Questions for group:

Group discussion

Shared Services with Breckland

There will be a number of questions/issues that we will need a political steer on over the next few weeks and months. Some of these are highlighted on the “issues for discussion” slide, some of which we won't know we need to ask until we get deeper into the process.

Below I have identified the key areas we need a steer on at this initial stage of negotiations.

Questions for group:

What does the Council want as a priority from a shared services arrangement with Breckland:

reduced costs?
improved service levels?
increased capacity?
others?

Which is the overriding priority?

2. Is the ambition to share the same objectives or to share services to meet separate objectives?

How far is SNC prepared to amend its “ethos” to achieve the desired outcome?

reduced services standards.
back to basic services.
outsourcing.
reduced control.
investing in `growing' the business, i.e. pitching for additional work.
others

Is consistency of service across the two authorities important? If there is a two-tier service, how can this be explained to the community?

Although expenditure could be shared, key income such as RSG would not. This would mean a higher cost for effectively the same service to council tax payers in South Norfolk. How would members wish to present this?

Is SNC insistent that employment remains in South Norfolk or could, for example, a shared customer call centre be operated from Dereham? (Co-location affords the highest level of efficiency).

Are there any services/support that SNC would want to retain outside of a shared arrangement (e.g. financial or governance advice etc)?

Are there any other parameters you wish to explore?

The answers to these questions will determine our negotiating position, but will also have an impact on the level of service standards and efficiency savings that can be achieved.

The response of the Conservative Group

the priority from any arrangement for the provision of certain services on a shared basis with Breckland DC is to maintain a sufficient level of pooled resources so as to jointly retain the critical mass to deliver those services efficiently and effectively.
the ambition is to share service provision so as to better meet the distinctive objectives of the two authorities.
it is implicit in 2 above that the distinctive cultures of the two authorities will continue though it is recognised that in the long-run measures of harmonisation will evolve.
again, it is implicit in 2 above that differential levels of Council Tax may apply while each Council uses the pooled resources to meet it own aspirations.
the level of Government grant is likely to change as are the criteria by which it is allocated. Members will evolve a strategy to address the issue raised by the question when those new arrangements are known.
the single location of back-office facilities may be one of the economies of scale that joint working will allow. It would be foolish for either authority to insist that all single locations were in one of the two Districts. They must be located where the best balance can be drawn between value for money and quality delivery of the given service.
yes. For example, we do not envisage contracting-out Development Control as Breckland have already done.
the best answer to this question is to summarise the Group view: Group agreed to go ahead with the joint-Cabinet meeting (an informal, private meeting) and with the joint-Group meeting (also a private meeting) on the basis of a commitment in principle to explore the possibilities of joint-working and other co-operative measures with Breckland on a non-exclusive basis. Group must be kept informed of all developments. Care must be taken to avoid any suggestion that these arrangements, if concluded, are a first step towards merger or amalgamation. The description must always be "joint-working and other co-operative measures".