Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment.

The Committee received a report from the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Well Being which set out information on the strategic approach to the future provision of library and leisure services.  The report set out the strategic background to Cabinet’s decision of 19 January 2012 and the next steps.

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture outlined the content of the report and responded to questions and comments from Members as follows:

·                     The majority of residents that had participated in the Let’s Talk 2 consultation had indicated that they would prefer an external organisation to manage leisure services and the Council to run library services.  A Member questioned the source of the savings and suggested that it would be beneficial to have a cost breakdown. Another Member expressed surprise that consideration was being given to prioritising libraries for commissioning purposes.  The Divisional Director advised that that there was potential for staff savings if the library contract was delivered across three boroughs and that all of the consultation results had been considered.  There would, however, be staff implications and therefore Human Resources input would be required.  In terms of the current Leisure contract, it was currently delivering reasonably well.

·                     A Member sought clarification in terms of governance and was advised that whilst sovereignty issues were a concern, officers would seek to learn from the experiences of other Councils.

·                     The Divisional Director advised that the one-off revenue budget allocation referred to in paragraph 2.6.1 in her report included the £50,000 investment referred to at paragraph 2.5.1.

·                     Referring to paragraph 2.2.2, a Member stated that, for example, John Laing PLC was delivering more for Hounslow than was being sought by Brent, Harrow and Ealing and questioned whether there was an opportunity cost by concentrating solely on leisure and libraries rather than also including parks and heritage services.  The Divisional Director advised that there were many different models for service delivery and that one size did not fit all.  In terms of contracting out arts and heritage services, the Council was not in a position to do this at the moment but it had not previously gone well in Harrow.  The Member challenged the restriction that Harrow appeared to be placing on itself by not considering the commissioning of arts and heritage and was advised that whilst these areas were considered, the partners that the Council wished to progress with were not in a position to tender for their arts and heritage services.

·                     A Member questioned the reasoning behind the short length of the leisure contract which was due to expire in 2013 and stated that he would prefer to see the cashable savings separately.  The Divisional Director advised that the benefits set out in paragraph 2.7.2 were cashable and that paragraph 2.6.1 should indicate £200,000 per annum.

·                     A Member expressed concern that the corporate priority of listening to what residents said had not been referred to in the report and questioned how officers would reconcile the difficult choices that had to be made.  The Divisional Director responded that the priority had been referred to and that officers presented options for Members to consider and decide upon.  It would also be necessary to seek to views of the public again.

·                     In response to a Member’s question as to the percentage of the £200,000 saving that related to libraries, the Divisional Director advised that the savings would largely arise from the library service in Harrow whilst in Brent and Ealing they were more likely to arise from leisure management.  The Member expressed the view that this was potentially a small part of the Council’s budget but the reaction from residents likely to arise as a result of the proposals would be significant and he questioned whether it was worth the effort.  He added that he would also like to have seen performance issues and non-financial benefits in the report.

·                     A Member questioned whether it would be possible to have apprenticeships in the library service and was advised that, whilst it was possible, there would be an associated cost.  Savings could arise from sharing rather than contracting the service.

The Chair stated that the consensus appeared to be that whilst proposals for leisure services were good there appeared to be no evidence for the proposals for the library service.  He thanked the Divisional Director for her attendance and responses.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted and Members requested that a further report be submitted to the Committee prior to its consideration by Cabinet.