Agenda item

Interviews with:

·  The Leader and the Cabinet;

·  Zena Cooke, Director of Regeneration and Communities;

·  John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Community Services; and

·  Ryan O’Connell, Corporate Projects and Overview and Scrutiny Manager.

The Chairman began by inviting Councillor FitzGerald and Councillor Newton, who had called in the decision to present their case and explain the information they were seeking from the invited witnesses, to the Committee.

Councillor FitzGerald and Councillor Newton explained their reasons for calling in the decision. The primary concern was the security of the people of Maidstone. It was felt that a central Government decision not to relocate the Fire Service’s central control to Hampshire at a cost of millions because of the loss of local knowledge reinforced this. It was explained that the preferential outcome the consultation with Stakeholders was that CCTV should be kept in Maidstone and the service should be provided in real-time with a minimum of 2 operators, 24 hours a day.  The vote of Cabinet, although conducted under Part II had been made public by the press.  It was therefore public knowledge that the Cabinet vote on the decision was three in favour and two against.  Councillor FitzGerald felt that this demonstrated a conflict of interests, particularly as the Cabinet Member, Councillor JA Wilson, could have made the decision himself. Their recommendation was that the decision should go to full Council for a free vote.

Councillor Garland informed the Committee that the Cabinet papers were conclusive and a democratic decision had been made.  He explained that Cabinet were sympathetic to keeping the CCTV service in Maidstone but the scoring of the procurement process had prevented this. The Committee were told that the opposition had attended the Cabinet meeting and had their questions on the technicalities and financial aspects of the decision answered satisfactorily. He concluded that the Leader and Cabinet Member (named as the two opposing voters) would support the decision made.

Cabinet Members Councillors Hotson and JA Wilson were in support of the Leader’s message that a democratic decision had been reached and the Leader told the Committee that a debate on the decision would be welcomed if any significant information was to come forward.

The Committee were informed that they were at liberty to open up the discussion if they chose to as a decision could only be called in once. Mr O’Connell, as Overview and Scrutiny Manager, informed the Cabinet Member and Committee that once the call-in was made he had been contacted by other Members who would have called in the decision.  Mr Fisher, Head of Legal, informed the Committee that the reasons for call-in were to assist the process and not to restrict it. 

The Leader and Cabinet Members left the meeting to allow Officers to answer Member questions in accordance with the overview and scrutiny procedure rules as they had taken part in the original decision.

The Chairman highlighted to Members that some parts of their questions relating to financial information and specifics of tenders would not be able to be answered in Part I.  The Committee agreed to remain in Part I for as long as possible.

Councillor FitzGerald felt that there were three main areas to focus the discussion on the CCTV tendering and procurement process:

• A Maidstone centric focus;
• Long term risk management; and
• Partnership board and costing.

John Littlemore, Head of Housing and Communities responded to the first area, a Maidstone centric focus.  He explained that stakeholders concerns had been considered in reports to the Cabinet member – specifically with a question which was focused on liaison on how tenders would address and maintain this locally. He explained that a Maidstone focus was a theme that had been built in to the process.

Members were informed that the Project Management position was a temporary post that would be put in place by the winning tenderer. The long term risk would be managed through the partnership board.

The issue of two operators was raised. Concerns were raised by Councillor FitzGerald in relation to the possibility of only one person looking after Maidstone as part of the new operation. Mr Littlemore explained that this was something that had been addressed as part of the tendering process but it could not be used to restrict the process therefore innovation was asked for in providing a 24/7 service.

Councillor FitzGerald raised the issue of the tendering process being restricted as if was a ‘not for profit’ service.  Officers explained that tenders had been made by two private sector companies and one public sector organisation so the results demonstrated that this stipulation had not put off the private sector.  It was clarified that not for profit meant the council would pay the direct costs of providing its element of the CCTV service without profit margins being added.

Visiting Member, Councillor Robertson, queried whether the open nature of the tendering process with an emphasis on ‘innovation’ had been an issue and prohibited bidders.  He was concerned primarily with the technical aspects of the tenders and made reference to ‘realtime’ images and there being no clear definition in the tender documents of what this was. Officers informed the Committee that a tenderer had asked for clarification on this and it was explained that any areas of concern or requests for information were answered and the reply sent to all tenderers to maintain a level playing field and ensure all tenderers had the same information.

Some Members questioned the existing space in the Town Hall there were concerns raised that tenderers had been treated differently regarding its use.  Officers explained that in July 2011 there had been a visit to the Town Hall for all tenderers to view and evaluate the space and what could be achieved with it.  At that stage there were 14 tenderers on the ‘long list’.

It was explained that specific details of tenderers proposals for the use of the Town Hall space would have to be discussed in part II.