This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
County Council of The City and County of Cardiff
FOREWORD TERMS OF REFERENCE BACKGROUND KEY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS WHAT IS BENCHMARKING USING FINANCIAL COMPARATOR BENCHMARKS THE DRIVERS BUDGET BENCHMARKING RESEARCH SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS INQUIRY METHODOLOGY LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS POLICY REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 18 19 19 20
the Task and Finish undertook some scrutiny of financial benchmarks at resource allocation level and at a service level and made some interesting findings. Councillor David Walker Chairperson. Policy Review & Performance Scrutiny Committee 2 . benchmarking can be used to lock the Council into a cycle of continuous improvement and to develop a culture where it is easier to question the norm and to make changes. it became clear that there is a wealth of financial information available which is often under utilised because technical and analytical skills rarely combine.FOREWORD Ensuring that Council’s delivers value for money for the people of Cardiff is essential. makes the selection of comparator authorities difficult. It will be noted from our conclusions and recommendations that the Committee considers that. It also became apparent that Cardiff’s demographics are very different from other Authorities within Wales which. I wish to express appreciation to officers and expert witnesses who presented evidence to the Task & Finish group meetings. As the Task & Finish group started to collect comparative data and receive evidence from witnesses. if fully and professionally implemented. Finally I would like to thank my colleagues on the Task & Finish group for their involvement and hard work. experiences. and ideas helped us to formulate recommendations. 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. Their contribution. which are commended to the Executive. Diverging performance and financial regimes between England and Wales also compound these problems. in some cases. and which I believe if fully implemented could strengthen the culture of continuous improvement within the Council. Whilst these difficulties were apparent.
To aid this inquiry a research project was commissioned.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. 3 . 2005: ‘To undertake financial comparisons and utilise Benchmark information for specific Council Services and examine the utility of this information for scrutiny purposes’ 2. 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”.
in order to isolate areas in which the service could improve.BACKGROUND 3. 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. in order to discover areas in which the Council could improve. The public want to be satisfied that they are getting value for money out of a Council service. and auditors want to assess the reliability of an organisation’s financial statements. It also needed to ensure that “like for like” comparisons were being undertaken. 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. The Committee discussed options for better engagement in the budget with Councillor Mark Stephens. This report highlights the key findings. A tool used by these parties is financial benchmarking. 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. with a view to identifying an appropriate role for scrutiny in future budget rounds. Chief Financial Services Officer. Executive Member – Finance & Economic Development. Managers want to be able to compare the performance of their own service to that of others. recommendations and arising from the inquiry. 4 . Within the public sector there are many parties interested in the financial performance of an organization. 4. From these discussions the Committee identified a number of approaches that they would wish to adopt in future budget scrutiny. Phil Higgins. Benchmarking involves comparing various aspects of a Council’s operations to those of another. Corporate Director (Resources). and Christine Salter. 5.
There appears to be a level of operational/service area benchmarking activity ongoing 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. unit costs). and drawing conclusions from the data. Benchmarking purely budget information appears to be technically possible.A. 12. 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).P. is useful for informing service improvement. as the largest city in Wales. Under the C. While models exist to enable the Council to identify English Comparator authorities. 8. 5 . 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. 9.P. Cardiff has a much larger population. 7. Benchmarking at operational level using established benchmarking groups. Cardiff. Such benchmarking typically involves both performance and financial comparisons (e. 11. has no directly comparable authorities in Wales.P.)). framework. a greater population density and a higher level of urbanisation making comparison with English authorities more relevant.KEY FINDINGS The key findings from this inquiry are: 6. which greatly limits its use for overall budget planning purposes.g. data available for benchmarking is not generally directly comparable. such as those run by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE).A.A. The diverging performance assessment regimes in Wales and England have resulted in more robust arrangements in England via C. Value for Money assessments place a greater demand on Local Authorities to compare their service expenditure with others than does that of the Wales Programme for Improvement. but there are limitations and caveats in collecting. using. 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS 14. and that this information is easily accessible for Members for example the information be sent to the Members’ Library. issues relating to this would be unlikely to surface unless a corporate review of Business Management Information was carried out within the Council. The Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee recommend that the Executive: R1. given the unique nature of Cardiff.P. Integrates benchmarking information into the current Performance Management arrangements in order to strengthen the culture of continuous improvement. 6 . Fully supports and encourages a full review of the Wales Programme for Improvement process to ensure wider benchmarking and comparative assessments. Finance. R3. particularly the use of the C. and considers establishing links with similar English Authorities to increase the robustness and validity of comparable budget and performance information. R4.13. Reviews the appropriateness of benchmarking with other Welsh Authorities. Property Overheads) may vary considerably between authorities. R2. R5. HR.A Value for Money Assessment. 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. Establishes arrangements to ensure that benchmarking data is more widely available across the Council. The APSE benchmarks indicated that the central charges (eg.
such as financial spend (outturn) and performance output figures. The Task and Finish Group were informed that benchmarks could be categorized into the following three types of benchmarks. knowledge and experience about leading practices are shared through partnerships between organisations. in the process. It allows an organization to compare itself with others and. In addition comparative measurement through benchmarking helps to identify problems and opportunities. 17. which where either qualitative or quantitative. 7 . and also tests ideas and “gut feelings” about performance and spend. It is a learning process in which information. a standard or point of reference.WHAT IS BENCHMARKING ? 15.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. A benchmark is ‘A surveyor’s mark indicating a point in a line of levels.’. The Task and Finish Group intended to utilise financial benchmarks to compare a selection of Cardiff County Council functions with similar English Authorities. step back from itself and reflect. Benchmarking is an ongoing process for finding 16. improved ways of doing things. There is an important distinction between benchmarking as a process and specific benchmarks. Benchmarks are data comparisons.
For example. 20. Financial benchmark comparisons can also be used as a guide to ask specific questions about a service. 18. and a general shift upwards in performance. the relationship between income generation and cost reduction. The Task and Finish Group heard from a number of witnesses about the benefits of financial benchmarking. Financial comparator benchmarking can be utilised at three levels: a) Strategic Resource allocation. When used effectively it can identify paucity of information. quality and level of service. and issues relating to maximising income generation. 19. Benchmarking in Practice Bristol City Council used financial comparison benchmarking to identify the low performance and high cost of their Local Tax and Benefits Service. 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. assist in realistic target setting. 8 . • • • the relationship between cost. In order to determine the utility of budget benchmarking the Task and Finish Group considered that it was necessary to undertake two exercises.USING FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS 17. efficiency and improvement. The possible shortcomings of undertaking financial comparisons can be outweighed by the need to point services in the right direction. The second exercise utilised the financial benchmarks for two selected service areas using APSE data. review service delivery methods and procedures. cost reduction and service quality. This has lead to increased change in ethos. c) Service Reviews. The first exercise was to analyse some financial comparisons of Council functions at the strategic resource allocation level. It was noted that it can also be used to steer funding to under resourced areas. b) Service and Financial Planning.
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.THE DRIVERS 21. 22. process the Value for Money Assessment is a key driver. Wales. in order to learn best practice and check that services are not excessively expensive when compared with other areas. Figure 1. direct comparisons between authorities often not possible Assessment results not usually published No incentive scheme prescribed 9 .P. English Councils’ are expected to evidence that costs compare well with others allowing for external factors. 23. This is underpinned by the Local Government Act. and England.P. There are several drivers for financial comparator benchmarking. The level of Council activity relating to financial benchmarking across the UK varies considerably. Within the Audit Commission’s C. In England within the C. key lines of enquiry for Value for Money. 24. Figure 1 outlines some of the differences between WPI and CPA. The Task and Finish Group received information. from a number of witnesses. 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). The Differences between WPI and CPA CPA Direct comparisons readily available for all assessment areas Assessment results published by regulator Well-defined freedom and flexibility incentives for improvement in performance No intervention measures prescribed If a council is identified as failing. Within Wales the key driver is the Wales Programme for Improvement (WPI). 1999 which places a duty on Local Government in Wales to continue to improve. about the drivers and historical nature for financial comparator benchmarking within Cardiff. 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. therefore there is a need to compare with others.A. Based on the evidence available.A. early intervention measures can be applied Applicable to Local Government Authorities and to be expanded to cover Fire and Rescue Authorities Assessments support the development of proportionate audit and inspection programmes Source: Wales Audit Office WPI Due to flexibility.
The Wales Audit Office view was that whilst there is a wealth of financial data available.P. the service functions below were selected on the basis of similarity: Children’s and Families’ Services Library Services Development Control Economic Development 29.A. The diverging performance assessment regimes in Wales and England have resulted in more robust arrangements (via C.P. Post reorganisation saw a period decline in the number of financial benchmarking groups undertaken within the Council. From a historical perspective (pre reorganization) the level of financial comparisons undertaken via the South Glamorgan Family Groups benchmarking arrangements was high. W. 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 pattern of low usage of financial benchmarking at a Welsh level is reflected within Cardiff County Council. RESEARCH 28. 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. 27.’s flexibility has resulted in differing ways of reporting thus comparisons are difficult at a service level. The Task and Finish Group were informed that Cardiff is very different from the other authorities in Wales. This analysis was undertaken on a functional rather than structural basis.I. Other difficulties faced by Welsh Councils included gaining agreement regarding definitions of costs. technical knowledge and analytical skills rarely combine. it has a much larger population. a greater population density and a higher level of urbanisation. differing treatment of costs and the fact that expenditure represents a local political decision. This makes the selection of comparator authorities 10 . 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. Welsh Councils make limited use of financial comparison benchmarking. 26.25.
English and Welsh authorities are identified in rank order in terms of comparability with the selected Council. When benchmarking.difficult. it is important that comparisons are made with an appropriate group. Based on data similarities. these include: • • • • • • • • • • Local Government Data Unit Wales (LGDUW) Comparator Model Family Origins. This model is a web based model. The selection of comparison authorities is not and never will be an exact science. The model allows the user to select any number of twenty three criteria available. developed by the Data Unit in 2002. The Task and Finish group were provided with an example of the LGDUW Comparator Model. The various models and groupings that exist only serve as signposts for potentially comparable authorities. 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 11 . 30. Crime and Disorder Model CIPFA Nearest Neighbour Model The ‘Big 11’ The ‘Big 21’ The Office For National Statistics (ONS) Classification of Local and Health Authorities of Great Britain Major Cities (Housing) Grouping Major Cities 12 (Environmental Services) Education Schools Advisory Services Benchmarking Grouping APSE Performance Networks 31.
• • • • • • 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. Derby City. For example Bolton M. Wigan. The Task and Finish Group were informed about the ONS model which utilises a clustering technique where Cardiff is defined as a regional centre.C. The research team used the LGDUW and the ONS Comparator Model to select similar authorities to Cardiff.B. Coventry. 34. Wakefield. Sheffield. Newport and Swansea. Leeds. Sunderland. Bolton. The following data sets were utilised and cross referenced with the English Authorities’ CPA scores. high levels of spend per head do not result in high performance ratings. Figure 4 demonstrates that for some services.• • • • • • • • • • • • • 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. Using the two models and the two nearest comparators in Wales the following Authorities were selected as a part of the research exercise: Bristol. Walsall. Southampton. 33. has the highest 12 .
Most of Cardiff’s example service areas were at the ‘average’ spend-per-head attained by the comparator group (the selected authorities). has one of the lowest CPA and Social Services Inspectorate ratings. Children Service Financial Comparator Benchmarks 13 . Walsall. Library Services in Cardiff were also placed at the average level for the comparator group (see figure 6). 36.Children (Children’s Services) * (CPA) 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 SSI Serving Rating Children For Social Well Services (Stars) 3 Yes 1 Some 2 Some 2 Some 2 Most 2 Most 2 Most 3 Most 2 Most 1 Some 2 Most Capacity to Improve Children’s Services? Excellent Promising Promising Promising Uncertain Promising Promising Excellent Promising Promising Promising Spending Levels 2003-04 (1 = Highest Spender Per Head) 9 3 2 6 4 8 5 7 12 1 11 Figure 4.performance ratings within the group but has low spending per head of the population. The Children’s Services financial benchmarks highlighted this (see figure 5). Bolton MBC Bristol CC Coventry CC Derby CC Leeds Sheffield Southampton Sunderland Wakefield Walsall Wigan Social Care . It was noted that the poorer performing services may be attempting to front load resources to address their performance issues. Conversely the highest spender within the group.
All selected authorities Average Spend-per-Head (03-04). Objective 14 .00 120.00 20.00 15.00 0.00 Spend-per-Head .00 Spend-per-Head .00 5.00 60.00 0.Figure 5: Childrens Services Net Expenditure (02-03 & 03-04) . It was also highlighted that there were distinctive funding streams within regeneration funding (e. All selected authorities Selected Authorities (comparator group) 37. The Welsh Assembly and ODPM Economic Development financial comparisons were found to cover cost centres from 7 service areas which compounded the difficulties of exploring the issues within individual services.Spend-per-Head by Selected Welsh & English Authorities 25.00 100.£'s Spend-per-Head (02-03) Spend-per-Head (03-04) Average Spend-per-Head (02-03).00 10. Anomalies existed with the Development Control (figure 7) and Economic Development financial comparisons which adversely affected question generation.00 C a N rdif ew f Sw po an rt se Bo a lto Br n C isto ov l en tr D y er b Le y e So She ds ut ffi ha eld Su mp nd ton e W rla ak nd ef ie W ld al sa W ll ig an Spend-per-Head (02-03) Spend-per-Head (03-04) Average Spend-per-Head (02-03).00 Ca rd Ne iff wp Sw o rt an se a Bo lto n Br ist Co ol ve nt ry De rb y Le ed s S So hef ut fie l d ha m Su pto n nd er la W n ak d ef ie l W d al sa ll W ig an Selected Authorities (comparator group) Figure 6: Library Services Expenditure (02-03 & 03-04) .Spend-per-Head by Selected Welsh and English Authorities 140. All selected authorities Average spend-per-Head.g. All selected authorities 80.£'s 20.00 40.
and different levels of funding from Government.00 Average Spend-per-Head (02-03). Due to differences in the way Trading Account Services Returns are handled in Wales and England several service areas cannot be compared accurately. 39. Undertaking spend comparisons appears to be technically possible.Spend-per-Head by selected Welsh and English Authorities 10. Local Authorities have different needs and priorities and therefore spending requirements.00 -2. There are differing funding structures in England which may skew the results especially relating to grants. New Deal for Communities) which also made financial comparisons and drawing conclusions problematic.00 Selected Authorities (comparator group) 38. Le ed s S he S ou ffie ld th am pt on S un de rla nd W a ke fie ld W al sa ll W ig a n C ar di ff N ew po rt S w an se a B ris to l C ov en try B ol to n D er by 15 .00 8.One Funding. 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. The financial benchmarks enabled Members to assess the spending levels for the specific service functions for the selected authorities. 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. However the information did not generate any conclusions.00 Spend-per-Head (02-03) Spend-per-Head (03-04) 4.£ e 's 6.00 0. All selected authorities 2.00 Spend-per-H ad . All selected authorities Average Spend-per-Head (03-04). Figure 7: Development Control ('Core-Planning') Net Expenditure . The services within the financial returns do not always equate to the service structure within Cardiff County Council.
which provides performance comparisons on a "like-for-like" basis for local Authorities across the UK. current infrastructure in both regions and social need factors. 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. 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. SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS 39. 40. valid factors with appropriate importance weightings that bring together comparable benchmarking partners are utilised and agreed by a group of practitioners. APSE Key Drivers for Refuse Collection Source: APSE 16 . Figure 8. A series of relevant. 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. 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.• 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. Figure 8 provides details of the drivers used in making the assessment.
42. 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. e. It was found that Parks had high central charges (16%) which are not always within the control of operational managers. 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. However. The APSE data and the explanations of the officers indicated that the level of expenditure and performance is driven by policy decisions/ priorities. overtime or the nature of the parks to be maintained. 46. In respect of waste it was noted that policy decisions were key to increasing performance and generating efficiencies.g. 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. 45.41. 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. Care is required when considering performance and financial comparator benchmarks as several factors can influence the level of expenditure at service level. The Members considered a basket of performance measures including unit costs and other budgetary information for Parks and Waste Management. The financial comparator information enabled discussions about the relationship between service expenditure and performance plus factors which increased service area costs. For example large investments in one year would increase the financial position of a service disproportionately. 47. 44. Some performance indicators did not necessarily reflect reality on the ground. The benchmarking information also assisted in the generation of questions relating to the budgetary pressures faced by the service area. For example the performance indicator “Households Covered by Kerbside Recycling Collections” indicated that Cardiff’s figures were within the upper quartile. For example. cost reduction and service quality. The recycling performance and cost information were discussed with the lower cost in Cardiff being associated with lower recycling activity. 43. 17 .
(Operational Manager Parks and Bereavement Services). INQUIRY METHODOLOGY 46. Wales Audit Office). (Corporate Director. Libraries and Parks Officer) Malcom Evans (Chief Regulatory Services Officer). 49. scoping reports and project plans. Sherratt (Chief Officer Waste Management). The process was undertaken with the assistance and advice from the Financial Services. Paul Orders (Head of Policy & Economic Development) Elspeth Morris (Libraries and Information Development Manager) . Wales Audit Office). Matthew Hockridge ( Senior Researcher. 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. Phillip Ramsdale (Executive Director of IPF). Resources). Trevor Gough (Chief Leisure. 48. 18 . Members of the Task & Finish Group received a briefing report providing definitions relating to benchmarking. 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. • External Organisations: Will Mclaen (Performance and Improvement Adviser WLGA). and choices made by 48. APSE). Bristol City Council) and Debbie Johns (Principal Adviser. including mechanisms to consistently prioritise topics suggested for scrutiny (PICK process). Members received evidence from internal and external witnesses: • Internal Witnesses: Phil Higgins. and Mike Clark. David Rees (Head of Knowledge and Information. the methodological approaches to benchmarking and the factors to consider when analysing benchmark information. Mr Carew Reynell (Director of Central Support Services. 47. Mara Michael (Chief Childrens Services Officer). The Scrutiny Committee applies a project management approach to its inquiries. Phillip.which was significantly lower due to the costs incurred residents.
legal implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications. financial implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications. 19 . FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 51. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to Executive/Council will set out any legal implications arising from those recommendations. and (h) be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances. However. However. (g) be taken having regard to the Council's fiduciary duty to its taxpayers. (c) be within the powers of the body or person exercising powers of behalf of the Council. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. All decisions taken by or on behalf the Council must (a) be within the legal powers of the Council. consider.g. (f) be properly motivated.LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 50. (e) be fully and properly informed. (b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed by law. (d) be undertaken in accordance with the procedural requirements imposed by the Council e. As the recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct legal implications. review and recommend but not to make policy decisions. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire. Scrutiny Procedure Rules.
Atlantic Wharf. Chairperson Councillor Roger Burley Councillor Russell Goodway Councillor Joseph Carter Councillor Timothy Davies Councillor John Norman Councillor Paul Chaundy Councillor Simon Wakefield Councillor John Sheppard Scrutiny Services.gov. County Hall. Cardiff County Council 3/4 The Courtyard. Cardiff CF10 4UW Tel: 029 2087 2296 Fax: 029 2087 2579 Email: email@example.com © 2005 Cardiff County Council 20 .POLICY REVIEW & PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Councillor David Walker.