Agenda item

5.1

Public Questions

Public Question on Corporate Buildings Statutory Servicing and Repairs Contract and Construction and Building Services Re-Tender for Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance

Mr Nigel Slack referred to the reports on the agenda for the meeting regarding the Corporate Buildings Statutory Servicing and Repairs Contract and Construction and Building Services Re-Tender for Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance. In respect of the Corporate Buildings Statutory Servicing and Repairs Contract report, he commented that the report contained acronyms throughout which often was difficult to understand for a lay member of the public. He therefore asked if reports such as these could contain a glossary to explain what the acronyms stood for?

In relation to the transparency of the contract, Mr Slack asked if the Cabinet would undertake to ensure that any censoring of ‘business case’ documents was more rigorously examined, before publication, than may previously have been the case? Also in respect of transparency, Mr Slack commented that this would be a tremendous opportunity to push the boundaries of the transparency regime in this City.  If the political will was there, it could be introduced into this contract requirements concerning levels of disclosure of monies spent with sub-contractors, identification of sub-contractors, and others, as there was a notable lack of transparency in this area.

Mr Slack further stated that in particular and crucially, we could as a city, become the first to require an Outsourcing company to ‘contract in’ to the Freedom of Information Act. Requirements, that all public bodies providing public services are already bound by. He therefore asked would the Cabinet take this under consideration and report back ‘fully’ and publicly at the next stage of the contract procurement process?

Mr Slack concluded by asking whether there was an opportunity for an in-house bid for this contract, (by that he did not mean Kier as the current contractor) and if so who would prepare that bid? Mr Slack also commented that the same questions applied to the Construction and Building Services Re-Tender for Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance report on the agenda for the meeting.

In response the Chair, Councillor Julie Dore acknowledged that the report contained a number of acronyms. The Council had a policy not to use acronyms where possible and, if they had to be used they should be written out in full the first time to explain what the acronym stood for. In relation to the redaction of information from reports, Cabinet had to assume that these were rigorously examined to ensure that only the information that was necessary to be redacted for legal or other reasons was redacted. If a member of the public or organisation identified a particular instance where they believed redaction of information had been undertaken incorrectly and had not been necessary they should bring this to the attention of the Council who would provide a written response.

Regarding the Council requiring an outsourcing company to sign up to the Freedom of Information Act, Councillor Dore commented that this would need a legal response as she was not clear whether this would be legally possible. It may be more appropriate to refer this question to the relevant Government department to ask them to look into.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources added that with the limited resources the Council currently had, the capacity and knowledge to tender for contracts had gone. Individual cases could be looked at. He would provide a formal response and combine this with the response he had stated he would provide to Mr Slack’s questions at the meeting of Full Council on 3 April 2013.

Public Question on Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance

Mick Watts, a member of the Hanover Tenants and Residents Association, commented that his question referred to two reports on the agenda for the meeting, the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme Monitoring (Month 10) and, in particular, the report in respect of the Construction and Building Services Re-Tender for Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance. He stated that the Capital Programme funds in respect of the Housing Revenue Account appeared to show a large underspend. There was no justification not to use the funds as interest rates were not likely to go down and many tenants urgently needed repairs undertaken. He was aware that slippage between financial years was a regular occurrence. Any maintenance contract, whether in house or outsourced, needed to gain a full appreciation of the building stock in the City or they would not be able to deliver the contract. In conclusion, Mr Watts questioned the level of consultation with tenants on the detail of the contract and asked if more consultation should have been undertaken.

In response Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, commented that investment in social housing was done through the Housing Revenue Account. It was a Council priority to invest in housing stock. Tenants’ views had been taken into consideration. A boiler replacement scheme was planned across the City which would be undertaken over the next 4-5 years. Borrowing up to the limit was always an option if it became necessary and was what tenants wanted. This would be a discussion to be had with tenants about what was best for them and the City as a whole bearing in mind the money would need to be paid back.

As regards consultation, Councillor Harpham reported that the contract had been discussed at the City-wide Forum on at least one occasion and the report had been available on the Council website for over a week.

Councillor Julie Dore further commented that external organisations often had whole departments who worked on tenders for contracts which was something that the Council could not provide.

Public Question on Impact on Jobs of Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance Contract

Robert Morris, Acting Regional Secretary for the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT), commented that his members were deeply concerned about redundancies referred to in paragraphs 9.4-9.5 of the Construction and Building Services Re-tender for Social Housing Repairs and Maintenance Contract report which they believed would impact on a third of the workforce and asked if any reassurances could be given to the workforce.

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that, unfortunately, he could not give any guarantees regarding jobs in the current financial climate. If the new contract resulted in the need to make redundancies this would be discussed with the unions he stated that people would be treated with the dignity, care and respect that they deserved. In response to a further request from Mr Morris, Councillor Harpham agreed to meet with him to discuss the situation.

Councillor Julie Dore added that it was important to have good industrial relations and that Members were always open to discussion. The Council had an Employment and Skills Task Force and the Trade Unions originally had a representative on this taskforce.

Public Question on In-House or Outsourcing Services

Jeff Coombs, UCATT Convenor, asked why it was the Council’s intention to bring some services back in-house, such as housing repairs, and not others such as lift repairs?

Councillor Harry Harpham commented that he believed it was critical to have a housing service linked in to repairs and maintenance. Cabinet believed that there were efficiencies and better ways of working to be gained by having the contract delivered internally.

Councillor Bryan Lodge added that contracts were delivered for that purpose at the time. There were other areas which Cabinet had to take out and procure to get the best value for money. Some elements were not competitive in the face of current market tenders. The current decision on best value for money was to take housing repairs away from the Housing Revenue Account. In the longer term, the Council may be in a position to bring it back in house.

Councillor Julie Dore commented that each individual case needed to be looked at accordingly in terms of value for money and affordability as well as levels of capacity and expertise and customer service.

Public Question on Council Cuts/Responses to Public Questions

Barry Bellamy referred to a recent complaint from a member of the public in respect of Members’ behaviour at the meeting of Full Council held on 3 April 2013. He asked whether the Councillors could really claim to represent the public when they had ignored the views of the public on a number of issues such as changes to bus routes, the closure of Stocksbridge Leisure Centre and the closure of Libraries. In addition he stated that the High Green Action Team were still awaiting a response to the questions he asked at the meeting of Cabinet held on 21 November 2012 and asked when this would be forthcoming? Mr Bellamy also questioned why supplementary questions were not allowed at meetings of Cabinet.

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the complaint about Members behaviour at a recent Full Council meeting was in respect of Councillors accessing the internet and reading other material. She assumed that every Councillor was taking note of what was being said. Where there were instances when this wasn’t the case this needed to be pointed out. However, when a debate was taking place in the Council Chamber and Members were seen to be reading on the internet or printed material it shouldn’t necessarily be assumed that they were reading something which was not relevant to the debate itself. Members could be reading documents relevant to the debate circulated before the meeting. Where this was clearly not the case, however, this would be taken up with the individuals concerned.

In relation to the library closures, Councillor Dore reported that it had not been stated that any particular library would be closed, but that the funding available puts 14 libraries at risk. The Council wanted to work with community organisations to provide other solutions to provide improved services as it was known that there were some creative and innovative ideas in the community.

She further commented that the £50m which needed to be cut from the Council’s budget was not a one off as the savings needed to be found year on year. By the end of year 4 of the cuts known of, around £240m of savings needed to be found.

Regarding the lack of opportunity for a supplementary question at the Cabinet meeting, Councillor Dore commented that the Cabinet meeting had to allow time for the business to be conducted. Cabinet in the Community meetings had allowed the opportunity for an informed discussion with Cabinet Members and these meetings would continue in the 2013/14 municipal year. She would follow up the responses to Mr Bellamy’s questions at the meeting on 21 November and provide a written response.