Agenda item

(1)       Mr Gough set out the background to the Community Right to Challenge.  Mr Whittle and Ms Sanderson gave a PowerPoint presentation which included the proposed Right to Challenge Process, implications of the Right to Challenge, issues with the model, implications for KCC, KCC’s approach to prepare for the Right to Challenge and the Timetable and Risks.

(2)       Mr Gough and officers answered questions and noted comments from Members which included the following:-

• In relation to Member involvement, Ms Sanderson stated that Cabinet had been involved in the development of the programme.  Informal soundings on individual reviews and service options would be taken with elected Members and Locality Boards before  any decision to open up to procurement under the Right to Challenge. There would be an option appraisal which would be submitted to Cabinet and therefore could be called into Scrutiny. This would be followed by a formal consultation, compliant with the Duty to Consult, with public service users as part of the decision making process.
• Mr Whittle confirmed that there was a detailed programme plan which could be shared with Members on request. 
• Members were interested in hearing more about the early review pilots. It was confirmed that these were part of the advanced Make, Buy, Review process and the individual review teams would be undertaking informal soundings with Members as they evolve.
• Mr Whittle stated that it was expected that there would be some elements where expressions of interest for a part of the County would require a local view. If Locality Boards mature and take on more responsibility for the commissioning of services then this process could sit with them at the local level in the long term.
• A Member asked whether, if a service provider did not meet their service level agreement, KCC would have the capacity to intervene and take the service back.  Mr Whittle explained that part of the Right to Challenge was due diligence in relation to procurement.  The Local Authority would have to manage the risk through effective contract and risk management if the services went out to an external provider.
• Reference was made to the amount of work that it suggested Locality Boards consider, also there was not a one size fits all for these Boards and that some areas had yet to establish these Boards.  Mr Gough emphasised that it was not intended to prescribe what Locality Boards should do but only suggest what they may do. He pointed out that that Locality Boards and this process were in their early stages.
• A Member noted that the local authority could refuse an application for someone to run services.  It was confirmed that it would be the Local Ombudsman who would receive any “complaints” about issues in this area.  Concern was expressed about the Ombudsman’s lack of statutory powers.
• Reference was made to the need to be sensitive to Parish Council and Communities who were willing to take on responsibilities in their area. They should be encouraged to do so were possible.
• It was suggested that an update report should be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee early next year.

(3)       RESOLVED that the report and presentation on the implications of the forthcoming ‘Right to Challenge’ in the Localism Bill which was due to come into effect from April 2012, be noted.