![](https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/SiteSpecific/mbc_files/mobbutton.jpg)
Agenda item
MKIP Update and Next Steps Report
Interview with Jane Clarke, MKIP Programme Manager
Minutes:
The MKIP Programme
Manager, Jane Clarke gave Members a brief précis of how she
had come to be seconded to the role following the previous
incumbent moving on.
The MKIP Programme Manager drew Members’ attention to the
outcomes of two reports from Trowers
& Hamlins and Mazars LLP which considered the implications and
the business case for two distinct models of operation:
- a separate legal entity
- a single host operational model
These reports formed
the basis of a report considered by the MKIP Management Board in
December 2013. It was explained that whilst there were no clear
advantages that would differentiate between the two models, setting
up a separate legal entity would require significant further
investment, which was not considered practical at the
time. The report also recommended that
broader governance issues needed to be resolved regardless of the
operational model chosen to provide shared services.
The Committee were informed that the MKIP Management Board had
agreed not to proceed further with either of the two options but
instead would explore an alternative operational model in the
medium term. The option that was settled on in December 2013 was to
enhance the status quo of operations. This would retain existing
arrangements and keep MKIP within the three Authorities as a shared
partnership but shared services would be reviewed to see if more
efficiencies could be gleaned from
them.
It was explained that, in March 2013, the MKIP Management Board had
approved to trial a ‘single lead provider director’ who
would line manage a range of current and future Mid Kent Services,
acting as a single point of contact for shared service issues, and
be accountable for provision to ensure they meet the objectives and
levels of service individually agreed at each Authority. It was
noted that Paul Taylor from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council would
be seconded to this role on a year’s trial with effect from 5
May 2014.
Alongside the trial of the new Director, there were a host of
practical issues, considered to be ‘model neutral
issues’ that needed to be addressed. These included shared service plans, performance
indicators and ensuring communication was effective across the
three Authorities.
It was noted that a clear distinction had been identified between
Mid Kent Services, which were the operational services Paul Taylor
would be responsible for delivering, and the Mid Kent Improvement
Programme, which is a more strategic outward looking arrangement
that would seek to improve efficiencies across the three
Authorities in terms of partnership working.
The MKIP Programme Manager’s report highlighted what work had
been done over the past year and a flavour of what would be
undertaken over the coming year.
The MKIP Programme Manager advised the Committee that she had been
to a Scrutiny meeting at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council the night
before to give an update. It was noted that those Members had been
very positive about the shared services arrangements and could see
the benefits. They were concerned,
however, about the governance arrangements for the process and how
Members could feed into this.
It was noted that there was support from Members of the Committee,
and from Tunbridge Wells, for a Joint Scrutiny Meeting.
During the ensuing discussion, reference was made to the
following:
·
the need for Members to be involved earlier, before a
specific business case is put
together;
·
A Collabration Agreement for ICT had
been completed, and this would be used as a template agreement for
all other services, and which set out the terms of exit were should
an authority choose to withdraw from a shared service at any future
point;
·
Money was made available by each Authority during the set up period
for a shared service, and was accounted for by each authority,
although the way in which this was done could vary from partner to
partner;
·
When the Partnership initiative was originally set up it was
intended to be as flexible as possible and so the Council could bid
for other services from other authorities. There were many examples of partnership working at
MBC that were not within MKIP, although this was the main
partnership vehicle that had been used so far;
·
The importance of trust when working in partnership;
·
Disappointment was expressed that the new Director had not been
able to attend the meeting. It was
agreed that the Committee would like him to be invited to the next
meeting and a written statement detailing the aims and objectives
for the next year and his role and responsibilities be sent ahead
of the meeting;
·
The Committee felt that the Audit Partnership had been working well
but concerns were raised about the Licensing Partnership . It was hoped that lessons would be
learnt from both projects;
·
Members felt it was important that service delivery should not be
compromised in any way. It was
envisaged that some authorities would have different KPIs,
therefore Service Level Agreements should be drawn up to ensure it
would not be compromised in any way;
·
Concern was expressed that Member power and involvement had reduced
as a result of some of the shared services;
RESOLVED: That:
(a) Paul Taylor, Mid
Kent Services Director, be invited to attend the
next meeting of this Committee on 6th May to give a
presentation
on
his aims and objectives and his role and
responsibilities. A
written briefing should also be submitted for Members. Should Mr.
Taylor not be able to attend, then the Chief Executive of
Maidstone
Borough Council and/or David Edwards, Director of Environment
and Shared Services, be asked to come
along to the meeting in his
stead; and
(b) the possibility
of setting up a Joint Meeting of the three Authority’s
Scrutiny Committees be investigated with the aim of looking
at
governance arrangements and being kept up to date on key
issues
such as communication and engagement and performance
monitoring.
Supporting documents:
-
140415 - Question Sheet - for Item 7, item 7.
PDF 34 KB View as HTML (7./1) 4 KB
-
140415 - MKIP Update - Overview Scrutiny Maidstone Final, item 7.
PDF 99 KB View as HTML (7./2) 65 KB
-
140415 - Appendix A - Model Diagram, item 7.
PDF 208 KB
-
140415 - Appendix B - Indicative Timetable for Work Completion, item 7.
PDF 57 KB View as HTML (7./4) 22 KB