Agenda item

To consider the report on the proposed centralised model for the Policy and Performance Functions.

Stuart Young, Assistant Chief Executive for People and Organisational Development introduced the Service Functions Review (SFR) of the Policy and Performance Functions and the revised service structure which would create a Council-wide centralised shared service. An earlier report had been considered by the committee, at their September meeting, and following a period of formal consultation changes had been made to the report.  This included some posts being removed from the ringfence as they were better suited to a different service function review and an additional post, performance analyst, being added to the structure of the business intelligence team in response to wider concerns about the capacity of the team.

 The committee noted the deputation of Sean Fox, Employee side, who reiterated that the concerns of Trade Union officials, raised at the previous meeting on this report, had not altered.  There was anxiety that the equalities function would not be given due priority in the proposed structure and this was especially concerning as there were forthcoming key issues for the Council to address, as a result of the CSR, which would require an equalities input. The committee further noted that some staff  had wanted further clarification   about what their employment options would be if they chose not be part of the assessment and recruitment process for the new policy and performance structure.

In response to concerns about the equalities function it was noted that completion of Equalities Impact Assessments  and other such equalities duties would remain an essential part of the policy function. The committee heard that an equalities   forward plan would be compiled to ensure that Equality Impact Assessments were completed on key projects and policies in good time. The committee were advised that the model for delivery of the new centralised service would ensure that there was a skilled policy resource available to meet the policy needs of the Council. The Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Performance and Policy offered to have informal conversations with staff who did not want to be part of the employment process for the new structure .There was sufficient time for these conversations before the assessment and recruitment stage began.

The committee discussed how policy staff with existing service specific specialist knowledge and scrutiny officers would be accommodated in the structure. Members  noted that the new structure would enable the policy team to respond to the policy  demands of the organisation  and  still use their expertise in a multi disciplinary  way. It was felt that dedication to a task would not be impinged by policy officer having existing expertise in another area.

The committee discussed the independence of scrutiny officers and referred to the recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which asked for an independent and dedicated scrutiny support function to remain. The chair advised that it was the overarching role of all officers, regardless of the service that they were situated in, to provide independent advice to Members of the Council and in turn support the Member structure. There was an expectation that the scrutiny function would be appropriately resourced within the proposed new structure of the service. However practically the new service would ensure, that when an officer has developed a policy, they would not be asked to scrutinize it. 

 Following, the addition of the performance analyst post, the committee questioned whether further posts would be added and if, there were likely to be any further concessions to the cost target. Examples of potential calls on resources to the team outlined were:  external inspections which would continue from Ofsted and CQC and ensuring policy implementation. The committee were advised that, at the outset, service function reviews may contain objective cost targets but as consultation and assessment of the needs of the service progress target figures could change. In answering the query on policy and implementation, the committee noted that it was important to distinguish that policy development lay with the Policy team but that implementation remained close to the service.  

RESOLVED

1. That it be noted that the formal consultation on the proposed centralised model for the policy and performance and the associated efficiencies had been completed.

2. That the proposed staffing arrangements for the strategic planning and support unit  as set out in Annex 2 of the  report be agreed.

3. That the committee note the timetable for delivery as set out in section 7 of appendix 1.

4. That a 6 month review of the new Policy and Performance function take place.