Contact: Karen Murray Ext: 7876

Contact: Karen Murray/Ros Anderson Ext: 7876/7589

1 Summary

1.1 This report presents the outcomes and improvement plan resulting from the review of Regulatory Services. At the meeting of 16 January 2003, the PRC received a report outlining the options for improvement. This report asks members to agree an improvement plan based on:

· Implementing the service improvements that can be achieved within existing resources as identified in option two;

· Refocusing the resources within the wider organisation of Regulatory Services so that they meet the greatest priorities for improvement identified in option three;

· Developing effective partnerships to explore further improvements as identified in option four.

2 Introduction

2.1 The vision for the review had as its main features:

· Hampshire's residents as confident and well informed consumers

· A Trading Standards Service which focuses its efforts on supporting businesses and targeting rogue traders

· Accessible services that are responsive and work in partnership with others to improve the quality of life

· Access to the best Public Analyst and scientific services to meet County Council requirements.

2.2 The issues to be addressed were:

· To develop a strategy for delivering services which best protect the public and effectively support the needs of businesses within Hampshire.

· To develop a customer/stakeholder consultation strategy which ensures that services meet, and are kept aligned with, local community needs and expectations including hard to reach groups.

· To recommend the most cost effective and efficient arrangements for the delivery of services.

· To develop a performance framework for service delivery, with clear and appropriate performance measured targets that promote continuous improvement and innovation. In particular, this should meet the requirements of the new National Performance Framework for Trading Standards.

3 Review process

3.1 The review has been undertaken by a joint team of County Council officers and elected members (Councillors Bryant, Devereux and Luffman), and has involved representatives of Central Government Departments, Hampshire businesses, members of the public, other customers and partner organisations. It has included 1 internal and 1 external challenge event, in-depth interviews by an external agency, use of the County Council's Citizens Panel, customer service reviews, 2 postal questionnaires to customers, and 5 staff focus groups. Other information and evidence has been gathered as part of comparison exercises with other local authorities and private sector organisations.

3.2 The direct costs associated with this review have totalled £6,500. The review has so far taken an estimated 70 officer days to complete.

4 Review findings

4.1 The Best Value review concluded that the Trading Standards and Scientific services are good services when compared against other best practice authorities. They were found to be held in high regard for their knowledge and expertise at a national level (from the challenge event), and valued for the quality of service delivery at the local level by the public, businesses, users and other stakeholders (from the consultation exercises). However, opportunities for improvement were identified to better target issues that are of concern to the public and generally to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery.

4.2 The main findings of the review centred around opportunities to make better use of existing resources. For example, a change in enforcement approach towards `Fair Trading' work by targeting effort on projects derived from intelligence-led information was seen to be the way forward. `Intelligence-led' information would include identifying the top concerns from the 20,000+ enquiries and complaints made by the public and businesses annually, as well as feedback from specific consultation exercises such as use of the County's Citizens Panel and other surveys of businesses and the public. Outcomes from this targeted work, and other service achievements, need to be publicised more widely to increase awareness by both businesses and the public about the work of Trading Standards and the Scientific Service.

4.3 The need to find more resources to make greater impact on protecting the vulnerable was also identified. The concern of the public about `cowboy traders' who often target the elderly in their homes and concerns voiced by both businesses and members about the problems and consequences of under-age sales would fit in this category. The review team proposed that resources could be released from the Trading Standards food sampling budget and refocused on work to protect the vulnerable.

4.4 Hampshire's food sampling budget was found to be the highest within the comparison group of authorities. The review team were concerned that, while there is desire to reduce the budget, Hampshire's good reputation for the quality of its food sampling programme should not be diminished. To this end the Scientific Service has been tasked with finding ways to maintain the current level of food sample analysis for Hampshire within this reduced budget.

4.5 The review team saw the development of more partnerships with external agencies and other service suppliers as the way to optimise current resources. Good examples already exist with Trading Standards' participation in the South East Trading Standards Authorities (SETSA) arrangements and the Scientific Service's strategic alliance with Kent County Council. Both areas of service now need to look for new partners to explore the potential for information and knowledge exchange, new sources of funding and other joint-working opportunities.

4.6 The review's wide-ranging consultation resulted in stakeholders expressing a preference for keeping current services in-house (including the Trading Standards discretionary services and the Scientific Service Laboratory). A number of service and management improvements were identified for these and the other statutory enforcement services. Increasingly Government requirements demand implementation of specialised performance frameworks and measures. On-going improvements in managing service performance, continued benchmarking against other authorities and a number of improvements identified from the EFQM and Equalities assessments were considered necessary by the review team.

5 Outcomes

5.1 In response to these findings the review has identified a number of outcomes which would generate continuous improvements and increase the effectiveness of services. These are based on the need for:

· refocusing resources to better target priority issues, and

· developing more robust service delivery, monitoring and feedback methods appropriate to responsive and progressive services.

5.2 These outcomes are as follows:

1. Improved targeting of resources on the `fair trading' concerns of businesses and the public by introducing an intelligence led approach to enforcement.

2. Further research and development of work to protect the vulnerable in society.

3. Reduced Trading Standards food sampling budget to release resources to address outcome 2.

4. Greater understanding of the changing concerns and expectations of the public and businesses through improved dialogue and feedback.

5. Increased awareness by the public and businesses about services provided and achievements.

6. Increased awareness of partnership opportunities and more joint working with external agencies.

7. Improved performance management and continued comparison against best practice authorities and organisations.

8. Improved efficiency and effectiveness of current service delivery methods by addressing a range of management issues arising from the review findings including the EFQM and Equalities assessments.

6 Improvement plan

6.1 The proposed Improvement Plan is given at Appendix 1. It comprises the actions the review team consider necessary to achieve the 8 outcomes listed above. It is anticipated that all of the actions can be implemented within existing resources. The plan indicates the timescales to implement the improvements and also identifies the performance indicators that will help, over time, to identify the degree of impact each action has achieved.

7 Outsourcing

7.1 The options on which the improvement plan have been based are to improve services in-house within existing resources. Outsourcing opportunities for the enforcement work carried out by the Trading Standards service are not generally available. Instead there are close partnership arrangements with other relevant enforcement bodies including the South East Trading Standards Authorities (SETSA) arrangements.

7.2 Outcome 6 recommends increased awareness of partnership opportunities and more joint working with external agencies. In addition to enforcement work, this is particularly relevant to Trading Standards community and educational projects and the Scientific Service.

7.3 In regard to the Scientific Service which already has a strong strategic alliance with Kent Scientific Services, opportunities to focus the science portfolio by outsourcing water analysis and certain microbiological tests will be further explored.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Current services were found to perform well in comparison with other best practice authorities. Services have been challenged to reconsider how priorities are determined - these will in future take into account and reflect the views of Hampshire's wider community (not just those who complain), businesses and other interested parties.

8.2 The way resources are allocated have been examined and refocused. Service delivery methods have been re-assessed and the findings from all the different review activities used to develop an Improvement Plan that will deliver more responsive and effective services.

8.3 The Improvement Plan includes actions that may not have been identified or pursued without the Best Value Review. This has highlighted to managers the need for on-going and more systematic measurement and review of services. It is therefore considered to have been a very worthwhile review and the Regulatory Services Management Team are committed to integrating the Improvement Plan into their overall management of continuous improvement.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

Records of the Regulatory Services Best Value review team meetings and working papers of the Best Value Review, held by the Review Team Leader.

EMP&R0403J