Back in October the council tendered for a consultant 'to assist with the delivery of an alternative trust management arrangement for its Leisure Services'. This was a 14 month contract at unknown cost.
I wrote about it at the time and mentioned some of the recognised risks which I have repeated below.
It now looks like arrangements are well underway with RPT Consulting Ltd, based in Hampshire winning the 14 month contract to oversee the whole process. 'Expressions of interest' have now been invited to manage the entire cultural and leisure department, which includes Leisure Centres, Theatres, Libraries, Country Parks and Museums prior to the formal procurement process. It looks like the whole lot will be offloaded.
It is not exactly clear whether, given that cash is already beginning to flow, there has been any consultation or even informal discussion with elected members.
Given the spec for RPT Consulting, I'm assuming that a Trust is still on the cards but this will clearly be managed by a private company once the process is complete.
The budget proposals have already presented this as a no-other-option step with the warning that any 'Alternative solution is likely to entail closure'.
It might be a roaring success, I have no idea, but given that the object of the exercise is to save money there a few risks which will need to be considered.
Here's what I said back in October;
The 'money saving' notion stems from the fact that this trust will have charitable status, a loophole exists exempting the trust from the usual business rates and VAT. The idea is that it also (hopefully) attracts grant funding which would not otherwise be available although this carries it's own uncertainties.
The council will retain the freehold but will lease the properties to the trust and give it helping financial hand in the first few years.
It all sounds ideal and the launch of these trusts, which also involves the wholesale transfer of staff, is often accompanied with a fanfare of 'social enterprise' and 'community ownership'.
In reality the trusts are usually made up of unelected business and community representatives and a handful of councillors and essentially mean that direct control is lost and influence over council services is left to an independent body, protected from scrutiny by 'commercial confidentiality'.
An arms-length trust can also be a useful tool for selling off assets without the irritating scrutiny of full council.
The commissioning of a trust itself can also be an expensive exercise and the trust can find costs increasing as it lacks the local authorities' ability to use economies of scale.
Educational links and improvement projects can also become sidelined as trustees are bound by law to act in the best interest of the Board rather than the priorities of the local authority...
There are, I'm sure, many examples of good practice and maybe this is preferable than a complete outsourcing exercise to a distant private company although ultimate control over a leisure trust could, and now looks like it will be, be managed through such an arrangement. Complete transparency will be essential.
It's always worth checking out the pros and cons, a good plain summary of the cons can be found here (EU Strategy Paper 2008). Further ups and downs of leisure trusts can be googled.
I wrote about it at the time and mentioned some of the recognised risks which I have repeated below.
It now looks like arrangements are well underway with RPT Consulting Ltd, based in Hampshire winning the 14 month contract to oversee the whole process. 'Expressions of interest' have now been invited to manage the entire cultural and leisure department, which includes Leisure Centres, Theatres, Libraries, Country Parks and Museums prior to the formal procurement process. It looks like the whole lot will be offloaded.
It is not exactly clear whether, given that cash is already beginning to flow, there has been any consultation or even informal discussion with elected members.
Given the spec for RPT Consulting, I'm assuming that a Trust is still on the cards but this will clearly be managed by a private company once the process is complete.
The budget proposals have already presented this as a no-other-option step with the warning that any 'Alternative solution is likely to entail closure'.
It might be a roaring success, I have no idea, but given that the object of the exercise is to save money there a few risks which will need to be considered.
Here's what I said back in October;
The 'money saving' notion stems from the fact that this trust will have charitable status, a loophole exists exempting the trust from the usual business rates and VAT. The idea is that it also (hopefully) attracts grant funding which would not otherwise be available although this carries it's own uncertainties.
The council will retain the freehold but will lease the properties to the trust and give it helping financial hand in the first few years.
It all sounds ideal and the launch of these trusts, which also involves the wholesale transfer of staff, is often accompanied with a fanfare of 'social enterprise' and 'community ownership'.
In reality the trusts are usually made up of unelected business and community representatives and a handful of councillors and essentially mean that direct control is lost and influence over council services is left to an independent body, protected from scrutiny by 'commercial confidentiality'.
An arms-length trust can also be a useful tool for selling off assets without the irritating scrutiny of full council.
The commissioning of a trust itself can also be an expensive exercise and the trust can find costs increasing as it lacks the local authorities' ability to use economies of scale.
Educational links and improvement projects can also become sidelined as trustees are bound by law to act in the best interest of the Board rather than the priorities of the local authority...
There are, I'm sure, many examples of good practice and maybe this is preferable than a complete outsourcing exercise to a distant private company although ultimate control over a leisure trust could, and now looks like it will be, be managed through such an arrangement. Complete transparency will be essential.
It's always worth checking out the pros and cons, a good plain summary of the cons can be found here (EU Strategy Paper 2008). Further ups and downs of leisure trusts can be googled.