Agenda and minutes

Apologies from the Staff Side were received from Mary Odoi and Glenn Kelly.

From the Employer’s Side, apologies were received from Cllr Stephen Carr, and Cllr Colin Smith acted as alternate.   

Cllr Simon Fawthrop declared an interest in his capacity as an employee of British Telecom.

The minutes from the previous meeting held on 8^th December 2015 were agreed.  

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

Despite the results of the consultation exercise carried out by the Council, the Council is pressing ahead with a tendering process for the Library Service. Will the Council now disclose which organisations have come forward with bids to run the service? The Council refused to disclose that Community Links were bidding for the Community Libraries - despite the fact that they were the only bidder. The Council relied on a "Commercially Sensitive" response.

Based on the Local Government Transparency Code, the commercially sensitive response was clearly not applicable. We are now asking that the Council reveal who is bidding for the remaining libraries. We draw your attention to Section 20 of the code which deals with commercial sensitivity which states:

"The government has not seen any evidence that publishing details about contracts entered into by local authorities would prejudice procurement or the interests of commercial organisations or breach commercial confidentiality"

It is clear that the matter is not one for exemption or exclusion according to the code.

The Council is in a contractual relationship with bidders as soon as a bid is made. Therefore, section 3.1 of the code is relevant. Further, paragraph 60 clearly states that published details must include the company registration number at company’s house.

The Staff Side enquired why LBB had not disclosed that Community Links had bid for the management of the community libraries. They also asked if LBB were now prepared to disclose the identities of the other bidders, and to reveal which organisations had come forward to run the main library service.

The Staff Side were of the view that this information should have been disclosed under the Local Government Transparency Code, Section 20 which dealt with commercially sensitive contracts

Mr Colin Brand (Assistant Director for Culture, Libraries and Leisure) stated that a contract would consist of an offer and the acceptance of that offer. A tender remained an offer until a contract was agreed. It was also the case that tender details were confidential.  No contract existed, and so the transparency code did not apply. He assured the Committee that commercial confidentiality had been correctly applied, and that the company details had been released at the correct time through a Portfolio Holder decision.

It was noted that after it was revealed that Community Links had been granted “preferred bidder status” to manage the community libraries, action had been initiated outside of Community House by the Unions.

A debate took place concerning the nature of this action. Members expressed concern that the action undertaken by the unions may in fact be secondary picketing. The Staff Side contended that the unions were not engaged in secondary picketing, but had been peacefully protesting. Their aim was to persuade Community Links to withdraw from the process. Cllr Fawthrop was of the view that what had taken place was secondary picketing to exert pressure on a potential supplier. He was of the view that action should be taken, and that LBB should consider suing for consequential loss.

The Vice Chairman argued that the action undertaken could never be interpreted as a picket, as a picket prevented people going into their places of work. She insisted that there was never any attempt to prevent anyone entering Community House, and that the Unions were simply distributing leaflets. 

Cllr Colin Smith asked why the action outside of Community Links had been referred to as a “picketing” on a Unite website, and why were people in wheelchairs being obstructed. The Vice Chairman responded that wheelchair users were not being obstructed. Mr Brand referenced a Twitter webpage where the term “picketing” was used, and stated that more detail could be provided if required. The Director of Human Resources also stated that literature referenced “picketing”. The Vice Chairman reiterated her view that no secondary picketing had been undertaken.

Cllr Angela Wilkins commented that the facts needed to be established, and that the distribution of leaflets was not picketing. It was also a fact that an individual could use terminology incorrectly due to a lack of training or experience and so there was a need for calm.

A Member queried if the action by the Unions constituted a breach of the law.

The Chairman asked the Staff Side how they had gained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

The Council has just confirmed “Community Links” as the preferred bidder for the Community Libraries. Can members confirm that they were in fact the only bidders and mindful of the its responsibilities under the  Local Government Transparency Code 2015 will the Council share the details of that bid and similarly the feasibility report produced by AMEY for TFM services the Council are preparing to outsource, (redacted where justifiable under the code).

The Staff Side asked if the Council would share details of the feasibility report produced by AMEY for Total Facilities Management (TFM) services that the Council were preparing to outsource. The Staff Side expressed the view that the Council was obliged to share the information under the Local Government Transparency Code 2015.

The Chairman commented that the AMEY report was confidential. Mr Brand stated that a consultation process had been undertaken, and that the relevant information had been provided. He explained that Regulation 21 of the Contract Procedure Rules stated that LBB was not allowed to discuss the tender process as this was confidential. The information could not be released as it was commercially sensitive.

Gill Slater asked what information could be released that was not confidential so that staff input could be considered. She suggested that staff may be able to comment and input to the feasibility study.

The Committee noted that the feasibility study would be scrutinised by the E&R PDS Committee on March 16^th 2016, and then by Executive on the 23^rd March 2016. If the proposals outlined were agreed, then a three month due diligence period would follow. Consultation would then take place with staff and the unions. The marketing for the tender was being undertaking on a like for like basis, and was neither increasing nor reducing. Mr Brand assured that the information that Ms Slater was seeking would be revealed via the due diligence process. 

Councillor Wilkins asked if the feasibility report was a public or private report. Mr Brand responded that as much as possible (if not all) of the report would be public. Ms Slater expressed concern that staff were being excluded from the process, and were not being allowed access to information and specifications. She expressed the view that quality was key, and the assessment of quality was difficult and was concerned that staff were not able to highlight potential risks to the Council.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the intention was to transfer the service on a like for like basis, and that any new contract would be scrutinised by the Contracts Working Group. He was of the view that the Staff Side were expressing hypothetical arguments which were not helpful, and that they should let the professionals progress.    

Cllr Fawthrop stated that the Unions may like to consider putting forward a bid for the service. Mr Brand stated that there was an ongoing dispute concerning the release of specifications, but that the Trade Unions had the information. He informed the Committee that experts had drafted the specifications, and that the documents were in circulation for staff to see.

Ms Slater contended that:

·  There was still work outstanding on specifications

·  Specifications had a “ripple” effect

·  The process had not factored in time for the information to be studied by individual Heads of Service

·  The information should be located in one easy to access link

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

The Council has just announced the awarding of the IT contract to BT with estimated savings of 10%.  Is this further savings on top of the SunGard contract subsumed by Capita that was intended to give 25% savings?  Now we are at the change of contracts stage, is there a “final account” / report to the Contracts Committee setting out any true savings achieved and does this reflect in any way the wider costs to the service through IT failures to the IT service?

The Staff Side had requested information concerning estimated savings for the new IT contract with BT. They had also asked if there was now a final account or report that was going to the Contracts Working Group which would set out any true savings achieved.

There was no officer available at the meeting to answer the question. The Committee agreed that the question be accepted, and that an answer be drafted by the appropriate officer, and then emailed to the Committee. In this way, the Staff Side would benefit from an answer to the question, without having to wait for the next meeting. It was further agreed that if the Staff Side were not safisfied with the answer, the matter would then be deferred to the next LJCC meeting.

RESOLVED:

(1) that the question be accepted 

(2) that an answer be drafted by the proper officer and disseminated to the Committee

(3) that if the Staff Side were not satisfied with the written answer, the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee 

The Committee is requested to note that the next meeting date has been provisionally set for 8^th June 2016. This is subject to formal ratification of the new LBB Calendar of Meetings by the GP&L Committee.

The Committee noted that the next meeting of the LJCC had been set for 8^th June 2016. This was subject to formal ratification of the new LBB Calendar of Meetings by the GP&L Committee.