Geoff Bradfield, Wirral Unison

David Green, Director of Technical Services

Councillor David Elderton, Cabinet Member Culture, Tourism and Leisure

Mr Geoff Bradfield, Branch Officer, Wirral Unison.

Mr Bradfield referred to the Audit Commission’s complimentary report on the performance of the Council’s Parks and Countryside Service and reported that staff were prepared to play their part in making savings. An alternative plan would be to bring the Highway Verges Contract which was due to end in December 2011 into the Parks Division and to do the work at no extra cost, saving the Council up to £1m per year. There would also be spare capacity to carry out winter gritting for Parks and Countryside areas within existing resources.

Mr Bradfield referred to problems associated with privatisation e.g. the Council was tied into a long term contact for the bins service and could not vary it to allow weekly collections. There were costs associated with privatisation in terms of set up costs, consultancy fees, and client monitoring costs.  He suggested that there was scope to work with the existing staff to achieve the same level of savings projected in Option3.

Mr Bradfield responded positively to questions from Councillor Davies regarding the possibility of the Parks and Countryside Service (“the Service”) achieving target savings in line with the revised specification, and emphasised the importance of retaining the commitment, experience, and flexibility of the existing staff. He commented that the Council could save more by not privatising and still get all of the benefits (through a variation of Option1).

He responded to questions from members regarding consultations with the staff and trade unions. He acknowledged that meetings had been held with the Director of Technical Services regarding progress in the procurement exercise for Option 3, but this precluded discussion of alternative savings proposals because he believed the Director was acting on the Cabinet’s instructions (minute 84 – 22/7/2010).

Councillor Elderton, Cabinet Member, briefly outlined the history of the PACSPE procurement project and referred to the decision of the previous Administration to endorse the recommendation of the consultants, Capita Symonds, that Option 3 was the best way forward. He commented that the current Administration was trying to extend what they considered to be a good idea and this was a logical progression to its conclusion.

In response, Mr Bradfield said that Unison would object to any savings proposals that would have a detrimental effect on its members and lobby the Administration strongly if they considered that it was making a mistake. However, Unison was prepared to play its part in service reorganisations when it could be proved that they were necessary and beneficial

 e.g. the transfer of the Council’s housing stock to Wirral Partnership Homes.

David Green, Director of Technical Services

The Director responded to questions from Councillor Davies regarding the reasons for the exclusion of services from the procurement exercise (paragraph 3.3) and the reduced value of the contract. He reported that the gross budgets for all parks and countryside services was in excess of £14m but his report to the July Cabinet indicated (section 9) that there were still areas to be addressed and it had never been explicitly stated that the contract total would be £12/14m. He also referred to an earlier Cabinet report (September 2009) indicating that the value of this service contract would be in the order of £7.9m.

The Director outlined the governance arrangements for the Project, and reported that a series of scoping papers covering each specific service area had provided the basis for detailed analysis and discussions on the most effective arrangements for their future management. A number of options papers were presented to the Project Board and officers’ recommendations on the best forward were elevated to the Members’ Steering Group, summarised and presented to Cabinet on 13 January. The procurement process was also subject to a Gateway Review and an Internal Audit Review.

The Director gave a brief explanation as to the reasons why some services had been excluded e.g. risk management and financial probity.

Councillor Davies reported that the best case scenario for Option 3 was £7.8m projected savings over the 10 year period (£780,000 per annum), depending on the tender total. The Change Management Programme included estimated savings of only £200,000 for PACSPE none of which were EVR related, and the EVR savings would be achieved anyway as part of the Council’s overall target savings.

The Director explained that 34 staff were taking EVR and there was no way that the Service could continue at its current level with that level of reduction in staff. This situation was compounded by the lack of investment in the Service over the years.

Councillor Davies commented that it was a retrograde step not to allow staff to come up with alternative savings proposals and present a bid to compete with the private sector.

In relation to an in-house tender, the Director referred to the bidding process which involved making detailed forward financial projections for the period of the contract, and explained that the Service had no infrastructure in place for this difficult task.  It would cost at least an extra £200,000 to put together a reasonable comparable bid, for which there were no available resources within the revenue budget. There was a risk in producing tender documentation without specialist advice because if the prices were wrong, then the contract could not be delivered on those terms. Financial investment was also needed to improve the infrastructure and provide new machinery and therefore his recommendation was not to support an in-house bid.

Councillor Davies referred to the costs associated with Option 3 in the sum of £370,000 (paragraph 7.2 of the July Cabinet report).  It was suggested that the workforce should also have access to the consultants to allow them to prepare an in-house bid. However, widening the consultants’ brief to advise on an in-house bid would increase their costs.

The Director reported that the consultants had produced an outline business case which had informed the Cabinet’s decision to approve Option 3. He acknowledged that there were risks associated with Option 3 and that the timescales were tight. However, the same governance arrangements had worked well with the Biffa and Highway Maintenance contracts and every effort was being made to keep the momentum going on this project.

Councillor Davies suggested that this matter be referred back to Cabinet for further information as to what externalisation of the Parks and Countryside Service would achieve; steps to ensure the transfer of existing staff on the same terms and conditions, including clarification of prospective contractors’ future pensions proposals and whether this would allow  continuation of membership of the Merseyside Pension Fund (TUPE plus), and; reconsider the workforce’s position and allow them to submit an in-house bid.

Councillor David Elderton, Cabinet Member

He referred to his experience in the construction industry and highlighted the onerous responsibilities in producing a competitive in- house bid. He commented that Cabinet had approved Option 3 based on advice received from the consultants, and it was rigorously taking forward the process that had been started by the previous Labour Administration.