Agenda item
Reference from Council - Executive Mayor's Car
- Meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Tuesday, 3rd December, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 7.2)
- View the background to item 7.2
To consider the information presented in the report and prepare a response for submission to Council.
Minutes:
Chris Holme (Acting Corporate Director Resources) in introducing the report, which provided:-
· An explanation of why this matter had been referred to OSC to investigate and report back to full Council.
· All relevant information on the matter to enable OSC to undertake full scrutiny of the issues and reach an informed conclusion as requested by OSC (October meeting).
summarised the salient points contained therein and highlighted key points for the information of the OSC. Paul Thorogood (Interim Service Head Finance & HR Development) and Martin McGrath (Finance Manager Chief Executive’s and Resources Directorates) were also in attendance for this item.
The following points were highlighted by Chris Holme:
· The decision to provide suitable transport facilities for the Executive Mayor, and separate arrangement for the Speaker of the Council was made in 2011 following a detailed options appraisal.
· Business case/ value for money offered by the current arrangements for transporting the Executive Mayor [Mayor’s car]:
o The current arrangements comprised of over 90% fixed costs including employee costs [driver salary], vehicle lease, insurance, and variable costs being fuel; with the total cost approximately £42,000 per annum. There would be significant redundancy costs if the current arrangements ceased and a termination cost of approximately £5,000 for the lease, which tapered off as the lease agreement neared expiry in October 2014.
o Were the driver to return to his role of driving the Speaker he would be utilised less, as the Speaker attended fewer engagements and this would be wasteful of Council resources.
o The LBTH arrangements for transport of the Executive Mayor were not unique and a review had shown the costs were comparable with neighbouring local councils.
· The decision that there should be separate arrangements for the Mayor and Speaker did however result in two lease cars currently and the OSC might wish to consider if that merited review in the future.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Clarification sought and given as to whether the current arrangements for transporting the Mayor (car and driver), at an approximate cost of £176 per working day represented value for money, particularly if compared to the costs of using a taxi instead. A large element of the cost of current arrangements was fixed, such as employee costs and lease-hire charges and consequently significant redundancy and premature contract termination costs would be incurred if these arrangements ceased.
· Consideration that one premise underpinning the business case/ value for money assessment of the current arrangements, that driver redundancy costs needed taken into account when assessing the costs of terminating the arrangements was flawed, as the driver could revert to the former role of driving the Speaker, and this would also yield a saving in relation to the substantial insurance costs of the Speaker’s lease car relating to the Speaker’s chain of office. This should be explored and factored into the review requested by full Council. Were the driver to return to his role of driving the Speaker he would be utilised less, as the Speaker attended fewer engagements and this would be wasteful of Council resources.
· Clarification sought and given as to why the use of public transport, driving his own car and walking were never considered within original options appraisal for Mayor’s transport. Comment also that former Leader’s of the Council, who had had a similar role/ function to that of the Mayor, had not required a car and had paid for their own transport. If a Leader with executive powers model had been adopted in LBTH it was unlikely he/ she would have been provided with use of a car. The rationale as to why the Mayor needed a car was unclear. The decision on the current arrangements had been made in 2011 so Officers could only examine the current position.
· Consideration that the Executive Mayor had increasingly taken on ceremonial functions/ engagements thereby diminishing the civic role of the Speaker as set out in the Constitution. Up to 65% of the Mayor’s engagements were thought by some to be civic including attending Remembrance Day ceremonies. This was relevant as an element of the business case for the Mayor’s Car was the number of his engagements and use of his time, and if many of the engagements were civic these were for the Speaker to attend and could not be used as a justification for a Mayoral car. Officers had not accounted for the number of civic engagements undertaken by the Mayor, and the original options appraisal included civic engagements and representing the Council as part of the business case for the Car. In response to an OSC member’s request that the original business case paperwork be provided, Officers undertook to circulate the original options appraisal to OSC members.
· Consideration that It was difficult to assess whether the current transport arrangements for the Mayor represented value for money without knowing the nature of the engagements for which the car was used and the details of the journeys involved. In this context the OSC requested confirmation of whether the Mayor’s car was fitted with technology to track and record its movements; and if so that the tracking information be provided. Also requested that OSC be provided with the diary sheets of the Mayor’s driver and that the Chair request information on the Mayor’s past diary commitments. The fixed/ variable costs and business case of the current transport arrangements for the Mayor had been outlined and the alternative of public transport or taxi usage would not offset these. However Officers would look into whether the Mayor’s car was fitted with tracking technology and request the driver diary sheets from the Communities Localities and Culture directorate.
· Consideration that there was a lack of transparency around the use of the Mayor’s car and in this context clarification sought and given as to who authorised use of the car and whether there were any guidelines for use of the car as a Council asset similar to the guidelines for use of council ICT equipment by Members. Subsequently an OSC member requested that any such guidance or policy documents be circulated to OSC members. Determination of the Mayor’s transport arrangements was an executive function, had been based on an options appraisal and Officers had an expectation that the Mayor’s car was used in accordance with the options appraisal. Unless there was credible evidence of the misuse of public funds a detailed examination of its use was not appropriate.
· Clarification sought and given as to whether Officers had investigated media footage of dry cleaning being transferred from the Mayor’s car to his house, or what the Car was used for. There had been no formal request to investigate this (and it could have been connected with a civic engagement) or to track the Mayor’s movements.
· Noting references to separate transport arrangements for the Speaker of the Council and a second lease car, clarification sought and given as to whether a second driver was employed and whether this was relevant to assessing the cost of transport arrangements. If a second driver was employed did this provide an alternative role for the Mayor’s driver and negate the rationale that cessation of the Mayor’s car would mean the Council incurred redundancy costs. A Toyota Prius lease car was used to transport the Speaker and the driving was undertaken by other Council drivers on an overtime basis. This contributed to variable costs of the current arrangements, but there was therefore no alternative driver post to fill.
The Chair:
· Commented that none of the OSC discussion on the Mayor’s transport should be seen as a reflection on the driver of the Mayor’s car who whose performance was excellent.
· Summarised that OSC members considered that without the further information requested during the discussion (summarised below for ease of reference), full/ appropriate scrutiny of this matter could not be undertaken by the OSC nor its review concluded at this meeting.
Further Information requested:
o Confirmation of whether the Mayor’s car was fitted with technology to track and record its movements; and if so tracking information to be provided.
o Diary sheets of the Mayor’s driver.
o Information on the Mayor’s past diary commitments (OSC Chair to request).
o The original business case paperwork for the Executive Mayor’s transport, including the options appraisal.
o Any guidance or policy documentation relating to appropriate use of the car as a Council asset.
Accordingly the Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the contents of the report and information given by Officers be noted;
2. That further consideration of this matter be deferred to the meeting of the OSC to be held on 7th January 2014; and
3. That the Acting Corporate Director Resources be instructed to provide the further information requested by the OSC (see above minute) for consideration at this meeting.
Action by:
Chris Holme (Acting Corporate Director Resources)
Louise Russell (Service Head Corporate Strategy and Equalities)
Mark Cairns (Senior Policy and Performance Officer, Corporate Strategy & Equality Service, CE’s)
Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services, CE’s)
Memory Kampiyawo (Co-opted Member – Parent Governor Representative) withdrew from the meeting room at the conclusion of OSC deliberations relating to agenda item 7.2, being 8.10pm, and did not return to the proceedings.
Supporting documents:
-
7.3 Reference to Overview and Scrutiny - Mayor's Car, item 7.2
PDF 88 KB
-
7.3a CNL REPORT_IN_RELATION_TO_THE_EXECUTIVE_MAYORS_CAR, item 7.2
PDF 81 KB