Bins, Biffa, page 59, Wirral Council, “Confidential Information” and what you’re not supposed to know (yet)
Bins, Biffa, page 59, Wirral Council, “Confidential Information” and what you’re not supposed to know (yet)
I was reading through the Biffa contract (who get paid ~£12 million a year for collecting bins and other things) and this interesting snippet about Freedom of Information and Data Protection caught my eye on page 59. I haven’t made any FOI requests for the yearly CO2 emissions of bin lorries but this is how such a request would be dealt with if someone were to do so. This is probably only of interest to those who work in this area such as the media, FOI practitioners and of limited interest to the public, so apologies if I’m getting boring! Contractor in the contract refers to Biffa Waste Services Limited. At 4.61.2.3 I couldn’t help but laugh at the bit about time for compliance for FOI requests considering Wirral Council’s track record and my recent decision notice from ICO on that matter.
The “absolute discretion” bit in 4.61.3 is very interesting as quite often local councils refuse to release information about companies and contracts on commercial sensitivity grounds saying well we’d like to give you this information but company X won’t let us.
Last Thursday (11th September 2014) Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to ask Kevin Adderley to enter into negotiations with Biffa over extending this ~£12 million/year contract from 2020 to 2027 without putting it out to tender. However an extra clause was added over value for money. Mr. Adderley was asked to report back to a future Cabinet meeting on the outcome of negotiations.
However the contract does state that if Wirral Council wish to extend the contract from 2020 to 2027 they don’t have to tell Biffa this until on or before 21st August 2019. So why the big rush other than to pander to Biffa’s commercial interests and damage Wirral Council’s?
Well from what was said at the Cabinet meeting Biffa Waste Services Limited have offered Wirral Council “incentives” on the current contract (which runs to 2020) if Wirral Council agree to a seven-year contract extension and don’t put it out to competitive tender when it expires in 2020.
Extending the contract by seven years is effectively making a decision that will tie the hands of future administrations (of whatever party or parties) at Wirral Council. However I’m sure (if officers are doing their job properly) that what I’ve just written is the kind of details that were in the exempt appendices for last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting. The Labour politicians on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided that the public aren’t really supposed to know about it (which is why the press and public got chucked out of the public meeting before those appendices were decided despite the public interest test arguably being in favour of such stuff being in the public domain).
Another factor to consider is that from November 2014 Wirral Council will be under a legal duty to publish such contracts (we here have a copy of the very long contract as part of the 2013/14 audit but it would probably take me about a day of work just to publish a fraction of it as it is very, very, very long) and from November 2014 invoices. Hence I’m sure Biffa are keen to have it extended by seven years, before people like the Rt Hon Frank Field MP start referring to them again (see the last Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting for that) and anyone kicks up more of a fuss! Oh dear, have I let an awful lot of cats out of the bag yet again?
4.61.1 The Contractor acknowledges that the Council is subject to the requirements of the FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations and shall assist and cooperate with the Council (at the Contractor’s expense) to enable the Council to comply with Information disclosure requirements.
4.61.2 The Contractor shall and shall procure that its sub-contractors shall:
4.61.2.1 Transfer a Request for Information to the Council as soon as practicable after receipt and in any event within two Working Days of receiving a Request for Information;
4.61.2.2 Provide the Council with a copy of all Information in its possession or power in the form that the Council requires within five Working Days (or such other period as the Council may specify) of the Council requesting that Information; and
4.61.2.3 Provide all necessary assistance as reasonably requested by the Council to enable the Council to respond to a Request for Information within the time for compliance set out in section 10 of the FOIA or Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations.
4.61.3 The Council shall be responsible for determining at its absolute discretion whether:-
4.61.3.1 The Information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations;
4.61.3.2 The Information is to be disclosed in response to a Request for Information, and
4.61.3.3 In no event shall the Contractor respond directly to a Request for Information unless expressly authorised to do so by the Council.
4.61.4 The Contractor acknowledge that the Council may, acting in accordance with the FOIA, or the Environmental Information Regulations disclose Information:-
4.61.4.1 Without consulting with the Contractor, or
4.61.4.2 Following consultation with the Contractor and having taken its views into account.
4.61.5 The Contractor acknowledges that any lists or schedules provided by it outlining Confidential Information are of indicative value only and that the Council may nevertheless be obliged to disclose Confidential Information in accordance with Clause 4.60.2.1.6.3.
4.61.6 The Contractor shall ensure that all information produced in the course of the Contract relating to the Contract is retained for disclosure and shall permit the Council to inspect such records as requested from time to time.
Expense claim forms for Councillor John Hale (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014
Expense claim forms for Councillor John Hale (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014
Carrying on with the series of councillor’s expense claim forms we get to councillors whose surnames begin with H and the first one of those is Councillor John Hale. Councillor John Hale is a Conservative Party councillor for the ward of Hoylake and Meols (that’s the name of one ward not two different wards). He’s been a councillor since 1975 and according to Wirral Council’s website apart from a few months in 1999 has been a councillor for nearly all that time.
He’s one of Wirral Council’s representatives on the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel who earlier this year banned filming at one of their meetings in Birkenhead Town Hall. The Merseyside Police and Crime Panel most recent meeting on September 4th 2014 could be filmed (however we weren’t at it). I will however point out that Councillor John Hale was a member of the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel but wasn’t present at the meeting of 24th April 2014 when that filming decision was made by Councillors Frank Prendergast (Everton, Liverpool City Council (Labour)), Peter Brennan (Old Swan, Liverpool City Council (Labour)), Doreen Kerrigan (Linacre, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (Labour)) and Moira McLaughlin (Rock Ferry, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (Labour)).
However in a cunning move the “powers that be” (Knowsley is the host authority for the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel), made sure that future meetings of the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel are now held in Huyton (reason given was “cost grounds” at the public meeting I wasn’t allowed to film earlier this year) which when you consider this increases the costs of many councillors’ expenses claims travelling there, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s staff travel costs etc it would seem to be a rather spurious claim as although Knowsley said they could get their own Council Chamber for “free”, it’ll still form part of the administrative costs I’m sure they’ll claim back from the Home Office.
It seems a common theme that the increased costs of doing things differently are never brought up in a public meeting (which let’s face it in many places are run for the convenience of officers and councillors not the “public” who often aren’t even there) just the supposed “savings”. After all Knowsley officers had a very long briefing (in private) with the four councillors before the meeting started and one can only guess (from what was during the public meeting that they wouldn’t allow to be filmed which is a decision that didn’t even make the official minutes) that the officers persuaded them to hold future public meetings where officers work (therefore Knowsley officers wouldn’t have to travel much to different bits of Merseyside but the many people on the Panel, whether independent members or councillors, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s staff and everyone else going to this meeting would have to travel further) and not holding it at a more central place in Merseyside. I assume it’s Wirral Council paying these travel costs (for its councillors on the Panel) because nobody has ever told me whether these expenses are recharged back to Knowsley (as the host authority).
Maybe Knowsley think the room hire cost for Birkenhead Town Hall is just too extortionate when you consider Knowsley are only receiving a paltry £53,000 from the Home Office!
However peering into the murk of Wirral Council councillor’s expense claims, it’s now unclear whether Councillor John Hale’s expense claim to Wirral Council for travelling to the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel are (or have been) recharged back to the host authority Knowsley or not. Certainly if Knowsley is getting “up to £920 per member for expenses” it would seem terribly unfair for Wirral residents to be footing the bill through both national and local taxes whilst Knowsley gets the money. It’s something I’ll have to ask Wirral Council’s auditor Grant Thornton about though as I’m unsure.
Its predecessor body (before the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in November 2012) the Merseyside Police Authority met in Liverpool City Centre. However from what I remember the new Police and Crime Commissioner Jane Kennedy as far as I know decided that the building the Merseyside Police Authority used to meet in wasn’t needed. Public meetings involving the Merseyside Police now happen in a variety of different locations.
Huyton, from a historical perspective is part of Lancashire and we both half wondered if this came about because in Birkenhead Town Hall (whilst waiting for the briefing to finish) we both said in earshot of a Knowsley Borough Council employee that if they had the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel as far away as Huyton that we probably wouldn’t be able to get to its public meetings.
This is just one aspect of his expenses claim though but if expenses aren’t currently being recharged back to Knowsley it may represent a small saving to Wirral Council if it was. It’s certainly a question I should ask of Wirral Council’s auditors.
Below are Councillor John Hale’s expense claim forms.
Cllr John Hale expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr John Hale expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2https://johnbrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/cllr-john-hale-expenses-claim-2013-2014-page-3.jpgCllr John Hale expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr John Hale expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A fictional conversation with our own legal department about Lyndale and other matters
A fictional conversation with our own legal department about Lyndale and other matters
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Legal department: Now, there you go again! Don’t you know when you stop?! We know you’re a good at what you do but there are frankly limits to this you know! What does it take to keep your mouth shut for once!? Why are you meddling in the Lyndale matter again and making waves yet again? Just let it be!
Write about bin collection and Biffa, a consultation on closing children’s centres, Birkenhead Market and the Traffic Regulation Order issue, New Brighton & Neptune, golf (there’s an awful lot you could write about golf), councillor’s expenses, job cuts, even Kevin Adderley if you have to but please anything apart from Lyndale School! Please!!!
John Brace: Because the public have a right to know! Plus there are sound commercial reasons for doing so due to the demographic makeup of our readers/viewers.
Legal department: *sighs* Well let someone else tell them then! There are some things you just shouldn’t put in the public domain or draw attention to at this stage.
Please don’t write anything more about Lyndale connected to that letter. That is the advice.
John Brace: For how long?
Legal department: Just steer clear of anything specific with regards to that letter for obvious reasons!!!
John Brace: But even if the case was “active” (which it isn’t) s.5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 c.49 allows for “a publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest” …. “if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”
Legal Department: Look you indeed wrote the policy on this about keeping your mouth shut when it comes to legal matters. It complicates things. You know the reasons why.
If you write too much before a matter is even put before a court, it tips off the other side in the case as believe it or not people involved with Wirral Council read your blog and the last thing you want to do is complicate things that are complicated enough.
John Brace: True I did. For extremely sound reasons. Thanks for reminding me. However I also wrote an editorial override in that policy which requires two people to agree.
Legal Department: Well you don’t have the approval of two people yet (thankfully). The matter has been somewhat complicated by the call in anyway as the Cabinet decision will now not be implemented until a further meeting of the Coordinating Committee.
John Brace: Who’s the lead signatory?
Legal Department: Councillor Paul Hayes. However 27 other councillors have also called it in.
John Brace: Wow must be a record, so you’re saying write about other stuff?
Legal Department: Yes, or limit yourself on Lyndale to writing just about other people or just merely reporting the facts of what’s going on, preferably facts that are already in the public domain.
John Brace: So for example starting on a transcript of the Cabinet meeting on 4th September 2014 about Lyndale School for the hard of hearing?
Legal Department: That’s ok, as we have protections under libel laws from reporting on public meetings at Wirral Council which is referred to as “qualified privilege”. Anyway there’s already been a request for that. You’ve got a bit behind with subtitling videos anyway.
John Brace: But nobody’s ever threatened us with libel over Lyndale School, just about the Chief Executive’s email about the golf (later withdrawn) but I take your point about subtitling.
Legal Department: Yes, but the impression in some quarters is that you’re putting a bunch of highly inconvenient truths out there in the public domain about Lyndale School that could be easily used for party political purposes (and have been).
John Brace: Oh come on, a politician and party members at the report produced as a result of my disciplinary panel hearing said I was writing a “little read blog” or words to that effect. I’m not really that influential.
Legal Department: Exactly, but that was three years ago. Comparing September 2014 to September 2011 is like comparing apples with pears. There are thousands of people reading this blog each month now, compared with only hundreds of people a month back in September 2011. This is party because since leaving the Lib Dems you’ve spent more time at your “day job”.
Things have changed. Politicians disliked you even back then for telling the public the truth as you saw it as to what was really happening and the Lib Dem ones ended up getting somewhat censured as a result for using Wirral Council resources for party political purposes. Remember what happened to Martin Morton? Don’t end up like him!
Understandably they wanted to bury the truth (which was tied in to a conspiracy of silence on Martin Morton/Anna Klonowski/another disability matter and corporate governance issues) and cover things up for party political reasons. Even though all but one of the things that you were actually accused of were false, therefore the suspension wasn’t legitimate but as a Lib Dem politician (and former Lib Dem politician) had said this to their fellow Lib Dems they could hardly turn round and admit that any of their former politicians told lies (even though they may say that in private) could they? As you well knew at the time, they decided it was best to keep you in the party as a way to control you, as even at that stage you knew too much and you were becoming a nuisance to those in power as how they wanted things to play out.
Yours and Leonora’s resignation from the Lib Dems in January 2012 was somewhat unexpected, but resolved an ongoing conflict of interest about reporting on Lib Dem politicians and let’s face it Labour got exactly what they wanted out of this as four months later when they got a majority on Wirral Council.
Even the version of events that everybody actually agreed upon at your disciplinary panel hearing back in September 2011 was so extremely damaging to the reputation of the Lib Dem Party itself so they understandably took the “shoot the messenger”/ “rewrite history” approach and they took it out on you (as you must have expected on some level that they would do so and if you didn’t perhaps as the youngest party member in Birkenhead you needed to “grow up” and let’s face it one of the older party members at that meeting that made the decision had referred to you as a “baby” in a previous meeting which of course is not “ageist” is it?).
Your attempts at somewhat humourous comments during that meeting (which according to their own constitution and later concluded lawsuit was indeed a flagrant breach of their own party’s constitution to even hold (as you pointed out to them at the time but they once again ignored you)) but hey they’re Lib Dems and it seems that their own rules can be twisted by themselves beyond breaking point in an abuse of power) about a dead dog and a shooting at your disciplinary panel, were in extremely poor taste considering two of the people who had been shot at were actually at the meeting itself. It’s a party that would prefer to forget Jeremy Thorpe and how much of a PR nightmare that was for them (even though he was acquitted in a court) and to be honest with you were somewhat goading them into having to explain themselves because they’d been all instructed to keep their mouths shut and stick to a “party line” when you previously had asked them questions.
Let’s face it you sued an entire party (and won) and took a politician to court (and won)! How many people ever do that? Not many! You’re unusual, even when during the meeting in June 2011 when they tried to suspend you your threats of legal action and “seeing them in court” seemed to them like bluster so one of them laughed (which is partly why you got kicked at under the table and then slapped in the face but then people can lose their cool at party political meetings) and even though you later did have the judiciary intervene, your repeated warnings fell on completely deaf ears because they had (especially the politicians) made their minds up as to what to do before the meeting even started and were going to stick to this agreed party line.
That is part of the reason why you weren’t allowed to attend your own disciplinary meeting. By deliberately starting it late, it gave a chance for the decision to be made before the meeting had even started and in a way where you’d have no influence over the outcome.
You know as well as I do that two former Lib Dem councillors were being used as proxies as part of a renewed Labour plot to blacken your name and make things up about you (because let’s face it you were fast becoming a threat to the Labour Party too and deemed to be less of a threat to them if you weren’t a member of another rival political party) Let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith had already had a right moan to both you and the party about you (including a “With Compliments” Wirral Council slip with his letter) about telling the public in a party political publication delivered to the Bidston & St. James area that he wasn’t (when he was Vice-Chair) at a Pensions Committee meeting of Wirral Council at the time when it was reported that the Pension Fund dropped by around £700 million and let’s face it if the Fund drops considerably the difference has to be made up by the taxpayer).
Cllr Harry Smith felt it was terribly unfair that people were going along to his councillor’s surgery and asking him pointed questions about why (even though he was Vice-Chair of the Pensions Committee) that the Merseyside Pension Fund had dropped by so much. Let’s face it it is a fund that affects over a hundred thousand people and even the local newspapers reported it at the time.
If Cllr Harry Smith wishes to go on holiday, miss a public meeting and not even send a deputy along to a meeting and then somewhat unfortunately get suspended as a councillor (in an unrelated matter) for a week for bullying other people, well as we all know from past experience these type of people are exactly the kind of person the Liberal Democrat Party have to take seriously because they’d rather the likes of Councillor Harry Smith were getting irked at someone else instead of at them!
This goes so far as even if it seems like they’re breaking their own party rules by pandering to another political party’s interests in that process because as we all know Lib Dems love their “due process” even if that results in an “abuse of power” or a “court case”.
John Brace: However in perhaps a flagrant breach of etiquette I will say that during that particular meeting and I won’t state who (other than it wasn’t me or Leonora) said that Councillor Harry Smith moaning about someone else for holding him to account was like “the pot calling the kettle black” and let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith has been referred to by one of his fellow Labour councillors as “royalty”.
That is partly why the renewed plot in 2011 had to be done through two Lib Dem proxies.
Let’s face it if you do anything in politics, you will attract more complaints, even fictional ones. If a party spends hours looking into every fictional complaint however trivial it is time that is not spent delivering leaflets or winning elections.
The actual politicians attracted far more complaints than I ever did (even during my brief years as a politician over in Liverpool) and although they never went so far as to suspending them from the party they did exactly the same thing to them in removing them from all committee positions and blackening their name in public. They tried to embarrass them into toeing a party line and it backfired, just look at how disastrous the libraries matter was handled and the resultant public inquiry led by Sue Charteris. It made the fromer Lib Dem politician that said in public that Wirral Council would be “vindicated” by the public inquiry look to be completely wrong.
But let’s face it if they’re taking the likes of the Labour’s Councillor Harry Smith seriously (even his own party has had concerns about him to put it mildly), it is seriously the thin end of the wedge from a party political perspective.
After all once people start getting beaten up and shot at for political reasons, it’s gone well beyond being politics and become the realms of terrorism. It’s moved well beyond merely political debate into law and order issues.
As I know myself from bitter personal experience in that court case the Lib Dems were not on the side of law and order (hence why the whole political party has a County Court court order against it), they have known links to foreign terrorism, which makes them people better not to associate with if at all possible.
This “paragon of virtue” in Councillor Harry Smith, who of course would never do things for party political purposes, is of course the kind of person the Liberal Democrats obviously have to listen seriously to, take his concerns seriously and let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith seriously wanted me out of the way.
He wanted to be reselected by his local Labour branch and complaining about me and eventually many years later persuading the Lib Dem Party to pick someone else in Bidston & Saint James who was less trouble to him (let’s face it how much trouble are you if you finish last in an election?) which they eventually they did in 2012 is all part of what led to Labour getting a majority on Wirral Council. The easiest way for them to achieve this was to destabilise the Lib Dems (which let’s face it wasn’t too hard and such tactics wouldn’t work as well on the Tories).
During that court case in 2011-2012, one of their party (Lib Dem party) employees that was someone high up in the party in fact he was Chief Executive, being paid the same salary as an MP, was around that time serving out his period of notice. Another party member working in party HQ seemed to want to scapegoat him, which I of course meddled in and prevented from happening by making an undefended application to the court and dragging a Judge in the County Court into the whole matter because to be honest by then it had gone beyond the actions of one person by then into an issue about a extremely badly run organisation. The Lib Dem Party of course want to make this former Chief Executive Chris Fox a member of the House of Lords (which let’s face it if one of the two parties of government pick you it’s pretty likely to happen)!
It’s all highly political and highly party political and perhaps a chapter of my life I’d rather forget! I do have a way of holding people to account that is somewhat unusual, highly unpredictable and not always in keeping with the demands of social and political etiquette because I have to sleep at night. It must be my background and training then.
Legal Department: Partly, but that’s still a complete mystery to us because you’re one of those odd people subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 c.6 we don’t have access to your unredacted personnel file.
John Brace: Ha ha, indeed. Everyone has their secrets eh and you’re right there are things I’d better keep my mouth shut over (for now) after all things can snowball but it’s about time the public knew what really went on in the past but that is a story for another day. At least I got an apology later from one of the Lib Dems, but I suppose the party that extols the virtues of “freedom of speech” until somebody happens to mention something about the Lib Dem Party would accuse me of “breaching confidentiality” if wrote about which one it was! Best not to take politics too personally eh?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Expense claim forms for Councillor George Davies (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014
Wirral Council councillors in addition to what they get paid for their official duties (called allowances), they also have an expenses system too. As part of the 2013-14 audit (as I have a legal right to) I requested the underlying claim forms for these claims and other related bits and pieces. Personally I think like the MP expenses issue, these in the interests of openness and transparency should be published on a monthly basis, although there is no legal requirement on Wirral Council to publish anything other than annual totals once a year.
Councillors are paid such amounts through the payroll system at Wirral Council and certain details have been redacted from each form before I was given copies. These are matters such as councillor’s signatures, car registration numbers and officer names/signatures.
I haven’t been given a list of what’s been redacted from each form, but I have been told this information. The forms were given to me this morning alphabetically by councillor surname, so the first in this series is Councillor George Davies (who is a Labour councillor for Claughton ward).
These are for expenses claimed during the 2013-14 financial year (so should cover the period from the 1st April 2013 to the 31st March 2014). If anything it shows the public how busy Councillor George Davies has been that year, ranging from his duties as a Cabinet Member, his work on the Pension Committee to other matters he is involved in.
I did also request the underlying financial information to support these claims forms such as receipts, but the guy I originally made the request to is on holiday and such paperwork has not been provided to me (yet). Who knows what will happen in the near future as the 30th September 2014 deadline fast approaches?
Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million
Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million
Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Above are three of the recent monthly invoices to Wirral Council from Biffa Waste Services Limited for November 2013 (£1,036,840.28), December 2013 (£1,032,201.28) and January 2014 (£1,032,201.28).
I did not request the invoices for other months during that financial year (2013/14), but I would assume that the other nine are for similar amounts of around a million pounds. So why am I writing about this and what does Biffa Waste Services Limited actually do for it’s ~£12 million it receives each year from the taxpayer?
Well as shown on the invoices it’s for collecting the bins, cleaning the streets and extra amounts for working on a Bank Holiday. I’ll be looking more closely at the current contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited (which runs to 2017) tomorrow morning (if all goes well).
However there is some political news on the Biffa front, in fact Wirral Council seems to be bolstering itself for a bit of bad press coverage judging by the Cabinet papers for tonight’s Cabinet meeting (only tonight if you happen to reading this on the 11th September 2014).
I remember Mark Smith (a Wirral Council officer who is Head of Environment and Regulation) getting a grilling by the Chair (Rt Hon Frank Field MP) at a recent Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting about what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to see as a lack of openness and transparency in the area of how Wirral Council manages the Biffa contract.
In the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s view (from my memory of the meeting) he wanted (rather reasonably some might say) to know exactly what the public were getting for the ~£12 million a year that the taxpayer pays Biffa Waste Services Limited through Wirral Council. Sadly there was no one present at the meeting to answer for Biffa Waste Services Limited and Mark Smith seemed to struggle a little to give the kind of answers that Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to want to hear. However moving on from the frustrations of Birkenhead’s MP/Chair of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee to more local politics (although isn’t all politics local)?
Rather helpfully Appendix 5 to the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item contains the following two entries on the risk register (copied below):
Risk No
Description of risk
Risk category
Risk Owner
Gross likelihood Score
Gross impact score
Total Gross Score
Net Likelihood Score
Net Impact Score
Total Net Score
Proposed Controls
Responsibility
Target date
RAG Status
1
District Audit scrutiny on decision process likely
Legal / Regulatory
Tara Dumas
3
4
12
3
2
6
Member decision based on thorough analysis of risks. Best value comparison work to be undertaken – Local benchmarking plus APSE/Audit commission comparison Update on market position sought from previous consultants contracted to review Biffa contract. Process to be reviewed by internal audit
TD TD TD MGa
07/07/14 completed 07/07/14 07/07/14
G C G G
2
Negative political and
media attention
Political/societal
PR team – Kathryn Green
5
3
15
3
2
6
Proactive approach by PR with press releases Confirm offer not linked to service/workforce changes
LF
Post decision 31/5/2014
G C
In other words, Wirral Council know (before any decision is formally made tonight to enter into negotiations) that it will cause all kinds of trouble. They’ve already decided (it seems) on a public relations line of telling the press it won’t lead to job losses/workforce changes and giving them the “gift” of a press release in the hope that most of the media will just print the press release more or less verbatim and not ask too many awkward questions about the matter.
They even know their external auditor (Grant Thornton) will be asking them a whole bunch of questions to do with it too but surprisingly there are even bigger risks than the media and Wirral Council’s auditors to tackle, although read the risk register at appendix 5 and hopefully you’ll see what I mean.
So how can I sum up what is proposed to be decided tonight quickly? The current contract will Biffa Waste Services Limited will end on March 2017.
The impression I get from reading between the lines of the Cabinet papers, (a lot of the detail has been kept deliberately secret by officers who are recommending to politicians to keep it secret too on grounds of commercial confidentiality) is that Biffa Waste Services Limited seemed to be somewhat concerned that if their multi-million pound 11 year contract ends on March 2017, that they would have to bid in a competitive tender against other companies and organisations for the new contract.
There’s then uncertainty (from Biffa’s perspective) over whether they would end up being the successful bidder or not. It’s called “competition” and is generally required for such large multi-million pound contracts because of all kinds of laws I won’t go into at this point and competition is therefore required for a whole bunch of good reasons.
So someone as Biffa Waste Services Limited has read through the contract they have with Wirral Council and found a caveat. There was a part in the contract that could extend it a further ten years (current prices of ~£12 million a year but yearly increases and variation are usually built-in). This contract covers “all household waste and recycling collections, street cleansing and fly tip removal, waste collection from schools and council offices and wheeled bin deliveries.”
All Biffa had to do to get a further ten years (at ~£12 million a year) was make a formal offer to Wirral Council (which they did) and have this agreed to by Wirral Council (which hasn’t happened yet with the earliest date expected being October 2014).
Due to the size of the amounts involved it has to be a decision made by politicians, specifically Wirral Council’s Cabinet and the councillor with responsibility for this area is the new(ish) Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability Councillor Bernie Mooney (who replaced Brian Kenny earlier this year when he lost an election in May to the Green Party councillor Pat Cleary).
However what’s in the currently exempt appendices?
Well appendix 1 covers the “value and suggested terms of the formal offer from Biffa in return for the Council extending the contract to 2027. In summary the proposal offers the Council a one-off saving split between 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 followed by a continued annual reduction in the core contract price throughout the remainder of the extended contract period to the equivalent value. Officers asked Biffa to clarify the benefits to Biffa if the contract extension was agreed.”
I’m not allowed to link to appendix 1 (as it’s currently a big secret and you’d get an “access denied” type message from Wirral Council’s website if I did), but as the language used by a Wirral Council officer is rather opaque, it has to boil down to how I imagine a summary of what Biffa offered Wirral Council … “give us a further ten years and we will give you very good price if you pick us. Our price is very reasonable, many savings to be had, very good price, you buy from us again we treat you well. We are very good supplier and will take your bins to tip and keep streets clean for another 10 years for a very reasonable price.”
Wirral Council officers asked Biffa to clarify what Biffa would get out of extending the contract a further ten years.
Biffa responded to this on the 10th February 2014. Again I’m not allowed to show you Biffa’s response either on the instructions of Wirral Council officers!
The summary of this response is again in rather opaque language “Biffa indicated that the savings they could offer arose from avoiding future procurement and mobilisation costs, the ability to re-finance their operations and a reduction in overheads due to the stable nature of the contract. The discount is not linked to any service changes.”
In other words Biffa are saying “grant us a monopoly, save us the cost of having to retender for the contract in 2017, Wirral Council will save money from having to retender the contract” (which is a bit of a debatable point really anyway considering the extra costs this will cause doing it this way) “and Biffa will be able to borrow money cheaper because we’ll have a longer contract.” To be honest I don’t agree entirely with Biffa’s point about overheads being significantly lower to justify this.
Another letter from Biffa (exempt appendix 3) is also currently being kept secret by Wirral Council officers (pending a decision by politicians). This letter is about an offer to redesign the fleet of bin lorries from 2017 to collect things such as food waste (to meet Wirral Council’s recycling targets).
However Biffa make it clear that this is absolutely Biffa’s final offer (well unless Wirral Council’s Cabinet say no to negotiations or no to the offer in October 2014 and Biffa have to bid for the new contract starting in 2017)!
Wirral Council officers seem very keen to have the Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to Biffa’s plan. “80p cheaper per a Wirral person than Liverpool” they state in the report, but strangely 15p more per a person than in Sefton!
Of course Wirral Council’s Cabinet could just choose to reject Biffa’s proposal and decide to bring the service in-house from 2017.
The recent street cleansing cuts to the contract, have been the source of both political and media attention in the recent past. However, what’s the officer’s recommendation?
Oh and before I get to that, Wirral Council asked Eunomia (are they consultants?) in 2012 to look at the Biffa contract, the consultants in fact suggested the contract should be retendered! Eunomia also suggested that if Wirral Council did agree to extend the contract by a further ten years than there should be changes to “contract clauses relating to indexation, labour cost inflation and future efficiency gains” which would be extremely sensible to do considering the current contract is linked to RPI (and let’s face it inflation is quite high)! However the Eunomia assessment is now two years out of date and things have changed somewhat since then.
As Wirral Council officers freely admit in 5.3.4 of this report, they don’t really know if this will save any money at all versus retendering the contract, it all just seems to be educated guesswork and unknown quantities.
The estimated savings have been listed, but surprisingly (and isn’t this usually the case?) not the increased costs (such as an increased audit bill from Grant Thornton for extra work).
It’s the report gets to “legal implications” that things start to get interesting!
Here’s a quote from 10.2 “The Legal colleagues have highlighted that it is necessary to limit the amount of material changes to the contract in order to minimise the risk of the Council being challenged on the legalities of the extension.”
In other words, do it right otherwise one of Biffa’s competitors, or in fact anyone could sue Wirral Council over how it was done.
Then entering into catch 22 territory the legal advice continues:
“Due consideration has been given to establishing whether the Biffa proposal offers Value for Money (Sections 4 and 5 refers) as required under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. However, it is important to note that the only decisive way to determine whether a more advantageous contract could be secured by the Council would be through retendering the contract.”
In other words, Wirral Council don’t know whether this saves them money without retendering the contract in 2017, but if they agree to Biffa’s proposal they won’t be retendering the contract in 2017 so they’ll never really know or be able to prove “value for money” to their external auditors Grant Thornton.
However let’s see, what do officers want? They want politicians to agree to them to enter into negotiations with Biffa, more specifically the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment (currently Kevin Adderley) and then report back to Cabinet no later than October 2014.
Personally (and this is just an opinion) I think politicians on the Cabinet will probably agree to enter into negotiations with Biffa tonight (even though Labour’s tendency in the past has been to bring back services in-house), if only just to keep their options open in October 2014. Quite what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s views on this latest development in the Biffa saga are at the time of writing unknown.
Coming up next today: What Wirral Council’s Cabinet is planning to do about Children’s Centres.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
