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 Brian Kenny (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014
Expense claim forms for Councillor Brian Kenny (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014
Writing this, I had better declare that many years ago in Liverpool Councillor Brian Kenny gave us both a gift of a red plastic post box in I think in 2010 (it’s only a few inches high) as part of the lobbying that the Communication Workers Union were doing at the time of people like myself and Leonora. Although this falls into the trivial category, journalism ethics means I’d better state that at the start as I don’t want people thinking I’m being too kind or not objective enough to former Councillor Brian Kenny because of something he gave us four years ago. I will point out that gift was completely unconnected to my work as a journalist. However this is probably more openness and accountability than you will get from most politicians (who were recently told at a Planning Committee meeting about Tranmere Rovers that they only had to declare gifts received in the last twelve months)!
When I picked up the expenses claim forms to scan in for former Councillor Brian Kenny, at first I thought I must have picked up a batch which was for more than one councillor as compared to other councillors there seemed a lot of it. I know he was the Cabinet Member for the Environment, but his expenses claim forms go on and on and on and on and on like the waves crashing against the shore on the Wirral coastline.
As probably readers of this blog are already aware, former Councillor Brian Kenny lost his seat in Birkenhead and Tranmere in the May 2014 elections to the Green Party’s Councillor Pat Cleary.
I have only seen Brian Kenny twice since the elections. Once was at the meeting where Councillor Steve Foulkes became Mayor of Wirral in June, the other time was when I was at the Birkenhead County Court offices when I was requesting copies of court records on Wirral Council’s possession order (granted in February 2014 effective from February 2015) for Fernbank Farm. Before I start getting diverted into interesting anecdotes about a former councillor I had better show you first the expenses forms.
Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 15Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 16Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 17Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 18Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 19
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd
Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd
A delicious meal (not a school meal which we don’t have any stock photos of) prepared for John by Leonora my wife who also writes for this blog and is a better at cook than I am.
This is a small part of the Schools PFI contract that Wirral Council has that costs the taxpayer this year ~£12 million a year. This is part of a massive contract that I estimate being between 500 and 1000 pages long.
It relates to the following schools (one primary and eight secondary) plus two City Learning Centres:
Leasowe Primary
Bebington High
University Academy of Birkenhead (formerly called Park High)
South Wirral High
Weatherhead High
Hilbre High
Prenton High
Wallasey High
Wirral Grammar Girls
Wallasey City Learning Centre
Hilbre City Learning Centre
Before I start on quoting from the contract on page 87, I need to first explain what the following terms mean.
“Authority” refers to Wirral Council.
“Schools” are the schools listed above that are part of the PFI contract.
“Category A Consumers” means “school meals supplied to those pupils at a School who pay for meals and/or refreshments taken in the Catering Area of the Schools.”
“Category B Consumers” means “those pupils who have been notified to Projet Co as being entitled to free meals, and who take these meals in the School’s Catering Area.”
Category A Consumers & Category B Consumers are treated as non-business for VAT purposes. To be honest a lot of this contract is about tax!
“Category C Consumers” means “meals supplied to members of staff of the Schools and visitors who have been notified to Project Co as being entitled to a free meal are supplied free of charge by the Authority to the consumer and output tax is not applicable.”
“Category D Consumers” are “meals supplied to persons other than pupils who take and pay for a meal and/or refreshments are treated as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. Project Co shall include the appropriate rate of VAT in the prices charged for such meals and refreshments and supply output statistics and the value of VAT output tax to the Authority within a timetable specified by the Authority which has been agreed with HM Customs & Excise”
Right now onto the bit of the contract about free school meals (pages 87-88), my comments are in italics.
20.4 Free School Meals
(1) The Authority has a duty to provide free school meals to those pupils at the Schools who fall into Category B Consumers. Members of staff and visitors of the School who are Category C Consumers are also entitled to a free meal paid for by the Authority or School.
OK, reasonable so far, restates legal requirement in sentence 1. Didn’t know about sentence 2 though… which is a tad unclear as to who pays.
(2) The Authority will issue to all individuals referred to in Clause 20.4(1) a card (the “Smart Card“) in a design to be agreed from time to time by the Authority and Project Co, but including the person’s name, photograph and the name of the School, which shall be credited with cash equivalent to the number of free school meals that person is entitled to in that Contract Month.
Wow, things have changed a lot since my day. So, just because their parents are on means tested benefits, you’re insisting children have photo ID and presumably present such photo ID every time they get a “free school meal”? Sounds like it’s “free” but with strings attached?! OK, call me a civil liberties person who rejoiced when the Coalition government scrapped the ID card plan, but forcing children from poor backgrounds to use photo ID?? Maybe I’m just old fashioned?
(3) The Authority will, using its own data and confidential information on free meals, prior to the commencement of each Contract Month issue a list to Project Co of the number of persons entitled to free school meals.
So wait a sec, Project Co is being given a list of all children that get free school meals and children also have to present photo ID to get them? What’s the point of the photo ID then??? Why not just ask them their name or am I missing something??? Surely kids know their own name? Yes, it’s “confidential information” so why is Wirral Council handing it over to a private company as part of this contract??? *sentence deleted following editorial meeting* Bristol based Wirral Schools Services Limited was called Jarvishelf 2 Limited prior to 29th December 2000.
(4) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category B Consumers at the Meal of the Day Price together with VAT if applicable.
Eh, I thought page 86 said that Category A&B Consumers were “non-business” for VAT purposes? I suppose I’m not a contract lawyer being paid an extortionate amount to write this stuff though.
(5) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of the each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category C Consumers at a charge pre-agreed with the relevant School together with VAT if applicable.
Free meals for staff and visitors eh? Must be one of the few perks of the job I suppose… mind you teaching staff have to put up with a lot so I suppose a “free school meal” is the least they deserve.
(6) In addition to Clauses 20.4(4) and (5), Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for any function, hospitality or visitors’ meals supplied together with VAT if applicable.
Functions, hospitality, oh dear are we getting into “golf” territory again eh? OK, I can envisage visiting sports teams from other schools needing something to eat, staff from other schools and places, meetings held at the school etc, but how much “hospitality” goes on in a school anyway. I get the impression Wirral Schools aren’t inviting the Mayor of Helsinki over every week to their school for a start (or maybe they are?)
(7) Project Co in its capacity as agent for the Authority (or the relevant Support Service Provider acting on behalf of Project Co) will provide:
(a) to each Category B Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the Meal of the Day Price; and
(b) to each Category C Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5).
Oh dear, cash seems so old fashioned now doesn’t it? What’s “Meal of the Day” anyway? Gruel? Bread and water? Maybe I’m thinking of Oliver (the musical). I find it worrying that even at primary school age kids are forced to use photo ID cards just to get what they’re entitled to although maybe that’s just the way society has changed. It’s enough to drive people to packed lunches! What if the poor child leaves their “Smart Card” at home, do they go hungry? No “Meal of the Day” for them? After all in the days of cash (yes seems I’m old fashioned), your friends could give you (or even lend you) the money if you were short at the till. No more it seems in these contracts for cashless school meals!
(8) If the price of a meal chosen by:
(a) a Category B Consumer exceeds the Meal of the Day Price; or
(b) a Category C Consumer exceeds the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5)
the bearer shall be responsible for crediting its card with the excess via the dining room tills and the Authority shall have no liability in respect of the excess. If the price of a meal chosen by a Category B Consumer or a Category C Consumer is less than the value of the Meal of the Day or the pre-agreed charge (as the case may be) Project Co or the relevant Support Service Provider shall be entitled to retain the excess.
Wow, just wow. Let’s take a hypothetical Meal of the Day price at £2.30 (which this recent article about the Cabinet decision on increasing it helpfully provides). If someone choses items to eat that go over this £2.30 threshold, they have to pay more. If someone choses items that go under it, there is no refund but the “Project Co” (Wirral Schools Services Limited) or “Support Service Provider” gets to keep the difference!!! I suppose that’s what you call capitalism!
Category B Consumers are free school meals paid for by the taxpayer. However, even if the cost of providing such meals (out of taxes) is less than the “Meal of the Day” price, this company charges the taxpayer at the “Meal of the Day” price and makes profit on the difference! Yes, they’re making profit out of school children’s’ meals!!!
And so ends the lesson for today on capitalism. It goes without saying that the Cabinet Member for this area at the time the contract was signed in 2004 was Councillor Phil Davies (currently Leader of the Council) doesn’t it?
And yes, there are even more worrying bits of this massive contract (that keeps on running in the gift that keeps on giving for the capitalists for well over another decade) than the minor section on free school meals above, but if I wrote about the but I’m thinking about it would probably lead to questions being asked (even a panic!) and I might be misconstrued due to the millions of pounds that particular bit involves being transferred from Wirral Council to this company to sort out that “mistake”. No wonder the first page is marked “private and confidential”!
However there are some positives about this new approach:
(a) other pupils can’t do the faux pas I did when I was 10 and transferred schools in year 6 (last year of primary school). The new school I transferred to was in a “working class” area, whereas where I had come from was “middle class”.
I reminded a friend of mine (I still remember this embarrassing conversation twenty-four years later although I hope the other guy has forgotten it by now) he’d forgotten to pay at the till for his school meal for him to look extremely embarrassed and have to explain that he hadn’t forgotten to pay and that he was on free school meals. I then committed a second faux pas as I had to ask what “free school meals” actually meant as at age ten I didn’t know why (strangely but perhaps understandably my education (paid for by Wirral Council) had been somewhat lacking to this point on the intricacies of the UK welfare benefits system in 1991, free school meals and other such matters). Such matters were communicated by schools in mind numbing detail to parents in long detailed communications, but concepts not really understood by ten year old children such as myself (the guy I was talking to understood but not me). Maybe these days children have a better understanding of such things than I did then or maybe they don’t.
In the approach above (as outlined in the contract) all kids are issued with a photo ID card and presumably the children on free school meals don’t have “FREE SCHOOL MEALS” emblazoned in large capital letters written on the card.
(b) it reduces the risk of bullying of kids for their lunch money as the card has a photo on it. Unlike money the photo ID cards (unless you happen to be identical twins and I remember the identical twins when I was at school playing all kids of jokes on the adults as their fellow children could tell them apart but the adults couldn’t) can’t be transferred between people easily if the photo is compared to the person using it.
(c) all this bureaucracy is why some parents then and now probably just opt for the simpler option of packed lunches (although if your family is entitled to free school meals this might be ruled out on terms of cost). The upside is no queuing, parents know what their children are eating and fewer profits going to companies making money out of the taxpayer and others.
(d) free school meals have been introduced for all primary school children this month by the Coalition government for under 7 year olds (1.5 million children). The fact all children on this age group (and not just those on means tested benefits) get an entitlement to free school meals should cut down on a lot of bureaucracy.
To put it simply, it is far easier from an administrative perspective giving everyone an entitlement to a free school meal from school age to age seven, then having to process each form detailing the benefits that qualify a family (who may have one or more children at one or more schools) for free school meals, checking that said benefit is now claimed and if so over which dates, tracking said child through the school system if they move schools and sorting out the paperwork, et cetera, et cetera. The current system is a minefield of bureaucracy and takes a lot of staff time who could be using their time to do things that are more use to society than shuffling paperwork around (not to say that isn’t important).
It’s also been a lot of work for schools, a lot of work for the LEA too, which has reduced somewhat now, although a lot of questions have been asked before and after this change about the knock on effect of how the “pupil premium” is calculated as this is a measure whereby schools get extra money based on how many children there get free school meals.
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:
The next in this series of expenses claims is that for Councillor Phil Davies (a Labour councillor for Birkenhead and Tranmere ward). As part of the 2013-14 audit I requested the underlying claim forms for these claims from councillors and other underlying financial information. Personally I think in the interests of openness and transparency these should be published on a monthly basis, although there is now no legal requirement on Wirral Council to publish anything other than annual totals once a year.
Councillors are paid these amounts through the payroll system at Wirral Council and certain details were 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 was told this information. The forms were given to me this morning alphabetically by councillor surname, so the second in this series (which started with another councillor called Davies, but not Phil but George) is Councillor Phil Davies.
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 Phil Davies has been in that year, however as Leader of the Council that’s to be expected.
I did also ask for the underlying financial information to support these claims forms such as receipts, but the person I originally made the request to is now 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?
Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 2Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 3Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 5Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 6Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 7Cllr Phil Davies expense claim 2013 2014 page 8
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
