Agenda item

Notice of Motion Regarding "The StreetsAhead Contract" - Given by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed and to be Seconded by Councillor Adam Hanrahan

That this Council:-

 

(a)       notes the concerns reported in the press regarding the tendering process which resulted in the Amey StreetsAhead contract;

 

(b)       believes that this contract should serve the people of Sheffield; that the Council Administration should work towards achieving greater flexibility, timeliness, cost effectiveness and improve the safety whilst achieving better value for money from the StreetsAhead programme;

 

(c)        is deeply concerned by the reported allegations that Amey may have failed to declare legal proceedings that were pending or threatened, leading to a criminal conviction, and therefore believes this warrants further investigation as, if found to be true, it could be the basis to determine a legal validity of the StreetsAhead contract; and

 

(d)       resolves that due to the serious nature of the allegations, the Administration should ensure that an open and independent inquiry be carried out as a matter of urgency by a person such as a retired judge with expertise in commercial law, which would report back to full Council so an open, independent and transparent recommendation can be made to this Council to allow us to continue to invest in our highways infrastructure.

 

Minutes:

7.1

It was moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, and seconded by Councillor Adam Hanrahan, that this Council:-

 

 

 

(a)       notes the concerns reported in the press regarding the tendering process which resulted in the Amey StreetsAhead contract;

 

 

 

(b)       believes that this contract should serve the people of Sheffield; that the Council Administration should work towards achieving greater flexibility, timeliness, cost effectiveness and improve the safety whilst achieving better value for money from the StreetsAhead programme;

 

 

 

(c)        is deeply concerned by the reported allegations that Amey may have failed to declare legal proceedings that were pending or threatened, leading to a criminal conviction, and therefore believes this warrants further investigation as, if found to be true, it could be the basis to determine a legal validity of the StreetsAhead contract; and

 

 

 

(d)      resolves that due to the serious nature of the allegations, the Administration should ensure that an open and independent inquiry be carried out as a matter of urgency by a person such as a retired judge with expertise in commercial law, which would report back to full Council so an open, independent and transparent recommendation can be made to this Council to allow us to continue to invest in our highways infrastructure.

 

 

7.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Bryan Lodge, and seconded by Councillor Mike Chaplin, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

 

 

 

(a)       reaffirms its commitment to the ongoing work under the Streets Ahead contract;

 

 

 

(b)      highlights the fact that a large number of Freedom of Information requests, and petitions, as well as a KPMG investigation instigated by members of the public, have been put forward in relation to the aforementioned allegations and the suggestion that the Streets Ahead contract can be terminated without significant financial penalties;

 

 

 

(c)      notes that Sheffield City Council’s legal department have scrutinised claims that the contract could be cancelled penalty free due to legal reasons, and does not agree, and also notes that the allegation that Amey plc had a conviction for corporate manslaughter was found by the Court to be inaccurate;

 

 

 

(d)      further notes that Amey UK plc was the lead bidder in the procurement and was required to respond to the mandatory and discretionary procurement regulated Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) questions and that they did this to the satisfaction of the Council and our external legal advisers;

 

 

 

(e)      reaffirms awareness of the Health & Safety conviction in 2011;

 

 

 

(f)       reiterates satisfaction that there has been no breach by Amey of the PQQ process or the Bid Process Agreement and, therefore, strongly disagrees that there are grounds for terminating the contract without incurred penalties on the basis that has been set out;

 

 

 

(g)      notes that in relation to the most recent Health & Safety Contravention Notices given to Amey by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Amey are complying with the terms of the PFI Contract by notifying the Council of the Contravention Notices, and continue to update the Council;

 

 

 

(h)      notes that, subject to the outcome of the discussions between the HSE and Amey, the Council will determine if any action needs to be taken in accordance with the terms of the PFI contract, and reiterates that, at this point in time, there are no grounds for termination of the PFI contract without significant financial penalties;

 

 

 

(i)       further notes that, ultimately, the facts are not disputed but that it is a difference of opinion in the consequences of these facts, and these could only really be resolved by a court or tribunal;

 

 

 

(j)        reiterates that this Administration has never supported the PFI model, however, voluntarily terminating the contract would cost the Council millions, and at a time when the Council has made £390 million of cuts to services since 2011, believes this is not acceptable; and

 

 

 

(k)      notes that the Labour Party has outlined their plan for government to bring certain PFI contracts in-house, and support is given to this proposal. 

 

 

7.3

It was then moved by Councillor Robert Murphy, and seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of new paragraphs (e) and (f) as follows:-

 

 

 

(e)      asks officers, in the event that the inquiry finds evidence that the bidder for the Streets Ahead contract made a dishonest statement to obtain the contract, to investigate bringing the contract back in-house; and

 

 

 

(f)       believes that the Streets Ahead contract should be fully disclosed on the grounds of public interest to enable all Councillors and members of the public to see what has been signed up to on their behalf.

 

 

7.4

After a contribution from another Member, and following a right of reply from Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, the amendment moved by Councillor Bryan Lodge was put to the vote and was carried.

 

 

7.5

The amendment moved by Councillor Robert Murphy was then put to the vote and was negatived.

 

 

7.5.1

(NOTE: Councillors Andy Nash, Bob Pullin, Adam Hanrahan, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Shaffaq Mohammed, Paul Scriven, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gail Smith, David Baker and Vickie Priestley voted against paragraph (e) and for paragraph (f) of the amendment, and asked for this to be recorded.)

 

 

7.6

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and was carried:-

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

 

 

 

 

 

(a)      reaffirms its commitment to the ongoing work under the Streets Ahead contract;

 

 

 

 

 

(b)      highlights the fact that a large number of Freedom of Information requests, and petitions, as well as a KPMG investigation instigated by members of the public, have been put forward in relation to the aforementioned allegations and the suggestion that the Streets Ahead contract can be terminated without significant financial penalties;

 

 

 

 

 

(c)      notes that Sheffield City Council’s legal department have scrutinised claims that the contract could be cancelled penalty free due to legal reasons, and does not agree, and also notes that the allegation that Amey plc had a conviction for corporate manslaughter was found by the Court to be inaccurate;

 

 

 

 

 

(d)      further notes that Amey UK plc was the lead bidder in the procurement and was required to respond to the mandatory and discretionary procurement regulated Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) questions and that they did this to the satisfaction of the Council and our external legal advisers;

 

 

 

 

 

(e)      reaffirms awareness of the Health & Safety conviction in 2011;

 

 

 

 

 

(f)       reiterates satisfaction that there has been no breach by Amey of the PQQ process or the Bid Process Agreement and, therefore, strongly disagrees that there are grounds for terminating the contract without incurred penalties on the basis that has been set out;

 

 

 

 

 

(g)      notes that in relation to the most recent Health & Safety Contravention Notices given to Amey by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Amey are complying with the terms of the PFI Contract by notifying the Council of the Contravention Notices, and continue to update the Council;

 

 

 

 

 

(h)      notes that, subject to the outcome of the discussions between the HSE and Amey, the Council will determine if any action needs to be taken in accordance with the terms of the PFI contract, and reiterates that, at this point in time, there are no grounds for termination of the PFI contract without significant financial penalties;

 

 

 

 

 

(i)       further notes that, ultimately, the facts are not disputed but that it is a difference of opinion in the consequences of these facts, and these could only really be resolved by a court or tribunal;

 

 

 

 

 

(j)       reiterates that this Administration has never supported the PFI model, however, voluntarily terminating the contract would cost the Council millions, and at a time when the Council has made £390 million of cuts to services since 2011, believes this is not acceptable; and

 

 

 

 

 

(k)      notes that the Labour Party has outlined their plan for government to bring certain PFI contracts in-house, and support is given to this proposal.