A to Z Index:

SAC Report No. 9

Governance and Accountability in Partnership and Joint Working

Summary

This report sets out the process, conclusions and recommendations of the ninth investigation undertaken by Aberdeenshire Council’s Scrutiny and Audit Committee. The investigation was into Governance and Accountability in Partnership and Joint Working.

The investigation began in September 2005. The Committee heard evidence from both internal and external witnesses interviewed during eight sessions. The Committee was assisted in the investigation by an independent external expert, Dr Andrew Coulson of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham.

The Committee considered all the evidence gathered and drew up its conclusions and recommendations at a meeting on 14 December 2005.

The number and range of partnerships involving Councils has grown dramatically in recent years. Partnership working is being vigorously promoted by both the Scottish Executive and the UK government.

Arguably ‘partnership’ has become an over used word which, because of its connotations of co operation and friendship, it is almost impossible, politically, to ever question. In principle, it would be difficult for anyone to disagree with the concept. In practice, however, there can be real difficulties involved in being in partnerships and the benefits do not always outweigh the costs.

There are many distinctions which can be drawn between different partnerships and types of partnership. Partnerships may begin as unstructured discussion groups and evolve into dealing with operational issues or applying for external funding. Partnerships can be classified in a variety of ways – from huge to insignificant; from talking shops to budget-holding service delivery units; from strategic to tactical to operational. Each sort of partnership has its own distinct governance and accountability issues. These vary on a sliding scale depending on the classifications mentioned.

Evidence presented to the Committee suggests that having a clear focus on limited goals is a good basis for a productive partnership. Vague or poorly defined desired outcomes will make it difficult to know how successful a partnership is.

The Committee does not find that partnership working is either ‘a good thing’ or ‘a bad thing’. It has costs and benefits. There are advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with it. The important point is to be aware of these and go into partnerships only when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Protections should be put in place to reduce risk. The Council should seek to arrange partnerships to minimise the problems inherent in them, particularly in the areas of accountability and governance. Recommendations are made on all these points.

It is clear that many partnerships in which Aberdeenshire Council is involved have proved highly beneficial to the Council in its efforts to ensure that first class public services are delivered to the people of Aberdeenshire. A wide range of benefits was attributed to partnership working by those who gave evidence to the Committee. Access to additional funding for Aberdeenshire is a direct and quantifiable benefit. Partnerships were seen by some as a way of allowing increased public participation in decision making, especially in the context of local groupings. Avoiding duplication was cited as a benefit several times. Closer co-operation between the providers of related services was seen as being of real benefit to service users. For issues requiring to be addressed at a regional scale, partnership working between neighbouring Councils allows this to happen. The Council is able to secure benefits for Aberdeenshire through partnerships that it could not secure working alone. More open and trusting relationships between public sector bodies is a benefit of partnership working that cannot be quantified, but the Committee is sure it is a genuine gain.

The Committee recognises that partnership working can be difficult. Working in a multitude of partnerships that cover different areas, involve different partners and address different issues, creates complexity, a lack of transparency, concerns and confusion about accountability and places significant demands on the time of staff and Members involved. We are particularly conscious that partnerships give rise to complexity and difficulty with regard to auditing and financial accounting.

Partnership working offers the opportunity for Councillors to scrutinise service delivery by more of the public sector than just the Council. Conversely, however, increased involvement in partnerships reduces the Council’s freedom to change policy or move its resources to new priorities, eroding the role of Councillors as strategic decision-makers. Ultimately, this reduces the public’s ability to effect change by voting in Council elections.

Aberdeenshire Council has not generally promoted the formation of the most autonomous kinds of partnerships such as companies limited by guarantee. Nevertheless, as partnership working develops in Aberdeenshire, careful attention will require to be given to the influence that partnerships have on Council policy and spending decisions. Decisions taken in partnership, whilst not generally binding on the Council, can be highly influential. This makes it important that governance and accountability issues are addressed properly before partnerships come to a decision. If partnership recommendations as to policy change are not carefully scrutinised and challenged by the Council or its Committees then there has in practice been a delegation of power.

If we are to become involved in formal partnerships with delegated powers these must have a clear legal basis for their powers and they will need to be established in a form which pays particular attention to accountability and governance.

Of all the benefits ascribed to partnership working by witnesses, the Committee considers that the case for partnership working as a means of securing improved public participation in decision making is the most questionable. The difficulty here hinges largely on what role the ‘members of the public’ really have on partnerships’ committees, and how these people are chosen – unless public representation is by those members of the public elected as local representatives by universal franchise at the Council elections every four years. Given that the Council comprises the legitimately elected representatives of the public is there any need for other ‘public’ representation?

Our recommendations include the adoption of a process to consider whether it is appropriate to enter into and thereafter to remain within a partnership and a proposal that the Council adopts ‘Standard Terms of Business’ which make clear to partners and the public how we wish business to be conducted in any partnership.

Whilst the Aberdeenshire investigation was progressing, the Audit Commission published its report on governing partnerships, dealing with English public bodies. The conclusions and recommendations of this fit closely with the outcome of the Scrutiny and Audit Committee’s investigation. Significantly the Audit Commission concluded that “there is little information to show whether the added value that partnerships produce outweighs their operating costs” and that “there is no consensus on the best way of governing partnerships”.

Full Report