Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 2, at the Council Offices, Southfields, Loughborough. View directions

Items
No. Item

17.

Disclosures of Pecuniary and Personal Interests

Minutes:

The following disclosures were made:

 

(i)         by Councillor Fryer, a personal interest in respect of Item 4 on the agenda as she had been the relevant Cabinet Lead Member when the contract with Serco had first been agreed, also when it had subsequently been extended.

(ii)        by Councillor Hamilton, in respect of Item 4 on the agenda as a signatory to the Call-in, but he came to this meeting with an open mind.

18.

Declarations - The Party Whip

Minutes:

No declarations were made.

19.

Call-in of Cabinet Decision - Environmental Services Contract pdf icon PDF 7 MB

Report of the Head of Strategic Support.  The decision taken by Cabinet on 13th September 2018 in respect of this matter has been called-in in accordance with Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.7.

 

This report includes exempt appendices, circulated to members.  If it is necessary for reference to be made to information contained within those appendices, members of the public will be excluded for that part of the meeting on the grounds that it will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Minutes:

The decision taken by the Cabinet on 13th September 2018 in respect of this matter had been called-in under Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.7 and required consideration by the Board. 

 

The Board considered a report of the Head of Strategic Support which included the report considered by the Cabinet, the minute outlining the Cabinet decision and reason for it, the reasons for Call-in and the desired outcome, and the process for reviewing the decision as set out in Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.7 (item 4 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

 

The report considered by the Cabinet included exempt appendices as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, circulated to members.   The appendices set out information which, if released to the public domain, could prejudice outcomes for the Council and disclose commercially sensitive information about other organisations, therefore the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.  On that basis, the Board resolved to exclude the public from this meeting during the final part of Councillor Draycott’s address to the Board, as she wished to briefly refer to the information contained in those appendices.  That part of the meeting was not sound recorded.   

 

In accordance with Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.7, Councillor Draycott,as a signatory to the Call-in, addressed the Scrutiny Management Board.  Further to the reasons stated in the Call-in, she stated the following, in summary: 

 

(i)         Councillor Draycott stated what the Cabinet’s decision had been, the services included in the contract and the two main reasons for the Call-in, which were (a) to question whether the outsourcing option was the best one and (b) to question whether a responsive option for street cleaning delivered the best service to residents.  

(ii)        In respect of (a), the Cabinet report stated that the recommendation to extend with Serco was to ensure continuation of services to residents in the most efficient and effective manner and to ensure maximised efficiency and effectiveness of the contract.  The signatories to the Call-in would like the Board to consider whether those aims could only be achieved by outsourcing and whether that option was the best on all grounds or whether it was being recommended on ideological grounds.  Councillor Draycott stated that the Eunomia report [appendix B to the Cabinet report] was non-committal as to whether outsourcing or in-house was the better option and she considered it not to be the case that one or the other was superior in cost or efficiency.  The Eunomia report stated pros and cons for both systems, with various advantages of in-house given, examples of which were briefly outlined by Councillor Draycott, including flexibility where change was needed and allowing the Council to retain any efficiency savings.  Reference was made to costs being lower as the Council was not-for-profit.  Signatories to the Call-in felt strongly that if a contractor could provide the same or better service as in-house and still make a substantial profit, what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.