To consider the joint Officers’ report.
Minutes:
Councillor Lyn Elias declared an interest in this item and left the meeting whilst it was under discussion.
Having regard to the views expressed by the Proper Officer regarding the public interest test, that on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and that the report should be exempt.
RESOLVED that the public be excluded whilst this item of business is transacted as it is likely there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 (as amended).
Consideration was given to the joint officers’ report.
The Managing Director commenced by bringing to Members’ attention to correspondence that had been received from the General Manager of Silent Valley Waste Management Ltd on behalf of the Board raising objections to the report. Whilst this correspondence had been received at a late stage and officers had not yet had the opportunity to consider it, the Managing Director proposed that the report continue to be presented for decision. The Executive Member for Environment supported this proposal.
The Managing Director continued by advising that Members had received briefings on the matter a few weeks previously and the report had also been considered at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee. She thereupon presented in detail the key issues as set out in the report which included the scope and background together with the options for recommendation.
The Chief Officer Resources at this juncture outlined in detail the budgetary implications of the review and the costs associated with each of the options.
Members were advised that the preferred option was option 3.
The views of Members were, thereupon, sought (summarised below) and were responded to by the Managing Director, Chief Officer Resources, Head of Community Services and Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance.
- It was pointed out that some Members of the Scrutiny Committee had felt that the report should be deferred until the next administration pending preparation of a robust and detailed business plan
- Grave concerns were expressed regarding bringing the services back in house under the current organisational structure and details were provided of appointments to other organisations that were held on record at Companies House. The Auditor General for Wales’ report had been damning and a full open and transparent internal investigation needed to be undertaken before any action was taken to bring the services back in house.
- Concerns were raised regarding the financial implications this proposal would have on the Council and which could potentially in future be borne by the residents.
Councillor Mandy Moore left the meeting at this juncture.
- In reply to a question regarding the operation of the Regional Wood Facility at the site, the Head of Community Services clarified the status of the land ownership and the leasing arrangements that were currently in place and potential arrangements that could be established in the future to ensure project opportunities would not be lost.
- A Member said that a business case needed to include how the site could be brought forward as an operational project and expressed his concern regarding the potential costs of bringing the services back in house.
- Members felt that they were not in receipt of all relevant information and requested a copy of the late correspondence that the Managing Director had referred to earlier in the debate.
- Agency staff were currently employed by Silent Valley and a Member asked whether these staff would be subject to TUPE or would they be redeployed.
The Chief Officer Resources confirmed that agency staff did not form part of the permanent establishment and would, therefore, not have TUPE rights. Only permanent current employees were protected under the TUPE arrangements and would be eligible to TUPE across to the employment of the Council, if they wished.
The Member referred to the current situation where people were struggling with cost of living pressures and said that he could not support any proposal that would lead to job losses.
- A business plan should include detailed costings and the decision should be deferred until the next administration. Concern was also expressed regarding the future of the New Vale HWRC facility.
Following a lengthy discussion, Members of the Labour Group proposed deferral of the report because due diligence on the matter could not be undertaken until:
- The internal Council investigation had concluded (this course of action had been agreed as part of the previous item);
- Members had been provided with copies of all relevant information including the late correspondence;
- Preparation of a Business Plan to sit alongside the Transition Plan; and
- The report and relevant information be considered by the new administration.
The Managing Director advised that Members were in receipt of all relevant information (apart from the late correspondence) and whilst she was not recommending deferral of the report, if Members felt it was important to peruse a copy of the letter Members had the option to defer the item.
The Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance advised that the letter contained no information that had not been previously raised and was taking issue with the process followed including the consultants’ methodology used to undertake the piece of work. Therefore, it was advised that there was no new relevant information being put forward in the letter which would prevent Council from taking a decision on the report.
The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the opinion of Head of Legal and Corporate Compliance and said that Members should be free to decide for themselves whether the material should be considered and he, thereupon, proposed the following amendment:
- That the report be deferred pending receipt of the detailed information (outlined earlier in the debate) and the item considered by the new administration.
This amendment was seconded.
A Member asked that it be recorded that Members of Council had put forward a desire and request to be in receipt of the information referred to but the request was denied.
The Executive Member for Environment, thereupon, proposed that:
- Option 3 be approved with the caveat that a Business Plan be prepared alongside the Transition Plan. This proposal was also seconded.
A recorded vote was, thereupon, requested.
In Favour of the amendment to defer the report
– Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, K.
Hayden,
M. Holland, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, J. C. Morgan, K.
Pritchard,
T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis and L.
Winnett.
Against the amendment to defer the report
– Councillors J. Collins, N. Daniels, D.
Davies, G. A. Davies, M. Day, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J.
Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, J. P. Morgan,
L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, G. Thomas, J.
Wilkins.
The vote on the amendment was not carried.
As none of the Members that had voted against deferral of the report were opposing the preferred option (3) a further vote was not required.
Option 3 (preferred option) was, thereupon, carried.
RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report which related to the financial and business affairs of any particular person (including the authority) be accepted and Option 3 be agreed, namely that:
· The services be brought back in-house and the winding up of the company named therein.
· A transition plan be prepared by end of March 2022 to ensure the transition of services was managed correctly and that appropriate management arrangements were put in place.
· Engagement of external specialist support to work with the Council to develop the transition plan.
· In accordance with the Shareholders’ Reserved Powers contained within the Articles of Association, a special resolution (to be agreed at full Council in its capacity as sole shareholder of the Company) be served upon the Company instructing the Directors of the Company to work with the Council to ensure co-operation and progress in two areas:
(i) In the timely publication of the pending Audit Wales report.
(ii) During the transition period, any use of the Company’s provisions and reserves would require agreement of the Council.
- Additional costs be built into the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and agreed budget from 2022/23 onwards. It was estimated that this would be £390,000 for 2022/23 increasing to £673,000 in 2023/24, prior to cost mitigation opportunities.
- A Business Plan be developed alongside the Transition Plan.