Agenda item

The report of the Head of Partnership

Mrs S O’Hanlon presented the report to Members. She advised Members that she had spoken to the HR leads for each authority and, having looked at the differing salary bands and terms and conditions, it became apparent that it would be a lengthy piece of work. She also stated that with the impact of Universal Credit and the changes to funding of business rates, there may be no cashable savings from outsourcing. She informed Members that when she had looked at each authority as a single employer there was a massive cost difference between the three in relation to salary structures, such  that, if it was decided to allocate staff into the job role in the lowest paying authority, the partnership would struggle to attract new staff; whereas, if the decision were to move staff into roles in the highest paying authority, there would be a significant cost increase. All other options in between would cause more complex difficulties. As a result, the Management Board proposed that the IRRV recommendations be not progressed.

Councillor R D Bayliss thanked Mrs S O’Hanlon, as it was apparent that a lot of hard work had been done, and stated that he was convinced that what was recommended was the right course of action.

Councillor M Hall stated that, having looked at the banding, he agreed that it appeared to be a complex issue and agreed with the recommendations. He asked if the Partnership was being set up now would it be done differently.

Mr S Atkinson stated that he couldn’t answer that definitively, although the point had some merit. However, the way the Partnership was established was the best way at the time and there had been some benefits to the authorities involved.

Mrs S O’Hanlon stated that it would take some time to get to a single employer status, as each authority had different protection schemes and it would take time to negotiate terms and conditions.

Councillor P King stated that the Partnership had an opportunity to move forward and that when the Partnership was first created it was sold to Members that other councils would get on board and that he felt that it was costly to have three separate employers. He asked to see the SWOT analysis and expressed the view that one of the options to be investigated more closely should be a completely separate entity – outsourcing -  which would allow new conditions to be considered for staff, thus reducing costs by starting afresh. 

Mr A Wilson advised Members that when staff transferred under TUPE they do so with their existing terms and conditions which could be demoralising for them, as each partner authority had differing terms and conditions.

Councillor P King stated that the partnership should tender for outsourcing and should a bid that is acceptable be submitted, then wheels should be put in motion for transferring.

Mr S Atkinson stated that he had experience of outsourcing within his own Council and that the process was very time consuming, without necessarily producing the savings, as well as costing more in contract management and reduced flexibility. He accepted the point regarding growth of the partnership, which had been explored with other councils, and advised Members that the focus should now be on working to bring in other authorities to the Partnership. This would be easier as they would be able to join with immediate effect and there would not be a great additional cost involved, as management overheads per capita should reduce. He stated that, when the three partner authorities came together at the beginning, each had different strengths to bring to the Partnership, from which the Partnership had benefitted, as well as saving costs of capital infrastructure investment, in particular, which otherwise would have been necessary. He advocated that, if Members were minded to spend more time at this point, given other pressures on the horizon (such as Universal Credit), it could be reviewed in two or three years time.

Councillor P King stated that it would be great if other authorities wanted to enter the partnership, but felt that there was very little information coming forward to Members about what was being done to encourage new partners.

Mrs S O’Hanlon stated that there would be a report coming to a future meeting about income generation. She also advised Members that she had been talking to another authority that was looking at coming out of an outsourcing agreement.

Mrs J Kenny reiterated that the Head of Partnership could now focus on income generation and advised Members that external outsourcing companies would be nervous working with local authorities due to the unknown over Universal Credit.

Councillor M Hall stated that the Committee should stick with the recommendation as it was right for the moment. He advised the terms and conditions could be bought out, if that were a longer term aim, but for the time being the matter should be put to bed.

It was moved by Councillor R D Bayliss, seconded by Councillor M Hall and

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    A single employer is not established and the recommendation of the IRRV relating to the matter be closed.

2.    The recommendation with regard to standardised terms and conditions in not progressed further as it was intrinsically linked to a single employer.