Agenda item

Report of the Management Board

1.      It has been decided to undertake a full market testing exercise to determine the most cost effective and efficient way to deliver waste management, street care and grounds maintenance services and so improve VFM of these services for Council Tax payers.

2.      Cabinet’s commitment has been given to implementing the findings of this particular market testing exercise if a well defined and robust business case is established that supports this course of action, subject to paragraph 3 and 4 below.

3.      It has been noted that further reports will be brought forward throughout the course of this market testing exercise if key decisions need to be made.

4.      It has been noted that, further to paragraph 3 above, before any contract or tender is awarded as a result of the market testing of waste management, street care and grounds maintenance services, a report will be brought to Cabinet to seek its agreement.

5.      That, subject to specific agreement with the relevant portfolio holder, approval has also been given to the principle and practice of market testing Council services where it is considered that the external market might provide greater opportunities to achieve better value for money, efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery, as part of the Strategic Business Review programme or as distinct projects.

6.      It has been noted that the Trades Unions have been informed of this proposal and that management are seeking positive and active engagement of the Trades Unions in pursuing this programme, to ensure that the proper interests of all employees, whether Union members or not are duly considered.

7.      Working together with other Councils on market-testing has been endorsed by Cabinet where this enables potential mutual benefits and sharing of the costs of market-testing, as long as such joint working does not fetter future discretion by this Council.

Councillor Capstick addressed Cabinet suggesting that the proposal to privatise services showed a failure by the Administration to run public services themselves. She considered that there was no transparent process and wondered if the outcome of the market testing was pre-ordained.  She then commented on the fact that the press had knowledge of the proposal before the information had been circulated to Councillors.  She further questioned the future of Lings Forum and felt that the whole workforce would suffer, especially the lower paid.  She was of the opinion that the proposal was misguided and anti-democratic.

In response to a question, Councillor Capstick, whilst accepting that efficiency savings had to be made, considered that the protection of lower paid workers was more important than the retention of highly paid consultants.  She felt that the privatisation of core services would not persuade council tax payers that they were getting value for money.

Councillor Clarke addressed cabinet commenting that the report was a ‘Trojan Horse’ to drive savings and reductions in budget rather than to improve services. He then expressed his dissatisfaction that Portfolio Holders appeared to be pushing through this political decision without referral to Council or even to members of their own group.  He was also annoyed that there had been no pre-scrutiny and that the Press had been informed of the decision first.  He was of the opinion that public services were never improved by privatisation.  He asked for a deferment of the issue so that consultation could be undertaken and appealled to opposition members to call in any decision made at the meeting.

In response to a question about labour-led reviews of services, Councillor Clarke stated that he disagreed with privatisation as, although a saving might be seen in the first year, these savings were rarely sustainable.  Solutions should be found  to deliver best value for money.

Councillor Palethorpe then addressed the cabinet referring to the growth agenda and the future accountability to the tax payers. He felt that steps should be taken to become more efficient and streamlined in view of reduced funding.  However, people’s perception was that they were receiving reduced services for the same money.  He asked for assurances with regard to market testing, with very specific invitations to tender for each service area.  He was of the opinion that current council staff should have the opportunity to tender to continue providing services and was of the opinion that if contracts were offered just on financial outcomes, people’s confidence in the council would be irretrievably lost.

In response to a question from the Chair arising from a recent LGA conference, Councillor Palethorpe accepted the expectation that money would be tight for local authorities for the foreseeable future but did not see this as a reason to outsource services.

As the relevant Portfolio Holder, Councillor Woods presented the report to Cabinet pointing out that the issue was about improving the quality of services and providing value for money.  He emphasised that the proposal was to provide services at a required quality for an agreed sum of money. It was important to ensure that the current workforce had the opportunity to compete. The report had been brought to Cabinet for a discussion about the principle of outsourcing.  That was not to say that this would be appropriate for all services and a wide range of options were being explored.  There could be a combination of in-house service delivery, charitable or social enterprises or community groups or a shared arrangement of service provision. Cabinet would be looking at what worked and provided best value for money and not pitching public versus private provision of service delivery.

Councillor Crake commented that, in relation to waste, street scene and grounds maintenance services, market testing would be carried out in conjunction with Daventry, to provide best value for money. 

It was general felt that the report was about delivering the best service possible and giving value for money, whether this be by in-house delivery, through partnership or by a private company.  Each service would be examined and the relevant Portfolio Holder would interpret the most appropriate business case.  Referring to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the report, Councillor B Hoare reminded Cabinet that, in the event of key decisions being made, further reports would come through the Cabinet decision process.

RESOLVED

1.      That it be decided to undertake a full market testing exercise to determine the most cost effective and efficient way to deliver waste management, street care and grounds maintenance services and so improve VFM of these services for Council Tax payers.

2.      That Cabinet gives its commitment to implementing the findings of this particular market testing exercise if a well defined and robust business case is established that supports this course of action, subject to paragraph 3 and 4 below.

3.      That it be noted that further reports will be brought forward throughout the course of this market testing exercise if key decisions need to be made.

4.      That it be noted that, further to paragraph 3 above, before any contract or tender is awarded as a result of the market testing of waste management, street care and grounds maintenance services, a report will be brought to Cabinet to seek its agreement.

5.      That, subject to specific agreement with the relevant portfolio holder, Cabinet gives its approval to the principle and practice of market testing Council services where it is considered that the external market might provide greater opportunities to achieve better value for money, efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery, as part of the Strategic Business Review programme or as distinct projects.

6.      That it be noted that the Trades Unions have been informed of this proposal and that management are seeking positive and active engagement of the Trades Unions in pursuing this programme, to ensure that the proper interests of all employees, whether Union members or not are duly considered.

7.      That Cabinet endorses working together with other Councils on market testing, where this enables potential mutual benefits and sharing of the costs of market testing, as long as such joint working does not fetter future discretion by this Council.