Audit Scotland ‘Protecting Consumers’ SCOTSS Position Statement

Introduction Presentation attempts to give a consensus SCOTSS view on our preferred structure Start of the process – does not give all the answers or consider how to get there in any detail Survey and draft response by sub-group Focus is on 3 options identified by Audit Scotland Definition of the 3 options Service attributes required for success – which option delivers Assumption that status quo is not a good option 2

Aims and Objectives National coordination requires authorities to have the same (or similar) aims and objectives It is assumed that all Trading Standards services have similar aims and objectives; e.g.  Consumer confidence, knowledge and skills  Informed, successful, compliant business  Targeted action at deliberate non compliance that damages consumer and business interest  Focus on prevention 3

Attributes of Success Capacity to deliver services  Staff resources (AS report – “…eight or fewer staff had insufficient flexibility and range of expertise to meet all the accepted minimum standards”)  Generic and specialist knowledge and skills  Sufficient non-staff resources Resilient  Can cope with peaks in demand  Can cope with emerging threats Sustainable  Effective staff development regime  Effective recruitment 4

Attributes of Success Accessible and Responsive  Well known by public, business and other stakeholders  Effective access channels  Good intelligence capability o Access to market and complaints information / data o Building knowledge from data / information o Designing and implementing effective interventions o Assessing interventions 5

Attributes of Success Well Connected  Positive and effective partnership arrangements  Sufficient influence with policy makers and funders  Visibility and positive image with stakeholders Consistency  Compliance advice and practice  Consumer advice and assistance (universal access) Governance  Setting vision  Leadership  Planning and control  Accountability 6

Learning from Experience Considerable degree of joint working – formal and informal. Joint working can be vulnerable when budgets are cut Attempts to create shared services have been largely frustrated  Cost savings become the main driver  Unable to identify cost savings  Political obstacles COSLA back localism and have discounted centralisation No political drivers for national service Mixture of reserved and devolved functions – where would a national service sit – UK or Scottish Governments? Independence referendum introduces uncertainty 7

Describing the Options - Greater use of more formal joint working Types of joint working  Subcontracting function to another local authority; e.g. feed hygiene or animal health services  Joint provision of facilities / resources; e.g. weighbridge test truck  Joint pre-planned operational projects  Others; e.g. training / publicity  Can have 2 or more partners 8

Levels of joint working  Informal  Pre-planned (no legal commitments)  MoU with legal commitments – officers working within delegated authority  MoU with Council ratification – where member approval is required for policy, cost or risk etc. reasons 9

Formal Joint Working Could apply to any aspect of service provision Historically used to cover low volume activity that lack economies of scale or expensive non- staff resources Could lead to a ‘patchwork’ of arrangements depending on local needs and preferences 10

Shared Services – Two Models  Lead Authority o A lead authority provides Trading Standards service to one or more partners o Staff are employed by one of the partners o Service is accountable to either:- – Each partner Council – Joint committee 11

Shared Services – Two Models  Joint Board o Service is provided by joint team with single management o Employees remain with their employing Councils o Reports to statutory joint board (created by Statutory Instrument) Shared services remain within local authority control and may comprise any number of partner authorities 12

National Service – Two Models Non-departmental public body, accountable through Ministers to Parliament (Scottish or UK); e.g. HSE or SEPA Managed by local authority statutory Joint Board set up for purpose; perhaps within COSLA 13

Options Assessment Results of survey Attributes of success Many possible options Comparisons on big Vs. small 14

Survey Results 15

Survey Results 16

Survey Results 17

Survey Results 18

Survey Results 19

Survey Results 20

Capacity to Deliver Services Small Service Big Service Specialist / expensive equipment Cross border issues / geographic flexibility Staff flexibility / Specialism 21

Resilient / Sustainable Small Service Big Service Staff development Workforce planning Flexible staff deployment 22

Accessible Small Service Big Service Local focus Coordinated marketing Single (fewer) access channels Council connections Local presence 23

Well Connected Small Service Big Service Influence with policy makers / funders National partnerships Council connections Local partnerships 24

Consistent Small Service Big Service Consumer advice Enforcement practice Single (fewer) policies 25

Governance Small Service Big Service Planning / control LeadershipSetting visionAccountability 26

Conclusions The majority of SCOTSS consider shared and national services better options Larger services come out better when the attributes of success are considered There are a wide variety of possible structures with partnerships comprised from 2 to 32 partner authorities 27

Recommended Position Statement In response to Audit Scotland’s ‘Protecting Consumers’ report, SCOTSS endorses the need to explore a range of options for redesigning Trading Standards services. SCOTSS consider bigger delivery units facilitate effective, resilient and sustainable services with the capacity to deliver responsive, intelligence led outcomes focussed on prevention. SCOTSS recognises the democratic accountability and synergies provided by working within local government... 28

Recommended Position Statement SCOTSS preferred structure is for a reduced number of larger Trading Standards services working within a local government shared services governance structure. Previous unsuccessful attempts highlight the legal, political, organisational and cultural obstacles to sharing services. SCOTSS believe that shared services will only succeed if there is a collective commitment from Scottish Councils and COSLA to make it happen. 29

Next Steps SCOTSS are asked to mandate the chair to advocate the recommended position statement to the Trading Standards summit on 20 th June. 30