Regulatory Services Best Value Review Process

1. The review process commenced in January 2002 when the review team was first established and the project plan developed. Two sub- groups were set up at this time to focus on the requirements for consultation and comparison. The officers and members who were involved with the review are given in the Best Value Portfolio (BVP), together with a copy of the project plan. Early use was made of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model to challenge the basic organizational and management approaches within Regulatory Services. The summary report is available in the BVP. The following sections summarise how the 4 C's were approached.

2. Consultation

A range of consultation mechanisms were used to elicit the required information from various stakeholder groups. The following table shows for each service area the relevant stakeholder group, the consultation purpose and the approaches that were adopted.

3. Comparison

In view of the range of work covered by both Trading Standards and the Scientific Service, the potential for comparison was extensive. It was recognized there was a need to keep this work focused and relevant to the strategic nature of the review. Three main comparison areas were agreed: cost and efficiency; approach to service delivery; and innovation. It was also important to benchmark against `best practice' organizations and other comparable local authorities as far as possible to ensure value from the exercise. The following table summarises the approach taken.

Comparison Area	Comparator Organisations	Approach taken
Cost and efficiency: · Quality/accreditation · Financial · Workload	Other County Councils	Comparison using statistics collected and published by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
Approach to service delivery	Other comparable organizations: · AA Legal Services · Southampton Trading Standards · Hampshire Police, Community Safety · Environment Agency · Gosport Environmental Health	Pre-arranged visits carried out to focus on specific areas of interest.
Innovation · Education (Business and Young People) · Vulnerable Groups · Business Support · Community planning · Partnership working	Other `Best Practice' Trading Standards Services: · Devon (Beacon Status) · Dorset · Surrey (OFT commendation) · Warwickshire (OFT award)	Pre-arranged visits were carried out to carry out general comparison between the services but primarily to focus on the innovative practices the authorities were renowned for.

4. Challenge

A challenge event was held in June 2002 in order to elicit the views from a wide range of independent and interested stakeholder groups. The review team were surprised and pleased by the immediate interest and take up of invitations to attend. Participants included representatives from:

· the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

· the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

· the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

· Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS)

· the National Farmers Union

· Laboratory of the Government Chemist

· Law Laboratories Limited

and representatives from Hampshire businesses, customers of the Scientific Service and a County Council Member.

In order to gain maximum value from the event, it was organized into three separate workshops ensuring an appropriate balance of the participants. While all three workshops considered each of the issues posed to them, each workshop led on a specific subject area. The following sets of issues were considered:

Trading Standards: Does the Trading Standards Service focus on the right priorities for its statutory services? How could it improve its performance? How can it have greater impact on creating confident consumers and informed, successful businesses?

Scientific Service: What are the advantages and disadvantages to Hampshire County Council of running its own laboratory? Should the laboratory be retained in-house? How could its performance be improved?

Discretionary Services: What should the Trading Standards Service's priorities be for its discretionary (non-statutory) services? Do they have the right balance between statutory and discretionary services?

5 Compete

The review team agreed there would be little value in reviewing Trading Standards statutory services as opportunities for competition are generally not available with service provision being only by local authorities. Instead, benchmarking Hampshire's performance against other authorities would be more appropriate.

The main focus for competition therefore would be on the discretionary aspects of Trading Standards work, and the Scientific Service reviewing potential of different providers and the scope for increased partnership working.

The following methodology was used to assess the competitiveness of Hampshire Scientific Service:

· Cost comparisons with other providers for those services provided in-house for Hampshire County Council.

· Benchmarking against other Public Analyst Laboratories.

· An analysis of performance in competitive tenders issued by other local authorities for provision of statutory Public Analyst Services.

· An examination of success in negotiating contracts with other authorities to provide scientific services, in direct competition with private sector laboratories.