Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

The Chair outlined the process for the meeting and attendees noted this information.

Apologies were received from Yvonne Denny.

It being a special meeting, under Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17, of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

Any required late or tabled items would  only relate to those items shown on the agenda.

There were no new items of urgent business, the Chair noted the information provided in the supplementary pack.

There were no declarations of interest.

Gerard McGrath, Unison, attended the call in and made representations to the Committee on the insourcing option agreed by Cabinet. The following was noted:

- UNISON and the other recognised trade unions in Haringey Council welcomed the agreed clear plan to bring Leisure Services back under direct control. It would become more publicly accountable and transparent and inspire new confidence in residents, with meaningful leisure services they could rely on.

- The unions understood the inherent difficulties in privatising a critical service which should be delivered directly by the Council, along with the difficulties in allowing such an essential public service to be managed externally. Handing this to an external body, in this case, Fusion Lifestyle had been tried and had clearly failed spectacularly. Handing this contract to yet another private or external body would be a failure to learn from the original mistake. Accounts of ‘near misses’, particularly at Park Road, regarding the correct management of chlorine, had alarmed many members and residents living next to this centre and those using the facilities during the various evacuations.

- UNISON members were already relieved that they would, from October 2024, be TUPE transferred and directly employed by Haringey Council, who meaningfully engaged with staff through various fora, including regular structured meetings. UNISON's experience of Fusion in Haringey was of appalling management practices, divisive tactics, and a complete refusal to engage in any way whatsoever with Unions to help improve working conditions.

- UNISON were confident that the current administration was adhering to its manifesto commitment to insourcing public services. The manner in which Fusion Lifestyle had run all the centres into the ground is reckless and contemptible for both its staff group and residents of Haringey, in particular, vulnerable people.

- UNISON looked forward, as always, to working with the Council in welcoming their members and other Fusion employees back to an employer who would treat them with respect, provide meaningful career progression opportunities and help members acquire additional skills to enable them to explore other options in planning their career paths. This could only lead to a better Leisure offer for all residents throughout the borough.

The following was noted in response to questions from members:

·         Cllr Simmons-Safo thanked Unison for their deputation and concurred with the information shared.

·         Cllr White sought clarification around Fusion and trade unions, and it was explained that Fusion did not recognise trade unions.

·         At present, the difference between the Council and Fusion was Unison would only be allowed to come in at the investigation stage of a grievance process.

·         There were wider benefits of insourcing, Unison had spoken to members in Fusion and there was an immense morale issue

Councillor Arkell responded to the deputation; the following was noted:

By bringing leisure services in-house, members would make sure that they were publicly accountable and democratically run. Councillor Arkell was concerned about the way Fusion had managed the leisure centres, the treatment of staff and vulnerable, elderly, and disabled residents. One of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A.   Report of the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer on the Call In  - To follow

B.   Cabinet report on Leisure Management – To follow

C.   Cabinet Minutes on Leisure Management decision – To follow

D.   Copy of the Call In  - To follow

E.   Report of the Director for Environment and Resident Experience responding to the Call in – To follow

Cllr Cawley-Harrison presented his call-in and the following was noted in his presentation:

·         The reason for the call-in was that there was insufficient information provided to the Cabinet to make an informed decision. The decision was taken without evidence that insourcing provided value for money and providing value for money was a core part of the policy framework.

·         He contended that the Cabinet report provided no effort to quantify the costs and benefits of the different options. Cabinet was not provided with information about the comparative costs of a new leisure management contract in the immediate term. As details of the finances were not provided even under an exempt report, the external advice was not included. There was no consideration of a joint contract with another authority and residents had not been consulted about who should run the service. Given the poor financial position of the Council, Cabinet needed to consider not only whether the higher cost of insourcing could be justified, but whether this model of leisure delivery was more important than other services that it may sacrifice because the additional cost of insourcing would mean cuts to other services. Councillor Cawley-Harrison hoped that this would be sent back to Cabinet for them to make the decision again with all the information available.

There were questions from the Committee on the call-in and Cllr Cawley–Harrison responded as follows:

·         The information provided in the original Cabinet report did not provide sufficient levels of detail to evidence the fact of whether this was offering value for money. As the report indicated, value for money was not necessarily the only reason for decision making. It was believed that it fell outside of policy framework.

·         There would be an expectation that all information would be in a written report and listed as exempt if it contained commercially sensitive information. There was reference to a third-party analysis that considered all the options, but this analysis was not included in the report. There was also no evidence in the report that the Cabinet Members were given that information. It was imperative that all key information had been given to Cabinet Members.

·         Transparency was a key factor in this call-in. There was a weighted comparison between the options with a scoring system which had not been provided in the Cabinet report but had been provided in the response to the call in. The scoring system indicated that there was less risk to performance from the Council, insourcing versus using an external provider. Other than New River, the Council did not have leisure service experience. New River did not have a pool or a Lido, and the Council still did not have the experience of directly running those services, whereas an external provider would provide this expertise.

·         All decisions would carry risk, and one of the requests in the call-in would be to complete a 5-year risk analysis.

·

Cllr Arkell responded to the call-in, and the following was noted:

Cllr Arkell believed that Cabinet’s decision fitted within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.