To consult on the proposals contained within the Review of Third Sector Support and Development Services and its overall objective to achieve consensus on the future provision of services, resources and delivery.

The Committee received a report on the proposals contained within the Review of the Third Sector Support and Development Services and its overall objective to achieve consensus on the future provision of services, resources and delivery.

The Director of Resources reported that joint review between Herefordshire Public Services (HPS) and the Third Sector was being undertaken to consider future provision of support services to front line voluntary and community organisations.  It had examined the needs of front line organisations and taken account of both the views of key stakeholders the financial constraints placed on HPS.  A number of options for the future structure for the delivery and commissioning of support services had been developed and were under consideration.

There was a tight timetable on the future delivery arrangements, which would need to be agreed and substantially in place by April 2011.

As a result of consideration of feedback and the work undertaken as part of the preliminary phases of the project a list of options had been developed.  Five options had been agreed for evaluation and the Third Sector Support Services Review Group had decided that between Option 2 and Option 5, the latter was the most preferable.  A report would be submitted to the Joint Management Team, and then to the Cabinet meeting in January.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were made:

• That whilst it was clear that there was commitment to the process by those involved, it was important that the specific skills offered by individual organisations should not be lost.

• A Member expressed concern that insufficient consideration had been taken of how the existing system had evolved.

• That if all the organisations were merged, there was a danger that a great number of volunteers would be lost.

A Member said that he found the report obscure, lacking in clarity, and felt that the report as a whole was inadequate.  There was a multiplicity of organisational structures, but it wasn’t clear as to what these pertained to.  It appeared that the approach that had been adopted was a passive reaction to a series of inputs, rather than active investigation.  There was a lack of information on the amount of public money that had been spent, and to what purpose.  He went on to say that, on the available evidence, Option 5 seemed to be too bureaucratic and over-complicated. The reliance on ‘spokes’ suggested weakening of control over both expenditure and effectiveness of delivery.  He found that Option 2 was the most attractive of the five possible options. 

In reply, the Director of Resources said that he believed that the report had captured the complexity of the situation, as the Review Group had been dealing with separate autonomous bodies with separate governance issues.  The Council was trying to take individual organisations with it, as there was no way they could be made to undertake these changes, apart from using the leverage of financing.  There had been two active research exercises that had provided the initial evidence base for the Review, and Grant Thornton had conducted further research.

In reply to a further question, the Director said that there was dialogue between the spokes and the localities, although it was clear that not all localities were the same.

RESOLVED

THAT:

a)            The Committee considered the Review of Third Sector Support and Development Services and in particular commented on the conclusions, which would be used to inform recommendations to the Joint Management Team and Cabinet, and;

b)           It was proposed that the Director of Resources should be invited to review the report in the light of the Committee’s considerations, and provide a more substantive report to the Committee in order to allow it to form an opinion.