£millions for PFI fire stations was borrowed from French and German banks
£millions for PFI fire stations was borrowed from French and German banks
The three boxes on the left are the PFI fire stations contract
There are many people who know more about accountancy than I do. I look forward to reading their comments on this. Below are links to the funding documents, which is part of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority PFI fire stations contract that I wrote about yesterday. I received a copy of the contract from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service when I exercised a right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18 to inspect and receive copies of the contract.
I’ve left out 4.7 (Bank Account Mandates) as this contains details of sort codes and account numbers with specimen signatures for those accounts. It’s probably better that such information isn’t published!
I find these financial documents rather confusing to understand as they use a lot of jargon. To me it seems to be an agreement to borrow up to £50,436,936 between now and 2038 from two banks (Dexia Crédit Local (a Franco-Belgian bank) and Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (a German bank)). The banks then charge interest on the money borrowed.
If anyone can tell me what the interest rate is being charged by the banks for this money (based on the documents below), please leave a comment. I’ve tried reading these documents to figure it out but it seems to be made deliberately obscure (probably because it’s a variable rather than fixed amount).
REVEALED: Minutes of the "secret" public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations
REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations
A long time ago, in a county far,
far away….
It is a period of strife.
The rebel Conservative
and Lib Dem parties,
have won their first General
Election victory against
the Labour government.
During the battle, rebel
parties managed to steal secret
plans to the Labour government’s
ultimate weapon, private finance
initiatives, a financial device
with enough power to
cause mass privatisation.
Pursued by no one,
John Brace races home aboard a train,
with the secret plans that show
the Merseyside people which Labour
councillors signed up to this.
So for the first time, in an exclusive for this blog here are partial minutes of that meeting when councillors agreed to a massive PFI contract for many of Merseyside’s fire stations (Belle Vale, Birkenhead, Bootle & Netherton, Formby, Kirkdale, Newton Le Willows & Southport). Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would pay the PFI contractor not just for rebuilding these fire stations, but for running these fire stations for many years after. The payments to the contractors made by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority increase each year under a formula linked to the rise in the Retail Price Index. The contracts that councillors agreed to at the meeting below make up the first three boxes on the left of the photo below.
The three boxes on the left comprise the PFI fire stations contract
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
21st September 2010
PRESENT: Councillors Tony Newman (Chair), Jimmy Mahon, Dave Hanratty, Sharon Sullivan, Les Byrom, Colin Strickland, Robbie Ayres, Barbara Murray, Ted Grannell, Denise Roberts, Linda Maloney, Lesley Rennie, Gerry Ellis, Martyn Barber, Steve Niblock and Eddie Clein.
Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Jimmy Kendrick and Andrew Blackburn Independent Member Keith Pickup
1. Preliminary Matters
The Authority considered if there were any declarations of interest, matters of urgency or items that may require the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.
(a) The following declarations of interest were made in relation to items of business on the agenda:
Councillors Linda Maloney and Robbie Ayres declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off, as they both sit on St Helens Council Planning Committee.
Councillor Mahon also declared an interest to this item as he sits on Sefton Council’s Planning Committee.
(c) the following items of business required the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information:
Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off. This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
The minutes of the previous meeting of the Authority, held on 24th June 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed accordingly by the Chair.
3. PFI Project Presentation
It was requested by the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer that Mr Skarratts – Fire Brigades Union representative be permitted to stay for the presentation and discussion of this item.
The Assistant Chief Executive and Treasurer and Mr. Schofield – PFI Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation to the Authority explaining the history of the Project from conception to the current day.
During the presentation Members were asked if they had a preference when building work was to commence as the building trade closes down for two weeks over the Christmas period.
Resolved that:
(a) Members had no preference when the building work was to commence as it would seem pointless to start work mid December then to close it down again.
(b) Noted that Balfour Beatty had confirmed they would do their utmost to drive the work forward to catch up and meet the deadline.
4. PFI Project Final Sign Off
(CFO/138/10)
This Minute is EXEMPT under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
Members considered Report CFO/138/10 of the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer concerning the Final Sign Off of the North West Fire & Rescue Services Private Finance Initiative Project.
Resolved that:
(a) The Final Business Case be noted and endorsed, and its submission to CLG be approved;
(b) Arrangements for the North West Fire & Rescue Services PFI Project be approved on the basis of the financial terms and general principles contained within the report;
(c) The execution of the following documents (collectively known as “the Agreements”) be authorised:
The Project Agreement and its Schedules, being the principal agreement to be entered into between the Authority, Cumbria County Council and Lancashire Combined Fire Authorities (“the Authorities”) and Balfour Beatty Fire and Rescue NW Limited (“Project Co.”);
The Direct Agreement, being the agreement entered into between the Authorities, Nord LB and Dexia (“the Funders”) and Project Co. (“the Direct Agreement”);
The Collateral Agreements to be entered into between the parties set out below:
– The Authorities, Mansell Construction Services and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Border Construction and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Balfour Beatty Workplace and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Blue Sky Architects and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, and any other principal building sub-contractors or relevant members of the professional team; and
– Any other Collateral Agreements required under the terms of the Project Agreement.
The Independent Certifier Deed of Appointment to be entered into between the Authorities, Project Co., the Funders and Gleeds;
The Co-operation Agreement being the agreement being entered into between (1) the Authority, (2) Cumbria County Council, and (3) Lancashire Combined Fire Authority in relation to the relationship between the Authorities for the duration of the Project (“the Co-operation Agreement”); and
Any other agreements, certificates, acknowledgements, waivers, notices, letters or other documents incidental to the documents listed above or otherwise necessary or desirable in connection with the Project.
(d) The Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins), or in his absence, the Director of Finance (Ian Cummins), be authorised to certify that the following contracts are intra vires in accordance with the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997:
the Project Agreement and its Schedules; and
the Direct Agreement
(e) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Office (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagan) or the Assistant Chief Fire Office (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) be authorised to execute the Agreements under seal on behalf of the Authority and agree that their execution of the Agreements should conclusively demonstrate approval by the Authority of the Agreements in their final form;
(f) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagen) or the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) (“the Relevant Officers”) as appropriate be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the agreements, in consultation with Dickinson Dees LLP, the Authority’s legal advisers in relation to this Project; and in consultation with the Chairman of the Authority, or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of the Authority;
(g) the Authority will indemnify any of the Relevant Officers in respect of any claims and costs relating to the contract arragements, provided that the Relevant Officer has acted reasonably and within the ordinary course of their duties.
(h) the Authority request the PFI Project Team to monitor the use of local economy and report back.
(i) Members placed their appreciation on record to the PFI Project Team for seeing the project through for the Authority.
(j) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer placed his thanks on behalf of Officers to the Authority for supporting the PFI Project.
(k) noted that Kensington Fire Station was now complete; and
(l) requested information regarding Toxteth Community Hubs to be circulated to Members.
Which St Helens councillor claimed £12 for a salmon dinner and a drink of Coke?
Which St Helens councillor claimed £12 for a salmon dinner and a drink of Coke?
Cllr Linda Maloney (Vice Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) on the left of the photo speaking at a public meeting on the 30th June 2015
Pictured on the left of the photo above is Councillor Linda Maloney who is a Labour councillor from St Helens. She is also Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.
Despite receiving £27,800 from the taxpayer for her public duties as a councillor (although presumably she wouldn’t receive all of this as some would go on Income Tax and National Insurance), she still claimed from the taxpayer for a salmon dinner and a drink of Coke at a total cost of £12 at a time when there are many people in Merseyside reliant on handouts from food banks!
Councillor Linda Maloney expense claim page 1 of 3Councillor Linda Maloney expense claim page 2 of 3Councillor Linda Maloney expense claim page 3 of 3
Sadly we were only allowed to inspect photocopies of the expense claims and receipts. As you can see from the receipts above, like Cllr Steve Niblock she also claims for journeys by taxi. Unfortunately the receipts obscure the reasons given on her expenses form for this expenditure.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
What was in the “strictly confidential” report on Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority that cost over £14000?
What was in the “strictly confidential” report on Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority that cost over £14,000?
Last year Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority paid Paver Smith (a PR agency which has since changed its name to Influential) £11,700 + VAT for 18 days work (at a rate of £650 + VAT) for an internal and external communications review. You can see the invoice for that work below.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice Paver Smith
The internal communication review involved ‘discovery’ sessions with MRWA staff, an online questionnaire and focus groups. Below is the internal communications bit of the report (with my comments under each page).
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 1
This is just the cover page for the report.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 2
This report is “strictly confidential”. Why do I know this? Why I know because this page tells me so in red letters.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 3
This is a contents page.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 4
A whole page on “introductory remarks” that contains a lot of phrases such as:
“employees and management must communicate in order for an organisation to function effectively”, “there is real value in staff being clear on and understanding the forward mission and objectives of MWRA” and “Staff also carry an organisation’s brand out to the market, with clients, stakeholders and the public. Having them “on message” and carrying a unified and coordinated message can have great benefits”.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 5
This page deals with “Objectives and methodology” including this section on confidentiality:
It is crucial to the process on an internal communications review that all feedback is supplied in strictest confidence and handled with great care.
For the results to be helpful for an organisation feedback needs to be given openly and without concern.
Therefore all focus group interviews were undertaken in the strictest confidence under Chatham House rules with no attributing of specific statements to individuals.
The internal survey was structured also in a way to preserve anonymity.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 6
This next page goes into detail about the three focus groups (Executive Management Team, Senior Management Team and Authority officers).
One of the more interesting comments on this page is “A common theme raised by all was the concern that MRWA had a “silo” culture where individual teams largely operated independently from each other and as a result there was little cross fertilisation or understanding what each team was working on/ looking to achieve.”
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 7
This page has the rather telling comment at the top (EMT stands for Executive Management Team) “There was a staff perception that the EMT didn’t wish to engage in two way communication and discussion.” followed by “All expressed a concern that the intranet was used passively to disseminate information that staff were then assumed to seek out, but that active use of the intranet was however very low.”
Then it moves on to themes from the Executive Management Team focus group. Here are some quotes from that focus group:
“Concern was express that some of the staff had unrealistic expectations as to what they should be communicated to about.”
and
“The intranet was raised as a tool that wasn’t effective and not proactively used to access information.”
The senior management focus group also commented on the intranet and the silo culture.
“It was felt by some that too much reliance was placed on people proactively seeking out information on the intranet and that generally people didn’t do this. “
“A major concern for this group was what was described as a “silo” culture in MRWA with individual teams and functions working in isolation from each other and not enough interaction nor understanding of each other’s objectives, activity, challenges and successes. “
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 8
The staff focus group found internal communications was “poor”, apart from HR related matters. This focus group also felt “that generally the quality of management communication was poor and that there was a lack of interest (from the organisation) in seeking and listening to staff’s views and ideas.”.
Also commented on by the staff focus group was that this had led to a “‘what’s the point’ culture with some staff and a sense of negativity and scepticism”. The staff group expressed a “strong desire that the outcomes from the internal communications review should be shared”.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 9
This page deals with the results of the questionnaire, there’s a pretty even split between people who think internal communications are poor and those that think it is satisfactory.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 10
This is another page going into the results of the survey and has the line “Good internal communications are seen generally by staff as of crucial importance to their sense of satisfaction and general wellbeing an an employee.”
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 11
This page details the results to the question “How important do you think internal communication is?”.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 12
This page is about the frequency of internal communications and information that people should receive monthly.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 13
This page is about the frequency of internal communications and information that people should receive quarterly or bi-annually.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 14
This page is about the quality of internal communication.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 15
This page is about satisfaction with the quality of internal communication and how it happens.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 16
This page deals with improving internal communications.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 17
This page deals with verbatim comments on how to improve internal communications.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 18
This page states expands on the heading “treat all equal” which is clarified as meaning “Reduce the secret meetings and promote total inclusion”.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 19
This page starts the recommendations, the first four are for the Executive Management Team (abbreviated to EMT).
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 20
This page has two more general recommendations on content of internal communications.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 21
This page has recommendations on the channel used for communication.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 22
This page suggests that positive external PR news should be circulated internally to staff.
Paver Smith report on internal communications to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority page 23
Finally, in the concluding remarks and next steps it recommends that the reports findings and recommendations are presented to the Executive Management Team and to the wider management and staff cohort.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why was I “gagged” from writing about a £1.2 billion contract?
Why was I “gagged” from writing about a £1.2 billion contract?
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
A few weeks ago as part of the public’s rights under the audit when the public can inspect various invoices and contracts for three weeks each year I requested this particular contract, although as there weren’t any payments made on this contract under the last financial year, they first of all classed it as a freedom of information request, then they got back to me and said now it’s an Environmental Information Regulations request.
Now if you look up what these definitions actually mean in the Communications Act 2003, right, body means any body or association of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, including a firm; so that could just mean me and Leonora, now the definition of programme services is a bit more complicated but the definition of programme services means a television programme service, the public teletext service, an additional television service, a digital additional television service, a radio programme service or a sound service provided by the BBC and then it goes on to define “television programme” means any programme (with or without sounds) which is produced wholly or partly to be seen on television and consists of moving or still images or of legible text or of a combination of those things.
Now I’ve checked whether videos on this Youtube channel are being watched on TVs and I’ll just have a quick look on my laptop and see. Yes, over the last year there have been 189 views on smart TVs and set top boxes for TV. So therefore strangely enough I come under the definition of, this comes under the definition of television programme and therefore the regulations do not apply to this particular document so I don’t have to ask their permission to publish it because it’s to do with this programme service and that’s why I’m recording this.
However on a final note I’d like to point out that the, shall we say the principle that every time somebody in the media makes a freedom of information request or an environmental information regulations request, before they use that information they’ve got to ask for permission from the public body to reuse it and state what purpose it’s for is well for anybody in the media who makes a freedom of information request and then writes stories on them is not the way it’s done.
Err, I don’t know if anybody else has heard of these regulations or whether they’re going to crop up in future FOI requests even though I think Wirral Council would quite like to send a boilerplate text at the end of each reply they send to me saying that I can’t use them unless I get their permission under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 in which case I’ll just make another video like this and then it doesn’t apply.
Anyway going back to the £1.2 billion contract between Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority or now Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority and SITA Sembcorp UK Limited. This is an 864 page contract that over the lifetime of the contract they will pay out £1.2 billion for and relates to for years and years and years basically putting Merseyside’s rubbish on a train, sending it up to somewhere in the North-East of England, burning it and generating electricity from the rubbish.
I’m not sure what happens to the rubbish after they’ve burnt it but perhaps I need to read the contract better but I will be publishing the contract along with this video on my website so you can have a look for yourself. On the subject of the information that is blacked out, I’ll be looking into whether I’ll make a whatever the, I think it’s a reconsideration under the Environmental Information Regulations request for that information to be revealed but I’ll have to look into the detail and unfortunately basically the way the contract is worded it’s very unlikely that I’ll get access to the financial information in it but I’ll publish the rest of it on my blog, so you can have a read to see what your money will be spent on from 2017.
Now the two other places that were affected by this decision decided to take the government to judicial review, I don’t know what happened as a result of that and finally the only other thing to point out about this contract is that there were, in the end two bidders for this contract one of whom was obviously the successful contractor SITA Sembcorp UK Limited.
Now the court case was eventually settled out of court, the second placed contractor basically asked for Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority to pay all the profit they would have got if they’d been awarded the contract and of course Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority doesn’t have that kind of money because it would be over £100 million. I can’t remember what the estimate was, I think it was something between £100 million and £200 million. So anyway that’s the last thing I wanted to say about this and I hope you enjoyed this video and the contract is on my blog.
“(2) These Regulations do not apply to a document unless it—
(a) has been identified by the public sector body as being available for re-use;
(b) has been provided to the applicant; or
(c) is accessible by means other than by making a request for it within the meaning of the 1998 Act, the 2000 Act (or where appropriate the 2002 Act) or the 2004 Regulations (or where appropriate the 2004 Scottish Regulations).”
and whether this means:
(a) the regulations don’t apply to FOI requests, EIR requests or data protection act requests or
(b) the regulations apply to everything but FOI requests, EIR requests or data protection act requests
and leave a comment it would be appreciated.
UPDATED 17:45 28/7/15 Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority have today stated "the Authority is aware of its obligations in relation to transparency, and the publication of public sector information. We are more than happy that members of the public can access this material, and are free to question, query and publish aspects of the Authority’s work."
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
