Agenda item

DRR17/034

At its meeting on 9^th November 2015, the Executive had instructed officers to market test the library service using a procurement strategy based on competition with negotiation to enable officers to work with bidders to realise savings. The report set out the history of the tendering process; at the second round of tenders one bidder had dropped out and this had resulted in a single final bid, which was from Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL). GLL was a large and well established provider of local authority services, including operating library services in Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lincolnshire and in prisons for the Ministry of Justice. Their bid would deliver savings for the Council by implementing efficiencies in operational and specialist support functions, economies of scale and purchasing power, savings from rate relief due to their charitable status and exploring opportunities to maintain and develop income streams.

Extensive consultation and engagement had been carried out with staff and their representatives; this was set out in the report. In addition, a petition in two parts had been received from Kathy Smith/Unite objecting to the Contracting out of Library Services -

(1) Petition to Oppose the Contracting Out of Library Services

“We wish to petition the Council on the issue of the tender for the provision of library services. We note that a Council member decision will be made in May 2017. We also note that the Council accepts that it may be that the best value outcome is that a contract is not awarded and we welcome the fact that the Council is considering this as an option. We strongly believe that the service must remain in-house. Based on consultation exercises conducted by the Council itself, we also believe that this is a desire shared by residents of the borough. We, the signatories to this petition, formally request that a deputation is allowed to be made to the Council on the matter.”  

This petition had been verified with 2,042 signatures (as well as 780 signatures that are out of borough, incomplete or illegible). In addition, 936 survey sheets had been handed in with the petition, of which 794 were from residents of the borough.

The Leader invited Kathy Smith to address the Executive in support of her petition. She complained that there was a lack of transparency, with too much information restricted to part 2 and little evidence of the supposed benefits of the proposed contract. She stated that many residents opposed the proposals, and that the library service should be treasured rather than sold off, especially as there had eventually been only one tenderer, offering the Council no choice. She stated that when the Museum had been closed and moved to the Central Library assurances had been given that museum status would be preserved – this had not been the case. She also referred to problems with contract monitoring in the Environment and Community Services Department which did not provide reassurance that services would be safe, and complained that Councillors had not asked questions at recent PDS Committee meetings when they should have scrutinised the proposals. In conclusion, she stated that it was ironic that the main display at the Central Library celebrated John Lubbock, who had fought to take libraries out of private hands. 

Councillor Peter Morgan responded to the petition, stating that the Council was facing severe budget problems and that the GLL proposals would therefore preserve and safeguard the library service which would, otherwise, come under pressure. The Council had invested in the service, providing new libraries at Biggin Hill, Orpington and Penge, and would still retain democratic control. He added that GLL was an experienced provider and used to taking staff on TUPE transfers.

The Leader commented that some residents had been encouraged to sign the petition under the impression that libraries would be closed. He also reported that he had been in touch with LB Wandsworth about GLL’s performance there, and had been reassured that they were providing a good service. The only concern was that there needed to be clarity about the branding of the service – officers confirmed that Bromley would remain the lead brand. 

Officers confirmed that the specification for the contract was a like for like service, with all staff transferring under TUPE. GLL would pursue full accreditation for the museum and would support the Council’s aspirations for the service, such as the scheme for a replacement library for Chislehurst. They would be closely monitored and would be required to attend the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee for scrutiny twice a year.  Staff had been offered the opportunity to come forward with their own proposals for taking over the service, but no such proposals had been received.

The report had been scrutinised by the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee on 5^th July 2017. More detailed information and recommendations were covered in a report on the part 2 agenda.

RESOLVED that

(1) The feedback on the recommendation from staff and their representatives be noted.

(2)  The outcome of the full market testing exercise be noted and the contract for the provision of library services be awarded to Greenwich leisure Limited for a period of ten years with the option to extend for a further five years.