The Staff Side would like to raise its concerns that market testing is now being accepted that it will not deliver the savings the council requires and as such puts into question the whole commissioning agenda.
In addition, the Staff Side would like to repeat its concerns that there continues to be a lack of transparency and openness with the staff and the unions.
Minutes:
The Staff Side commenced by referring to a report that went to the Executive during January 2015. The Staff Side Secretary (SSS) mentioned that in this report, concerning commissioning, it had been stated that no savings had been assumed in the commissioning process to date. The SSS queried the logic of embarking on a process which had no guarantees of savings, as well as potential job losses. The Staff Side suggested that it would be a good idea for the Council to provide reassurances to staff that the Council was not ideologically driven in this matter.
The Chairman stated that it was not the case that the Council was ideologically driven, and that market testing had come about as a result of financial pressures on the Council due to cutbacks in central government funding. The Chairman remarked that the non assumption of savings referred to previously was made because it was not possible to accurately assess savings at this time.
A Member commented that in practice commissioning was focused on price, and that specifications tended to be standardised in nature. This meant that in certain cases there would be instances when demands were not being met properly.
A Member commented that it was hard not to feel that there was some form of ideological bias, and it was important to ensure that savings were being made, and that a safety net was in place if required. The Member cautioned against dismissing these concerns without proper investigation and consultation.
The SSS asserted that in the normal process of commissioning, there was a 10% saving assumed initially, but nothing after that. The SSS suggested that Members may not be properly informed of the current position, and that there may be services ready to be outsourced that they were not aware of.
A Member declared that the Council was not ideologically driven, and that there was a difference between market testing and privatisation. If the market testing was not successful, then the service would remain in house.
The Vice Chairman referenced the possible closure of Bromley Museum, and the resultant job losses if the closure went ahead. The Vice Chairman stated museum staff had expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of running the service and this had been refused. The Vice Chairman also expressed concerns about the out sourcing of the parks contract. However, a Member advised the Vice Chairman that Bromley Museum was not proposed for outsourcing or market testing. The Council was proposing to relocate and deliver the service in a different location away from the Priory.
A Member requested an investigation concerning the museum staff, and this was agreed by the Committee.
A Member expressed concern that the Council was focused on cutting staff and resources, was not looking at problems creatively, and that staff were not being supported sufficiently. There was also a concern that decisions were bring made too quickly, before looking for alternatives.
RESOLVED that the Committee be updated in due course after issues concerning the Bromley Museum Staff were investigated.