Car park operated on land between Gladstone and Russell Roads (accessible via Pelham Rd).
Cllr Anthony Fairclough, Cllr Simon McGrath and Cllr Paul Kohler: Working hard for Wimbledon, Raynes Park & Wimbledon Chase. Learn more
by Wimbledon Town & Dundonald Lib Dems on 25 January, 2015
There’s quite a bit of concern about the plans to hire external organisations to take over the maintenance of our parks and open spaces. So we asked Cllr Andrew Judge, who will be in charge of this process at Merton Council, some questions. This is what he said:
“You are right that the detail has not yet been formulated, but I anticipate the following:
1. What limitations and protections will there be in choosing the organisations that will look after our parks?
A contract specification that is rigorous and comprehensive, with penalties for non-performance and a separate break clause after 10 years.
The specification will allow the detail of work in particular parks to be varied with the agreement of the Council, so that we can change a particular maintenance regime in consultation with Friends groups.
2. How will they be accountable to the local authorities and the public?
Accountable to Merton and Sutton officers on the contract as a whole. Accountability to ward councillors and Friends groups in respect of the work carried on in individual parks. At the present time for minor issues of maintenance and approach these are frequently resolved by the staff whose job it is talking directly to the Friends and this should remain the case, whoever they work for.
3. Who will be responsible for monitoring their performance?
Merton and Sutton officers.
4. What will happen to existing local authority employees?
TUPEd [this is a referecne to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations] over to the contractors.”
6 Comments
If employees are TUPED across then the new contractor makes profit by:
-cutting headcount and service, or
-cutting cost by reducing salaries and/or pensions, or
-operating more efficiently.
The last is is usually claimed. The first two usually happen. It would be good to see contractual service level guarantees and a binding business plan covering an acceptable means of delivering improved efficiency.
Without these there is a risk to service and/or ethical treatment of staff
Peter
The break clause should be no longer than 5 years. so much can go wrong after 10 years it would cost a fortune to rectify any problems, and I expect the council would struggle to raise funds if this was the case, and not be able to sue for breach of contract.
Will the contractor pay into the pension scheme the same as the council and will the council worker get the same benifits when they retire as before the take over .david green space park dept worker
When will we know the answers so we can decide our furture with the contractor without losing our present benifits
I’m concerned about the length of the contract (which is not given directly in the posting, but there is a reference to a break clause at 10 years mentioned). This is allowing any vendor an extremely long tie in stretching across parliamentary terms and experience across government shows that shorter contracts allow more flexibility and control, the current Government framework for IT for instance uses a 2 Year contract cycle to ensure the Vendors remain competitive and remain keen to deliver to high standards as their eye is on the renewal. Longer terms are only warranted when a Vendor needs to make major upfront investments in plant to deliver the service which I don’t see being an issue here.
I am also on concerned at a proposed break clause after a massive ten years. I would have thought 3 years would more appropriate for the reasons stated by others above.