·                     The Mayor in Cabinet’s decision, published on 28 September 2018, had agreed to Support awarding a contract to Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd (Medequip) for the Community Equipment Service via a call-off from the framework agreement procured by Hammersmith & Fulham, for four years, from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2023, with an option to extend for a further two years.  Which would enable delivery of the savings target for Community Equipment Service of £308,000 for 2019/20 as agreed by the Cabinet in the MTFS plan;

·                     The early surrender of the lease on the Yeo St premises (12 years unexpired) would result in the landlord paying the Council an estimated £900,000 as a surrender premium.  This would be a one-off payment back to the Council, and in part be utilised to cover the one-off moving and setup costs;

·                     The alternative course of action proposed in the call-in was that the Decision to outsource the Community Equipment Service to Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd via the London Community Equipment Consortium framework is withdrawn.  Then Officers to be instructed to draw up a business plan to improve the service further and secure better Value for Money over the next two years, when the service should then be reviewed;

·                     Discussions should be initiated with the local NHS to determine the future level of funding it will provide for community equipment

·                     Full details of the budget for Community Equipment Service, Telecare Alarms and Assistive Technology, and the external consultant’s report (underpinning the “due diligence” work in relation to this proposal) are published;

·                     There Call In had referenced concerns over outsourced services failing to maintain or improve the quality of service that residents had received in the past.  Which apparently had included persistent problems with some private agencies that had taken over Homecare, following the decision to close the award-winning in-house Homecare Service in 2011;

·                     In accordance with the Labour Local Government Trade Union Principles, an opportunity should be given to in-house services proven not to be delivering value for money to make the required improvements to avoid costly tendering and outsourcing procedures. The Community Equipment Service had apparently not been given this opportunity with three years’ worth of uncertainty and several vacant staff posts. However, despite this uncertainty, Community Equipment Service staff had remained committed to their service users and the delivery of a good service.  In response to this point the Committee queried whether the Labour Local Government Trade Union Principles were relevant to the Council and a cross-party committee. However, the Committee noted that a good service run in-house could potentially deliver the efficiencies needed. Further, the Committee noted that the Community Equipment Service (i) is a statutory service; (ii) is not a failing service; and (iii) had not enjoyed the opportunity of utilising the investment in technology to improve its ordering service;

·                     The Call In Councillors felt that improved technology should be tried to assist staff deliver a better service and achieve better value for money.  They also expressed concerns that outsourcing may fail to achieve anticipated savings.  In addition, that the decision had been driven by the potential £900,000 capital receipt from relinquishing the lease of Yeo Street depot twelve years ahead of the specified period and should not be a factor in the decision.  Whilst the view was expressed from the Call In Councillors that ‘specialist consultant’ reviewing the service had been able to provide an objective options appraisal.

The Committee then received and noted the response from the Lead Member which is summarised as follows:

The Committee:

·                     Noted the context of the Decision and highlighted that service delivery had been considered at length and stemmed from a report in 2016 from the Institute of Public Care, which noted that the service should improve its quality, efficiency and effectiveness.

·                     Was then advised that:

·         Service: while the quality of the service had improved, the Community and Equipment Service remained “adequate” and not “excellent”.

·         Best value: The Council is subject to a duty to achieve “best value” and believes it can do so by outsourcing to Medequip and benefiting from economies of scale.

·         Options fully considered: Appendix 2 sets outs the options that were considered, which were reviewed thoroughly.

·         Management: through the consortium, the Council would join the management board and meet monthly to review service delivery.

·         Savings: the Council believes this Decision would achieve efficiency savings in 18/19.

·                     Queried the basis of the Decision, particularly in connection with the capital receipts from the disposal of Yeo Street, and making the site available for residential development. However, the Committee noted that the Council had initially been approached by the Landlord.

·                     Also noted that:

·         If the Council continues to occupy the building, it will incur a rent rise of £35,000, putting additional pressure on the additional budget.

·         To take advantage of savings in rent rates, the Council has considered moving to smaller premises. The Council’s asset management review advised that suitable premises are likely to become available in the next 12-18 months.

·         The Council would face costs in investing in new equipment to meet future demands and therefore would require substantial additional investment.

After hearing from the Call-in Members and the Lead Member, the Committee then considered the impact on children and parents, the need for due process for key decisions, the time and scope of the consultation and the need for affordable child care provision.  The comments of the Committee are outlined as follows:

·         The Committee noted that warehouse operations were complex and not within the Council’s core operations. However, while outsourcing could benefit from economies of scale to meet increasing demand, the Council could also look at more options to deliver efficiencies. The Committee further noted that neighbouring boroughs had taken more innovative approaches, such as a shared service type model, to offer services to other boroughs.

·         The Committee queried whether other boroughs had flagged up problems with the quality of service from Medequip. The Call-in member commented on anecdotal evidence from the City of Westminster around the contract with Medequip. The Committee further noted that the Council would be involved in the management and a monthly project board.

·         The Committee queried whether it had sufficient information to determine the long term costs of outsourcing.

In conclusion, the Chair Moved and it was RESOLVED that:

The Decision be referred to the Mayor in Cabinet for reconsideration including consideration of the alternative course of action set out in the call-in requisition