Please note: appendices 2 to 6 are the same for both LOT 1 and LOT 2 call-ins.  They are therefore only provided once under item 3.

The call-in was introduced by the signatories.

 

Key points made by Councillor Najeeb Latif:

·         Does not believe contracting out is in the best interests of the staff, Merton’s parks, Friends Groups or residents;

·         There has been no consultation on the proposal;

·         The experience of staff has failed to be considered as part of the new approach;

·         Staff and Friends Groups will withdraw their good will as result of this new approach;

·         Not possible to provide a better service than currently without diminishing the terms and conditions of staff; and

·         Need for reassurances – that TUPE has and will continue to be applied, staff will be safeguarded and will be retained in posts in the longer term.

 

Councillor Dean asked the following questions:

·         Why has there been no consultation with staff, Friends Groups and residents?

·         Why was the Greenspaces staff team not allowed to bid?

·         Why will the administration not guarantee the rights of staff?

 

The Commission then heard from a series of requested witnesses and speakers.

 

Key points from Terry Downes, GMB representative:

·         The council has failed to observe and enforce TUPE.  This could make any decision taken by the council irrelevant if legally challenged;

·         Highlighted that the objectives of the contract could have been fulfilled in-house but that the in-house bid was ruled out of the bidding process on a technicality;

·         The uncertainty means staff are already leaving (noted this applies to grave diggers and horticultural staff) with more departures anticipated;

·         The desired economies of scale have not been defined – targets and cost savings are unknown; and

·         The specification for the proposed service still hasn’t been provided.

 

In response to member questions, Terry Downes added:

·         Legal action could be taken on the basis that TUPE has not been adhered to during the competitive dialogue process.  Under TUPE workers’ terms and conditions should remain the same from the outset of this process until workers are transferred to the employment of the new provider under contract.  The contractor then has a legal obligation to consult with workers on any proposed change to terms and conditions.  The council’s liability for not adhering to TUPE could be £1.1m.

 

Tina Picard, a Unison representative, asked for her key remarks to be made through the Chair.  Tina highlighted that the TUPE process should be transparent and that there is concern about the stress this process is putting on staff.

 

Key points from Ruth Baber, trustee Sustainable Merton:

·         Sustainable Merton and Friends Groups are unsure about the council’s desire to develop a commercial environment for the management and oversight of green spaces – no information has been provided about how this will work;

·         Merton has a lot of green spaces so a change in approach will have a big impact;

·         There are lots of examples of how Friends Groups have worked in partnership with the council’s Greenspaces team to benefit Merton’s green spaces;

·         Not sure that the value of the partnership with Friends Groups has been considered nor the feasibility of this continuing with a private, third party company running the service;

·         One difficulty might be that many of these Friends Groups are informal and may not have insurance to work alongside this third party organisation;

·         Raised the issue of having greater difficulty in engaging with a third party organisation on specific issues such as refraining from grass cutting if a meadow has been planted; and

·         Worried that there will be a loss of internal expertise and questioned how the current standard in caring for Merton’s green spaces will be maintained.  Concern that mistakes made will be impossible to rectify.

 

In response to member questions, Ruth Baber added:

·         Concerned that Merton’s Friends Groups will have to begin again in building the relationship with the organisation managing the borough’s green spaces; the existing relationship will be lost at a stroke.

 

Key points from Tony Burton, Independent Merton Green Spaces Forum representative:

·         Difficult to exaggerate the fallout from this new approach to Merton’s green spaces.  These are important, loved and cared for with Friends Groups adding much value through their knowledge and practical support;

·         However, Friends Groups have been left out in the cold.  As a result, the Independent Merton Green Spaces Forum has been set-up to collectively ask questions on behalf of all groups;

·         Have requested sight of the specification but this has been refused even when subject to a Freedom of Information request;

·         Questioned what will happen to Friends Groups, how these will be involved under the new contract and what impact the inclusion of Mitcham Green has had on arrangements; and

·         Highlighted that there is a real risk Friends Groups will withdraw their support for Merton’s green spaces.

 

In response to member questions, Tony Burton added:

·         The Independent Merton Greenspaces Forum has had two meetings with officers and the Cabinet Member but left these more confused; and

·         Has made additional requests for sight of the specification but this hasn’t been forthcoming and the rationale for declining access has changed.

 

Councillor Draper, Cabinet Member for Community and Culture and James McGinlay, Head of Sustainable Communities, responded to the call-in and evidence provided by witnesses and speakers.  (During this part of the meeting, the Chair proposed and members agreed an extension by 15 minutes from 10:15pm to 10:30pm.)

 

Key points made by James McGinlay:

·         TUPE has been adhered to with no negotiations about staff terms and conditions able to happen until the contract is approved.  Existing employment rights will transfer at the outset of the contract  Staff will remained employed by Merton until 1 February 2017;

·         The different views regarding the treatment of TUPE have resulted from a misunderstanding.  The preferred contractor has put forward some suggestions but there has been no agreement from the council.  This can only happened after the contract has been signed.  These were simply propositions.  The proposed savings are entirely based on retaining current staff terms and conditions.  Savings will be made through reduction in management and procurement costs and by better use of buildings.  The contract stipulates a guaranteed commercial income after which there is profit sharing agreement;

·         There has been some modelling of changes to workforce arrangements based on the ages of current staff and the potential resulting turnover rates that allow for some changes in terms and conditions;

·         Savings have been outlined as part of the budget setting process with the objective being to achieve at least as good a green spaces service compared to that currently provided with improvements where possible.

·         The specification can be released when the preferred bidder is agreed.  The call-in has delayed this process and is preventing the specification becoming available;

·         A pause at this stage of the process will result in the council incurring a financial penalty as Sutton has incurred costs across LOTS 1 and 2; and

·         In 2014, the Cabinet agreed that the target of a 10% + saving couldn’t be achieved internally.  However, the Greenspaces staff could have made a bid.  This was anticipated but it didn’t transpire.  The pre-qualification questionnaire stage of the competitive tendering process was a completely open process allowing staff groups to participate.  As a result of no bid being forthcoming, the council couldn’t continue to provide further information to the staff group as this would have been a breach of procurement regulations.

 

Key points made by Councillor Draper:

·         Desire to take a positive point of view of the contract;

·         Confident that this is a good deal;

·         Would have much preferred to have had more consultation with Friends Groups and meetings with the unions.  However, the competitive dialogue process meant more meetings with Friends Groups would not have achieved anything given restrictions on the information that can be shared before the contract is agreed (based on legal advice);

·         Sees staff as the parks professionals who love their jobs and who act as mentors to Friends Groups.  Wants to see staff flourish and for the bond with Friends Groups to strengthen;

·         Highlighted the example of Richmond Park where Friends Groups and other voluntary organisations are working alongside a third party;

·         Called on Friends Groups to get involved and be part of the transformation of the management of Merton’s green spaces;

·         There is no advantage at this stage to holding up the process.  Competitive dialogue prohibits the sharing of the specification until the contract is in place.  Only moving forward will allow more information to be shared with Friends Groups; and

·         The expected savings resulting from the contract are £640K in year 1 and £540K in year 2.

 

Members then discussed their response to the call-in:

·         Councillor Williams: occasionally it is appropriate to pause.  The decision needs to be returned to Cabinet for it to carry out an adequate consultation.  There is also a need to adhere to TUPE and address the fact Croydon’s staff have different terms and conditions.  The preferred bidder is happy to allow other councils to opt-in after the commencement of the contract.  Once the consultation is complete, Merton can then opt-in;

·         Councillor Moulton: seconded the proposal from Councillor Williams;

·         Councillor Brunt: highlighted that referring the decision back to Cabinet will prolong the uncertainty for staff and that the preferred bidder has a track record in engagement and delivery;

·         Councillor Uddin: highlighted the financial implications of this decision and the need for the council to make savings.  Encouraged a rational approach based on the company having both a track record and obligations through the contract.  Residents will provide support to hold the contractor and the Cabinet Member to account.  Encouraged optimism and opposed Councillor William’s recommendation; and

·         Councillor Pearce: highlighted that there is still time to refine the contract as only now entering the process of fine tuning.

 

A vote was taken by show of hands on the recommendation from Councillor Grocott with three votes for and six against.  The recommendation was not agreed.

RESOLVED: Not to refer the matter back to Cabinet meaning that Cabinet’s decision on the LOT 2 of the South London Waste Partnership shall take effect immediately.