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 Adigwe, Staffside, GMB Branch Secretary

Joe Adigwe said that the proposals had far reaching consequences for the workforce and had been made without meaningful consultation with staff. He said that the trade unions had grave misgivings about outsourcing and concerns about the accountability of private companies. He stressed the importance of greenspaces as a community asset that contributes to people’s wellbeing.

Stephen Hammond, MP for Wimbledon

Stephen Hammond questioned the decision to outsource and said that the South London Waste Partnership, whatever its experience, has no history of parks maintenance and is therefore untested in this area. He said the planned standards and efficiency gains were unclear and that the contract would need break clauses and monitoring for reassurance. He feared that local knowledge and expertise would be lost. He also referred to the evidence given by the other witnesses about feeling that they had not been properly consulted and that their views had not been taken into account.

The Chair then invited two of the call-in signatories to speak:

Councillor Peter Southgate

Councillor Peter Southgate said that, in his position as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, he was proud of scrutiny’s record and that the recent flurry of call-in requests suggested that opportunities for pre-decision scrutiny had been missed. He said that he had called in the decision in relation to greenspaces due to a number of concerns about the soundness of the information on which Cabinet’s decision was based, the timing, level of savings and the lack of consultation with staff and friends of parks groups. He reminded members that the contractor’s primary concern will be profit and urged the Panel to refer the matter back to Cabinet if they had any doubts about the soundness of the decision.

Councillor David Dean

Councillor David Dean expressed disappointment that the Cabinet Member for Environmental Sustainability and Regeneration had left the meeting early. He said that he had received numerous emails and letters from residents, staff and members of friends of parks groups who were concerned about Cabinet’s decision. He expressed his opinion that the council has reached a “rainy day” and should consider using its reserves. He expressed doubts that contracting out is the best way forward or the best way to achieve savings. He asked that parks maintenance and green spaces be kept in-house and that there be consultation on the issue.

Chris Lee, Director of Environment and Regeneration made a number of points in response to questions from Panel members:

• the steering group explored a number of options and then carried out soft market testing in August, after which the option was seriously considered and discussed with the Cabinet members
• he agreed that savings in and delivery of these services could only be achieved by specialist providers. SLWP will be looking for a company with experience in horticulture and grounds maintenance – there is a mature market for parks maintenance.
• the majority of the steering group’s time had been spent on discussing waste issues
• the background papers show that the decision on Lot 2 was a difficult one as two of the boroughs had already externalised provision. There is no option to join the Kingston contract.
• The savings estimates are provisional at present and will be firmed up through iterative ‘competitive dialogue’ with potential providers with an outcome focussed specification to develop innovative ways of providing services. The government, in recognition of this innovative approach, have awarded the council and its partners over  £1m to assist with the procurement process
• The contract will have 7 year break clauses as is usual with contracts of this type. The proposed contract length is based on experience of the market and the normal life of vehicles deployed .
• the detail of the current budget for the service is published in the Budget Book
• the proposal to externalise is because savings could not be made if the service is retained in-house without significantly affecting service standards that could be offered as staff cuts would reduce resilience. Externalisation with partner boroughs  attracts greater economies of scale which mitigates the impact on front line services. Some redundancies will be made as part of the wider savings process leading up to the externalisation but not because of externalisation.
• SLWP is being used as a vehicle for procurement through which significant savings can be achieved. SLWP will not be involved in managing the procured services at a local level – Merton will manage the contract and monitor standards
• Sutton’s executive have signed off a similar report for procurement through SLWP and are also exploring shared services plus an in-house bid/ service

Panel members discussed the evidence received and varying views were expressed.

Councillor David Williams moved and Councillor Daniel Holden seconded  that the Panel should refer the matter back to Cabinet, recommending that Cabinet should examine financial information in more detail, revisit the reasons why procurement should be carried out through the South London Waste Partnership and receive more detail on the proposed contract management as well as the Panel’s concern about the length of the contract. A vote was taken, 3 members were in favour and 4 against. The motion fell.

The Panel then voted on whether to uphold Cabinet’s decision. 4 members voted in favour. Councillors David Williams, Daniel Holden and John Sargeant abstained and asked for their abstention to be recorded in the minutes. The motion was carried.