Hackney Citizen

Veolia dumps bid for Hackney waste contract

Multinational bins controversial plans to provide waste services for North London following debacle over deputations and councillors’ interests

Hackney Town Hall with sky

Hackney Town Hall. Photograph: Hackney Citizen

The multinational company Veolia has dropped its bid for waste contracts in North London, following protests in Hackney and nearby boroughs about its activities in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

A statement released today by the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) said Veolia had withdrawn from the race to win the contracts.

The NLWA “received notification from Veolia Environmental Services that they will not be submitting final tenders for either NLWA’s waste services or fuel use contracts.”

“Veolia had been shortlisted for both contracts and, in withdrawing, Veolia has confirmed that the decision has no bearing on the quality and integrity of the projects,” it said. The NLWA will now ‘pursue dialogue on final tenders’ from other companies.

“This is a huge victory for local democracy,” said Caroline Day, a Hackney resident who was prevented from speaking to Hackney Council at a meeting in November.

Ms Day had hoped to put the case against the borough’s waste services being handled by Veolia, but her deputation was blocked by a cross-party motion seconded by Hackney’s directly-elected Mayor Jules Pipe.

“Powerful lobbies representing unethical interests in occupied Palestine may have won a short-term victory in silencing me,” said Ms Day, “but in standing up for their right to see their money invested ethically, local people have achieved a victory for justice.”

Ms Day is also a spokesperson for the campaign group No2Veolia, who say they are popping open bottles of champagne.

A spokesperson for Veolia told the Hackney Citizen they have “no additional comment to make” beyond the NLWA’s statement.

The announcement comes after fierce debate over Hackney Council’s move to block Ms Day’s deputation, the Labour Group’s decision to whip the vote and the involvement of external lobby groups in the council’s actions.

The motion not to hear the deputation was brought by Conservative councillor Linda Kelly, and was drafted with the assistance of a group called UK Lawyers for Israel, whose chair Jonathan Turner is also head of the Zionist Federation’s legal team.

Mayor Jules Pipe has since disputed UKLI’s role in drafting the motion, claiming in a statement that he wrote the motion himself. However, the council has so far been unable to provide evidence to support this claim.

It has also emerged that Cllr Luke Akehurst was influential in bringing Cllr Kelly’s motion to the attention of senior Council members.

In an email seen by the Hackney Citizen Cllr Luke Akehurst said: “On the Monday of the week of full council Cllr Kelly told me she would be moving a procedural motion to not hear the deputation.

“I informed the Mayor and Chief Whip […] but I did not seek to influence their or the Labour Group’s response to the procedural motion.”

Cllr Akehurst, who is employed by a group called BICOM as Director of ‘We Believe in Israel’, continued: “There is no secret that I work in the area of promoting support for Israel and opposing boycotts, my employment role is a very public and high profile one.”

Cllr Akehurst wrote that he consulted with the borough solicitor for advice on whether to participate in meetings on Veolia, and ‘erred on the side of caution’ when the Labour Group met to discuss Cllr Kelly’s motion, by declaring his interests and excluding himself from the discussion and vote.

He also declared his interests and left the chamber during the full Council meeting, in which the motion was passed with only two abstentions.

“I am entitled to campaign on the Veolia boycott issue in my work capacity, it is part of my day job to do so, the important thing is to declare this conflict of interest for the sake of transparency and not participate in council decisions where my job might be perceived to have prejudiced my stance,” he wrote.

Keeping up appearances

Hackney Council argued in November that allowing Ms Day’s deputation “could give the incorrect appearance that they were open to lobbying on procurement issues and would in turn be prepared to lobby an external organisation about its procurement.”

A cross-party statement by representatives of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups said that while it was ‘technically acceptable’, hearing the deputation “would not have observed the spirit of the Council’s constitution”.

However, a deputation on this subject was allowed by Waltham Forest Council, where a resident there was able to speak in a council meeting about why Veolia should not receive their waste contracts.

Irfan Akhtar, spokesperson for Waltham Forest Council of Mosques, overcame resistance from some councillors, including Cllr Clyde Loakes, who is also Chair of the NLWA, and gave a three minute speech to the council on 13 December.

Mr Akhtar, who was able to present the council with 4,000 signatures after the WFCM promoted the petition in the borough’s mosques, called Hackney Council’s behaviour ‘disgraceful’.

“The way it [Hackney Council] tried to silence someone without letting other councillors have a chance to hear and make up their own minds. […] It’s disgraceful really,” he said.

A spokesperson for Waltham Forest Council, speaking to the Hackney Citizen about the Council’s decision to hear the speech, said: “There’s no reason not to let people have their say. That’s democracy in action, isn’t it?”

Hackney Council declined to comment on the case of Waltham Forest, saying it had nothing more to add to their previous statements on this issue.

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses »

  1. Whatever the reasons Mayor Pipe and Luke Akehurst have for putting up their ill-advised and frankly heavy-handed defence of Veolia – it seems like it was a ultimately a waste of effort.

    I hope the fact that their links to lobbying groups has been exposed in this affair, which undoubtedly reflects rather badly on them to many local residents will encourage them think more carefully about what serving their constituents really means in the future…

    Offensive comment?

  2. Veolia has taken this decision for commercial reasons. The boycott attempt was not a factor, as proved by the NLWA’s confirmation last week that they would not take any of the boycott campaigning into account, and NLWA Chair Cllr Clyde Loakes expressing disappointment about their decision. The BDS campaign against Veolia is doomed as it is calling for Councils to break the law on procurement (which states that only Council taxpayers’ interests can be taken into account). All it succeeded in doing in the NLWA boroughs was to insult, irritate and offend previously neutral Councillors. The whole campaign against Veolia is based on the ludicrious notion that there is something bad about providing tram services to both Arab and Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

    Of course the BDS Israel haters are claiming credit but just ask yourself: Is a multinational like Veolia really going to base its decision on a £4 billion contract on a tiny handful of extremists shouting at Councillors?

    Offensive comment?

  3. Whatever the reasons it is a good thing for local residents that Veolia have withdrawn. They are a terrible company and there are numerous reasons why they should have been rejected aside from their complicity in illegal Israeli activities. Having said that, from the comments posted on this website by Mr Hoffman, Mr Sugarman and Linda Kelly on this topic, I believe many local residents will have found those defending Veolia are more deserving of the label “extremists”. The fact that the Mayor has obstructed the process of local democracy and allowed himself to be influenced by Luke Akehurst and others whose prime motivator appears to be ethnic nationalism is a worry, and reflects poorly on his judgement.

    Especially as all this effort, controversy and expended political capital on his part has been for naught…

    Offensive comment?

  4. “Good thing for local residents”?

    That there is no longer competition in the bids?

    Only a hardline Communist – who believes that all competition is bad and that the State should have a monopoly in the provision of local services – would think that.

    Some people learned nothing from the collapse of Communism 23 years ago.

    Offensive comment?

  5. The fact that there is less competition in the bid is unfortunate. However this is clearly the fault of the NLWA, they are the ones responsible for a remaining short list of only two companies, one of which has pulled out for “commercial reasons”. Communism has very little to do with it.

    The whole bidding process has been shambolic and inept as demonstrated by the recent wholesale rejection of the North London Waste Plan, and the recent (now defunct) extension of the NLWA bidding for an extra 6 months – it was supposed to be decided this month!

    None of this negates my opinion that it is good that Veolia have been rejected as they are an awful company who are in serious financial difficulties and pose a threat to taxpayers investment in this contract. Nevertheless the NLWA bidding and planning process should have been run in a more satisfactory way – that we can agree on…

    Offensive comment?

  6. Veolia – good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Offensive comment?

  7. Veolia has gone – its complicity with Isreali aparthied has been further exposed. Bye, bye Veolia. (By the way Jonathan Hoffman is with the Zionist Federation and was involved in lobbying Hackney Council. He boasted about it on a blog in the Jewish Chronicle – since removed)

    Offensive comment?

Comment