90.  Public Minute of Future Provision of the CCTV Monitoring Service - Exempt Appendix to the report of the Director of Regeneration & Communities - The Future Provision of the CCTV Monitoring Service.

Members moved on to question the finite details of the tendering process regarding the information supplied by the tenderers and the specifications requested by the authority.

The role of the technical advisor employed by the Council as part of the procurement process was explained by Officers. Members were informed that his role was to ensure the specifications proposed by tenderers were fit for purpose.

The Committee questioned the future of mobile cameras in the borough. It was explained that the Council would continue to be involved in the deployment of mobile cameras and the function would remain intelligence led. The Community Safety Unit would continue to work with the Safer Maidstone Partnership who already funded a PCSO post that would assist with this deployment.  It was confirmed that the live feed from the cameras would be fed to the screens in Medway.

Members raised questions surrounding the future employment of CCTV staff and the point of contact for Maidstone.  They were informed that TUPE (Transfer Undertakings Protection of Employment) legislation would be followed.

The Committee considered the table on page 18 of the agenda.  An explanation was sought on the disproportionate rise in the revised value of the tender proposals.  It was explained that all tenderers had been asked to include a £50,000 annual cost for camera network costs. All but one had done so, so the revised figures showed a £250,000 increase for the five year period for two of the three scores.  The Committee were informed that this had been agreed with the tenderers when amended.

The Committee sought clarification on the legalities of the decision taken.

Ms Cook responded by explaining that the Legal and Finance departments at MBC provided advice on the risks and implications of all decisions made to ensure they were informed decisions. It was explained that the normal practice with procurement processes was very prescriptive and the decision would normally therefore be made by an Officer.

Members of the Committee who had evaluated the CCTV decision and consultation process as it stood the previous Municipal Year informed the rest of the Committee that as the Environment and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee they had supported the Cabinet Member’s decision making and had involved themselves in the consultation process, attending the Question and Answer session and visit to the control centre in Medway.

The Committee were informed that the consultation responses would feed into the work involved in implementing the service and that Medway were aware of the level of concern and as with any service there would be regular monitoring. The Committee recommended that at a later stage Medway could be invited to attend Overview and Scrutiny along with the Safer Maidstone Partnership when they meet as the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Chairman moved the Committee on to the decision options they could take as detailed in 2.3 of the covering report:

• Take no action;
• Refer to Cabinet; and
• Refer to Council.

Members of the Committee concluded that they had received assurances that procurement procedures had been followed and that dialogue would continue with Stakeholders.

It was moved that the decision should stand but that the Committee recommend that continued dialogue with relevant stakeholders continued in the implementation and ongoing operation of the service.

It was recommended:

a)  The committee agreed that the decision should stand without referral back to the Cabinet. The Committee recommended both the Cabinet and officers ensure that stakeholders are fully engaged throughout all stages of the transfer of the CCTV service and its continued ongoing operation; and

b)  CCTV should remain on the agenda for the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A written update should be provided for the Committee to consider at the beginning of the second quarter of 2012.