Agenda item

The Joint Committee is asked to note the performance of the service for the financial year from April 2018 to March 2019, and quarter one of the current financial year from April 2019 to June 2019. The information provided covers performance against the seven high level indicators agreed by this Joint Committee and in relation to the service budget.

Declarations of interest:  There were none.

Witnesses: 

Amanda Poole, Assistant Head of Trading Standards

Steven Ruddy, Head of Trading Standards

Key points from the discussion:

1.   Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary.  Members noted the following points:

·         The report related to the performance for 2018/19 plus the performance for Q1 of 2019/20.

·         All the key performance indicators (KPIs) with numerical targets were met in 2018/19.

·         The other key performance indicators showed how well the service was performing against priority areas.

·         A wide volatility range was evident in KPI 2 – Protect residents by stopping rogue traders operating in Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

2.    In regards to KPI 2, Members asked if the trend was seasonally driven.  Officers stated that it was not seasonally driven; some offences happened all year round whereas for some there was a slight seasonal variation e.g. the spring time showed a rise, however this did not correlate to the outcomes after investigation and the court process as there is wide variation in how long this takes. Members stated it would be useful to have a chart showing when an issue took place and when it was brought to trial to see if there was pattern of offending.  The officer explained that an increasing number of cases tended to have multiple elements such as fraud and money laundering.

3.    The number of volunteer hours had increased in 2018/19 and was high in Q1 of 2019/20.  The officers had been in discussion with the Fire Service in Surrey with the aim of encouraging further volunteer engagement.   Surrey County Council posted volunteering roles as a job opportunity and found that volunteers who were engaged tended to return, particularly if they had a specialist interest.  Buckinghamshire County Council tended to recruit volunteers through local events e.g. illicit tobacco roadshows and anti-scam talks.  It was noted that members of the street associations were only counted in the volunteering hours if they had been involved in certain tasks e.g. providing a scam awareness talk.  The officer explained that they were keen to increase the number of volunteer hours devoted to priority areas rather than increase the number of volunteers; the preference was for quality rather than quantity.

4.    The KPIs would be reviewed post-Brexit and would tie in with the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers (ACTSO) Impacts and Outcomes Framework.

5.    Trading Standards Inputs and Outcomes Data Return - ACTSO was encouraging a voluntary approach across the country to focus on three objectives which fitted with local authority priorities.   Local authorities were being asked to collect data and a national data summary would be published, possibly in November 2019, depending on the Brexit situation.  The officers requested feedback on what was thought to be useful or not useful in the report.  A Member commented that objective 2 – Supporting the Local Economy, should be more specific, e.g. the non-commercial local economy, as a huge part of the economy did not pay any taxes.  The report mentioned that “…. services are collectively supporting consumers and honest business nationally” but thought it should be more explicit and should state the period covered.  Officers agreed a consolidated briefing note would be provided after every meeting. 

6.    In response to a query from a Member, officers confirmed the data was not yet available for item 1.9.4 in Objective 2; Supporting the Local Economy.

7.    The Chairman commented on the healthy number of Primary Authority Partnerships and asked about the cost of servicing the partnerships.  Officers explained that all costs and overheads were covered in the cost recovery mechanism and that the Service was ensuring to maximise what could be included in the charging regime.  Reputation was what the service sold business on and was the reason it was priced at the top end of local authorities who do this work.

8.    Budget – the Trading Standards budget summary on page 47 showed that the service was on track but there was a risk of an emerging pressure of £100K by the end of the financial year due to impacts of EU Exit on the service income and work.  This was the first time since the creation of the joint service that officers had felt the need to express a risk of an overspend; the officers stressed they would be taking steps to manage it.  There was the possibility of receiving some funding from Surrey County Council related to Brexit and officers would also be in discussion with Buckinghamshire County Council.  A member asked whether there would be a risk to the public if the required legislation (which had not been passed as anticipated due to parliamentary time being taken up with Brexit matters) remained in limbo; the officers confirmed that it would not constitute a risk to the public; it was primarily an income issue.  The legislation issue would apply across the country and would be an additional role to deliver.  As part of mitigating the risk of an overspend, staff had not been replaced when vacancies had arisen and the risk was expected to reduce over the next six months. 

Actions/ further information to be provided:

KPI 2 – Officers to consider providing a chart to show when the issues occurred and the length of time taken to be brought to trial. 

A consolidated briefing note to be provided after every meeting.

RESOLVED: 

The Trading Standards Joint Committee:

1. Noted the Service’s performance.
2. Noted the Service’s current financial position.