I need to be careful with this one so I’ll stick to demonstrable facts and I’ll invite you to join the dots yourselves.
It was pointed out to me recently that the recent HMIC inspections identified Lincolnshire as best Value for Money Force.Yesterday the BBC reported that G4S were claiming that companies such as theirs could save Police Forces up to £1 BILLION per annum by outsourcing back room functions etc.
G4S entered into a £200 million contract with Lincolnshire Police in 2012, with G4S now carrying out many back room functions for them.
During the initial negotiations G4S were represented by law firm White & Case.
Their website says “White & Case is an international law firm that serves companies, governments and financial institutions.”
In 2010 Tom Winsor was writing his Independent Review, he was employed by White and Case.
At the 2012 Police Federation Conference, Theresa May was asked
When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?
Mrs May replied
Tom Winsor did his review entirely independently. He did not do that review as part of the firm – he did it as an individual.
Barrie Young, Chair of the then Lincolnshire Police Authority chipped in with
My understanding is the work he’s done for the government in relation to his report on pay and conditions was as Tom Winsor and not the firm White and Case. I see no conflict of interest whatsoever
A spokesperson for White and Case added
There has been absolutely no conflict of interest: Mr Winsor has not been involved in any capacity with the legal team which advised us on our contract with Lincolnshire Police.
“Furthermore no member of the G4S policing team has even had contact with Mr Winsor.”
So, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, no conflict of interest, all parties say so. Mr Winsor was not representing White and Case when he wrote his Independent Reviews, he was acting as an individual.
Being a cynical old bugger I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office as I was curious how much his report had cost.
“In relation to Mr Tom Winsor’s Review of Police Officers’ & Staff Remuneration & Conditions I request that you furnish me with the following information
1) What was the total amount of money paid to Mr Winsor’s firm, White and Case, for his services in compiling the report in relation to this review. ”
Q1. Neither White & Case nor Mr Winsor has received any remuneration in respect of Mr Winsor’s work on the review.
The terms and conditions of Mr Winsor’s appointment provided for £300 per day to be paid to him in remuneration for his work on the review. However, the Home Office has received no request for payment from Mr Winsor. I understand that he does not intend to claim this money.
Mr Winsor has submitted expense claims that amount to £3,910.19, incurred during the production of his report, although these have yet to be paid.
One more requestor was given an identical answer to mine, absolutely identical.
However, a third person got a subtly different reply to his request
Q. ………how much Tom Winsor has either been paid or will be paid to carry out his review on remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales?
A. The law firm White and Case, at which Tom Winsor is a partner, will receive £300 per day for his services.
Do you see the subtle difference?
It may or may not be relevant that his request and response significantly predate my own.
So by now the Merry Go Round has gone round and round, and now we’re back at the beginning.
HMIC declare Lincolnshire the best VfM Force in the country.
And the head of HMIC is………………
I have also now found FOI 22527 at HomevOfficecwhichbreads like this
We have received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following:
How much has Tom Winsor been paid for carrying our his review of police pay and conditions. I would like the total amount of any salary, and or claimed expenses and if possible this to be broken down into what has been claimed.
I would also like the details of any other expenses paid to persons in relation to this review, again broken down.
The following information was released on 20th June 2012:
Tom Winsor led the review on a part-time basis. The law firm White and Case, at which Mr Winsor is a partner, will receive £300 per day for his services. He has not yet claimed for his services. Mr Winsor has claimed £3,910.19 in expenses. Please see the attached PDF document for a breakdown of his expenses.
Sir Ted Crewe and Professor Richard Disney provided advice and research support to Tom Winsor during the course of the review.
Sir Ted Crewe was paid £23,493.45. This is broken down into travel costs (£2,043.45), consultancy/advice at a daily rate of £300 (£16,350) and consultancy/implementation at a daily rate of £300 (£5,100).
The University of Nottingham was paid £15,464.25 for the services of Professor Richard Disney. This is broken down into the following: travel and subsistence (£545.25) and overhead costs, including salary costs (£14,919).
Tom Winsor had a small secretariat team during his review. They were paid £1,433.84 in expenses. This is broken down as follows:
o Travel – Late Working before 9pm (£30.50)
o Taxi Official Travel (£568.80)
o Rail, Bus, Coach (£66.00)
o Subsistence Allowance (£ 119.63)
o Other Travel – General (£80.80)
o Reimbursement of Unusual items (£5.99)
o Hotel/Bed & Breakfast cost (£550.24)
o Staff Meeting / Away day / Team Building (£11.88)
In May 2012 Theresa May denied a conflict of interest saying “Tom Winsor did his review entirely independently. He did not do that review as part of the firm – he did it as an individual.” But in June 2012 her own department said “Tom Winsor led the review on a part-time basis. The law firm White and Case, at which Mr Winsor is a partner, will receive £300 per day for his services. “
You must make your own minds up.