As we continue to emerge from lockdown measures and deal with local measures and the short and long term economic impact of Covid-19, local authorities will need to re-assess how services will be delivered for years to come.
Since 2010, about 50 new staff-led mutuals have been set up from local authorities in England. Nearly all have been granted uncontested initial contracts of up to 3 years from their council.
However, new rules from the EU mean that the way councils will need to go about setting up mutuals will have to change, in all likelihood, from June 2014.
So what do councils need to know? There are three important points to take on board. One is that the new rules mean that all services broadly of a social nature (there is a specific list) with a contract value under 750,000 euros (around £635,000) do not need to go through any procurement process at all.
So, very small staff-led ventures in many areas of council activity, e.g. a very specialist team that seeks to spin-out could easily be offered a contract without a need for further procurement effort on the part of councils, provided the case is made under their own contract standing orders (which themselves are designed to reflect the law at any given time).
This is very good news for niche services with councils who can be given unambiguous legal support to simply spin-out of the organization in a no-fuss way without any risk of legal challenge.
The other really important point for councils is that they will no longer be able to simply offer a new mutual an uncontested contract for services over the 750,000 euros threshold as now often happens for services of a social nature.
This is because the EU itself has to comply with international trade obligations. The ‘sweetener’ here is that there will be more flexibility about how those services are contested with, it is hoped, a range of less bureaucratic approaches available to council procurement officers than has been the case up till now.
A final point, and this is critical, the EU has created a special list of services, for which the council can, if it chooses, restrict the competition only to organisations which themselves have a clear social mission, commitment to employee involvement and a commitment to reinvestment of profits.
This list of services includes most social care, education, youth, library and heritage services.
So what are the implications of these changes for councils either actively setting up a larger mutual now or contemplating one?
The main thing to say is that any plans for uncontested contracts need to be changed if the mutual is to go live after pretty much after June this year. Instead, councils need to consider how they approach what will be a mandatory competition under new EU regulations.
When it comes to how this is done, there will, broadly, be five alternative options.
1. Standard Competition
Here, your nascent mutual to enter the competition on its own against established competition. While brave, this may well mean the track-record of competitors makes it difficult for a new mutual in this kind of scenario.
2. Joint Venture in Standard Competition
Here, ahead of the competition beginning, you will identify a partner for your nascent mutual and set it up as a joint venture so that the weaknesses of the mutual in terms of commercial track-record are balanced by the qualities of the partner. Care will need to be taken, of course, to ensure the competition is perceived as being fair, with clear ‘ethical walls’ between the commissioning element of the council and the part of it that is part of the competing joint-venture.
3. Competition for a Joint Venture Partner
A third option, and one already piloted, is also to set up a joint-venture – but by a different route. Here, your nascent mutual does not enter the competition itself but run runs a contest for a joint-venture partner for the mutual.
This satisfies EU procurement rules and has been used successfully in at least two English councils in the last three years. Care will have to be taken on how this is done but it can ensure that the benefits of mutual governance are maintained, whoever is chosen as the right partner.
4. Limited (social enterprise only) Competition
Here, you confine the competition to a contract for 3 years to social enterprises where the services qualify for such a competition. This will be useful for councils that wish to develop the market in certain services in a way that ensures local providers offer additional social value beyond the contract itself.
5. A Slow Mutual starting as a LATCO
A fifth option is for the council to create a wholly owned “Teckal” vehicle, with a board structure based on “mutual” principles.
This can use its first couple of years to find its feet as a business before entering the competitive fray as it seeks to grow. This again requires great care as there are clear legal limits on what LATCOs can do in terms of trading outside the public sector market.
To conclude, what these changes certainly herald is the end of ‘sweetheart’ contracts to large new, freestanding mutuals run entirely by former council staff.
However, the changes are also a big opportunity.
They allow councils if they wish limit certain competitions to socially progressive organisations with business expertise, capital and experience to work with alongside the council to create viable, ethical properly funded new public service companies.
This has to be attractive to cash-strapped councils currently caught between an unsustainable internal cost-base and a fear of what might happen in a fully-blown open market procurement involving global firms with no commitment to local social objectives.
Craig Dearden-Phillips is CEO of social enterprise Stepping Out and Mark Cook is partner at Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP.
This piece also appeared in The MJ on 21 February 2014. A copy of this article can be found on their website – click here to view.
The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
Following our recent e-briefing on Possession Notices, Helen Tucker and Emilie Pownall from our housing litigation team discuss the impact of the changes on social landlords.
Not only has the possession stay been extended until 20 September, the notice periods to be given to tenants has been extended in certain circumstances with some important exceptions.
The Court has confirmed that a party cannot withhold its consent in order to re-write the original bargain.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.