I am writing to request an internal review of Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead's handling of my FOI request 'CALA Homes contracts'.
Ordinarily I would have raised this matter within 40 days, however RBWM has this week published significant sections of the contract in the officers report about the golf club site published for full council on July 17th 2024:
https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b29681/Petition%20for%20Debate%20-%20Maidenhead%20Golf%20Course%20Wednesday%2017-Jul-2024%2019.00%20Council.pdf?T=9
To all intents and purposes, given the detail set out in the above report, the information contained in the contract can no longer be credibly said to be confidential, and in any event there is a general presumption in favour of disclosing settled public contracts under paragraph 20 of the Transparency Code 2015:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-transparency-code-2015/local-government-transparency-code-2015#part-3-information-recommended-for-publication
This states:
"20. The government has not seen any evidence that publishing details about contracts entered into by local authorities would prejudice procurement exercises or the interests of commercial organisations, or breach commercial confidentiality unless specific confidentiality clauses are included in contracts. Local authorities should expect to publish details of contracts newly entered into – commercial confidentiality should not, in itself, be a reason for local authorities to not follow the provisions of this Code. Therefore, local authorities should consider inserting clauses in new contracts allowing for the disclosure of data in compliance with this Code."
Further guidance on the specific need for disclosure of contracts is given here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-transparency-code-2015/local-government-transparency-code-2015#annex-a-summary-of-all-information-to-be-published
For example this national guidance recommends transparency on grounds including:
"• use of assets – ensuring that local people are able to scrutinise how well their local authority manages its assets"
and
• 8. Fraud can thrive where decisions are not open to scrutiny and details of spending, contracts and service provision are hidden from view. Greater transparency, and the provisions in this Code, can help combat fraud. "
In respect of the public interest tests previously weighed, the newly published facts show that the penalty clause could amount to a risk of a minimum of £119 million. The new Maidenhead MP (and RBWM Cabinet member) Josh Reynolds quantified the full risk advisedly as £155m when speaking at hustings.
These risks from a single clause in a single contract are therefore greater in magnitude than the entire annual income of the council, and did not appear on any risk register published to date.
Consequently it is hard to envisage any matter that is more in the public interest to understand properly.
I submitted a request for several documents, including the best-value report. The extraordinary scale of the penalty clause also reinforces the need to understand the business case, and supporting documents. Nor should there be blanket withholding of information.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cala_homes_contracts