Minutes of the 250th Meeting of the

FINAL with FOI exemptions
Minutes of the 252nd Meeting of the
Thursday 26 July 2007
Audit Commission Board, Millbank Tower, London
9.30am – 1.25pm

Commissioners present:
Staff in attendance:
Michael O’Higgins (Chairman)
Gareth Davies
Steve Bundred (Chief Executive)
Tracey Dennison
Jim Coulter
Martin Evans
Dr Jennifer Dixon
Jenny Grey
Sheila Drew Smith
Roger Hamilton
Sir Tom Legg
Julie Hope
Brian Pomeroy
John Kirkpatrick (for part)
Prof. Peter Smith
Ian Hickman (for part)
Cllr. Chris White
Andy McKeon
Siobhan O’Donoghue (minutes)
Bridget Rayner
Dave Stewart
Peter Wilkinson
Brian Willmor

Apologies, Announcements and Declarations
of
Interest
Verbal

1.
The Chairman opened the meeting and made the following announcements:
a)
Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr. Steve Houghton and Cllr. Peter
Jones.
b)
Dave Stewart, MD Corporate Services was welcomed to his first Board meeting.

Minutes of the 10 May 2007 Board and Matters Arising

2.
The minutes were approved and the following matters arising were raised:
a)
Paragraph 2a, Minutes of the last meeting, Annual Lecture: Professor Laura Tyson
had been confirmed as guest speaker at the Annual Lecture.
b)
Paragraph 17, Annual Review: Copies of the Annual Review were now published and
available.
c)
Paragraph 22, Appointment of New Commissioners: CLG had confirmed their
approval of new Commissioner appointments and an announcement was expected
imminently, subject to approval by the Secretary of State for Health.

[Secretary’s note: CLG announced the new Commissioner appointments on 31 July 2007.]

3.
The minutes of the 251st meeting of the Board held on 10 May 2007 were approved
as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

Report
of
the
Chief
Executive
CP
45-07

4.
Ministerial and Shadow Cabinet Changes. Since the report was drafted, Phil Woolas MP
had been announced as Minister for Climate Change: this appointment was a good
opportunity for the Commission. Hazel Blears, the recently appointed Secretary of State for
Communities, had already been in contact with both the Chairman and Chief Executive.
John Healey, the Local Government Minister, would be invited to attend the next
Board dinner and subsequent meeting in September 2007.

5.
Other governmental issues to note included the policy shift outlined in the Housing Green
Paper around local authority housing subsidy, which was a possible area that the
Commission could follow up. HM Treasury’s Sub-national Review of Economic
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 1 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
Development and Regeneration may have medium- and long-term implications for CAA.
The NAO had now joined the CAA Strategy Group and therefore would be engaged from
the earliest stage.

6.
There had been an announcement the previous day that nine new unitary authorities would
be created. The authorities had to demonstrate cost savings, and a role for the
Commission might be to monitor and discuss the situation with Ministers, particularly John
Healey if he was able to attend the next Board. It might also be worthwhile conducting a
piece of research around what we knew about previous mergers and restructures. This
would be useful in reminding auditors of lessons learned.

7.
Appointment of Auditors to Local Authority Companies. Since the report had been drafted,
further meetings had been held with CLG officials and it appeared that Ministers would be
advised not to support the amendment to the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Bill, as proposed. This was disappointing as numerous legislative opportunities had
now been missed. Further discussions would be held.

8.
Studies Consultation. The studies consultation had received helpful responses and useful
suggestions for possible studies topics.

9.
The Board noted the Chief Executive’s report, in particular that the leasehold,
design and build acquisition of new offices at Grove Park, Leicester was approved
by the Board in accordance with Standing Order 5.

Review
of
Board
Effectiveness
CP
46-07

10.
Commissioners Brian Pomeroy and Sir Thomas Legg gave a brief presentation on the
findings of the internal review of the Board’s Effectiveness. MDs and Commissioners had
been interviewed separately on areas of the Board’s activity. Issues that were covered in
the interviews included: the composition of the Board; agenda management; atmosphere
and effectiveness of meetings; and visibility of the Board outside meetings. Overall
messages from MDs and Board members were positive, but some areas for focus were
highlighted as follows:
a)
The Board could spend more time on performance monitoring and provide more
challenge.
b)
Board papers were still too long. Where this was unavoidable the important issues
should be presented early in the paper.
c)
The Board would welcome time-limited, single-subject sub-groups, for example on
CAA.
d)
The Board dinners were popular and useful. Dinner guests or a programme of
speakers at Board meetings should be revived, where this was practical and timely.
e)
The new studies programme had made improvements but it was too early in the
process to draw firm conclusions.
f)
The importance of the Board’s visibility had been acknowledged in interviews, but
there was more that could be done. There should be an expectation that Board
members would attend a minimum number of regional or staff events.
g)
The Chairman and Chief Executive should take the lead role with stakeholders but
Board members were keen to be involved where this would be helpful, for example in
launching and presenting studies.
h)
The Board and Management had to look periodically at where wrong decisions had
been made, to assess what had gone wrong and to learn from previous mistakes.

11.
The Board noted the presentation and made the following observations and suggestions:
a)
Where Board members were attending staff or external events, staff needed to be
aware of this.
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 2 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
b)
Other opportunities to raise visibility included management conferences and with
stakeholders. Where the Chairman or Chief Executive were not available for report
launches, perhaps this could be delegated to the lead Commissioner, rather than staff,
although there would be media training issues to consider. Using the party political
Board members, for example at national party conferences, would be an easy win.
c)
The Board still appeared overly London-centric and more should be done to address
this perception, including more regional visits. Perhaps thought could be given to how
a regional Commissioner role might work.
d)
A series of specialist lunch time talks by Commissioners, short essays, or features
written by Commissioners for staff publications, were suggested.
e)
Commissioners felt there was a tension between pushing themselves forward and
waiting to be invited to participate. Some Commissioners felt they were underused,
but did not know how they could do more.
f)
The Chief Executive reported that Commissioners’ attendance at the previous year’s
staff conference had been very successful, and staff had been being particularly
positive about this. Commissioners could be invited to participate more fully in this
year’s conference programme, by hosting dinner tables and mixing on a more informal
basis.
g)
The MD, Policy Research and Studies reported that regional and site visits had proven
beneficial in developing studies and getting an external perspective. These were
perhaps an opportunity for those Commissioners involved with studies to engage more
with emerging conclusions and communications.

12.
The Chairman thanked Brian Pomeroy and Sir Tom Legg for leading the review. The
Chairman and Management Team would consider the suggestions made, particularly
around visibility.

13.
The Chairman requested that Board members keep an informal log of time spent on
Commission business from September to November 2007.

14.
The Board noted the key findings of the review, and suggested a number of
possible next steps for further exploration, as outlined above.

Review
of
Housing
Regulation
CP
47-07

15.
The Chief Inspector of Housing briefed the Board on the latest draft of the Commission’s
response to the Cave Review, Every Tenant Matters and the CLG’s consultation, Delivering
Housing and Regeneration. The draft was still a work in progress in advance of the
submission deadline of 10 September 2007. The external environment continued to
change, and the recently published Housing Green Paper Homes for the Future and the
Sub-national Review of Economic Development and Regeneration would need to be
reflected in our final draft. The Commission’s submission attempted to address all the
areas raised in the government’s consultation but would also look at more in-depth
regulatory issues. The Housing and Regeneration Advisory Board had met the previous
day, and a summary of their discussion of the Commission’s response was also tabled.

16.
Commissioners were welcome to contribute further to the draft outside the meeting, but
were asked to delegate authority for final sign-off to the Chief Executive in consultation with
the Chairman.

17.
The Board was invited to comment on the draft, and the Chief Inspector of Housing drew
particular attention to the section which outlined Professor Cave’s arguments against the
Commission as the regulating body, and the Commission’s proposals for how social
housing could be regulated. [Section 36(2)(b)(ii)]

Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 3 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
18.
[Section 36(2)(b)(ii)]

19.
The Board:
a)
noted the conclusions of Professor Cave’s report on the regulation of social
housing and the government’s initial response and further consultation;
b)
commented on the Commission’s draft response to government, as outlined
above;
c)
noted the opportunity to contribute to further drafts if desired; and
d)
agreed that the sign-off of the final submission to government be delegated to
the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman

Single Tier & County Councils CPA 2007

CP 48-08

20.
The Director of Local Government presented the report summarising assessment proposals
for CPA 2007, and asked the Board to approve the CPA 2007 methodology document for
publication. The Cabinet sub-committee’s formal consultation response on the service
assessment BVPI issues, expected on 20 July and detailed in the report, had not yet been
received. Individual government departments had requested certain changes in order to
pursue their policy priorities. However, the Board’s previous steer had been to make only
the minimum changes necessary to ensure an effective transition to CAA, whilst maintaining
the relevance of the framework, and this was also the view shared by local government.
The devil was in the detail and it was important to keep a close eye on the BVPIs.

21.
A main issue was whether to take forward the BVPIs for cleanliness of public spaces, which
included fly-tipping, fly-posting and graffiti. As Defra was not likely to push too hard for their
inclusion, it was not recommended to take these forward. However, we should retain the
BVPI on energy requirements of council housing. The Board agreed that it would be
beneficial for the Commission to take a fresh look at BVPIs in the autumn of this last year of
CPA. Individual Commissioners commented as follows:
a)
The removal of C12 (libraries stock level and return) was welcome as it was somewhat
archaic.
b)
Paras. 51, 52 and 86 were somewhat opaque and should be re-phrased.
c)
Paras. 14-16 should be re-worded to remove their ambiguity.
d)
The presumption against change could be made a little clearer and we should set out
the principles on which we made the choice to include, or exclude, certain BVPIs.
e)
A particular advantage of CAA was that this type of discussion would no longer be
necessary.

22.
The Board:
a)
commented on the issues in Appendix 1 of the report relating to the service
assessment indicators; and
b)
Subject to comments above, agreed the CPA 2007 methodology document in
Appendix 2.

Use of Resources 2008 – Consultation Results

CP 49-07

23.
The Board received the report summarising the responses to the consultation on the Use of
Resources assessment for the final year of CPA. The response from government and
professional bodies was generally favourable to the proposals, but councils had
reservations about some aspects and had voiced concern that although it was right to ‘raise
the bar’, the proposals were not gradual enough. Also, as the proposals related to the
financial year already underway, there may be insufficient time to embed them and it was a
concern that this might lead to an authority dropping in overall score in the final year of
CPA.
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 4 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions

24.
In response to these concerns, the Commission proposed to modify the extent to which it
‘raised the bar’. Specific proposals to move ten criteria from level 4 to level 3 and one
criterion from level 3 to 2 would not be pursued. The wording of some of the criteria could
also be modified or explained in more detail.

25.
The Board felt that this was the right approach as it allowed authorities to prepare for CAA
whilst still striving for improvement. To ensure that authorities were aware we had taken
their concerns into account, we should emphasise our reasoning behind the proposals was
to continue to raise the standard to support improvement and prepare for CAA, by focusing
on the most important areas of change. This view was supported by the significant
improvement in councils’ scores in 2006.

26.
The Board:
a)
noted the responses received to the consultation on the proposed changes to
the key lines of enquiry for 2008;
b)
subject to the comments above, approved the proposed approach to updating
the key lines of enquiry; and
c)
noted the publication on our website of an analysis of stakeholder responses
along with a report summarising the Commission’s response to the
consultation.

Fire and Rescue Corporate Assessment 2007 to 2009

CP 50-07

27.
The MD, Local Government presented the proposed approach to fire and rescue corporate
assessments in the period to March 2009. Only those fire and rescue authorities (FRAs)
demonstrating significant and sustainable improvement, or a decline in performance since
the previous assessment in 2005 would be subject to an assessment. A Corporate
Assessment Selection Panel would make this judgement, based on evidence from a
Regional Manager or an FRA putting itself forward.

28.
The Board approved the proposals for fire and rescue corporate assessment as set
out in the report.

Follow
up
to
Employee
Attitude
Survey
CP
51-07

29.
The MD, Human Resources presented the follow-up report on the Employee Attitude
Survey, following the Board’s request at its March 2007 meeting to consider the survey
alongside benchmarking data, and for actions to be agreed that would address the issues
identified in the survey. The Board discussed the findings and the following points were
raised:
a)
The issues raised in the follow-up interviews tended to be the ones that the
organisation was already aware of, and that were already being addressed.
b)
Disabled staff had lower levels of satisfaction but in the same general areas, for
example workload issues and people management.
c)
Workload issues were not related to vacancy levels but more the natural peaks and
troughs of the business. Contract staff were brought in during the busiest times,
although this in itself caused different kinds of pressure on staff.
d)
An important issue was how to address the concerns of the 46 per cent of staff who felt
that senior management would not make changes as a result of the survey. It was
likely that workload issues underpinned this high figure to a certain degree. Improved
internal communications would help demonstrate where we were addressing concerns
and making improvements.
e)
It was acknowledged that making small changes could go a long way to addressing the
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 5 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
frustrations around workload management issues.
f)
The results around performance management had been something of a surprise, but
this was now starting to be addressed within teams and now had a higher profile.
g)
Individuals’ performance management would be addressed in part by strengthening
the mechanisms for upward feedback, and applying a greater emphasis on people
skills in individuals’ performance targets.
h)
The NAO and firms could be contacted as part of a useful network that could be
exploited.

30.
The Board noted and commented on the report.

Annual Review of the Commission’s Corporate Governance Framework
CP 52-07

31.
Following the internal annual review of the Commission’s Corporate Governance
Framework, the Commission Solicitor presented the updated version to the Board and
highlighted the most significant changes. Of particular note were the amendments to the
Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference, as recommended following the external review of
the Audit Committee’s effectiveness (see item CP 57-07). The Terms of Reference now
included a remit for the Committee to review tax and litigation matters involving uncertainty,
amongst other areas. The Commission Solicitor clarified that the Audit Committee would
have sight of any area where there were uncertainties around liability, and that the
Management Team had already been considering implications of Corporation Tax in light of
the new power of assistance.

32.
The Board approved the proposed amendments to the Framework, as explained in
the report and highlighted through track changes in the Appendix.

Medium
Term
Financial
Forecast
CP
53-07

33.
The MD, Corporate Services introduced the three-year financial forecast that presented a
three-range forecast of possible outcomes based on varying increases in volume of work.
The report also highlighted the potential implications of charges. The Board commented
that:
a)
This approach of a medium-term forecast was helpful and welcomed, but obviously the
more accurate we could be about the potential size of increase, the better.
b)
The Commission needed to have a clear idea of what the implications would be of the
forthcoming changes to auditing standards following the International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board clarity project, and the adoption of International Financial
Reporting Standards. Staff confirmed that a formal bid had been made for the
necessary preparations, which took into account one day training for all auditors.
c)
Early communication with AIBs was vital. They needed to be aware of what was
coming and why, and of the financial implications.

34.
The Board:
a)
noted the principle of charging client bodies for all work undertaken;
b)
agreed to an autumn communication for AIBs explaining the required changes
and the reasons for them, and setting out indicative three year fees for the next
three years; and
c)
noted the proposal to explore more fully the potential for targeted internal
efficiency savings.

Board Away day – 13 & 14 September 2007

Verbal

35.
The Chairman updated the Board with further details on the forthcoming Board Away day
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 6 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
and meeting. In advance of the lunch on Day One, Sir Tom Legg and Brian Pomeroy would
meet the new Commissioners as part of their induction to brief them on the Effectiveness
Review and other matters as necessary. Following lunch there would be a detailed session
on CAA, including issues around sustainability and the Use of Resources assessment.
Other items included a review and update on strategic targets. It was hoped that a Minister
would be available to speak to the Board on Day Two. The Chairman invited
Commissioners to let him know of any other issues that might usefully be covered.

Performance
Report CP
54-07

36.
The MD, Corporate Services introduced the first quarter performance report of 2007/08.
This was the first Performance Report in the form of a balanced scorecard. Other
developments in performance monitoring and reporting included a greater challenge of
some of the assessments, a move toward a more coherent linking of targets, and
investigation across lines of business.

37.
The Board welcomed this cross-cutting analysis and the overall approach. This was a step
in the right direction but there was still some way to go. In light of the Employee Attitude
report elsewhere on the agenda, staff would investigate the claim in the report that
there were ‘longer than anticipated’ staff vacancies. However, this may not have been
a reference to the field force.

[Secretary’s Note: The statement that staff vacancies were remaining unfilled for longer than
anticipated has been investigated and found not to be the case. There is no delay in
recruitment and workloads are being managed by use of contractors. A full explanation will be
included in the next Performance Report.]

38.
The Board noted the Performance Report.

Audit
Quality
Monitoring
Programme
CP
55-07

39.
The MD, Audit presented the report that summarised the results of the Commission’s in-
house audit practice’s annual quality monitoring programme (QMP). The report related to
audits carried out in 2005/06: the first year of the new audit methodology developed to
reflect the requirements of the new suite of International Standards of Auditing (UK and
Ireland). The results would be published in the audit practice’s first Transparency Report,
which would be presented to the Board at its November 2007 meeting.

40.
The QMP indicated that the quality of the audit work met professional standards and all
opinions were considered safe. However, significant weaknesses were identified in the
quality of work undertaken at a number of audits, in particular in relation to the
documentation and evidencing of audit findings; the approach to audit sampling; and the
use of analytical review techniques.

41.
[Section 36(2)(b)(ii)]. The forthcoming AIU inspection in 2008 would provide valuable
assistance with an independent benchmark of our quality relative to the major firms, and
help us identify where further changes needed to be made.

42.
As previously reported, a major change programme, Promoting Audit Quality was in place
to address the issues highlighted in the review. Improvement was as much about a cultural
change as the technical aspects of auditing, such as ensuring staff put more reliance on the
control environment. These steps would have HR implications, for example there could be
a decrease in reports of job satisfaction as the documentation and evidencing requirements
would increase workloads. Staff would share the associated action plan with
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 7 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
Commissioners, where requested.

43.
The Board welcomed the report and its honesty.

44.
The Board noted:
a)
the results of this year’s quality monitoring programme; and
b)
the actions being taken in response, to improve audit quality and help deliver
our objective of delivering consistently world-class public audits.

Audit
Issues
CP
56-07

45.
The MD, Audit presented his report which sought Board agreement on various functional
issues. The MD highlighted a number of these items and updated the Board on other
matters, as follows: [Section 33].
.

46.
[Section 33]. Whilst their audit opinions were strong, there were perhaps training and
communication issues to address around specific aspects of our regime. The next Audit
Issues report would reflect more widely on these issues.

47.
The Board:
a)
approved the appointment of Steve Warren to deal with any questions or
objections that may arise in connection with a waste PFI scheme at
Cambridgeshire County Council;
b)
approved the appointment of Peter Lawrence as auditor to the newly-formed
Devon and Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority;
c)
approved the changes in appointed auditors, as set out in Appendix 1;
d)
extended the current scales of fees for limited assurance audits carried out at
small bodies under Schedule 1 of the Code of Audit Practice to 2011/12;
e)
rejected the request to direct an extraordinary audit at [Section 33];
f)
approved the revised Statement of Responsibilities;
g)
approved the transfer of our audit contracts from RSM Robson Rhodes to Grant
Thornton UK LLP following the merger of the two firms; and
h)
noted the other regulatory issues set out in section 4 of the report.

Review
of
Audit
Committee
Effectiveness
CP
57-07

48.
The Audit Committee Chairman presented the final report on the Effectiveness of the Audit
Committee, following the spring 2007 review by Ernst & Young. The review had looked at
the Audit Committee in ten areas and graded each as green, amber or red to indicate the
relative strengths or scope for improvement in those areas. Eight areas had been graded
green, and two as amber. The main opportunities for improvement were around
establishing more of an anti-fraud culture and having a more robust internal audit function.
Management had drawn up a corresponding action plan to address the issues raised in the
review which included amending the Committee’s Terms of Reference (see item CP 52-07).

49.
The Board noted:
a)
the key findings of Ernst & Young’s Review of the Audit Committee’s
Effectiveness; and
b)
the corresponding action plan.

Minutes of 5 June 2007 and 26 June 2007 Audit Committee meetings
CP 58/59-07

Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 8 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
50.
The Board noted the minutes of the 5 June and 26 June 2007 Audit Committee meetings
without comment.

51.
The Board received the minutes of the Audit Committee held on 5 June 2007 and 26
June 2007 for information.

Minutes of 23 March 2007 NHS Financial Management Advisory Group
CP 60-07

52.
The Board noted the minutes of the 23 March 2007 NHS Financial Management Advisory
Group meeting without comment.

53.
The Board received the minutes of the23 March 2007 NHS Financial Management
Advisory Group for information.

National Study – Charging for Local Public Services

CP 61-07

54.
The MD, Policy, Research and Studies and the Director of Studies gave a short
presentation to the Board on the emerging findings, key messages and draft
recommendations for the national study, Charging for Local Public Services. Key findings
included that councils could make more of the opportunities that charging provided, and that
there were assumptions about the public’s attitude toward charging for services, but these
were not necessarily accurate. The Board was asked to consider how to present the key
messages publicly, and in particular, to what extent the focus should be on the financial
opportunities that charging afforded.

55.
The Board considered the issues raised in the presentation and commented, as follows:
a)
There needed to be some straightforward and proper research of public opinion.
b)
Language was important: for example the public’s attitude would differ greatly toward
the idea of being ‘taxed’, ‘charged’, or ‘subsidising’ a public service. It was all about
how the charges were marketed. This might be useful when considering the current
issue of household waste collection.
c)
There were references in general to ‘users’, but there were other groups to consider.
d)
Local government needed a structure of charges to be able to judge better if they were
fully exploiting their powers.
e)
Benchmarking would be useful to show where the powers were being used to the best
effect.
f)
In the health sector, equity meant user-charges were not felt to be acceptable. A
concrete example of where user-charges would be of benefit would be really useful, for
example around leisure services.
g)
There had to be an understanding of the true cost of services and therefore the extent
of the subsidy.
h)
The ‘triangle’ diagram of how to assess a charging strategy provided a good beginning
for presentation. A case study for the various scenarios would be useful. Also, the
fact that service charges raised £9.5 billion for English local authorities in 2003/04 was
a fairly significant point. It was remarkable that such a large amount had been raised
without any real strategic vision.
i)
The paper picked up the wider point of the Commission’s 1999 study The Price is
Right? We should consider why the original message in this report did not get across,
and ensure that in ten years time we wouldn’t be in the same situation again with this
study. There would be a more scientific and practical focus and therefore a firmer
foundation.
j)
Could there be a Use of Resources judgement on whether there was a coherent
strategy in place?
k)
Could the study make a link to tax recovery in the planning system?
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 9 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions

56.
The Board:
a)
commented on, and indicated its preferences for handling the key messages
and recommendations; and
b)
delegated authority to the Chief Executive to approve the full report for
publication.

National Study – Competition and Contestability

CP 62-07

57.
The MD, Policy, Research and Studies and the Director of Studies gave a short
presentation to the Board on the emerging findings, key messages and draft
recommendations for the national study on competition and contestability in public services.
The key findings included that market mechanisms were an important tool in improving
service quality and delivering increased value for money, but there were limits to the gains
that could be secured, and competition and contestability worked best when certain
conditions were in place.

58.
A team from Cardiff University had generated the majority of the research for this study.
Although further research in this area was an option, the Commission planned to publish the
report simultaneously with Cardiff University’s research findings in October 2007, in order to
prepare accompanying guidance on the effective use of competition and contestability. This
would align the Commission with CLG’s forthcoming statutory guidance and associated
National Improvement Strategy in 2008.

59.
The Board considered the issues set out in the presentation and commented, as follows:
a)
Was there any cross over with the Back Office to Front Line work around lack of skills
and procurement in small areas?
b)
The findings had shown that there was a need for an informed client – this needed
time and influences on understanding and culture, as well as tools.
c)
There was a need for information that was specifically suitable for monitoring
contracts.
d)
A more general point that we should consider asking of all our studies was to what
extent did the study impact on our strategic objectives?
e)
There appeared to be a theme of sorts to a lot of our studies around creating the right
kind of market and associated skill set development. The theme of commissioning
might well be revisited several times over the next year.
f) Perhaps
we could give some thought on developing a workshop for
commissioners and feedback for suppliers.
g)
If the Cardiff research was published separately, the worst scenario would be that
there was a difference in emphasis, rather than fundamentally different conclusions.

60.
The Board:
a)
commented on the emerging key messages; and
b)
delegated authority to the Chief Executive to approve final outputs.

National Study – Strategic Service Partnerships

CP 63-07

61.
The MD, Policy, Research and Studies and the Director of Studies gave a short
presentation to the Board on the emerging findings, key messages and draft
recommendations for the national study on strategic service-delivery partnerships (SSPs).
The study had found that whilst SSPs between councils and private contractors could
deliver real benefits, they were complex arrangements that could be hard to govern and
manage well. Despite some high profile failures, there was a sense of general optimism,
and the Board was asked to consider in light of this, how sceptical we should be in
Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 10 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08

FINAL with FOI exemptions
presenting the findings.

62.
The Board considered the issues set out in the presentation and commented, as follows:
[Section 36(2)(b)(ii)]
.

63.
There needed to be some thought on the order that the studies were released. On a more
general point, the depth and length of the discussions on the studies at this meeting had
been helpful, and this was the kind of presentational approach that we should try and take
for all studies and reports. However, it was worth bearing in mind that in future there would
be more Board members.

64.
The Board:
a)
commented on the content and handling of the draft key messages;
b)
delegated authority to the Chief Executive to approve the full report for
publication; and
c)
noted the risks and their mitigation as set out in section 6 of the report.

Chairman’s Speaking Engagements / Information Bulletin
CP 64/65-07

65.
The Board noted the Chairman’s speaking engagements and the Information Bulletin
without comment.

66.
The Board received the Chairman’s speaking engagements for information.

Any Other Business

Verbal

67.
The Chief Executive announced that interviews for the Director, Northern Region had taken
place the previous day and he was hopeful that an announcement on the appointment
would be made in the next few days.

[Secretary’s note: Mark Fletcher was named as the new Director, Northern Region on Tuesday
31 July]

Date & Venue of Next Meeting:

68.
The next Board meeting and Away day would be held on 13 & 14 September 2007, at 42
The Calls, Leeds.

Siobhan O’Donoghue
August 2007

Board minutes – 26 July 2007
Page 11 of 11
Version FINAL with FOI exemptions
Siobhan O’Donoghue

Issued: 28.08.08