Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on November 13 2018 be

confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Juliet Campbell declared a personal interest in Item 9 as an

employee of carers Lewisham 18 years ago.

Councillor Jim Mallory declared a personal interest in Item 9 as his wife had

previously worked as a volunteer for Carers Lewisham for 10 years.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The report, made available for pre-decision scrutiny, was presented by the

Planning Programme and Infrastructure Manager.

The Chair pointed out the report had already been discussed at the

Sustainable Development Committee and an informal presentation and

discussion open to all Councillors had taken place.

The Chair reported he had received a written question from Councillor Walsh

Asking what advice had officers sought from the Department of Communities

and Local Government (and/or other appropriate government agencies) about

the redistribution of CIL (including NCIL) away from communities/localities

that are directly affected by the impacts of developments, where the charges

are levied? In response Planning Programme and Infrastructure Manager.

Said advice had not been required from the DCLG or DHLG but that legal

input had been obtained internally.

In answer to a concern raised by Councillor Millbank, the Planning

Programme and Infrastructure Manager said work would be undertaken in

conjunction with colleagues from the Community Services Directorate to

establish relationships and assess potential impacts as Neighbourhood Plans

once adopted would be a consideration in determining infrastructure priorities.

In answer to a request from Councillor Curran suggesting a longer timeframe

might prove beneficial, the Planning Programme and Infrastructure Manager

said the process had already been ongoing for a number of years and that a

successful pilot had already been undertaken in the Evelyn Ward. He further

pointed out the Mayor & Cabinet consideration, originally programmed for

November 2018, had been delayed to March 2019 at the earliest.

Councillor Mallory stated he had seen a draft allocation formula elsewhere

which he welcomed. He cautioned against Local Assemblies regarding NCIL

as revenue to be added to the main budget process. He suggested greater

centralisation of the allocation process might be required.

Councillor Feis-Bryce sought information about the outcome of the Evelyn

pilot. The Chair indicated that information had previously been circulated by

officers on this pilot and he said he would see if he could recirculate the

relevant email.

Councillors Sorba and Curran both made suggestions about the role elected

members should play in decision making and the Chair advised a conclusion

on that area would be reached elsewhere.

Councillor Muldoon asked for any agreed mechanism for the allocation of

funds should be proportionate to the amount being given.

In conclusion, the Panel welcomed the greater time being taken which would

allow the emergence of a modified allocation formula. The Panel agreed all

comments received, including the extensive ones submitted by the

Sustainable Development Committee, should be the subject of further

discussion. The Panel further asked that once funding had been allocated the

process should be clear, transparent and timely.

RESOLVED that the report be received.

No open decisions taken by the Mayor & Cabinet on January 16 2019 were

identified for further discussion.

The Overview & Scrutiny Manager reported that all Select Committee Work

programmes were reaching completion.

She confirmed the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had made a submission to

the Local Democracy Review.

She advised the Panel that the Government was yet to publish statutory

scrutiny guidance.

She informed the Panel that the Our Healthier South East London joint

overview and scrutiny committee would next meet on February 20.

Councillor Sorba reported that unusually the Children and Young People’s

Select Committee’s in depth review would not be completed in this Municipal

Yaer.

Councillor John Paschoud questioned the justification for exempting the

Mayor & Cabinet report which was at issue from consideration in the open

part of the meeting. He said the redaction of a recommendation and a page of

commercial information would remove any need for restriction. The Panel

considered his representation but concluded it would not be prudent to

proceed along the lines suggested without comprehensive legal advice. The

Chair asked that Legal Officers prepare a briefing for him prior to the next

meeting.

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972,

the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of

business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt

information as defined in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule

12(A) of the Act, as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive

Arrangements) (Access to Information) (Amendments) (England) Regulations

2006:-

 9. Decisions made by Mayor and Cabinet on 16 January 2019.

The report on the Award of Contract for the Carer Information Advice and

Support Service was presented by two of the joint NHS/Council

Commissioning Officers.

Councillor John Paschoud expressed surprise that the service was marked as

‘boroughwide’ when it had offices in his Perry Vale Ward. He went on to

question the soundness of the bid evaluation process which placed a 60%

weighting on price and only 40% on quality when it was widely known an

emergent Social value would suggest weighing both factors equally.

The Commissioning Officer responded by saying the Service was expected to

operate on a boroughwide basis and that advice taken from Legal and

Procurement colleagues stated current weightings were to be used until

replaced by any new factors.

Councillor John Muldoon asked if in-house provision had been considered in

line with a Mayoral Manifesto commitment and was informed officers believed

Carer support should always be independent of the Council.

Councillor Susan Wise said she lacked confidence in the rankings being used

and believed forthcoming changes to procurement rules would ensure there

was greater emphasis on quality and a possible change to the recommended

provider for this contract.

Councillor Luke Sorba sought information on the staffing implications and was

informed four staff were eligible for TUPE to the new provider. Councillor

Olurtimi Ogunbadewa expressed concerns about the ongoing job security for

any staff transferred to any new provider.

Councillor Juliet Campbell expressed a preference for the contract to be

awarded to a specialist carers agency and was informed officers had looked

more widely at agencies offering information, advice and support services.

Councillor Jim Mallory recognised the need for advisors who were

independent of the Council. He queried any separation between advice for

Young Carers and advice for Adult Carers. Officers stated this was because

Young Carers were funded separately by CYP Commissioning.

Councillor Juliet Campbell raised concerns about any transition to a new

provider and believed a seamless service was unlikely to be achieved.

Councillor Feis-Bryce quoted a Mayoral Manifesto commitment to obtain

services locally which appeared to be at variance with the decisions taken at

Mayor & Cabinet.

The Panel concluded that given their misgivings about this contract award

they should agree a formal call-in and refer the decisions back to Mayor &

Cabinet for reconsideration. The reasons for the call-in were proposed by

Councillor Mallory and after being read back to the Panel, were agreed

unanimously.

RESOLVED that the decision taken by the Mayor & Cabinet on January 16 in

respect of the award of contract Carer Information Advice and

Support Service be called-in and referred back to the Mayor & Cabinet for

Reconsideration for the following reasons:

i. that the scoring system and the balance between quality and price was not

robust given the decision to award the contract to an organisation which was

1st on Price and 4th on Quality over another which was 2nd on Price and 1st

on Quality;

ii. that the Panel was not convinced there would be continuity of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.