EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 13 September, 2013
There was a bit of a row at last night’s cabinet meeting. The former and present leaders of the Liberal Democrat group tried to open up debate on what appears may be a case of anti-competitive trading by the council.
Councillors David Morson and Lizzy Parr were prevented from discussing item 20 on the agenda (decision taken by Leader – trade waste charges) in open session. The leader of the council, Cllr Jim Ketteridge, wouldn’t allow any discussion in public because he said the issue was commercially confidential.
I question the legitimacy of that ruling by the cabinet chairman. Legal advice has been that “exempt” (that is exempt from public debate, so private) discussions are needed when an individual person is being discussed. This case involves a large organisation in Saffron Walden which is owned by its members. On that basis, the story behind the decision should be made public.
The issue relates to the supply of a council service which was offered to the organisation at a knock-down price to see off commercial competition. So this client is getting the service at a far lower price than other users across the district. I am sure the service would go bust if everyone were given a massive discount. I am further puzzled by the fact that a neighbouring council gave me a quotation yesterday for the same service at a rate one-third HIGHER than Uttlesford’s. This does not stack up! I can’t believe that one council has to charge half what another council charges – and that presumably has customers of its own who pay up – in order to remain in business.
Worst still, competition law seems to have been ignored. I quote below from guidance for public bodies by the Office of Fair Trading on the Competition Act 1998:
“Examples of the kind of conduct that might amount to an abuse of that dominant position include: charging prices so low that they do not cover the costs of the product or service sold in order to exclude competitors, offering different prices or terms to similar customers without objective justification, or refusing to supply an existing or long standing customer without objective justification.” (See paragraphs 1.2 and 4.6)
It seems to me, though I am always open to being corrected, that UDC is now running close to the wind on competition law following the leader’s agreement to a special deal with this well known organisation.
I think there is a wish by the council to get its service delivery – especially for discretionary trading services – onto a proper financial footing. I remain to be convinced that the recent deal signed off by the council leader was a sensible decision. Nor does it help trust when they try to cover up the deal with confidentiality clauses, when it is increasingly likely that what is being covered up is at best organisational embarrassment.
5 Comments
This sounds fishy to me and worth pursuing. I know very little about commecial and competition law, nor about related restrictive practices. It also sound very odd that JK should stifle debate in this way unless he had very specific instructions to that effect from MP or JM.
Is JK – or other councillors – perhaps associated in a financial sense with the workings of the organisation in question.
It could of course be an another instance of stifling debate not on grounds of illegalty but merely because someone may be embarrassed. Keep prodding and poking, Alan, and have a letter ready for the press!
Naturally questions have been raised about any relationships with the organisation receiving beneficial treatment. Answers are awaited. We must avoid prejudging the situation, but speculation will be the result of obscurity and secrecy.
Its difficult to determine whether JK has any financial interests with the third party on account of his failure to sign the new Register of Interests, despite the deadline for members to do so passing over a year ago. Perhaps he isn’t keen on the new requirements (such as the need to declare membership of charitable bodies such as the freemasons). Of course, it just be sheer incompetence.
The declaration of interests entry that is four years out of date, as well as one which is totally blank, have been investigated by the monitoring officer. In both cases paper copies were held in the office. The web displays will be updated. At least one member has already declared membership of a Freemason’s Lodge. Members who do not declare interests such as membership of clubs and societies could create difficulties for themselves – if challenged.
I stand corrected as it appears that JK did indeed update his Register of Interests in July 2012 – the up-to-date version has now just appeared on UDC’s website. What a coincidence that the matter was raised on this blog and within a couple of weeks the site is updated. Interestingly that’s now another member that declares himself a Freemason.