for information to be addressed:

Additional Information for Cabinet

• More information should be required for Cabinet with regards to the transfer of

staff under TUPE. This must provide more detail on the mechanisms involved,

the costs for Cardiff and the impact it will have on individuals currently

employed by Cardiff Council. Members are concerned that staff will be made

to accept worse terms and conditions and rates of pay, or face redundancy.

• The Joint Committee recognises the use of FTE figures as an accepted basis

for decision making, however Members feel that Cabinet should be made

aware of the number of individual staff who are within the scope of this project,

so that the full impact on Cardiff Council employees can be appreciated.

• While the Joint Committee recognises the need to protect personal staff

information, Members shared a concern that the redaction of key financial and

establishment information might prevent the Cabinet from making fully

informed decisions on the impact on Cardiff staff and the ability to achieve

savings.

• Members feel that the future job specifications, roles and grading of staff

within the shared regulatory service should have a huge impact on the

decision whether to proceed, and yet these are currently undefined. Members

feel this calls into question whether Cabinet is to be provided enough

information to make such a decision.

• Members are concerned that the staff consultation period, which has recently

commenced, is taking place across the school summer holidays. Members

15

seek assurances that full and robust consultation will take place, with full

Trade Union involvement, and that the findings from this will be fully included

within the report submitted to Cabinet.

• Members seek assurances that the proposed multi-skilled approach will not

result in a less professional or qualified provision of service and feel Cabinet

should require more information in this area, including an evaluation of how

such an approach currently works in the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend

County Borough Councils.

• The Equality Impact Assessment completed in relation to the proposed

centralised location for the shared service (the Alps Depot) should be made

available to the Cabinet, and shared with Members of the Joint Committee.

Members are concerned that this location is car-centric and will disadvantage

staff who are reliant on public transport or cycle networks.

• Members wish to recommend that a single point of contact is established to

serve the shared service and feels that C2C presents a natural choice for this

service to be located. If the intention for the shared service is to rebrand as

one single service, it appears sensible for one point of contact to be

established for members of the public. Estimates for the cost of providing such

a service should be included within the papers submitted for Cabinet

consideration.

Additional Information for Committee

• Members also wish to note their concerns regarding the recruitment process

within the host authority. At the meeting Members were assured that the best

individuals will be the ones appointed to the new roles, however Members

wish to seek clarification on how individuals will be appointed, who will be

involved in recruitment decisions and the process for developing new role

profiles and job descriptions.

• The Joint Committee are concerned by the number of factual inaccuracies

within the Atkins report highlighted by staff, and request that more work is

undertaken to establish exactly what work is currently carried out within

Cardiff. Decisions are going to be made with regards to which services can be

reduced, and Cardiff needs to clearly set out which services are essential and

must be maintained through the shared service. Members also request

16

clarification on which non-statutory services currently provided are going to be

lost.

• The figures given for demand of services across the three authorities (Atkins

4.2.6) show that Cardiff’s share is 66% of the total. Members seek clarification

that the allocation of work within the regionalised service will be demand led,

particularly given concerns were raised that the level of demand in Cardiff is

underestimated.

• Members seek assurances that Cardiff will not be put at risk in terms of food

safety through changes to food inspection regimes, and potential changes to

the staff involved, particularly when Cardiff has significantly higher numbers of

premises liable for inspection.

• Members are aware that Cardiff Regulatory Services are involved with the

significant levels of events that take place in the city, and this work has also

been highlighted as a good income generator for Cardiff. Members seek

assurances that this work will be able to continue within the shared service,

and whether all income will be retained by Cardiff Council.

• Members consider the Out of Hours Noise team to be a valuable asset for the

city and seek assurances that this will remain, given that Cardiff is the only of

the three authorities that runs such a service. Members seek assurances that

the continuation of this service will not negatively impact on the remaining

allocation of resources to Cardiff within the shared service, and that Cardiff will

not be required to pay for the service in addition to the agreed apportionment

of costs.

• Members seek assurances that the present links that exist between regulatory

services and other service areas within the Council will not be lost through the

establishment of a shared service (for example where regulatory services

officers will work with schools on tattoo related initiatives).

Additional Concerns

• Given that the projected savings from this proposal will only amount to

approximately £1.4m across the three Councils per annum by 31 March 2018,

Members do not feel this is substantial enough to justify significant reductions

in the level of regulatory services being provided within Cardiff.

• The Joint Scrutiny Committee wishes to express its concern regarding the

financial projections for costs and savings provided within the draft Cabinet

17

and Atkins reports, and feels these figures are vaguely indicative at best and

rely on numerous assumptions.

• Members are also concerned that the figures for HMOs within Cardiff are

inaccurate, and feel strongly that this should be re-quantified to give a true

representation of the level of demand that exists within the city. This is

something that must be completed before resource allocation decisions are

agreed.

• The Joint Scrutiny Committee has concerns surrounding the harmonisation of

various ICT systems used by each Council and feels that implementation

issues in this area could undermine the anticipated savings from collaboration.

• Members were not convinced that effective logistic systems will be in place to

control the home-based working arrangements proposed for the shared

services, and feel this could jeopardise the short-term savings target given in

the draft Cabinet report.

I would be grateful if you would consider the above comments and provide a

response to the requests made in this letter.

Regards,

Councillor Paul Mitchell

Chairperson Environmental Scrutiny Committee

Cc to:

Cllr Bob Derbyshire – Cabinet Member for Environment

Cllr Daniel De’Ath – Cabinet Member for Safety, Engagement & Democracy

Cllr Jacqueline Parry – Chair of Licensing and Public Protection Committees

Paul Orders – Chief Executive

Joanne Watkins – Cabinet Office Manager

Jane Forshaw – Director for the Environment

Tara King – Assistant Director for the Environment

18

Dave Holland – Head of Service, Regulatory & Supporting Services

Elizabeth Weale – Operational Manager – Procurement & Partnerships

Tracey Thomas – Operational Manager – HR People Services

Marc Falconer – Operational Manager - Projects Accountancy

Members of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee

Members of the Community & Adult Services Committee

19

Fy Nghyf / My Ref: NRS/PM/PB/05.08.14 Dyddiad / Date: 5th September 2014 Councillor Paul Mitchell Chair, Environmental Scrutiny County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4UW.

Dear Councillor Mitchell,

Joint Environmental and Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee –

Regionalising Regulatory Services Project – 29th July 2014

Thank for your letter dated 5th August 2014 on the aforementioned matter. I am

extremely grateful for your comments on the proposal and your general support for

the proposed model, albeit with a number of reservations. As you indicate this was a

draft report put forward for a pre-decision Scrutiny process and the comments,

suggestions and recommendations you have made can be taken into account before

a final decision is made.

Host Authority

Your comment upon Cardiff’s role in any collaborative project and acknowledgement

that the success of the project and achievement of projected savings cannot afford

the delays associated with reassessing this position, is welcome. That said, I have

asked officers to revisit this section of the Cabinet report and provide more

information to assist the decision due to be taken by any of the Cabinets and

Councils.

Future Scrutiny Arrangements

The Comments upon a Joint Scrutiny regime are duly noted and indeed echo the

views of the Heads of Scrutiny across the three Councils. If a decision is made to

proceed, I will ask officers to arrange meetings with the Scrutiny Chairs to consider

establishing a joint Scrutiny panel which can monitor the project implementation

stages and the work of the service thereafter.

20

Additional Requests and Recommendations

In respect of the request that cabinet seek further information before making any

decision I can advise as follows,

More information should be required for Cabinet with regards to the transfer of

staff under TUPE. This must provide more detail on the mechanisms involved,

the costs for Cardiff and the impact it will have on individuals currently

employed by Cardiff Council. Members are concerned that staff will be made

to accept worse terms and conditions and rates of pay, or face redundancy.

The proposals are based on an exercise that will involve the initial transfer of

employees to one of the three Councils as host employer under the provision of a

TUPE like transfer. This will provide the opportunity for a new service to be built

around the skills and expertise of a combined workforce. The contractual terms and

conditions of staff will be protected at the point of transfer.

The basic principle is that all contractual terms and conditions of employment will be

protected including continuity of terms and conditions. This may not include certain

organisational specific policies and procedures such as specific working

arrangements, processes for booking annual leave, reporting sickness, pursuing

grievances or disciplinary issues. A complete stock-take of all terms and conditions

will be undertaken as part of the TUPE consultation process.

A significant period of work will commence in the autumn to begin to undertake the

above work and leading to a potential transfer in April 2015. It will involve clarifying

who is “in-scope”, ensuring clarity around terms and conditions and consulting staff

and unions about any post transfer “measures” that will be progressed. It is the

responsibility of both the transferor and transferee employers to conduct such

consultation.

An important issue to be covered as part of the statutory TUPE consultation with staff

and the trade unions will be the “measures” that will be taken by the host once the

transfer of all staff is complete in April 2015. A primary measure will be the proposals

to implement the new operating model and new organisational structure as part of

21

the remodelling process. This will be included as part of the consultation process

between November 2014 and March 2015.

Following the TUPE transfer a separate consultation process will commence in

relation to the remodelling process and with a view of implementation by September

2015. This will involve consultation on the new structure, job descriptions, selection

processes and redundancy arrangements.

Such proposals will require an overall reduction in staffing levels (across the three

authorities) of approximately 26 posts (from 204 FTE to 178 FTE). Such figures do

not include current vacancies or posts filled on a short term and temporary basis.

There are approximately 148 posts “in-scope” FTE posts in Cardiff Council of which

122.4 are currently filled on a permanent basis. The current “head-count” figures are

139.

In addition to the overall reduction in staffing levels the proposals will also require the

implementation of a significantly new organisational structure with many new roles,

the requirement for different working arrangements and a net movement from

professional to technical roles. This latter issue will have implications for grading

levels, terms and conditions and the overall numbers of potential redundancies.

Where staff are offered appointment to different roles within the remodelled service,

then the new terms applicable to that job and the host employer’s wider terms and

conditions will apply. The effect on staff from Cardiff being appointed to new and

different posts in a new service hosted by the Vale of Glamorgan will be varied –

some posts being on higher salaries and some being on lower salary levels. All

appointments will however be based on merit and following the pursuit of an open

and transparent selection process as framed in consultation with the trade unions.

Where an employee is offered appointment to the same or similar role within the new

service then it is proposed that any TUPE protection will continue. This will mean that

the salary level of a Cardiff employee being appointed to the same or similar post will

be unaffected.

22

It is proposed that steps should continue to be taken, as appropriate to reduce,

mitigate and avoid the possibility of any compulsory redundancies as a result of the

post transfer restructuring exercise and in order to ensure, where possible the

appointment of staff into positions as close as possible to their existing status and

grade. Such steps will be developed in consultation with the trade unions.

It is important to stress that the need to make savings impacts upon all three

Councils whether they choose to pursue the collaborative model or not. If the

Councils choose to reject the collaborative proposal there can be no guarantee about

the future level of service provision in Cardiff and measures may need to be

considered that could result in a significant change in service delivery.

The Joint Committee recognises the use of FTE figures as an accepted basis

for decision making, however Members feel that Cabinet should be made

aware of the number of individual staff who are within the scope of this project,

so that the full impact on Cardiff Council employees can be appreciated.

The information provided at Appendix B does contain details of both FTE and the

number of individual staff who are within scope. Those figures are subject to vary as

changes are made in each Local Authority; Appendix B is accurate as at 8th July

2014.

While the Joint Committee recognises the need to protect personal staff

information, Members shared a concern that the redaction of key financial and

establishment information might prevent the Cabinet from making fully

informed decisions on the impact on Cardiff staff and the ability to achieve

savings.

The appendix dealing with indicative salaries was originally redacted on the basis of

concerns about data protection, given that these papers were being made widely

available. This decision has been reviewed and information shared where there are

no remaining DPA concerns.

23

Members feel that the future job specifications, roles and grading of staff

within the shared regulatory service should have a huge impact on the

decision whether to proceed, and yet these are currently undefined. Members

feel this calls into question whether Cabinet is to be provided enough

information to make such a decision.

Job descriptions and person specifications have not been finalised at this stage of

the project. The existing Heads of Service are content that the structure is viable and

will begin work on these documents should the project proceed to the next, more

detailed, stage. These will be the subject of job evaluation and consultation with staff

and the trade unions as detailed in the draft Cabinet report.

Members are concerned that the staff consultation period, which has recently

commenced, is taking place across the school summer holidays. Members

seek assurances that full and robust consultation will take place, with full

Trade Union involvement, and that the findings from this will be fully included

within the report submitted to Cabinet.

The pre-decision engagement process started on 11th July and was originally

scheduled to end on 22nd August. Following discussion with trade unions, this has

now been extended for all Councils up to 5th September 2014.The Cabinet report will

contain appendices illustrating the response from the pre-decision Scrutiny

processes of the three Councils along with the comments and feedback from the staff

and Trade Unions.

24

Members seek assurances that the proposed multi-skilled approach will not

result in a less professional or qualified provision of service and feel Cabinet

should require more information in this area, including an evaluation of how

such an approach currently works in the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend

County Borough Councils.

The concern is noted. The operating model is intended to provide as comprehensive

a service as possible within the resource available. That said, the financial constraints

placed upon the proposal mean that the new management team must assess the

Operating Model and balance service provision against available resource. The need

to make savings impacts upon all three Councils whether they choose to pursue the

collaborative model or not. If the Councils choose to reject the collaborative proposal

there can be no guarantee about the future level of service provision in Cardiff and

measures may need to be considered that could result in a significant change in

service delivery.

The Equality Impact Assessment completed in relation to the proposed

centralised location for the shared service (the Alps Depot) should be made

available to the Cabinet, and shared with Members of the Joint Committee.

Members are concerned that this location is car-centric and will disadvantage

staff who are reliant on public transport or cycle networks.

The Equality Impact Assessment is appended to the Cabinet report. The final

decision on the location of offices has yet to be confirmed and they are being

assessed for EIA and other logistical matters, but your points on public transport and

cycle networks are well made and are a key consideration.

Members wish to recommend that a single point of contact is established to

serve the shared service and feels that C2C presents a natural choice for this

service to be located. If the intention for the shared service is to rebrand as

one single service, it appears sensible for one point of contact to be

established for members of the public. Estimates for the cost of providing such

25

a service should be included within the papers submitted for Cabinet

consideration.

Arrangements for the management of customer contact by phone, face to face and

via other electronic means will be developed as part of the proposed service’s

business plan which would contain the costings therein. A single point of contact will

be evaluated based upon the experiences of each local authority has in creating such

a function, along with the experiences of other organisations who have managed

similar challenges.

26

Additional Information for Committee

Members also wish to note their concerns regarding the recruitment process

within the host authority. At the meeting Members were assured that the best

individuals will be the ones appointed to the new roles, however Members

wish to seek clarification on how individuals will be appointed, who will be

involved in recruitment decisions and the process for developing new role

profiles and job descriptions.

It is the intention that the service will retain and develop links with partners,

stakeholders and other interested parties. The proposed “change” process will be

based on sound and transparent principles to be agreed with the trade unions. For

some employees this may include “job matching” and for others it may include a

competitive selection process. All posts will be ring-fenced to existing staff and

selection decisions overseen by the Officer Management Board comprising equal

representation at a senior level from each Council. All decisions will be based on

merit and through an evidenced based assessment against job descriptions and

person specifications. The development of new job descriptions and person

specifications will be managed by the new Head of Service (once appointed) and in

consultation with staff and the trade unions.

The Joint Committee are concerned by the number of factual inaccuracies

within the Atkins report highlighted by staff, and request that more work is

undertaken to establish exactly what work is currently carried out within

Cardiff. Decisions are going to be made with regards to which services can be

reduced, and Cardiff needs to clearly set out which services are essential and

must be maintained through the shared service. Members also request

clarification on which non-statutory services currently provided are going to be

lost.

The Atkins report represents the position as at 1st April 2013 and much of the data

contained in the report was provided by each Local Authority. The impact of budget

savings accepted for 2014/15 has had an impact on areas of performance and the

“factual inaccuracies” may be attributable to changes introduced since the issue of

the report. Any required corrections have been made.

27

Collaboration brings with it a range of challenges and difficult decisions. I think

it is important from the outset to appreciate that the Target Operating Model,

as originally envisaged by Atkins, has to be refined in light of the requirement

to make additional saving. If a decision is made to proceed, the appointed

Management Team will need to consider the many issues and valid concerns

expressed in light of the reduced financial provision available to deliver the

services. If the decision is made not to pursue the collaborative model, these

issues will remain a challenge for the management team at Cardiff and you

will already understand the quantum of the budget reduction being

contemplated. Whichever path the organisation takes, there will be a need to

change how the service is delivered.

The figures given for demand of services across the three authorities (Atkins

4.2.6) show that Cardiff’s share is 66% of the total. Members seek clarification

that the allocation of work within the regionalised service will be demand led,

particularly given concerns were raised that the level of demand in Cardiff is

underestimated.

Members seek assurances that Cardiff will not be put at risk in terms of food

safety through changes to food inspection regimes, and potential changes to

the staff involved, particularly when Cardiff has significantly higher numbers of

premises liable for inspection.

The model is intended to provide as comprehensive a service as possible

within the resource available across all three Councils. It needs to reflect best

practice in terms of inspections and take heed of advice from Government and

other Regulators, but within the resource available. The services in each

Council already use a risk based approach to inspections and other aspects of

work and that will continue to ensure that those legitimate business operations

that present the greatest risk across the region are effectively monitored and

supported, while ensuring that illegal activities are challenged robustly.

Members are aware that Cardiff Regulatory Services are involved with the

significant levels of events that take place in the city, and this work has also

28

been highlighted as a good income generator for Cardiff. Members seek

assurances that this work will be able to continue within the shared service,

and whether all income will be retained by Cardiff Council.

The intention is to allow each authority to retain its existing income streams

and to develop new sources of income, the latter being apportioned across the

three Councils, unless the income is generated through a local authority

specific initiative, such as additional licensing for Houses in Multiple

Occupancy.

Members consider the Out of Hours Noise team to be a valuable asset for the

city and seek assurances that this will remain, given that Cardiff is the only of

the three authorities that runs such a service. Members seek assurances that

the continuation of this service will not negatively impact on the remaining

allocation of resources to Cardiff within the shared service, and that Cardiff will

not be required to pay for the service in addition to the agreed apportionment

of costs.

The Committee will be aware that the Council is already considering reducing

the night noise service provision in response to the need to make savings. The

proposed model seeks to retain the existing levels of service provision at the

point of transfer and a core service document providing more definitive detail

will be contained within the three year business plan.

Members seek assurances that the present links that exist between regulatory

services and other service areas within the Council will not be lost through the

establishment of a shared service (for example where regulatory services

officers will work with schools on tattoo related initiatives).

29

Additional Concerns

Given that the projected savings from this proposal will only amount to

approximately £1.4m across the three Councils per annum by 31 March 2018,

Members do not feel this is substantial enough to justify significant reductions

in the level of regulatory services being provided within Cardiff.

The Cabinet report acknowledges the need to make further savings and the

three year Business Plan will identify further savings for the short and medium

term in line with the requirements of each Local Authority’s financial plan.

The Joint Scrutiny Committee wishes to express its concern regarding the

financial projections for costs and savings provided within the draft Cabinet

and Atkins reports, and feels these figures are vaguely indicative at best and

rely on numerous assumptions.

The financial projections and costs contained within the Atkins report, and

subsequently updated within the Cabinet report, are based on discussions with

finance officers within the 3 local authorities, using actual salary and other

budget information. A number of assumptions have had to be made about

potential costs or savings in particular redundancy costs. The assumptions

have been made using the previous experience of the Atkins team from

working with other local authorities, and experience of other officers within the

authorities. The figures are considered prudent and have been agreed as

realistic with work stream leads from each authority. The final costs for the

individual authorities can not be accurately calculated until the appointment

process to the regional service is complete.

Members are also concerned that the figures for HMOs within Cardiff are

inaccurate, and feel strongly that this should be re-quantified to give a true

representation of the level of demand that exists within the city. This is

something that must be completed before resource allocation decisions are

agreed.

30

Officers will revisit these figures. The figures contained in Atkins were based

upon Councils data; there are other figures being touted that suggest the

number of rental properties and landlords might be higher. These seem to flow

from Welsh Government estimates and we will revisit this as a matter of

priority.

The Joint Scrutiny Committee has concerns surrounding the harmonisation of

various ICT systems used by each Council and feels that implementation

issues in this area could undermine the anticipated savings from

collaboration. Members were not convinced that effective logistic systems will

be in place to control the home-based working arrangements proposed for

the shared services, and feel this could jeopardise the short-term savings

target given in the draft Cabinet report.

The concern is valid and officers have been in dialogue with Worcestershire

regulatory Services, where ICT delays did occur, and other collaborative

services to discuss their experiences and understand how best those

difficulties can be avoided or mitigated. To support the new service a

common ICT platform will be required and access to systems be available

from different locations across the three Council areas. An ICT project team

has been assembled and the costs of a dedicated ICT Project Manager are

incorporated in the project's business case as well as an estimate of the

investment required in hardware and software to support the shared service.

Should approval be given to proceed with the proposals the ICT project team

will undertake further work and pilot technology to facilitate the new ways of

working required by the shared service.

I trust this provides a useful response to the Joint Committee's concerns and

questions and thank you again for the Committee's valuable input.

Yours sincerely

31

PHIL BALE

LEADER CARDIFF COUNCIL

cc: Councillor De'Ath Cabinet Member

Councillor Derbyshire Cabinet Member for Environment.

Paul Orders Chief Executive

Tara King Assistant Director Environement

32