There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. Councillor Tobin Byers declared a non pecuniary interest in the Merton Adult Education item as a governor at Joseph Hood School.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ross Garrod, who was substituted by Councillor Tobin Byers. Apologies also received from councillor David Dean who would be speaking as a signatory to the South London Waste Partnership call-in. He was substituted by Councillor Daniel Holden.

The Chair invited Councillor Andrew Judge, Cabinet Member for Environmental Sustainability and Regeneration, to set out the reasons behind Cabinet’s decision. Councillor Andrew Judge explained the financial context and the council’s need to make savings to meet the savings target of £32m set out in the medium term financial strategy. He said that the proposal included the procurement of a joint contract for grounds maintenance with Sutton Council through the South London Waste Partnership as a procurement vehicle. He stressed that Merton would retain ownership and governance of the parks and that decision making would continue to happen in consultation with friends groups. He said that the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP) is not a private company but a partnership of four boroughs, comprising cabinet members and senior officers.

In response to a question from Councillor David Williams about SLWP’s lack of experience of parks maintenance, Councillor Andrew Judge said that it did have that experience through its members and officers and that it had considerable procurement experience and financial expertise. He said that SLWP would be looking to let the contract to a company with expertise in grounds maintenance and management of staff. The SLWP is not a contractor but a partnership experienced in procurement

In response to a question from Councillor John Sargeant about the detailed analysis of costs and savings, Councillor Judge said that this information was available and could be shared with scrutiny.

Councillor John Sargeant asked why there hadn’t been any pre-decision scrutiny of the proposals and how scrutiny would be involved in scrutinising any contract that was awarded. Councillor Andrew Judge replied that the proposals had been finalised  recently and that the Panel would be able to scrutinise parks management in the future should the service be externalised .

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Panel:

Jane Plant, Tree Warden Group Merton

Jane Plant said that Merton had the lowest spend on parks of any London borough. She asked whether, if parks maintenance was to be privatised, there would be sufficient remaining knowledge to produce adequate contract documentation and then to monitor the contract. Her concerns were that experienced staff would leave and that remaining staff would be overworked. She urged the council to avoid getting locked in to a 25 year contract and warned that a contractor’s primary concern would be profit.

Tom Walshe, Sustainable Merton

Tom Walshe said that he had had a very positive experience of scrutiny through his involvement in a recent task group and he had seen what could be achieved. He said that, in contrast, decision making on this proposal had been conducted in an almost secret way and that had been an affront to the many people who were involved in running local green spaces. He urged the council to use some of its reserves to protect open spaces in the borough and keep the parks maintenance service in house. He said that many volunteers would be disinclined to help a private company.

Joe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The appendices were discussed as part of agenda item 3.

The Chair invited Councillor James Holmes to speak as a signatory to the call-in request. Councillor James Holmes said that he believed that the Cabinet’s decision was based on incorrect information and assumptions and had therefore been flawed. He laid round a sheet of paper containing two graphs, drawn from council data (the graphs have been published with the minutes). The first graph showed a sharp fall in the council’s financial contribution to Merton Adult Education. The second graph showed an increase in commercial courses that will increase income received. Councillor James Holmes added that the ward data showing service usage was flawed due to the location of the site at Whatley Avenue.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Panel:

Sue Hubbert, Merton Adults First

Merton Adults First is an organisation for carers of adults with a learning disability. Sue Hubbert handed a written statement to Panel members (published with the minutes). She said that many adults with learning disabilities use the Whatley Avenue centre and feel secure there. She highlighted the uniqueness of the environment at Whatley Avenue in successfully bringing together a wide mix of people. She feared that the loss of the centre would adversely impact on adults with learning disabilities and that support to travel to other centres would not be forthcoming given the context of cuts to the learning disabilities team. She urged the council to retain this specialist centre of excellence and take into account the needs of this highly vulnerable group of service users when making decisions about the future of the adult education service in Merton.

Gay Bennett Powell, Save Merton Adult Education

Gay Bennett Powell said that the consultation and accompanying communication had been poor. She said that there were leading statements within the consultation document, biased description of the options, that some of the wording was unclear and inaccessible to lay readers. She also criticised the provision of the same questionnaire to people with learning disabilities and those for whom English is not their first language as being inappropriate given their very different profile and needs.

Alison Caraccio, UNISON

Alison Caraccio said that the number of reviews of adult education in recent years demonstrates a lack of commitment to the service. She pointed out that 41% of adult learners live in the east of the borough and feared that the diverse needs of existing learners will not be catered for by the commercial model of provision. She urged the council to be transparent about its plans for the future of Whatley Avenue, including detail about the value of the site.

Shas Sheehan

Shas Sheehan asked the council to focus on the impact that the proposals would have on vulnerable groups and to bear in mind the prevention objectives of the Ageing Well programme. She said that consultation on the options had been belated and rushed. She said that the council’s reserves provide it with choices on spending and urged the council to postpone a decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.