MPS shared services programme - update July 2010

Report: 09
Date: 15 July 2010
By: Director of Resources on behalf of the Commissioner

Linked to exempt item 24

Summary

This report provides members with information to approve the response to the GLA 2011-12 budget guidance and its submission to the Mayor on 30 July 2010.

A. Recommendations

That members approve the update (at exempt Appendix 1) on Shared Services to be submitted to the Mayor by 30 July 2010 as requested in the GLA 2011-12 budget guidance.

B. Supporting information

1. At the joint meeting of the Authority's SOP and F&R committees on 1st July, the Budgeting guidance issued by the Mayor was discussed. One aspect of that guidance is that the MPS is required to produce a short report on the activities it is undertaking in relation to shared services. The short, self-explanatory paper (exempt Appendix 1) sets out the MPS' approach, highlighting progress so far and those areas in which we see further opportunities.

2. Shared services is one of the four productivity themes that support the MPS Service Improvement Plan, i.e.:

• Supplies and Services - to reduce the cost of supplies and services
• Loan Management - to eliminate waster, deliver improved service and value and satisfy customer requirements
• Shard Services - to realise the benefits of exploiting potential synergies that may exist internally and externally
• Compliance - to reduce the cost of non-compliance

Work on the MPS Shared Services programme is continuing and discussions have taken place with the GLA, TfL and with the NPIA. Governance arrangements have been re-enforced with key projects now underway in the IT and Procurement workstreams and with initial discussions taking place regarding several Logistical Services projects.

3. Following the publication of the Police Collaboration guidance by the Home Office we are in discussion with neighbouring forces - initially Hertfordshire and Essex - to explore shared services opportunities.

4. Work has also continued on a number of internal MPS shared services projects particularly within the Service Improvement Programme.

5. The GLA has set out a requirement, as part of the Budget Guidance for 2011/12 for the GLA Group to prepare a schedule which shows the progress and potential for delivering efficiencies across the GLA Group from co-operating with others, outsourcing, partnerships and shared services. By the deadline of 30 July each body in the GLA Group is asked to answer the following question for each of its services:

Have you, or are you planning to, co-operate, outsource, partner or share with others in your service provision?

6. If the answer is yes, the service is asked to describe the nature of the cooperation, outsourcing, partnering or shared service and the level of efficiency delivered and / or to be delivered.

7. If the answer is no, the service is asked to explain why none of these approaches to delivering efficiencies is considered appropriate.

8. Each body in the GLA Group must use its own working definition of ‘services’ which is appropriate to the nature of its organisation. However, it is expected that the term will be applied so that common generic services across the Group, such as IT, HR, Finance, FM, Property, Press and Marketing can be reviewed collectively. It is important that potential opportunities across the Group are not lost by services being defined at both too high or too low a level. Further discussion will be held across the GLA Group on this definition and further guidance will be issued as necessary.

9. Additionally, where a service considers itself to be a centre of excellence and feels that it has both the capacity and willingness to potentially run services on behalf of other parts of the GLA Group this should also be set out.

10. In order to meet the GLA deadline of 30 July approval is needed by the Finance and Resources Committee before submission to the GLA.

11. We are using a light touch programme management approach as part of the Service Improvement Programme and will report future progress to MPS Boards and MPA Committees in line with agreed approval processes.

C. Other organisational & community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. Individual projects and programmes within the Shared Services Portfolio will undertake an Equality Impact Assessments where necessary.

Consideration of MET Forward

2. The work and activities being undertaken within the Shared Services Portfolio forms part of the MPS Service Improvement Programme and supports the MPS strategic outcome of providing the right service at the right price as reflected in the Policing London Business Plan 2010-13. It also supports ‘Met Support - improving the infrastructure that supports crime fighting’ and ‘Met Standards - identifying and rewarding performance and efficiency’.

Financial Implications

3. This paper provides an update only regarding areas in which cooperation is, or may be, appropriate. Individual projects will each be the subject of formal briefing papers which will include complete Financial Implications when known.

Legal Implications

4. The requirement to improve the quality of service provision and to obtain greater efficiencies is at the heart of any shared service initiative.

5. There is a strong economic case for shared services agreements; however, there are a number of areas where agreement needs to be reached between the parties. This includes (not exhaustive) the strategic basis to be backed by all lead members and chief officers of the public body; agreement on devolved decision making; ensuring there is commonality in the key aims of the public bodies involved; agreement in relation to workforce employed and all contractual matters including robust exit arrangements.

6. The GLA Act has been amended to facilitate delegation of functions by one functional body (“FB”) to another. Joint legal advice has been obtained by the GLA family heads of law in relation to the issues that arise in exercising the new powers, and some precedent documentation prepared.

7. In general there is an important distinction to be drawn between administrative arrangements under which a function is transferred from one FB to another, and contractual arrangements under which one FB agrees to undertake a function on behalf of the other for payment and subject to prescribed terms. The former should not be subject to EU procurement law requirements; the latter will be. Therefore, care needs to be taken in reaching an understanding of what is agreed, and in the preparation of documentation to record this. In the unlikely event that a contractual approach were taken, the usual procurement routes would have to be followed.

8. The nature of delegation of an administrative function is such that it is unlikely to be appropriate to include indemnities within the arrangement. It follows that if loss were to arise by reason of negligent provision of services, the loss would be likely to lie where it fell.

9. Where functions are transferred there may well be TUPE implications: the staff performing the functions may well find their employment has transferred to the other organisation by operation of law. Whilst their terms and conditions (including salary) would transfer as well, there may be significant pension implications.

10. Sharing of functions with other Police organisations raises different issues. Functions may be delegated between Police Authorities under the Local Government Act. For other bodies e.g. NPIA, ACPO (under negotiation) an MoU may be the best approach. In such cases there needs to be clarity as to liabilities being accepted or excluded.

11. Where the function to be delegated provides access to confidential information of third parties (e.g. victims, persons accused or convicted) Data Protection Act principles must be observed to ensure that the information is not inadvertently shared with the other organisation.

12. It is strongly recommended that legal advice be obtained as proposals are further developed to ensure the MPA/MPS fully complies with all legal requirements.

Environmental Implications

13. Significant activity around procurement and particularly sustainable procurement is being undertaken. Potential implications will be identified as part of the direct contributions the MPS makes to procurement aspects of GLA/Mayoral environmental strategies.

Risk Implications

14. Individual projects and programmes within the Shared Services Portfolio will use appropriate risks and issues management techniques; dependencies at portfolio level will be managed through DoR Strategy and Improvement Department.

D. Background papers

• None.

E. Contact details

Report author(s): Alan Hughes, Director of Business Performance

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback