Agenda item

To consider the attached motion submitted by Councillors Jon Hubbard

and Jeff Osborn.

The Chairman reported receipt of the above mentioned motion from Councillors Jon Hubbard and Jeff Osborn worded as follows:

“•  Council notes the decision of the Cabinet to end the BBLP Highways and Street-scene maintenance contract 2 years early.

•   Council requires the Cabinet member to instigate an independent enquiry into the issues surrounding this contract, specifically:

•   Identifying and detailing the perceived savings that the council claims to have achieved, and why if such savings were being achieved the council felt it necessary to end the contract early?

•   In tendering the contract was the case for an "in house" operation seriously considered?

•   What were the performance issues experienced with the contract?

•   What the true costs are to Wiltshire Taxpayers resulting from the early ending of the contract

•   What lessons should be learnt from the failure of this contact for any future contacts the council considers awarding?

•   Why has it been necessary for all details about the ending of the contract to be kept secret, what is being hidden from the taxpayers?”

The motion was moved by Cllr Hubbard and duly seconded by Cllr Jeff Osborn.

In presenting his motion, Cllr Hubbard stated that he considered that an independent inquiry was justified in order to establish the facts of the matter to enable the Council to learn the lessons from the failure of the contract.

Cllr Philip Whitehead, Cabinet member for Highways and Transport explained that in his opinion, an external inquiry would undermine the work of the Scrutiny Committee which was already tasked with looking into this matter and that given there was to be a Peer Review, the extra expenditure on an external consultant would better be spent elsewhere.

The Chairman proposed that the motion be debated and this was duly seconded by Cllr Wheeler and on being put to the vote, it was

Resolved: That the motion be debated.  

Debate

The Chairman invited Group Leaders to comment before opening the debate to other Members.

Cllr Jane Scott commended the work of Scrutiny and stated that she had nothing further to add.

Cllr Glenis Ansell stated that it was clear that Scrutiny had not been able to scrutinise this issue properly.

Cllr Ernie Clark whilst supportive of the work of Scrutiny, considered that the public would feel greater assurance if this was examined independently.

Cllr Ian McLennan stated the matter had already impacted negatively on the Council’s reputation  and that the public remained concerned as to the independence of the Council’s internal systems.

Cllr Simon Killane, Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee, stated that he considered that the task group, chaired by Independent Group member, Cllr Jeff Osborn, provided robust and effective challenge; that he was keen to make sure that the chairman of the Financial Planning Task Group  was also involved; and that he welcomed the peer review.

Cllr Alan Hill stated that whilst he accepted that the motion was well intended, he considered the ongoing involvement of Scrutiny and the reports due to be considered by Cabinet in public session would ensure that the matter would be dealt with in an open and transparent way, thereby helping to allay people’s concerns.

Cllr Ansell, as Chairman of the Financial Planning Task Group, stated that her Group had not yet had the opportunity to scrutinise the BBLP contract.

Cllr Chris Devine made reference to the comments of the Chairman of Balfour Beaty with regard to how the company had bid for a large number of Government contracts during the start of the recession for which they did not have the required management and human resources to carry out these contracts, and that subsequently they had been extracting themselves from these contracts. This, he felt, explained the substantive reason for the failure, and therefore the additional expenditure of an independent inquiry was unnecessary.

Cllr Jeff Osborn, with reference to the work of the Task Group he had chaired, stated that they had focused on how to improve the operational aspects of performance rather than scrutinising the contact itself. He felt that to get to the bottom of the matter it would require forensic analysis.

Cllr Chris Caswill felt that the Scrutiny process was too closely managed by the Cabinet and that contracts of this size, when awarded to private companies, did not offer good value for money to the Council. He asked why, if the Council’s professional officers had had concerns as to BBLP’s ability to perform, these concerns were not raised with Councillors sooner.

Cllr Linda Packard made reference to the size and complexity of the contract, and felt that it could not easily be scrutinised by Councillors who were, essentially, lay people. She also queried why the contract had appeared to be signed in September when the work had already started in May of that year.

Cllr Graham Payne stated that whilst he agreed with Cllr Devine as to the causes of the problems, he commended Cllrs  Hubbard and Jeff Osborn  for performing their duty as opposition members by bringing this matter to Council for debate. He felt that there had a failure of local management by BBLP; and that the Council must have been aware of performance problems given that the Council went to some efforts to withhold a significant payment due to performance failures . Furthermore he felt that there should be improvements in the Council’s procurement processes so that a better assessment of a contractor’s ability to manage and deliver good performance.

Cllr Tony Deane, Chairman of the Audit Committee, stated that he felt the officer’s had managed the situation well given the difficult situation and that he did not see the need for an external investigation.

Cllr Ian Thorn, queried whether the Council’s due diligence procedures could be improved, and whether the Council should be more wary of contracts of this nature. He felt that the money spent on an external inquiry would be justified if it meant the Council would save money on these contracts in the future.

Cllr Helen Osborn queried whether this contract had been accepted as the cheapest, and how best the Council could ensure the competence of contractors.

Cllr Chuck Berry felt that the contractor would not have taken the decision to come out of the contract easily and asked whether they should be asked to give a full account as to the reasons why.

Cllr Gordon King felt that Scrutiny did not have the capacity to provide the single version of the truth necessary to resolve this matter.

Cllr Terry Chivers felt that the public deserved an answer and expressed concern as to the capacity of the Task Group to provide this.

Cllr Peter Edge stated that Task Group had focused on operational issues, and expressed concern that Scrutiny had not been involved earlier enough in the process to be able to properly investigate the issues.

Cllr Killane, in response to some of the issues raised, stated that he disputed the assertion that the Executive in any way managed Scrutiny processes, and stated that Scrutiny was independent. He and the Chairman of the Audit Committee had met and would be discussing opportunities for more collaborative engagement.

Cllr Bridget Wayman stated that she felt that the majority of the questions posed by the motion could be answered through a robust Scrutiny of the matter and that she did not feel an independent inquiry was required.

Cllr Whitehead, in response to some of the issues raised, stated that he would work with Scrutiny to answer their questions and reiterated that conclusion of the contact had not cost the Council money.

Cllr Hubbard, in summing up his motion, stated that he did not attach any blame to Scrutiny as they had not looked at the contract but had looked only at elements of delivery. Furthermore, that he was exercising his role as an opposition councillor by bringing this matter to the attention of Council through effective challenge and questioning; that not enough questions were asked at the beginning of the procurement process; why had the Council’s due diligence procedure not picked this up, that BBLP had apparently undercharged for the contract; and that it would be worth spending the money to get to the truth.

Having been put to a recorded vote, the motion was LOST and it was therefore

Resolved:  That motion No. 24 as detailed above be not adopted.

Note:  Details of the recorded vote made is attached as an appendix.