The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:
Despite the results of the consultation exercise carried out by the Council, the Council is pressing ahead with a tendering process for the Library Service. Will the Council now disclose which organisations have come forward with bids to run the service? The Council refused to disclose that Community Links were bidding for the Community Libraries - despite the fact that they were the only bidder. The Council relied on a "Commercially Sensitive" response.
Based on the Local Government Transparency Code, the commercially sensitive response was clearly not applicable. We are now asking that the Council reveal who is bidding for the remaining libraries. We draw your attention to Section 20 of the code which deals with commercial sensitivity which states:
"The government has not seen any evidence that publishing details about contracts entered into by local authorities would prejudice procurement or the interests of commercial organisations or breach commercial confidentiality"
It is clear that the matter is not one for exemption or exclusion according to the code.
The Council is in a contractual relationship with bidders as soon as a bid is made. Therefore, section 3.1 of the code is relevant. Further, paragraph 60 clearly states that published details must include the company registration number at company’s house.
Minutes:
The Staff Side enquired why LBB had not disclosed that Community Links had bid for the management of the community libraries. They also asked if LBB were now prepared to disclose the identities of the other bidders, and to reveal which organisations had come forward to run the main library service.
The Staff Side were of the view that this information should have been disclosed under the Local Government Transparency Code, Section 20 which dealt with commercially sensitive contracts
Mr Colin Brand (Assistant Director for Culture, Libraries and Leisure) stated that a contract would consist of an offer and the acceptance of that offer. A tender remained an offer until a contract was agreed. It was also the case that tender details were confidential. No contract existed, and so the transparency code did not apply. He assured the Committee that commercial confidentiality had been correctly applied, and that the company details had been released at the correct time through a Portfolio Holder decision.
It was noted that after it was revealed that Community Links had been granted “preferred bidder status” to manage the community libraries, action had been initiated outside of Community House by the Unions.
A debate took place concerning the nature of this action. Members expressed concern that the action undertaken by the unions may in fact be secondary picketing. The Staff Side contended that the unions were not engaged in secondary picketing, but had been peacefully protesting. Their aim was to persuade Community Links to withdraw from the process. Cllr Fawthrop was of the view that what had taken place was secondary picketing to exert pressure on a potential supplier. He was of the view that action should be taken, and that LBB should consider suing for consequential loss.
The Vice Chairman argued that the action undertaken could never be interpreted as a picket, as a picket prevented people going into their places of work. She insisted that there was never any attempt to prevent anyone entering Community House, and that the Unions were simply distributing leaflets.
Cllr Colin Smith asked why the action outside of Community Links had been referred to as a “picketing” on a Unite website, and why were people in wheelchairs being obstructed. The Vice Chairman responded that wheelchair users were not being obstructed. Mr Brand referenced a Twitter webpage where the term “picketing” was used, and stated that more detail could be provided if required. The Director of Human Resources also stated that literature referenced “picketing”. The Vice Chairman reiterated her view that no secondary picketing had been undertaken.
Cllr Angela Wilkins commented that the facts needed to be established, and that the distribution of leaflets was not picketing. It was also a fact that an individual could use terminology incorrectly due to a lack of training or experience and so there was a need for calm.
A Member queried if the action by the Unions constituted a breach of the law.
The Chairman asked the Staff Side how they had gained access to the confidential information concerning Community Links. The Vice Chairman stated that someone was sitting in the public gallery reading a part 2 report, and that a member of the public noted the contents of part of the report.
Cllr Colin Smith asked if the Vice Chairman was permitted to pass on information in her capacity as Staff Union Representative. The Director of Human Resources stated that it was not known at what stage in the process the Vice Chairman may have revealed the information. Cllr Smith expressed the view that the issue should be investigated.
Gill Slater felt that the Council should pay more attention to the requirements of the Transparency Code for the future, and that LBB may be prudent to take legal advice concerning this. Cllr Fawthrop acknowledged that the Transparency Code was important, and as much information as possible should be detailed in Part 1 reports. The Chairman assured the LBB had an open policy. Mr Brand referred to the original report that had been drafted concerning community libraries, and stated that 90% of the information was detailed in the part 1 report, and that the part 2 report was brief.
The Director of Human Resources made the following points:
· The term “picketing” should not be used by the Unions going forward
· It should be made clear to Union members that they did not benefit from legal protection in this case
· The Union may be at risk of financial penalty
· The Union may be guilty of unlawful secondary action
· The Union should reflect on their position and ensure that they held a valid mandate