To summarise the letter it reminds Wirral Council to comply with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Government Publicity and if they don’t reminds them that the Secretary of State has a legal power to direct local councils to comply.
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:
The text of the emotional handwritten responses to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation
The text of the emotional handwritten responses to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation
Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June and is referred to in some of the responses)
The first is from pages 9-10 of the file marked Lyndale parents.
Lyndale is a vital service to children with the most difficult lives.
They can’t cope with moving schools, because for the most part their health is very fragile.
I want to see a 2-19 facility at Lyndale School so that the children there can continue to receive the care they so desperately need. No other school on Wirral can provide this.
See ‘Parents Response to the Lyndale Consultation Document’ for a further explanation of my views.
Name, address, telephone number and e-mail address is all blacked out apart from Wirral in the address field.
From Page 17 of the Lyndale parents file:
PLEASE SEE OUR SEPARATE SHEET ENCLOSED WITH OUR FEEDBACK COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
===========================================
These are from the file marked Lyndale others starting at page 3.
member of the friends of Lyndale School association
Having helped with fund raising and attended events at the Lyndale School I have always been impressed by the ‘can do’ attitude of the staff and the calm and the happy atmosphere of the school.
Because of the very special and complex needs of these children I do not believe and neither do their parents that these needs can be met at the other special schools on the Wirral. I feel that the welfare or even the lives of these children may be endangered.
I would ask the Council not to sacrifice these very special children for ???? ???? of financial criteria or rationalisation process that is not in their best interests.
Surely the mark of a civilised society is the way that they care for its most vulnerable members
Contact details blacked out apart from Wirral.
From page 27:
I write this as a grandparent to my 3 year old granddaughter who has PMLD. I have witnessed the amazing progress she has made since she began attending Lyndale School. She has clearly benefitted from the range of professional skills of the staff team based there.
It seems cruel to uproot her from the school to another of two schools which appear to be oversubscribed. It is also devastating for the parents of Lyndale School, whose lives are tough enough dealing with their childrens complex needs, to have to endure the uncertainty facing their childrens schooling. Keep Lyndale School open to maintain a geographical spread and encourage more parents to send their children there, to benefit from all the outstanding resources on offer
Contact details blacked out apart from MERSEYSIDE in address field.
======================================
From Stanley others file (page 3)
Having read the consultation document, if both Elleray Park and Stanley have the capacity to offer an additional 40+ places, then ideally, the children from Lyndale should be offered these places.
This will only be an issue if the numbers of children requiring specialist provision increases within the borough.
(Other staff section from page 7 onwards)
Member of staff ticked “THE OBSERVATORY SCHOOL” written in Other.
Whilst I understand all the reasons for the closure of Lyndale School, I would hope the opinions and feelings of the parents and carers of the pupils attending the school are listened to sensitively and with genuine regard for them.
Personally, I have real affection for the Lyndale School but also acknowledge the amazing provision offered by Stanley and Elleray Park schools.
I would love to see all three schools continuing to provide for CLD/PMLD children but understand Elleray Park and Stanley School can provide for Wirral’s children and also understand the financial implications and issues. I am confident that the correct decision will be made and know that this consultation will be well supported. I wish Wirral Cabinet well in their decision-making process.
Name is blacked out. Address: THE OBSERVATORY SCHOOL, BIDSTON VILLAGE ROAD, BIDSTON, WIRRAL Postcode: CH43 7QT. Telephone and e-mail address blacked out.
Page 9 onwards
Other: HEADTEACHER BHSC
1. Logically keeping a small school open in an area where alternative provision is available of equal quality of provision is not a feasible option. I base this judgement on financial basis, community flexibility, breadth of staff experience, staff workload.
I agree that Lyndale should close and students reallocated.
2. I agree that any financial savings must be redirected into receiving schools to ensure no detriment to student provision.
3. Other options proposed:-
– Restricting places at Elleray + Stanley would lead to possible under occupancy and therefore no financial security
– 2-19 is an interesting option worth a feasibility study.
– Federation can lead to leadership issue and lack of focus for all schools in the federation including competing agendas – not feasible
– colocation is possible but why? when alt schools can accommodate demand
– Academy or free school does not alter the facts at present re student numbers or finance. If Lyndale improved to to this change there are only so many students to go around + the issues are only deflected into alt schools
– Additional places at Elleray + Stanley + closure of Lyndale is the most sensible option financially and educationally
Name blacked out Address: Bebington High Sports College Wirral Postcode CH63 2PS Telephone and e-mail address blacked out.
====================================
From the Others file starting at page 57:
I HAVE LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSIONS FOR AND AGAINST THE CLOSURE OF THE LYNDALE SCHOOL. TO PUT TO ONE SIDE THE EMOTIONAL ISSUES THAT THE THREATENED CLOSURE HAS CAUSED, IN MY VIEW THIS IS A MEDICAL POSITION. THE CHILDREN REQUIRE SUCH INTENSE ONE TO ONE ATTENTION THAT SOME HOW THE MONEY MUST BE FOUND, POSSIBLY JUSTIFIABLY INTO A 5TH BAND THEREBY QUALIFYING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. ANOTHER OPTION IS TO APPEAL TO THE D OF E FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING DUE TO THE CHILDRENS’ VULNERABILITY. SURELY THERE MUST BE A MORE HUMAN APPROACH TO CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY RATHER THAN BASE THEIR NEEDS ON CALCULATIONS.
This is not a handwritten response but is very hard to read due to a lack of contrast with the background (from page 59 of the other responses):
Dear Councillor
I am writing to tell you how worried I am about the possibility that the Lyndale School in Eastham may close. This is because the children at the school are very vulnerable and need to be with people they know well. Their fragile health means they will not be able to cope with losing all that they know and adjusting to a new environment.
The staff at The Lyndale School have years of experience, knowledge and expertise in caring for and educating children with a very high level of special needs. They create a very special environment where each child is valued and given the support they need to enjoy a good quality of life and achieve their potential. Parents feels that no other school on Wirral can provide the same safe and caring environment.
The children who attend Lyndale have many challenges to face in their everyday lives and their families are there alongside them. But this threat of the Lyndale closure is a challenge too ??? and many of the families are feeling under great strain at this time, worrying about having to send their children to schools that they know won’t be suitable for them.
The Lyndale School provides a service that is really needed both now and to future generations. It supports and gives hope to children and their families through some of the most difficult times in their lives. Will you please pledge to support the school and prevent its loss as a valuable asset in our community.
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 incredible story of the Gautby Road Play area starring 1 press release, 1 padlock, 1 councillor and an MP
The incredible story of the Gautby Road Play Area starring 1 press release, 1 padlock, 1 councillor and an MP
Below is a picture of Gautby Road Play Area (owned by Wirral Council) in Bidston which is next to Gautby Road Community Centre taken on the 5th August at about two o’clock in the afternoon.
Gautby Road Play Area (5th August 2014)
Here is a photo of the sign (also taken the same day at around two o’clock) which is next to the only gate in and out of the Gautby Road Play Area.
Gautby Road Play Area sign
The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a padlock on the gate, a close up of which is below. So just to make it perfectly clear, yesterday when the photo was taken the only gate into the Gautby Road Play Area was padlocked. This is the reality of the situation.
Gautby Road Play Area padlock
However the reality of the situation is not what Wirral Council put in a press release titled “Come and play all day!”. The press release is partly about National Play Day 2014 (which is today) but also states “Youth and Play Service also operate three full-time all year round play facilities located at Beechwood Play & Community centre, Leasowe Adventure Playground and Gautby Road, providing free play provision for children and young people aged from six to 14 years.”
At the last Birkenhead Constituency Committee held on the 24th July, my wife asked why the Gautby Road play area was being kept padlocked. Here’s a transcript of the bit of the meeting which you can also watch the video of starting here.
Leonora Brace
I’ve got two questions to ask.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Yeah.
Leonora Brace
I did ask Cllr Crabtree and [Cllr] Harry Smith about the children’s play area in Gautby Road, Bidston.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Yes.
Leonora Brace
About it being locked all the time and two children nearly drowned in the lake at the back on the opposite side and he told me I had to ask when I came here.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Very good, instead of asking do you think we could actually have an answer for Mrs Brace and err can you do that?
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
Chair, through you Chair. The Gautby Road Play Area which has recently just been refurbished actually, is only through the, it’s used predominantly by the Gautby Road Play and Community Centre and they kind of keep the keys and police it, but it is through the summer it’s open. The play centre’s open all through the day. So it is open.
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
It is yes, but the play area is open all through the summer holidays. The play centre is open…
Leonora Brace
It’s the area outside where they go up and you know jumping up.
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
Yes.
Leonora Brace
That’s not open! I passed it again today, yesterday I passed it and it’s all padlocked!
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Will councillors when they next pass…?
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
I was down there signing some cheques for somebody yesterday and it was open! The play area was open and there were children playing there.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Will councillors who pass Gautby Road, would they please check?
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
Well yes, it’s in my ward! Yes I will.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Very good.
Cllr Pat Williams responds to this story on Twitter:
@level80 Something very wrong here- a playground locked at 2pm during school holidays!
Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea
Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Dawn Tolcher (Constituency Manager, Birkenhead)
The second update is around two proposals around improving communication. The first one is the promotion of Wirral Well, that’s been …rated now, it’s been drafted as to what tools we can use. We’re looking at a segmented approach with that as to how we deal with the different members of the community.
You communicate with a sixteen year old girl in a different way to a forty year old man and how we develop that. I was just exploring how we could use the empty shops in Birkenhead to help improve the visual presence of the area, but using them to do some on the streets consultation linked with residents. That’s being developed. The second proposal in terms of publication, Surjit’s going to provide an update on that.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Would you?
Surjit Tour
Yes, thank you Chair. In so far as the..
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
If you can’t hear at any one time, we will pass the mic back. You know what to do with that don’t you?
Surjit Tour
In so far as that particular item, this particular item is concerned, there is an issue that we do need to explore with regards to the publicity code to ensure that the proposed publication that this committee has considered, would like to consider doesn’t then interfere with the Council’s broader publications.
There are some areas of discussion that need to be had in terms of the interpretation of both the code and the publication itself at this point in time. The suggestion is that Cabinet considers those and that particular issue further with a view towards a significant finding.
As to the issue with regards to the code and whether or not the publicity code will provide or prevent this committee utilising the publication and using the publication because of the broader ramifications and indeed the implications to the Council of that.
Councillor George Davies
Can I ask a question? I just wanted to make a short comment on that one. Can I just ask the question? Following on from that Surjit and I understood and if I’ve got it wrong I apologise.
I understand that when we actually looked at this, we were talking about and we were convinced that Birkenhead because of its poor publicity, ie that the Wirral Globe, the News doesn’t get anywhere near the publicity that local party people do get.
Birkenhead wanted to be a non-political body’s newsletter being sent out to tell the people of Birkenhead exactly what this constituency is trying to do and trying to achieve. We’re not talking, we’re not saying that that had to be anything to do with Wirral West, Wirral South or Wallasey and this is purely and simply our own initiative to make sure that people there understand how we spend their money.
Surjit Tour
Yes I know but unfortunately the code itself makes specific reference to newsletters and newsheets being issued and the issue really whether or not what’s been proposed whether that then emulates commercial newspapers in style or content. Now that’s a debatable and indeed arguable point and that requires further examination and it is really on that point again clarification on that particular point, which is the central to the issue which we need to address.
And to a degree I understand the rationale of the publication and what its purpose is and it’s not intended to be commercial in that sense, but I think it would be wise just to take stock and ensure that we don’t run into difficulties in the event that we do launch this particular publication and then the organisation as a whole is constrained because of the provisions of the publicity code itself.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Phil?
Cllr Phil Davies
Yeah I’m a little bit concerned that just because Eric Pickles has issued a Code of Practice that we kind of delay on this and I think the code of, the summary of what the code says about you know lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate et cetera errm I think that’s clear. I think I don’t see why we need to delay, the next Cabinet meeting isn’t until September. By the time you know a further report’s gone back, it’s going to be well into the autumn.
I would have thought, my personal view is that we agreed this was badly needed a long time ago. I think that we should get on with it and you know we need to run it past you as the guardian of the Council’s constitution to check that it ticks all of Eric Pickles’ boxes but I just think a further delay back to Cabinet, it’s going to be halfway through the year before we produce anything. So I, unless there’s any overwhelming reason why, I’d be firmly in favour of getting on with it and just obviously checking before we publish anything if you’re ok with it and it meets with the code of practice.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
