Decision

Salford City Council – Record of Decision (Cabinet)

I, Paul Dennett, City Mayor, in exercise of the powers contained within the City Council Constitution do hereby approve:

• The repatriation of Salford City Council’s legal services to an in-house model, in line with Option 5 within the Provision of Legal Services – Options Appraisal.

• The termination of the Partnership Agreement between Salford City Council and Manchester City Council (MCC), in accordance with the contractual provisions for termination.

• To authorise the City Solicitor to serve formal notice on MCC to terminate the Agreement.

• To delegate authority to the City Solicitor to take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents incidental and conductive to give effect to this decision, including but not limited to matters relating to Business Transfer, TUPE, staffing, systems, governance, warranties and indemnities, data and contractual arrangements in repatriating legal services to the Council.

• To delegate authority to the City Solicitor to take all necessary steps on any and all workforce related matters and issues connected with the repatriation of legal services, including (but not limited to) realignment of approved legal and governance directorate budgets, compliance with TUPE regulations to the extent that the regulations apply, staff engagement, and engagement with the Trade Unions, including the establishment of the management and staffing structures and any transitional arrangements necessary to ensure continuity of service and the smooth transfer of functions from MCC.

The Reasons are:

A structured options appraisal has been undertaken to assess the most appropriate long-term delivery model for legal services. Each option has been assessed against six tests: strategic alignment with the Council’s priorities; service responsiveness; value for money; innovation and digital enablement; deliverability; and control of risk.

Repatriation to an in-house model is the option most capable of meeting the Council’s medium and long-term requirements. It best addresses the central strategic-fit issue: the need for legal services to be directly accountable to the Council, embedded within its own structures, aligned to corporate priorities, and capable of supporting transformation, innovation, and the implementation of digital tools on the Council’s own timetable.

An embedded in-house legal function would reposition legal services as a directly accountable, embedded corporate function, while retaining the governance discipline introduced through the 2025 Partnership Agreement with MCC. This option is best placed to anticipate issues earlier, work alongside directorates in shaping delivery, and provide risk-aware advice that supports lawful, timely and confident decision-making.

The decision to repatriate the service sits within a changing national, regional and local context. Nationally, public service reform, including NHS reform and social care integration, alongside cost-of-living pressures, local government finance challenges and rising demand in children’s and adults’ services, is reshaping what councils are expected to deliver. Regionally, Greater Manchester devolution, including No. 10 North, integrated transport, housing, skills, regeneration and health and care reform are creating new opportunities and responsibilities. Locally, Salford’s priorities around inclusive growth, affordable and social housing, tackling poverty and inequality, children and families, climate change, regeneration and digital transformation require legal and governance support that is faster, more proactive and more strategically aligned. In that context, legal and governance services need to operate as a strategic enabler: anticipating risk earlier, supporting complex cross-cutting programmes, advising at pace and helping to turn policy ambition into lawful, practical and deliverable action with demonstrable outcomes. Developments in legal technology, particularly AI, reinforce the case for change by creating opportunities to improve efficiency, consistency, self-service access and insight. However, those benefits can only realistically be fully realised if the Council has sufficient direct control over its legal service, operating model, data and digital estate.

Terminating the current Partnership Agreement and establishing an in-house legal service would retain the governance discipline secured through the 2025 contract while moving legal capability into the Council’s own structures, supported by clear leadership, defined practice groups, stronger client relationships and modern, digitally-enabled delivery.

Options considered and rejected were:

• Option 1: Continue with the current Shared Legal Service arrangement under the 2025 Partnership Agreement:
  • This would provide continuity and avoid transition risk but would retain an externally delivered model and would not fully address the Council's longer-term requirement for direct strategic and operational control of its legal service.

• Option 2: Retain the Shared Legal Service with enhanced contract management:
  • This would build upon the improvements secured through the 2025 Partnership Agreement, but would retain the externally commissioned delivery model and therefore would not fully address the strategic-fit considerations identified through the appraisal.

• Option 3: Establish a new shared service arrangement with an alternative public sector partner:
  • This would offer the opportunity to design a new public sector partnership from first principles. However, it would involve significant lead-in time, procurement, governance and potential TUPE complexity, while still falling short of direct organisational control over legal service design, workforce, systems and technology.

• Option 4: Outsource legal services to the private sector:
  • This could provide access to specialist expertise for defined areas of work or surge capacity. However, as the Council’s primary legal delivery model it would be likely to increase cost, fragment accountability, reduce embedded organisational knowledge and weaken public sector alignment.

Assessment of Risk:

• High – the decision represents a significant organisational transformation involving material transition risks relating to workforce and potential TUPE transfer, recruitment, systems implementation, service continuity and mobilisation.
• These risks will be managed through a structured programme approach including dedicated governance, phased implementation, early workforce and Trade Union engagement, procurement and data migration planning, contingency arrangements and oversight by the City Solicitor as Senior Responsible Owner.

The source of funding is:

• The Legal Services recurrent budget, with additional transition costs to be funded from the Corporate Services budget where possible and earmarked reserves used only where necessary.

Legal Advice obtained: Supplied by Dave Wilcock, Solicitor, with support from Gareth James, Deputy City Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer.

• The Partnership Agreement includes provisions for termination, including notice requirements and TUPE obligations at cessation. The Council must ensure compliance with the terms of the existing agreement, TUPE Regulations to the extent that they apply, and employment and data protection legislation. Appropriate legal oversight will be maintained throughout the transition by the City Solicitor.

Financial Advice obtained: Supplied by Rachel Rosewell, Chief Finance Officer, with support from Hassan Khan, Finance Manager, and Grace Rogerson, Strategic Finance Manager.

• The proposed repatriation is financially sustainable within the Legal Services recurrent budget from 2028/29. The key financial consideration is therefore the management of transitional costs over the preceding two years, arising from the need to recruit to roles in advance of the proposed repatriation date of November 2027. The service will seek to contain these costs within the overall Corporate Services budget, with earmarked reserves used only where necessary, thereby protecting the recurrent budget position and supporting a managed transition to the new arrangements.

Procurement Advice obtained: Supplied by Jayne Whitehead, Interim Category Manager – Adults.

• Subject to the approval of the Procurement Board, where required under Contract Procedure Rules, procurement activity will in due course be required for case management systems, supporting legal technology, specialist legal support during transition, and transition-related services. All procurement will comply with the Procurement Act 2023 and the Council’s Contractual Standing Orders.

HR Advice obtained: Supplied by Kate Story, Strategic HR Manager, with support from Gareth James, Deputy City Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer.

• The cessation of the contract may have significant HR implications as a consequence of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations.
• If TUPE applies, this would not only trigger the potential transfer of staff from MCC, but due to the proposals and shift to a new way of working would also include the recruitment to new and hard-to-fill specialist roles. Any intake of staff would create significant work to not only support any transfer process but to support subsequent organisational development and culture changes for both the cohort of staff that may be in scope to transfer and those that might join SCC afresh.
• In establishing a new SCC legal service, careful management of the transition is required to ensure that service delivery is maintained in the broader organisation.

Climate Change Advice obtained:

• N/a.

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process:

• The relevant documents contain exempt or confidential information and are not available for public inspection

Contact Officer: Surjit Tour, City Solicitor and Monitoring Officer               

Contact: programme360@salford.gov.uk

A request had been submitted for the decision to be exempt from call-in on grounds of urgency. The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Board had agreed that the decision was reasonable and urgent and that call-in could therefore be waived. The detailed request contained exempt information and formed part of the exempt supplemental papers for the meeting.

Signed:         Paul Dennett                                 Dated: 27 October 2026        .

                    City Mayor

For Democratic Services use only

This decision was published on 27 October 2026.                                            

This decision is not subject to call-in and will come into force with immediate effect.