Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion as set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr P M McDonald, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P Denham, Mr L C R Mallett, and Ms C M Stalker.
The motion was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr L C R Mallett who both spoke in favour of it.
The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.
Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:
· Members of the Audit and Governance Committee had expressed concern at their recent meeting about the prioritisation of problems experienced by Liberata over the auditing of the accounts. Officer time had been transferred to address the problems experienced by a private company and as a result had exposed the Council to reputational damage. Access to information about the cost of propping up Liberata had been denied on the basis of the confidentiality of the contract. There was a lack of accountability and transparency particularly of ownership and corporate governance of private providers in general. In addition there was poor monitoring, undisclosed procurement costs and a lack of scrutiny. It was therefore necessary to ensure that there had been no unauthorised expenditure to prop up a failing private sector company
· The motion was not concerned with the system itself or the TUPE arrangements but rather the impact of the transfer of experienced staff from the audit of accounts process. As a result, the Council missed its statutory deadline for the publication of the accounts. The Council should not have entered into a contract with a contractor that was not fit for purpose
· There were three crucial areas to consider when commissioning out services: 1) a guiding principle should be the cheapest was not necessarily the best; 2) an awareness of the financial strength of the company; and 3) an understanding of whether the Council was looking for a company to facilitate the contract or a company to provide a service
· The Council had signed up to the cheapest contract at a cost in terms of officer time and damage to the Council's good reputation. The Council had commissioned out the service despite its own officers doing a fantastic job. For transparency purposes, the matter should be referred to the OSPB.
Those against the motion made the following comments:
· The Cabinet Member for Transformation and Commissioning acknowledged that there had been issues with implementation of the Mercury payroll/HR system. However an independent review by SOCITM had been carried out and lessons learnt. A hundred day plan had been devised and shared with all schools and councillors. No payments had been made to Liberata outside the terms of the contract. Any issues with suppliers had been identified and addressed and any evidenced losses would be paid. The contract was being actively managed and monitored to ensure best value for money. Staff had been transferred in accordance with TUPE regulations. There was therefore no need for this motion.
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.