Issue - meetings

Scrutiny Considerations

Councillor McGerty proposed and Councillor Martinelli seconded the following motion. This was in effect a proposal on what they believed should happen, as there was no decision to be made or to amend.

 

“Committee welcomes the emergency protection provided to the Cambridge Live programme and its customers, given the projected financial losses which jeopardised its future solvency, by returning it in-house to the council. 

 

Recognising the substantial potential public cost of this rescue and the need to decide whether Cambridge Live should in future continue in-house or be re-launched as an independent organisation (as is successful in many other places), it is important to properly understand what went wrong in Cambridge Live and in the Council’s relationship with it, both as its founding sponsor and major partner and customer. 

 

We therefore request officers to recommend terms of reference for a cross party members’ Inquiry addressing these issues.”

 

Councillor Cantrill addressed the Committee and said:

       i.          Cambridge Live made an important contribution to cultural provision to the city.

     ii.          The City Council externalised Cambridge Live to allow it to provide cultural activities more flexibly, and to access funding sources not directly under council control.

   iii.          Residents supported the Cambridge Live cultural offer but did not think the council should subsidise it.

   iv.          The City Council had decided to bring Cambridge Live back under its control.

    v.          The City Council should prioritise on-going Cambridge Live activities and protect jobs.

   vi.          The City Council was committing £750,000 as a one-off payment to Cambridge Live, which was a significant sum. Councillor Cantrill queried how much more funding would be committed in future.

 vii.          The City Council’s (financial) circumstances had materially changed over four years (since Cambridge Live was externalised). It had fewer staff and resources.

viii.          It was critical to learn lessons that led to this position as the City Council had a number of arms-length organisations providing services (eg housing).

 

The Chief Executive made the following points:

       i.          The City Council decided to bring Cambridge Live back in-house through an urgent decision in December 2018.

     ii.          The priority at the moment was to stabilise the organisation and manage the transition well. This would take resources.

   iii.          A decision would be taken in future on what to do in the long term. A report would be brought back to Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee.

   iv.          It was not the right time for a member led enquiry as there were insufficient officer resources to support such an enquiry, on top of everything else.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the motion:

       i.          The issue was what the Council wanted to do with Cambridge Live in future and investigate why issues arose.

     ii.          Members had sought reassurance in June 2018 that Cambridge Live would not need additional funding in addition to £500,000 allocated at that time.

   iii.          Taking Cambridge Live in-house did not ensure problems would go away in future.

   iv.          Forward looking scrutiny was required. Opposition Councillors had been asked to support Cambridge Live with significant funding but were given little information on why this was needed.

    v.          Councillors accepted that Officers were working hard to stabilise Cambridge Live. They were happy for the motion to be amended so that the Councillor led enquiry happened at some point in future.

 

Labour Councillors made the following comments in response to the motion:

       i.          The City Council had to step in to support Cambridge Live.

     ii.          The £500,000 awarded to Cambridge Live in 2018 was unspent. It was awarded on condition, which was not fulfilled, so the money was not released. This was now available to help set up the in-house service.

   iii.          The Council would review what happened to date, but at a suitable point in future after stabilising Cambridge Live.

   iv.          Information would become available once Cambridge Live transferred back to the council. This should improve transparency in future, but issues may take longer to resolve.

    v.          Officers had provided as much information as they could for the committee to scrutinise.

 

In response to Members’ questions, officers said the following:

       i.          Head of Community Services: £750,000 had been allocated to Cambridge Live. £500,000 was intact and unspent. £250,000 would be earmarked for one-off costs associated with the transfer and additional funds to fully address the balance sheet issues at the point of transfer.

     ii.          Culture and Community Manager: Cambridge Live accountancy information had been received. This had been used to put together a business plan that only used funding already allocated. The plan had been checked by Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

       i.          She welcomed stakeholders’ positivity in wanting to keep the Cambridge Live cultural offer for the city.

     ii.          The Council had planned to outsource the city cultural offer through Cambridge Live. The Council had not expected that the service would have to be brought back in-house to ensure it continues.

   iii.          Supported the Chief Executive’s view that it was not appropriate to hold a Member led review now.

   iv.          Liberal Democrat and Labour were working together in a non-political way to support Cambridge Live.

    v.          Was unable to guarantee the amount of funding that would need to be budgeted in future, but £750,000 was the total sum needed by the Council to address the transfer.

 

The motion was lost by 4 votes to 5.

 

The record of decision was noted.