Agenda item

Purpose: To report on the Council's existing shared services agreements and provoke discussions on whether any other Council services should be shared with other authorities.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the Council's shared services and to provoke discussions on whether any other Council services should be shared with other authorities. Gordon Oliver noted that the report provided an overview of the shared service agreements that West Berkshire Council currently has with other local authorities. It set out the original rationale and business cases on which the shared services were based and provides an update on how they are currently performing where information is available.

Gordon Oliver also noted that the report also provided information on studies that the Council has undertaken, or is currently undertaking, to consider the potential for other services to be shared, focusing on HR, ICT, Legal Services and Planning. Furthermore, he noted that the report considered what shared service agreements other local authorities have put in place, drawing on evidence and case studies produced by the Local Government Association. He stated that further work has been undertaken in relation to a few case studies to look at how these have evolved and if they were still delivering the expected benefits. He stated that the report concludes that West Berkshire Council is already party to a large number of existing shared services, and that with a few exceptions, the majority of these arrangements are continuing to perform well. However, there were a number where the original business cases are no longer being achieved, or where improved governance is required to better control expenditure.

He stated that current shared services have been identified in consultation with the Chief Executive, Executive Directors, and other senior managers. A summary of current shared services was provided in Appendix A. This included information on: the services affected; the partner authorities; the start and end date for current agreements; the business case for the shared services; and the most recent annual expenditure. He noted that these shared service agreements had been put in place for a variety of reasons, such as: delivering cost savings; delivering improved customer service; and improving service capabilities, flexibility and resilience.

He noted that the report highlighted some of the key benefits that can be derived from shared service agreements, which are often as much about improving service resilience, flexibility and quality of service, as well as financial savings. However, it also identified some of the challenges and risks associated with setting up new agreements or maintaining established shared services. Issues with ICT systems are amongst the most commonly cited barriers to setting up new shared services, including the availability and usage of common systems. He also stated that even where there may be a sound business case on paper, the decision to enter into a shared service agreement may also be affected by political considerations. This is particularly notable in respect to Planning. Lastly, he noted that it may be beneficial to have a strategy and a systematic consideration of assessing and deciding on sharing opportunities, potentially as a component of the Corporate Programme due to the transformational nature of such initiatives. Ideally, this should be done independently to avoid internal bias. However, it should be noted that the process of conducting a review of the potential for sharing services is very resource-intensive and can be disruptive to the services involved.

Councillor Dillon noted that he thought it was a great report that summarised all the Council’s shared services and asked if this could be sent to all Councillors.

Action: shared services report to be sent to all Councillors.

Councillor Law agreed with Councillor Dillon’s comments. He noted there was a feeling of negativity when shared services were recommended in certain services and perhaps it was a question of culture.

Councillor Vickers stated he thought was a very good summary of the shared services within the Council and that there was perhaps a case for a scrutiny task group. He pointed to the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) and the fact it only included parts of shared services which could lead to service management issues. He pointed to paragraph 5.24 and ‘mistakes in establishing the partnership’. He noted he was in favour of shared services.

Councillor Cole noted that the shared services for the PPP worked well. He noted the report did not mention specialist expertise in trading standards in the PPP and it failed to mention Brexit. He stated that the report could be updated in many areas in relation to the PPP.

Councillor Hurley asked if there was a quantification of the benefits of the shared services compared to West Berkshire running the services themselves.

Joseph Holmes noted that there were value for money statistics that could be looked into to provide a comparison. On the culture of against shared services, he noted that it was important to make sure there were the right partners, which at times could prove to be a hindrance in creating a shared service. He also stated that the local government re-organisation agenda and seeing what happened here would be a hindrance to the shared services sector in the short-term.

Paul Anstey noted that benchmarking, quantifying the benefits and availability of data for regulatory services was a tricky concept to quantify. He also noted that the PPP had agreed methodologies with how to deal with cost recovery and that the PPP had enabled the Council to have expertise that many local authorities did not.

Councillor Doherty stated that the driving force for shared services must be whether it will benefit the residents of West Berkshire, whether that be improving the service or reducing costs.  

Councillor Dillon, on the issue of culture around shared services, noted that he would like to see more explanation from IT around the barriers to shared services.

Resolved that:

(1)      The recommendations were noted