Agenda item

None.

It was agreed by Members to bring this agenda item forward to be discussed before continuing with the rest of the agenda.

 

The referral from the Housing and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee Call-in meeting on Wednesday 10 January 2018 relating to the Award of Leisure Contract Decision - CA/125/17 was considered:

 

To refer to Full Council the Cabinet’s decision CA/125/17 to award the Leisure Services contract to SLM for further consideration, for the following reasons:

 

1)     To review the financial assumptions made in the assessment of bids, with emphasis on employee costs and termination/breakage costs.

 

2)     To investigate SLM’s proposed tax regime.

 

3)     To reassess the Health and Safety criteria.

 

4)      To consider the lack of assessment of benefit to local community and local business.

 

The Mayor advised Councillors they should keep their comments to the four items that have been referred to the Full Council. 

 

Councillor Tindall made a point of order: if I could refer to page 192 of the Constitution, 15d, the fact that we’re discussing a reference to Full Council, 15f refers to  - If the Council does object, it can overturn Cabinet decisions because it is contrary to the policy framework and budget.  If you refer to Article 4, which is on page 11, item 4.1.a refers, in bullet point, to any other planned strategy which has borough-wide application and which the Council may decide to be adopted by Full Council.  Now, I realise there are some tenuous arguments in that but I do believe that there is sufficient reason within those constitutional points that when I propose a motion, which I would like to do in a moment, the decision on the motion could actually be taken as to overturn Cabinet’s decision.

 

The Mayor asked Councillor Tindall to open the debate whilst the Solicitor to the Council investigated his constitutional point of order. The normal rules of debate were applied; Councillors had 5 minutes each.

 

Councillor Tindall:

In rising to speak I have a depressing sense this whole matter has been conducted in indecent haste with little consideration for the community of Dacorum but in a search for an additional income stream, with the local charitable provider being cast aside in favour of the private contractor.  I’m not ideologically opposed to privatisation and recognise that is has its purpose but it should not be regarded as the only pathway to the delivery of community services.  Such pathways should start from the premise of service to the community with consideration of the strategy needed to achieve the aims and objectives of that service.  And yet we have found that there is no strategy, except possibly one of maximising the financial returns.  We were told last Wednesday, that this Council does have a policy, but when you look, the policy is to work with Sports Trust, so much for the written policy.  For me, the tragedy is that this whole matter has been cloaked in secrecy and rushed.  The Sports Trust Board are local, think local and manage for local people.  They have on occasions been accused not being commercial, but the Board has taken that decision, not because of the lack of expertise, but because they’ve always seen themselves as a charitable body, working for the benefit of the community of Dacorum.  There are a number of financial considerations that I would have liked to include but I am prevented from doing so because of the secrecy that has been thrown over the whole process.  The future of major services to the community should have been given the widest publicity, discussion and consideration but with much of the procedure and process within Part 2, this was not possible.  There has been no public consultation, no serious interaction with partners, nowhere showed the damage this proposal will do to our sports and leisure infrastructure.  I ask not what we may or may not gain in the future, but ask all Councillors to think carefully about what we could be losing if we lose SportSpace.

 

Councillor England:

The corporate objective mentioned in the Cabinet Agenda that went to the 12^th of the 12^th 2017, states that the leisure provision is central to delivering the Borough that people can enjoy.  At the OSC last Wednesday, Chair, Councillor Mahmood, chaired a 5 hour meeting, however, we only saw the draft Minutes of that meeting this afternoon and to be honest I haven’t had the time to read them yet.  This process is being rushed at break-neck speed.  There are hundreds of people here today and many more watching on the Facebook live stream around Dacorum.   There was a good discussion on Wednesday 10^th of January and we learn that the Cabinet made a major strategic decision on leisure management for Dacorum, without having even gone out to consultation with residents, let alone, formulated any kind of sports strategy for the Borough.  The Cabinet, I believe, have been beguiled by a special offer to procure and sign a contract instead of making a considered long-term decision on a key relationship, which our residents will need to be comfortable with.  Again, leisure provision is central to delivering a Borough that people can enjoy.  The policy as other people have mentioned, actually specifically says, build a relationship with Dacorum Sports Trust and as was so eloquently said, the relationship was ended by text.  Then, we have a situation where Dacorum had an expert partner in 2004, who they then farm out to EFC and Officers and the Cabinet of DBC have unbelievably carried out a significant potential re-organisation of leisure management without having any sports industry expertise, because DST is their sports expertise.  DBC put their own experts, including Mr Cove into the charitable trust and they seem to have now forgotten this and fallen out with their own experts, treating them just as a commercial contractor and therefore now, just a money tree.  Turning quickly to the matrix of scoring the bids, it’s been said that this was a 60/40 situation, it’s been presented as if price was a secondary factor.  All of the criteria besides price are lumped together in the summaries of the process, which have been presented to Councillors and to the public.  The evaluation format actually has, as its primary criterion, price at 40 percent.  After that is more money, which is programming and pricing at 15 percent.  After that, outreach, described as a focus on outcomes but the process ignored the achievements like the HC and DST’s record of strong relations with Hertfordshire and national partners.  After that you have customer service, event management, marketing, publicity, 12 percent.  All of this is meat and drink to a bid writer but DST are not bid writers.  They are a local organisation that does something.  With 80 percent of the marks taken care of we finally get to something real.  Facilities Management, which is worth 10 percent.  Things like maintenance and operations, where, in fact, both bidders were scored exactly the same, except we already have a successful relationship with one of them, and a policy, indeed, of keeping it positive.  So only after 90 percent do we get to health and safety, as a sub-set of just 5 percent allocated to staffing.  At this point the difference between an excellent and an average rating, which in the scheme is a 1 to 5 rating, amounts to 2 percent, in terms of the comparison.  So, in fact, even if you have an excellent health and safety rating it’s not enough to defeat the huge rate of 40 percent on price.  As you noted last week, DST and SLM were scored the same for staffing, despite DST’s good record versus SLM’s Aylesbury Vale’s cryptosporidium outbreak.  Nothing on localism.  A locally managed community charitable trust which sources locally, ought to be given credit for that in the evaluation, but it wasn’t.  DST do source locally, that makes them less efficient in pure financial terms but truly local and a better, broader fit for a Borough that wants to be distinctive.  This benefit has not been recognised in the process.  Also every pound that’s saved in the local economy is multiplied in wages and local spending.

 

Mark Brookes, Solicitor to the Council, advised the following, in relation to Councillor Tindall’s point of order:

The Council have no power to overturn a decision unless it is contrary to the policy framework.  The policy framework is set out in the Constitution and that means the Corporate Plan, the Community Strategy, Community Safety Strategy, Development Plan documents, the Council’s Corporate Work Programme, any other plan or strategy which has a borough-wide application, on which the Council may decide should be adopted by Full Council and Policy Statements relating to the licensing of alcohol and gambling, required under the Licensing Act.  Chairman, there is nothing in the decision which has been proposed which to my mind, is contrary to the policy framework and therefore Council cannot overturn the decision but can refer the matter back to Cabinet. 

 

The Mayor invited members to continue with the debate.

 

Councillor Hicks:

I am a Dacorum appointed trustee of SportSpace.  I was proud of the history of sport in Dacorum.  I was proud to follow in the footsteps of Derek Townsend, a former Town Councillor, and Freeman of the Borough.  I learned yesterday of the wonderful works of Herts County Council, Dacorum Council and SportSpace in obtaining grants to build the XC at no cost to the Borough.  I didn’t know of the background before yesterday.  I was disenfranchised  because I’m a trustee of SportSpace I did not get involved in the procurement specification or the marketing, marking procedure.  The 2 written criteria have been demolished by the speakers.  I have seen the financial summary, I cannot give the numbers but I can say that I think it is too good to be true.  In my experience if it looks too good to be true, then it usually is.  What I can say definitely, is that the grants obtained for SportSpace to build the XC was over 5 million pounds.  If our SportSpace was a private/charity hybrid, like being proposed, it would not have been able to get those grants.  Grants like that will change the financials completely.  The opportunity will never come again, if we go to SLM.  SportSpace is not perfect, but I believe it is best for the residents.  The only way that that extra money can be made is by charging the residents more and giving them less.  I urge all Councillors to reject this decision and go back to the drawing board on the complete process. 

 

Councillor Imarni:

I am Councillor Imarni and I am also an appointed trustee of Dacorum Sports Trust.  I have been very vocal through this whole process as I think I’ve been, as a trustee, I’ve privy to some of the documents others haven’t.  On the 4 points that were raised, I would question the financial assumptions as I mentioned at the last week’s meeting, the consultant had to put his hands up quite early in the process and say that his figures had been incorrect.  I think at that point for me, from the commercial, that would have forced me to pause and get further clarification.  Throughout the process, there have been 285 corrections to the tender documents that were put into the public domain, which, again, gives me concern.  I will say that I do understand the reason, to re-look at what we are doing and also the need to ensure that we are as profitable as we can be, but I think the points that I have just raised, show that we were not ready and we do not have our ducks in a row internally, to make this a public tender and there are lots of things that we need to look at.  I also concur with some of the other speakers, that health and safety is of paramount importance and I cannot understand with the exemplary international record that SportSpace have on health and safety, how they managed to score equal to other bidders, who have had some tarnishes.  I mentioned last week at the Scrutiny meeting that Dave Cove, when a contingent from South Korea were invited to the UK and asked for 3 examples of best practice, with 100 or so trusts that exist in the UK, SportSpace was 1 of 3 and as a result, they will now be speaking internationally, I believe in Melbourne next year.  And I think that highlights that they really cannot have an equal rating to people who have had health and safety scandals in their recent past.  The CEO of Herts Sports Partnership, focused a lot of his talk on sports development, which again, I think has not been correctly appreciated or assessed.  Members were issued with a document that listed 24 groups locally that benefit from the sports development programme that our current provider allows.  I haven’t seen any evidence that this was considered in this tender process, as a benefit that will be lost, which, of course, ultimately, at some point will have a financial element to it. 

 

Councillor Maddern:

My question for tonight is really quite simple.  Last week about 50 percent of the Councillors attended the Scrutiny meeting and of course there were 12 on the Committee and there were several more of us dotted around the room, some of us at this end and I was looking out for Councillors down the other end in audience, as well.  Approximately 50 percent of us were here.  Of the 12 on the Committee, 11 of them, voted to refer the matter on based on those 4 points that were discussed and 1 abstained.  Those 4 reasons haven’t yet properly considered, there hasn’t been time to consider them, the Minutes only came out today, and for that reason, I’m hoping that all those 11 Members will vote the same way they did last week, feeling that we do need more time and more scrutiny on this.  And I sincerely hope that the other 50 percent of the Council Members who weren’t at that meeting last week, will trust the judgement of those 11 that we need more information. 

 

Councillor Marshall:

It’s mischievous to complain of secrecy. It is true that a lot of the, or all of the financial data is not in the public domain and that is unfortunate because it is very important in the decision-making of this Council, but as the Councillors who have spoken this evening will know, with their long experience of Council work and with others, and others who will understand business, they will understand that sensitive financial information must be kept confidential.  SLM have afforded that confidence, so have SportSpace.  There is no difference.  There is no bar or inhibition placed on SportSpace preventing them making the winning bid.  In fact, you could argue that, perhaps, they had the heads-up because for many years previous, the Council have been urging SportSpace to be more commercial, less reliant on the cushion of Council Tax money.  Reference has been made reasonably enough to health and safety, very important, and to the Aylesbury Vale instance in 2014.  May I quote you, word for word, a joint statement made by Everyone Leisure and Aylesbury Vale District Council.  This is 2014.  “On 24^th of March Aylesbury Vale District Council’s Environmental Health Department alerted Everyone Active to a possible connection between a couple of cases of diarrhoea and the leisure at Aqua Vale Swimming and Fitness Centre.  Given that only a possible connection was indicated, it was agreed not to close the pool at that time, however, Environmental Health and Everyone Active agreed upon additional cleansing measures as a precaution.  These measures were designed to eradicate any possible bacteria from within the pool.  Everyone Active has a stringent water testing policy in line with industry guidelines, but as normal pool testing, as conducted at the Centre does not test for specific strains of bacteria, Everyone Active arranged for further analysis of the leisure pool water to take place the following day.  Water quality testing has to take place in a laboratory, which meant that the initial test results were not returned to Everyone Active until the 3^rd of April.  The test results indicated that levels of bacterium, known to cause diarrhoea was present in the leisure pool. These bacteria can only be introduced to a pool by a swimmer, with a stomach infection.  Everyone Active had not reported cases of diarrhoea contamination in the pool during this period and the regular pool testing regime, did not indicate there were any issues with water quality.  If either of these incidents had occurred, the centre management would have implemented special cleansing measures, but they were given no indication that there was any problem at all with the water quality.  The centre management closed the leisure pool on the 3^rd of April as soon as the test result arrived and the competition as a precautionary measure”.  Now, I can understand the concerns, reasonable concerns raised about the environmental health but I think the bottom line, the message about the Aylesbury Vale, the Aqua Vale incident is that the SLM followed the advice given by Aylesbury Vale District Council.  I did ask, in view of the concerns that had been raised on environmental health, for environmental health officers here to take a further research and they could find no action against SLM either in respect of improvement notices, prohibition notices or convictions. My time is up, but as far as health and safety is concerned can I suggest, that on that point we should be satisfied. 

 

Councillor Fisher:

I was horrified at the idea that conditions for users are only going to be guaranteed for 12 months.  Some people might be alright if the prices go up, and they will afford them, if they’re forced to use an alternative venue, they may be able to get there but that’s not going to be the case for everybody and some of the activities are going to be sorely missed if they don’t continue.  There’s support for heart patients, with exercise, with exercise in sheltered schemes, and I think all of these things ought to continue and if they’re not guaranteed, there may not be a financial loss to the Council, but there would surely be a considerable loss to local residents and probably other costs to other public services if people’s health and wellbeing decline.  I think that is important. 

 

Councillor Anderson:

I’m a little unsure as to whether we’re speaking on the motion proposed or whether the 4 issues referred from the Scrutiny Committee.  Assuming I am speaking on the 4 issues that came from the Scrutiny Committee, I shall proceed on that assumption.  I’m going to be pantomime villain number 2 here, I would ask the audience please to wait until the end, before they start booing.  I admire all the campaigning that has taken place on this issue. I’ve listened to all the comments and everything that we’ve heard.  I also attended the first hour and a half of the Scrutiny Committee meeting last week and I was a lucky one, I was able to go and have my tea at 9 o’clock, so I did hear quite a few of the arguments and the speakers on that night but, and I really wish I could actually speak to all the various issues that have been raised, but the sad and regretful situation is unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality of the situation.  Now returning to the 4 points that Committee referred to the Council, the first was to do with financial assumptions.  Now unfortunately at the start of this process, when Dacorum was drawing up the tender details, the Council did ask SportSpace for various details and those details were not provided.  We get to the tender stage and it turns out that there are some minor inaccuracies in it, and SportSpace presents its bid but does not complain about the inaccuracies.  The complaints about the inaccuracies only occur after the decision has been taken and I’m afraid for that reason, it doesn’t make them very sustainable.  The areas, in my opinion, and I have seen are minor and non-material and I think the key point on this point, Mr Mayor, is that both bids were compared on a level playing field.  Listening to the speakers, anyone would think that SportSpace had been barred from being allowed to bid.  That could not be further from the truth.  They were carefully considered on a level playing field. 

 

The second item that was referred from Scrutiny Committee concerned the tax review.  Well, I did hear on the night a Council Officer confirming that the, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Treasury, were happy with the tax arrangements with one of our bidders.  So, but it was very quiet and I don’t think it was really got the attention it should have deserved, because it really needs to be pointed out that whilst people are busy trying to throw mud at the competing bids, that particular mud has already been removed as an issue. 

The third issue that came from the Scrutiny Committee was to do with health and safety.  Now, thanks to research from Councillor Marshall, Members have been aware that there are no convictions against SLM elsewhere, so again, I’m not quite sure what the evidence is, for the mud that’s been thrown on that heading.  In terms of assessment of local community benefits, well, it turns out SLM use local firms, particularly, as I understand, in Watford. So unfortunately, under that heading, I’d have to say, that, that isn’t really immaterial to, to what we’re discussing.  There are so many other things, Mr Mayor, that I could raise under this and I’m trying to the 4 issues referred from Scrutiny Committee.  But what I will say in relation to, one of the concerns I have, and I’ll wrap up on this point, is that very early on in the campaign, I had an email from a constituent on behalf of a SportSpace employee, who had been advised that they were going to lose their job as a result of this.  Now it’s been clear all the way through this, the front line staff are not losing their jobs.  In fact, the successful bidder would actually require more front line staff and I do have to take issue with the campaigning that has been used under that heading and I am personally, quite content with the procedures the Council’s followed on this decision.

 

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe:

First of all, I’ll take slight issue with my colleague, Councillor Anderson, I actually applaud the public campaign that has taken place because it is important that these views are aired.  My concern is that those views have been formed on incomplete information.  I have to say that many of the emails I received were full of inaccuracies themselves about what people perceived was the true position.  So that’s the basis for this.  I’m not happy to be here this evening, I am a former trustee of SportSpace and was a Cabinet Member who oversaw the transfer of Little Hay.  I was heavily involved and proud to be involved, in the bid that enabled the XC and I’m sure that Dave and Mick Dennis will not forget me making everybody go up to Aberdeen with the Council Officer, in one day, because I was not prepared to spend tax payers’ money on overnight hotel accommodation in Aberdeen.  Right.  So, the 4 points raised at the Scrutiny panel have been answered to my satisfaction and I have investigated this thoroughly and probably with my previous knowledge and with a better knowledge than many of my colleagues here and I’m certainly not denigrating their efforts.  It is a matter of regret that due to the need for commercial confidentiality, much of the information which has shaped most of my views cannot be put in the public domain at this time.  When that information is made public, my decision to vote in favour of the original Cabinet decision, will become clear.

 

Councillor Elliot:

I will be brief, I was a former trustee council member on the Board and have a lot of respect for the management of that trust and really what concerns me slightly is that the view is that SLM will freeze prices for one year, and people expect no increases thereafter. I would think that would be rather unreasonable to say that to Dacorum Sports Trust that you’ll freeze it for one year and you wouldn’t look to maybe amend them later on.  So that’s all I have to say.

 

Councillor Douris:

Thank you Mr Mayor.  I understand that it’s the opposition’s prerogative to undertake a call in.  I was reminded today that a Council which had previously engaged and contracted with SLM had, at the end of their term of contract decided to go out and re-procure and I was also reminded that the company that they contracted, they were very pleased to be able to contract with because they felt that that company, from all the knowledge that they had, offered an excellent service, a run-run organisation, worked well with the Council and provided excellent value for money.  That new contractor is SLM.  That Council is Liberal Democrat run, Watford Borough Council.

 

Councillor Harden:

I’ve got a short statement I want to read out which, I think from the start I would like to acknowledge the amount of concern that has come within the community and I do appreciate the volume of people here tonight to show that concern.  Unfortunately most of it is based on untruths and misrepresentation of issues generated by social media administrators, and not corrected by trustees or management of DST. This has caused immense upset to many staff, Members and users of the facility.  This concern was picked up by opposition Councillors at call-in and then presented with the Council tonight.  All members have received the answers to these 4 concerns.  We take this decision, we do take into account the numbers here tonight but we also have to take into account the 16,000 Dacorum users who currently use SLM facilities and we also have to take into account the 110,000 tax payers of this Borough. 

 

Councillor Williams:

I’ll address the points in the form they’ve been referred in the context of Councillor Tindall’s motion.  In referring the financial privations back to Full Council, I think we have, as has been explained by colleagues, not had the access to the information in relation to SportSpace’s current operations and had to make some assumptions, both through our consultants and through the tendering process.  What is clear and has become even clearer in, perhaps, the last 24 hours, now that we have breakage costs and figures from DST, is that our financial assumptions were almost exactly where DST’s assumptions are.  Almost exactly where DST’s assumptions are and that was figures provided to us by DST against the budget figures that we have made.  And therefore it shows that our financial procurement process has been perhaps, even more accurate than we had expected.  Of course, there’s the debate around pensions breakage and the advice we have is that it is not a liability and it’s going to fall upon, that there isn’t a liability and if there is, it doesn’t fall upon DBC anyway.

 

In the second point, tax law in this country is made by the UK government and it is important that us as a contract, as a letter of procurement contracts, abides by UK tax regulations.  It is not the case that we should be setting our own tax arrangements or making a judgement on UK tax law in this process, whether we agree with it or not.  And, indeed, much has been made in the last week or two of the charitable status and not-for-profit status of SportSpace.  That has never been the remit of SportSpace, it’s not a not-for-profit organisation.  You can argue over grants or subsidy but it doesn’t make a profit, it operates with a subsidy, a grant, it doesn’t cover the cost of providing the services it relies on, it provides, it relies on a support from the tax payers of Dacorum to do so.  And the reason it is a charitable trust is only for one purpose.  The sole purpose we bought in the charitable trust in the first place was to benefit from business rate relief.  The rest of the operation effectively, the rest of the business is effectively a business wrapped up in a charitable envelope.

 

In 2004, the goal, the prize for this Council in setting up DST as a charitable trust was £600,000 business rate relief.  Not a saving by DST as saving as a consequence of DST.  The health and safety issues have been well covered by my colleagues.  We have this constant reference to the Aylesbury Vale situation.  An issue which SLM were completely open and transparent about in consultation with Aylesbury Vale Council.  They operate facilities in 43 other authorities at over 150 sites.  I think if we continually refer to one over 3 years ago, I don’t think you can take that as a reason not to award a contract not to award a contract to a particular contractor.  I will accept in relation to 2.4 in part, that this Council doesn’t, through its procurement criteria, particularly specify the use of local suppliers in terms of its contract.  Now that may be a concern to Members, it may be a concern to DST, but you can’t, because we have never chosen to write that requirement into our contracts before, you can’t judge this contract by that.  If Members want to revise our future procurement criteria, that is open for us to do so and that is a process that through the Overview and Scrutiny Committee we can do.  We know that SLM use a number of local contractors within their contract in Watford and we know over 1,000 residents of Hertfordshire and Aylesbury work for SLM, so are therefore local employees of the organisation.  On that basis, I am content that the concerns raised by the Scrutiny Committee fuelled by the campaign against this, the award of this contract have been satisfied.  I do pay recognition to the pace at which the campaign against this, the SportSpace campaign, has grown, but as colleagues have said and people can dismiss it, and they can boo, a lot of that information is not accurate.  I don’t and haven’t had the chance to go through all the things in the petition, if you pick up one point, for example, it says that in the heading for the petition people were asked to sign, this contract means no new investment in sports facilities for the next 10 years.  How can you possibly say that? That cannot be categorically stated as accurate.  The investments in sports facilities, or the infrastructure of those facilities, regardless of who the contractor is, SLM or DST, are a decision of this Council.  With this contract, in the current arrangement and the future contract they are a decision for this Council, so no-one can say, over the next 10 years this Council is categorically not going to invest in sports facilities and put that as a heading on a petition.  Simply inaccurate.  I urge Members to reject Councillor Tindall’s motion.

 

Councillor Tindall:

In response, first of all to Councillor Marshall, I do appreciate Part 2 and the need for confidentiality when figures and financial statements are recorded, but there has been secrecy virtually from the start of this process, from the moment that SportSpace were given notice.  Thereafter it was clouded in secrecy.  The secrecy should not really have started until the tender documents were being prepared and then the process gone into, so there was a considerable period before the actual tender when it could have been open, where there could have been public consultation, in the same way that the Council actually went out to public consultation on the Public Space Protection Order, before the Order had actually even been written and it received a considerable number of responses.  I would have expected the same with this.  Councillor Anderson, yes, SportSpace were asked for details but post the decision to terminate them.  They were, therefore, put in the place not of their choosing, of being a bidder.  Therefore when the Council came to them for requests for information, they also treated their information in confidence in the same way that the Council treated its information in confidence as one would have expected, in the way the Council had treated them.  So, there were considerable inaccuracies in the documentation, as I understand it, and these were corrected as they went along by SportSpace, so that the final tender document was a lot more accurate and a lot better than when it was started.

 

Again, I am repeating what others have told me, as far as tax arrangements, I have no idea about that at all.  I have never been critical of Everyone Active, I have no reason to suspect they wouldn’t give us reasonable concerns, except for the fact that they won’t give the added value that SportSpace would.  So, I am in no position to criticise them as a provider and I don’t believe either that on record, I have done so. 

 

Health and safety, convictions are not just the judgement.  There is also the fact is, can they give the same level of health and safety service as SportSpace? 

Community benefits – I think that’s been covered by the fearful.

Lost jobs – There are a considerable number of self-employed people working within the SportSpace family.  They will not be covered by TUPE.  The moment that they are taken over by a private provider, they could well be shown the door, so therefore there will be lost jobs but I don’t know how many. 

Councillor Elliot mentioned the freeze for one year.  This contract is lasting for 10 years, so therefore, what’s going to happen in the other 9?  And once, of course, we have lost SportSpace, we can’t get it back. 

Councillor Douris is interesting because he did make the fact that Watford is Liberal Democrat controlled and that’s always to be pleasingly announced at events and procedures but in actual fact, they checked out beforehand.  The reason the extension has been give is that when the contract was first awarded to Everyone Active, they were moving from a Council based provision to a private provision.  They did not have a charitable trust in between them.  The charitable trust that, over 14 years, has actually shown how good a job it has done, so, therefore, the fact that Everyone Active has done a reasonable job in Watford, and if you remember, I did say earlier, I’ve never been critical of their performances, means that they, you cannot really compare Watford with ourselves, totally different animals, and so, therefore, shouldn’t be.  

 

The fact that the subsidy in part was mentioned, whichever it was, it was a financial arrangement between the 2 bodies.  It should be pointed out that SportSpace has reduced that from 1.4 million down to about £225K and I’m sure if the Council entered into active negotiations before they pulled the plug on SportSpace, they could have got it down into a plus figure and therefore actually ended in a very healthy relationship with SportSpace. 

 

The inaccuracies, I’m afraid, about Face Book and Twitter and all the others, I can’t comment on, I don’t use it myself.  I avoid it like the Plague, because I think a lot of it is false and misleading and that includes anybody who advertises on it, including the Council.  So all I will say is that I repeat my request.  This is a bit iffy, and should be recommended to Cabinet that they think again because we have an organisation here that has served this community well over the 14 years.  Once it’s gone, it can’t come back and we are, therefore, left for ever more in the hands of private providers.  Thank you.

 

The Mayor thanked members for their contributions to the debate, and then asked Councillor Tindall to proceed with his motion.

 

A motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor England as follows:

 

“I ask this council to vote to ask the Cabinet to halt the process and enter into serious discussion with Sports Trust and our Educational Partners in order to secure a future for sports and leisure provision in Dacorum.”

 

Voting:

 

10 For;

Councillors: England, Fethney, Fisher, Hicks, Imarni, Maddern, Link, Mills, Ransley, and Tindall (10)

 

25 Against;

Councillors: Anderson, Armytage, Banks, Barrett, Bassadone, Bhinder, Birnie, Chapman, E Collins, Conway, Douris, Elliot, Guest, Harden, S Hearn, Howard, Marshall, Peter, Riddick, Silwal, G Sutton, Taylor, Williams, C Wyatt-Lowe and W Wyatt-Lowe (25)

 

and 5 Abstained:

Councillors: D Collins (Mayor), R Sutton (Deputy Mayor), P Hearn, Mclean, and Timmis (5).

 

The motion was declared to have been lost.

 

 

The following motion was then proposed by Councillor Williams, and seconded by Councillor Harden:

 

“Having been provided with further information on the four points referred to Full Council by the Housing and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 10th January 2018, Council is content with the responses, decides to take no further action and to award the contract to SLM.”

 

Voting:

 

25 For;

Councillors: Anderson, Armytage, Banks, Barrett, Bassadone, Bhinder, Birnie, Chapman, E Collins, Conway, Douris, Elliot, Guest, Harden, S Hearn, Howard, Marshall, Peter, Riddick, Silwal, G Sutton, Taylor, Williams, C Wyatt-Lowe and W Wyatt-Lowe (25)

 

10 Against;

Councillors: England, Fethney, Fisher, Hicks, Imarni, Maddern, Link, Mills, Ransley, and Tindall (10)

 

and 5 Abstained:

Councillors: D Collins (Mayor), R Sutton (Deputy Mayor), P Hearn, Mclean, and Timmis (5).

 

The motion was declared carried.