BT and the public interest
In May I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Lancashire County Council, seeking publication of the full contract between the Council and BT in respect of its new Joint Venture Company One Connect, which is set to manage much of the County Council (and partnering District Councils’) back office function for the next ten years.
This new company is very similar to Liverpool Direct, about which a great deal of concern has been expressed; there have been substantial accusations that BT have earned million of pounds over the odds because, for example, they have been able to charge higher prices for equipment, and about very poor reporting and monitoring. The Information Commissioner finally ordered full disclosure of the Liverpool Direct contract in December 2010.
In June I received a ‘holding’ reply from Lancashire County Council:
We are currently in the process of conducting a public interest test as we believe the section 43(2) exemption may apply to some or all of the information you have requested. The public interest test entails a public authority deciding whether, in relation to a request for information, it serves the interests of the public either to disclose the information or to maintain an exemption or exception in respect of the information requested.
The next deadline for a response expired on 14th July, so I chased the matter. Yesterday I received that reply, which said no decision had yet been taken because the Council is
currently seeking the views of BT regarding disclosure of the contract. We have chased them for their comments but, unfortunately, they are not yet in a position to respond.
It seems to me that if BT cannot be bothered to offer a view on this matter, then it can’t be too bothered about the contractual information being disclosed, and that the County Council should get on with the completion of its public interest test.
Or maybe, just maybe, the Council and BT know they are going to lose this case, given the Liverpool precedent, and are just playing for time till their working arrangements are well-embedded and it’s harder to challenge them on the basis of the information released.
So, a massive corporate wielding power behind the scenes to get a public agency to hide from the public information which might reveal the motives and workings of said massive corporate. Now, where have i heard about that kind of thing recently?
I work for a LA which is in partnership with BT (though now in the process of bailing out) and I can tell you that this article is right to raise concerns. Every budget holder you speak to in my LA will tell you we are being shafted big time on procurement. Basically each service has to pick up not only the charge of say a mobile phone but also what is called a procurement saving charge from BT. So if a mobile costs £100, BT will then add on say £50. So the total charge for the mobile becomes £150, not the £100 it actually cost! They do this because they say they procure stuff cheaper than before.
The anecdotal evidence from budget holders is that this is total bullshit. My advice to anyone at Lancashire county council would be take a base position. Analyse now how much certain items cost and then year on year compare that to the new charge. This way you can see how much you are being screwed.
Will be very interested to see the outcome of this. How they can say that publication of the contract is not in the public interest (when millions of public money is being spent) is beyond me (or they’re trying to cover something up..)