The Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider a 'Call in' by Councillors John Fahy and Majella Anning of a decision made by the Council's Cabinet at their meeting on the 24th July 2024. The 'Call in' related to a decision by the Cabinet about the future of two of the council's trading companies: GS Plus Ltd and GSS Ltd.

GS Plus Ltd and GSS Ltd - Review of Direction of Travel

Councillors John Fahy and Majella Anning called in a decision made by the Council's cabinet to continue the operation of two of the council's wholly owned companies: GS Plus Ltd (GSP) and Greenwich Service Solutions Ltd (GSS).

GSP is a Teckal company, meaning it is exempt from some procurement rules, allowing the council to award it contracts without competition. It currently provides the following services to the council, schools in the borough, and private companies:

• Fleet Management
• Passenger Services
• Facilities Management & Building Cleaning Services
• Schools ICT support

GSS is a more traditional trading company and currently provides the following services:

• Providing Agency Staff to GSP and Chartwells
• School Cleaning
• Payroll Services

The call-in requests that the Sub-Committee asks the Cabinet to reconsider their decision and instead to:

enter into a 5-year Strategic Partnering Agreement with GS Plus and GSS with the express aim of bringing GS Plus in-house and to either bring GSS in-house or establish it as a Co-operative, both within that period of time. This agreement to be published and subject to scrutiny.

The call-in is made on the following grounds:

• A two-tier workforce: The Councillors argued that the companies' use of different pay and conditions to the council's own staff was unfair.
• Lack of transparency and accountability: The Councillors argued that the use of companies was not transparent or accountable. The report notes that this concern had also been raised by the council's external auditors.

The report prepared for the Sub-Committee meeting summarises the arguments for and against the continuation of the companies.

Arguments for continuation:

• The companies are now profitable, and closing them down would cost the council up to £2 million.
• The companies provide valuable services to the council and the community.
• Closing the companies would put jobs at risk.

Arguments against continuation:

• The companies operate a two-tier workforce, which is unfair to staff employed on less favourable terms and conditions than those directly employed by the council.
• The use of companies reduces transparency and accountability.

The report recommends that the Sub-Committee notes the Cabinet's decision and takes no further action.