Benchmarking_Intro

8/7/2019 Benchmarking_Intro

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/benchmarkingintro 1/21

A Report of the

Policy Review and Performance

Scrutiny Committee

BUDGET BENCHMARKING

JANUARY 2006

County Council of The City and County of Cardiff



1

CONTENTS

FOREWORD 2

TERMS OF REFERENCE 3

BACKGROUND 4

KEY FINDINGS 5

RECOMMENDATIONS 6

WHAT IS BENCHMARKING 7

USING FINANCIAL COMPARATOR BENCHMARKS 8

THE DRIVERS 9

BUDGET BENCHMARKING RESEARCH 10

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS 16

INQUIRY METHODOLOGY 18

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 19

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 19

POLICY REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 20



2

FOREWORD

Ensuring that Council’s delivers value for money for the people of Cardiff is essential.

Budget Benchmarking is a tool that can assist in this process and involves comparing

financial benchmarks for the Council with the same information in similar Councils.

As the Task & Finish group started to collect comparative data and receive evidence from

witnesses, it became clear that there is a wealth of financial information available which is

often under utilised because technical and analytical skills rarely combine. It also became

apparent that Cardiff’s demographics are very different from other Authorities within Wales

which, in some cases, makes the selection of comparator authorities difficult. Diverging

performance and financial regimes between England and Wales also compound these

problems.

Whilst these difficulties were apparent, the Task and Finish undertook some scrutiny of

financial benchmarks at resource allocation level and at a service level and made some

interesting findings.

It will be noted from our conclusions and recommendations that the Committee considers

that, if fully and professionally implemented, benchmarking can be used to lock the Councilinto a cycle of continuous improvement and to develop a culture where it is easier to

question the norm and to make changes.

I wish to express appreciation to officers and expert witnesses who presented evidence to

the Task & Finish group meetings. Their contribution, experiences, and ideas helped us to

formulate recommendations, which are commended to the Executive, and which I believe

if fully implemented could strengthen the culture of continuous improvement within the

Council.

Finally I would like to thank my colleagues on the Task & Finish group for their involvement

and hard work.

Councillor David WalkerChairperson, Policy Review & Performance Scrutiny Committee



3

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. The Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee agreed the following terms

of reference for the Task & Finish Group at their committee meeting of 17 July, 2005:

‘To undertake financial comparisons and utilise Benchmark information for

specific Council Services and examine the utility of this information for

scrutiny purposes’

2. To aid this inquiry a research project was commissioned. The Scrutiny Research and

Information Team was commissioned to “indicate how currently held / available local

authority data (financial returns) can be utilised to provide comparative material for

Committee members to assess budget allocation for selected services or functions”.



4

BACKGROUND

3. Within the public sector there are many parties interested in the financial performance

of an organization. The public want to be satisfied that they are getting value for

money out of a Council service. Managers want to be able to compare the

performance of their own service to that of others, in order to isolate areas in which

the service could improve, and auditors want to assess the reliability of an

organisation’s financial statements. A tool used by these parties is financial

benchmarking. Benchmarking involves comparing various aspects of a Council’s

operations to those of another, in order to discover areas in which the Council could

improve.

4. At its meeting on the 12th May 2005 the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny

Committee discussed the approach taken to scrutinising the Executive Budget

Proposals for 2005/06, with a view to identifying an appropriate role for scrutiny in

future budget rounds. The Committee discussed options for better engagement in the

budget with Councillor Mark Stephens, Executive Member – Finance & Economic

Development, Phil Higgins, Corporate Director (Resources), and Christine Salter,

Chief Financial Services Officer. From these discussions the Committee identified a

number of approaches that they would wish to adopt in future budget scrutiny.

5. One such option was Budget Benchmarking which would involve comparing the

budget allocated to various functions in Cardiff with that allocated to the same

functions in other similar authorities. This needed to take account of the relative

priority attached to those functions within the authorities and their relative

performance. It also needed to ensure that “like for like” comparisons were being

undertaken. The Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry to undertake financial

comparisons and utilise benchmark information for specific Council Services and

examine the utility of this information for service and budget planning purposes. This

report highlights the key findings, recommendations and arising from the inquiry.



5

KEY FINDINGS

The key findings from this inquiry are:

6. Benchmarking at operational level using established benchmarking groups, such as

those run by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE), is useful for

informing service improvement. Such benchmarking typically involves both

performance and financial comparisons (e.g. unit costs).

7. Benchmarking purely budget information appears to be technically possible, but there

are limitations and caveats in collecting, using, and drawing conclusions from the

data, which greatly limits its use for overall budget planning purposes.

8. There appears to be a level of operational/service area benchmarking activityongoing within the authority but the availability of benchmark data is limited to some

service areas involved and there is no reporting of the pertinent issues to Members.

9. It appears to be unclear how service areas are applying benchmarking information in

shaping their individual services and using benchmarking as a tool for continuous

improvement.

10. The financial comparator benchmarking research for the selected service functions

found that a high spending service did not necessarily have good performance (as

defined by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (C.P.A.)), and indicated that

most of Cardiff’s example service areas were at the ‘average’ spend-per-head

attained by the comparator group (the selected authorities).

11. The diverging performance assessment regimes in Wales and England have resulted

in more robust arrangements in England via C.P.A. Under the C.P.A. framework,

Value for Money assessments place a greater demand on Local Authorities tocompare their service expenditure with others than does that of the Wales

Programme for Improvement.

12. Cardiff, as the largest city in Wales, has no directly comparable authorities in Wales.

Cardiff has a much larger population, a greater population density and a higher level

of urbanisation making comparison with English authorities more relevant. While

models exist to enable the Council to identify English Comparator authorities, data

available for benchmarking is not generally directly comparable.



6

13. The APSE benchmarks indicated that the central charges (eg. HR, Finance, Property

Overheads) may vary considerably between authorities, issues relating to this would

be unlikely to surface unless a corporate review of Business Management

Information was carried out within the Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

14. The Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee recommend that the

Executive:

R1. Integrates benchmarking information into the current Performance Management

arrangements in order to strengthen the culture of continuous improvement.

R2. Commissions APSE to assist in the development of an improved corporate approach

to the use and application of benchmarking across the Council so that opportunities

for continuous improvement are maximised.

R3. Establishes arrangements to ensure that benchmarking data is more widely available

across the Council, and that this information is easily accessible for Members for

example the information be sent to the Members’ Library.

R4. Reviews the appropriateness of benchmarking with other Welsh Authorities, given the

unique nature of Cardiff, and considers establishing links with similar English

Authorities to increase the robustness and validity of comparable budget and

performance information.

R5. Fully supports and encourages a full review of the Wales Programme for

Improvement process to ensure wider benchmarking and comparative assessments,

particularly the use of the C.P.A Value for Money Assessment.



7

WHAT IS BENCHMARKING ?

15. A benchmark is ‘A surveyor’s mark indicating a point in a line of levels; a standard or

point of reference.’.The Task and Finish Group heard from a number of witnesses

that benchmarking is a powerful performance management tool, which can be used

to generate both incremental change and wide-ranging strategic reform for the

organisation. It is a learning process in which information, knowledge and experience

about leading practices are shared through partnerships between organisations. It

allows an organization to compare itself with others and, in the process, step back

from itself and reflect. In addition comparative measurement through benchmarking

helps to identify problems and opportunities, and also tests ideas and “gut feelings”

about performance and spend. Benchmarking is an ongoing process for finding

improved ways of doing things.

16. There is an important distinction between benchmarking as a process and specific

benchmarks. Benchmarks are data comparisons, such as financial spend (outturn)

and performance output figures. The Task and Finish Group intended to utilise

financial benchmarks to compare a selection of Cardiff County Council functions with

similar English Authorities.

17. The Task and Finish Group were informed that benchmarks could be categorized into

the following three types of benchmarks, which where either qualitative or

quantitative.



8

Benchmarking in Practice

Bristol City Council used financial comparison benchmarking to identifythe low performance and high cost of their Local Tax and Benefits Service.

This has lead to increased change in ethos, and a general shift upwards inperformance, efficiency and improvement.

USING FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS

17. The Task and Finish Group heard from a number of witnesses about the benefits of

financial benchmarking. When used effectively it can identify paucity of information,

assist in realistic target setting, review service delivery methods and procedures. The

possible shortcomings of undertaking financial comparisons can be outweighed by

the need to point services in the right direction. It was noted that it can also be used

to steer funding to under resourced areas.

18. Contextual information about a service is essential when scrutinising financial

comparator benchmarks as it can assist in creating pictures of efficiency which can

be used to generate questions about a service relating to income, cost reduction and

service quality. Financial benchmark comparisons can also be used as a guide to ask

specific questions about a service. For example,

• the relationship between cost, quality and level of service,

• the relationship between income generation and cost reduction, and

• issues relating to maximising income generation.

19. Financial comparator benchmarking can be utilised at three levels:

a) Strategic Resource allocation.b) Service and Financial Planning.

c) Service Reviews.

20. In order to determine the utility of budget benchmarking the Task and Finish Group

considered that it was necessary to undertake two exercises. The first exercise was

to analyse some financial comparisons of Council functions at the strategic resource

allocation level. The second exercise utilised the financial benchmarks for two

selected service areas using APSE data.



9

THE DRIVERS

21. The level of Council activity relating to financial benchmarking across the UK varies

considerably. The Task and Finish Group received information, from a number of

witnesses, about the drivers and historical nature for financial comparatorbenchmarking within Cardiff, Wales, and England.

22. There are several drivers for financial comparator benchmarking. Within Wales the

key driver is the Wales Programme for Improvement (WPI). This is underpinned by

the Local Government Act, 1999 which places a duty on Local Government in Wales

to continue to improve, therefore there is a need to compare with others, in order to

learn best practice and check that services are not excessively expensive when

compared with other areas.

23. In England within the C.P.A. process the Value for Money Assessment is a key driver.

Within the Audit Commission’s C.P.A. key lines of enquiry for Value for Money,

English Councils’ are expected to evidence that costs compare well with others

allowing for external factors. Based on the evidence available, auditors judge how

effective Councils are at achieving good value for money under a set criteria which

are split into 4 levels (level 4 being the best). At level 3 Councils are expected to

evidence that overall costs and unit costs for key services are low compared to other

councils providing similar levels and standards of services and allowing for local

context. At level 4 Councils are expected to evidence that they regularly benchmark

their costs and quality of services currently and then on a regular basis and that this

information is actively used to review and assess value for money in service provision

and corporately.

24. Figure 1 outlines some of the differences between WPI and CPA.

Figure 1. The Differences between WPI and CPA

WPI CPA

Due to flexibility, direct comparisonsbetween authorities often not possible

Direct comparisons readily availablefor all assessment areas

Assessment results not usually published Assessment results published by regulator

No incentive scheme prescribed Well-defined freedom and flexibility incentives forimprovement in performance

No intervention measures prescribed If a council is identified as failing, early interventionmeasures can be applied

Applicable to Local Government Authorities and to be expanded to cover

Fire and Rescue AuthoritiesAssessments support the development of proportionate audit and inspection programmes

Source: Wales Audit Office



10

25. Welsh Councils make limited use of financial comparison benchmarking. The

diverging performance assessment regimes in Wales and England have resulted in

more robust arrangements (via C.P.A.). W.P.I.’s flexibility has resulted in differing

ways of reporting thus comparisons are difficult at a service level.

26. Other difficulties faced by Welsh Councils included gaining agreement regarding

definitions of costs, differing treatment of costs and the fact that expenditure

represents a local political decision. Evidence from the Welsh Local Government

Association (WLGA) indicated that there is also a reluctance to include unit costs in

performance measures at a Welsh level. The Wales Audit Office view was that whilst

there is a wealth of financial data available, technical knowledge and analytical skills

rarely combine.

27. The pattern of low usage of financial benchmarking at a Welsh level is reflected

within Cardiff County Council. From a historical perspective (pre reorganization) the

level of financial comparisons undertaken via the South Glamorgan Family Groups

benchmarking arrangements was high. Post reorganisation saw a period decline in

the number of financial benchmarking groups undertaken within the Council.

RESEARCH

28. The Task and Finish Group commissioned research to provide comparative material

for four selected functions using Revenue Outturn data held by the ODPM and the

Welsh Assembly. This analysis was undertaken on a functional rather than structural

basis. The guidance and definitions for the service functions were found to vary

between England and Wales and the accountancy practices with regard to Trading

Account Services Returns were also different between the two countries. As a result,

the service functions below were selected on the basis of similarity:

Children’s and Families’ Services

Library Services

Development Control

Economic Development

29. The Task and Finish Group were informed that Cardiff is very different from the other

authorities in Wales; it has a much larger population, a greater population density and

a higher level of urbanisation. This makes the selection of comparator authorities



11

difficult. When benchmarking, it is important that comparisons are made with an

appropriate group.

30. The selection of comparison authorities is not and never will be an exact science.

The various models and groupings that exist only serve as signposts for potentially

comparable authorities, these include:

• Local Government Data Unit Wales (LGDUW) Comparator Model

• Family Origins, Crime and Disorder Model

• CIPFA Nearest Neighbour Model

• The ‘Big 11’

• The ‘Big 21’

•

The Office For National Statistics (ONS) Classification of Local andHealth Authorities of Great Britain

• Major Cities (Housing) Grouping

• Major Cities 12 (Environmental Services)

• Education Schools Advisory Services Benchmarking Grouping

• APSE Performance Networks

31. The Task and Finish group were provided with an example of the LGDUW

Comparator Model. This model is a web based model, developed by the Data Unit in

2002. The model allows the user to select any number of twenty three criteria

available. Based on data similarities, English and Welsh authorities are identified in

rank order in terms of comparability with the selected Council. The 23 criteria are

outlined below:

• Total population

• Population of children (less than 16)

• Population of adults (16 and over)

• Population of working age

• Population of retired age

• Proportion of children in the population

• Proportion of adults in the population

• Proportion of working age in the population

• Proportion of retired age in the population

• Population density



12

• Population density of children

• Population density of adults

• Population density of working age

• Population density of retired age

• Proportion of births in the population

• Proportion of deaths in the population

• Proportion of the total population claiming attendance/disability allowance

• Proportion of the working age population claiming unemployment benefits

• Number of people over working age with jobs

• Proportion of the adult population with jobs

• Proportion of the working age population claiming income support

• Proportion of the working age population claiming job seekers allowance

• Child poverty

32. The Task and Finish Group were informed about the ONS model which utilises aclustering technique where Cardiff is defined as a regional centre.

33. The research team used the LGDUW and the ONS Comparator Model to select

similar authorities to Cardiff. Using the two models and the two nearest comparators

in Wales the following Authorities were selected as a part of the research exercise:

Bristol, Derby City, Southampton, Bolton, Wigan, Sheffield, Sunderland,

Coventry, Walsall, Leeds, Wakefield, Newport and Swansea.

34. The following data sets were utilised and cross referenced with the English

Authorities’ CPA scores.

• Spend per head of population

• Absolute expenditure

• Spend as a proportion of total annual budget

• Wales average spend

• English average spend

• Trend for each applicable indicator over two years (02-03 & 03-04) for each

authority

35. Figure 4 demonstrates that for some services, high levels of spend per head do not

result in high performance ratings. For example Bolton M.B.C. has the highest



13

performance ratings within the group but has low spending per head of the

population. Conversely the highest spender within the group, Walsall, has one of the

lowest CPA and Social Services Inspectorate ratings. It was noted that the poorer

performing services may be attempting to front load resources to address their

performance issues.

36. Most of Cardiff’s example service areas were at the ‘average’ spend-per-head

attained by the comparator group (the selected authorities). The Children’s Services

financial benchmarks highlighted this (see figure 5). Library Services in Cardiff were

also placed at the average level for the comparator group (see figure 6).

Social Care- Children(Children’sServices) *(CPA)

SSIRatingFor SocialServices(Stars)

ServingChildrenWell

Capacity toImproveChildren’sServices?

SpendingLevels 2003-04(1 = HighestSpender PerHead)

Bolton MBC 4 3 Yes Excellent 9

Bristol CC 2 1 Some Promising 3

Coventry CC 2 2 Some Promising 2

Derby CC 2 2 Some Promising 6

Leeds 3 2 Most Uncertain 4Sheffield 3 2 Most Promising 8

Southampton 3 2 Most Promising 5

Sunderland 3 3 Most Excellent 7

Wakefield 3 2 Most Promising 12

Walsall 2 1 Some Promising 1

Wigan 3 2 Most Promising 11

Figure 4. Children Service Financial Comparator Benchmarks



14

Figure 5:

37. Anomalies existed with the Development Control (figure 7) and Economic

Development financial comparisons which adversely affected question generation.

The Welsh Assembly and ODPM Economic Development financial comparisons

were found to cover cost centres from 7 service areas which compounded thedifficulties of exploring the issues within individual services. It was also highlighted

that there were distinctive funding streams within regeneration funding (e.g. Objective

Childrens Services Net Expenditure (02-03 & 03-04) - Spend-per-Head by Selected

Welsh and English Authorities

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

C a r d i f f

N e w p

o r t

S w a n

s e a

B o l t o n

B r i s t

o l

C o v e n t r

y

D e r b y

L e e d s

S h e f f i e l d

S o u t h

a m p t o

n

S u n d

e r l a n

d

W a k

e f i e l d

W a l s

a l l

W i g a

n

Selected Authorities (comparator group)

S p e n d - p e r - H e a d

- £ ' s

Spend-per-Head (02-03)


Average Spend-per-Head (02-03), All

selected authorities

Average spend-per-Head, All selected

authorities

Figure 6: Library Services Expenditure (02-03 & 03-04) - Spend-per-Head by Selected

Welsh & English Authorities

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

C a r d i f f N e

w p o r t S w

a n s e a B o l t o n

B r i s t o l C o

v e n t r y D e r b y L e e d s S h

e f f i e l d

S o u t h

a m p t o n

S u n d

e r l a n d

W a k

e f i e l d W a l s a l l W

i g a n


S p e n d - p e r - H e a d

- £ ' s



Average Spend-per-Head(02-03), All selectedauthorities

Average Spend-per-Head(03-04), All selectedauthorities



15

One Funding, New Deal for Communities) which also made financial comparisons

and drawing conclusions problematic.

Figure 7:

38. The methodology for selecting Authorities from which to compare was deemed to be

appropriate and due to Cardiff’s regional status as a Capital City the need to compare

with regional centres was also justified.

39. The financial benchmarks enabled Members to assess the spending levels for the

specific service functions for the selected authorities. However the information did not

generate any conclusions. Undertaking spend comparisons appears to be technically

possible, but there are limitations and caveats in collecting and using the data which

are detailed below:

• Due to devolution there are differences between the definitions of the services

that make comparisons between England and Wales difficult.

• Due to differences in the way Trading Account Services Returns are handled

in Wales and England several service areas cannot be compared accurately.

• There are differing funding structures in England which may skew the results

especially relating to grants.

• The services within the financial returns do not always equate to the service

structure within Cardiff County Council.

• Local Authorities have different needs and priorities and therefore spending

requirements, and different levels of funding from Government.

Development Control ('Core-Planning') Net Expenditure - Spend-per-Head by

selected Welsh and English Authorities

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

C a r d i f f

N e w p

o r t

S w a n s e a

B o l t o n

B r i s t o l

C o v e n t r y

D e r b y

L e e d s

S h e f f i e l d

S o u t h

a m p t o n

S u n d

e r l a n d

W a k e f i e l d

W a l s a l l

W i g a n


S p e n d - p e r - H e a d - £ ' s









16

• Local Authorities have different mixes of fixed and variable costs thus differing

points at which they are most efficient (within Library Services other Authorities

(eg. Newport) have half the level of buildings which affect the out turn figures).

• Local Authorities operating in areas of higher poverty or rural conditions might

be dealing with factors that increase their outturn

• Data gathering difficulties in gaining speedy information from the ODPM.

• Differences in reporting the Financial Reporting Standard 17 (FRS 17)

• Financial comparisons alone do not take account of a range of complicated

factors in relation to differences in delivery of services, current infrastructure in

both regions and social need factors.

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

39. The purpose of the second exercise was to scrutinise the APSE operational financial

benchmarks for two specific services. The APSE benchmarking process is organised

via the APSE Performance Network, which provides performance comparisons on a

"like-for-like" basis for local Authorities across the UK.

40. The APSE Performance Network selects comparable authorities (Family Groups) on

the basis of an evaluation of the local characteristics or context in which the service is

provided. A series of relevant, valid factors with appropriate importance weightings

that bring together comparable benchmarking partners are utilised and agreed by a

group of practitioners. Figure 8 provides details of the drivers used in making the

assessment.

Figure 8. APSE Key Drivers for Refuse Collection Source: APSE



17

41. The Members considered a basket of performance measures including unit costs and

other budgetary information for Parks and Waste Management.

42. The APSE data and the explanations of the officers indicated that the level of

expenditure and performance is driven by policy decisions/ priorities. For example,Parks data indicated that Cardiff was in the lower quartile for National Playing Fields

Association ( NPFA) Standard Playgrounds per 1000 children which historically may

not have been a priority for the Council. In respect of waste it was noted that policy

decisions were key to increasing performance and generating efficiencies.

43. Care is required when considering performance and financial comparator

benchmarks as several factors can influence the level of expenditure at service level.

For example large investments in one year would increase the financial position of a

service disproportionately. It was found that Parks had high central charges (16%)

which are not always within the control of operational managers.

44. The financial comparator information enabled discussions about the relationship

between service expenditure and performance plus factors which increased service

area costs, e.g. overtime or the nature of the parks to be maintained. The recycling

performance and cost information were discussed with the lower cost in Cardiff beingassociated with lower recycling activity.

45. It was noted that analysing the statistical information in isolation was not useful but it

can be used to drill down for more contextual information about a service.

46. The scrutiny of the APSE benchmarks alongside explanations from officers enabled

Members to create pictures of efficiency which generated questions about a service

relating to income generation, cost reduction and service quality. The benchmarkinginformation also assisted in the generation of questions relating to the budgetary

pressures faced by the service area.

47. Some performance indicators did not necessarily reflect reality on the ground. For

example the performance indicator “Households Covered by Kerbside Recycling

Collections” indicated that Cardiff’s figures were within the upper quartile. However,

due to the definition of the performance indicator the indicator measured the potential

level of households covered by recycling kerbside collections not the actual take up,



18

which was significantly lower due to the costs incurred and choices made by

residents.

48. The Task and Finish Group considered the availability of benchmark data in general

is limited to the service areas involved and there is no reporting of the pertinent

issues to Members.

INQUIRY METHODOLOGY

46. The Scrutiny Committee applies a project management approach to its inquiries;

including mechanisms to consistently prioritise topics suggested for scrutiny (PICK

process), scoping reports and project plans. The aim of these is to ensure there is

dialogue with the Service areas involved in the scrutiny process with the ultimate aim

of improving overall service delivery and enabling effective scrutiny.

47. The process was undertaken with the assistance and advice from the Financial

Services.

48. Members of the Task & Finish Group received a briefing report providing definitions

relating to benchmarking, the methodological approaches to benchmarking and the

factors to consider when analysing benchmark information.

49. Members received evidence from internal and external witnesses:

• Internal Witnesses: Phil Higgins, (Corporate Director, Resources), Mara

Michael (Chief Childrens Services Officer), Paul Orders (Head of Policy &

Economic Development) Elspeth Morris (Libraries and Information

Development Manager) , Trevor Gough (Chief Leisure, Libraries and Parks

Officer) Malcom Evans (Chief Regulatory Services Officer), Phillip. Sherratt

(Chief Officer Waste Management), and Mike Clark, (Operational Manager

Parks and Bereavement Services).

• External Organisations: Will Mclaen (Performance and Improvement Adviser

WLGA), Phillip Ramsdale (Executive Director of IPF), David Rees (Head of

Knowledge and Information, Wales Audit Office), Matthew Hockridge ( Senior

Researcher, Wales Audit Office), Mr Carew Reynell (Director of Central

Support Services, Bristol City Council) and Debbie Johns (Principal Adviser,

APSE).



19

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

50. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend

but not to make policy decisions. As the recommendations in this report are to

consider and review matters there are no direct legal implications. However, legal

implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or

without any modifications. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to

Executive/Council will set out any legal implications arising from those

recommendations. All decisions taken by or on behalf the Council must (a) be within

the legal powers of the Council; (b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed

by law; (c) be within the powers of the body or person exercising powers of behalf of

the Council; (d) be undertaken in accordance with the procedural requirements

imposed by the Council e.g. Scrutiny Procedure Rules; (e) be fully and properly

informed; (f) be properly motivated; (g) be taken having regard to the Council's

fiduciary duty to its taxpayers; and (h) be reasonable and proper in all the

circumstances.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

51. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, financial

implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or

without any modifications.



POLICY REVIEW & PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP

Councillor David Walker, Chairperson

Councillor Roger Burley Councillor Russell Goodway

Councillor Joseph CarterCouncillor Timothy Davies

Councillor John Norman

Councillor Paul Chaundy Councillor Simon Wakefield Councillor John Sheppard

Scrutiny Services, Cardiff County Council3/4 The Courtyard, County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff CF10 4UW

Tel: 029 2087 2296 Fax: 029 2087 2579 Email: [email protected] © 2005 Cardiff County Council

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	karthik-ks
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Benchmarking_Intro

Documents