The incredible ÂŁ20,000 report into Dave Green/Colas that Wirral Council wouldn’t release on “data protection” grounds

The incredible ÂŁ20,000 report into Dave Green/Colas that Wirral Council wouldn’t release on “data protection” grounds

The incredible ÂŁ20,000 report into Dave Green/Colas that Wirral Council wouldn’t release on “data protection” grounds

                          

Roadworks on the Wirral from 2011
The Colas contract included maintenance of Wirral’s roads

Three and a half months ago I submitted a FOI request for a dozen documents held by Wirral Council that were given to Richard Penn before writing his thirty-nine page report into Dave Green’s involvement in the Colas contract. Over three months later they have replied, providing a copy of the Council’s conflict of interest policy and conflict of interest procedure.

What’s interesting is what’s in the list of ten documents requested that they refused to supply on “data protection” grounds. One of these was a report that cost Wirral Council ÂŁ20,000 from their then auditor the Audit Commission. It was a twenty-six page Public Interest Disclosure Act report into what happened during the tendering of the multi-million pound Colas contract. Despite Wirral Council’s reluctance to release it in response to my FOI request it was in fact published on their website as it was considered during an Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting that met in September 2010.

Here are some quotes from that report by the Audit Commission that obviously Wirral Council didn’t want to release in response to my Freedom of Information Act request:

“However, the issues raised were genuine concerns and our review did highlight some weaknesses including a lack of clarity about separation of duties, inadequate records and documentation and the need to clarify corporate systems for raising and recording potential conflicts of interest. There were also examples of a lack of proper consideration of or disregard of procedures, for example meeting with potential tenderers during the period between the post tender qualifying stage and tender
submission.” (page 7)

“These weaknesses potentially left the Council and individuals open to external challenge. If there had been external challenge to the contract by an aggrieved bidder, the remedy could have led to substantial damages being paid and loss of reputation by the Council. Going forward, a new EU Remedies Directive applicable to new procurements advertised after 20 December 2009 means that aggrieved bidders now have tougher remedies against public authorities that break procurement rules. The High Court will be able to set aside signed contracts resulting in delays to services, as well as significant and costly litigation and further procurement costs (see Appendix 3 for further detail).” (page 7)

“As noted at paragraph 1, the PIDA concerns were raised with us following an internal PIDA investigation. The Council needs to continually consider the adequacy of its Whistleblowing procedures and how well they are complied with to ensure that individuals have confidence that issues will be fully investigated and lessons learnt.” (page 7)

“Concerns were raised with us that a meeting was held by the Director of Technical Services and another senior officer with one of the tenderers between the post qualifying stage and tender submission.” (page 11)

“However, the meeting was not minuted and so there is no formal record of what was actually discussed. The Director of Technical Services and the other senior officer indicated that the reason for the meeting was to clarify whether tenderers could bid for both the main tender and for the sub-contract work for the in-house tender. Holding this meeting and failing to record it was clearly inappropriate and contrary to procedure and put the Council at risk of non-compliance with procurement regulations and the tenderer at risk of disqualification.” (page 11)

“The invitation to tender clearly specifies the procedure for enquiries from potential tenderers in order for the process to be open and fair for all concerned and to ensure there is no canvassing which would result in disqualification from the tendering exercise” (page 11)

“Concerns were raised with us that the Director of Technical Services had failed to declare a potential conflict of interest regarding a personal friendship with an individual in one of the firms bidding for the contract.” (page 12)

“Our review confirmed that a conflict of interest form was submitted by the Director but this was done retrospectively. We found no evidence of any information being shared as part of this association.” (page 12)

“The Director of Technical Services completed a conflict of interest declaration on 11 November 2008 and submitted it to the Chief Executive to be considered at his next annual Key Issues Exchange (KIE) meeting which was held in November 2008. However, it was following the award of the contract (16 October 2008) and should have been submitted and discussed with the line manager at the start of the tendering process. In addition, as the tenderer was an existing contractor, there should have been existing annual declarations on file. This retrospective declaration has clearly allowed the relationship between the Director and the individual to be viewed with suspicion.” (page 12)

“The Director of Technical Services indicated that the individual in the firm is an acquaintance who is a close friend of his brother who had previously worked for the firm. Although the Director was aware that the individual worked in the firm he judged that there was no conflict to declare. Once he became aware that the individual would be involved in the contract going forward the Director submitted his conflict of interest form in line with his judgement and his interpretation of the Council’s procedures.” (page 12)

“However, Council procedures clearly state that in order to manage conflicts of interest (including any perception of a conflict), employees should complete the form even if there is nothing to declare and return it to their line manager at the KIE and any amendments should be made immediately. During our review we found no evidence of any annual declarations of interest for the Director prior to the one submitted on 11 November 2008 apart from those covering the period when his brother worked for the firm. However, the absence of annual declarations was not unusual in the Council at that time and was raised as an issue in Internal Audit reports during 2008 and a memo dated March 2009.” (page 12)

“The key issue is whether the Director or his line manager should have made the judgement about whether and when a potential conflict should be declared. Our view is that it was the responsibility of the Director to make the line manager aware of his ‘acquaintance’ when the firm first contracted with the Council and this should have been reviewed when the tendering exercise started and the firm received an invitation to tender. The judgement about whether it was a conflict (or a possible perceived conflict) then rests with the line manager and arrangements could have been put in place to ensure that it was appropriately managed and any ‘perceptions’ of conflicts rebuttable.” (page 13)

“As noted above, the absence of annual and updated declarations as well as poor evidencing of review and consideration by line managers was not unusual within the Council. We also found during this review that there were weaknesses in the procedures around the employment of consultants, for example ensuring sign up to confidentiality clauses and completion of conflict of interest forms and supporting consideration (one of the consultants had previously worked for the winning firm).” (page 13)

“The Council needs to continually consider the adequacy of its Whistleblowing procedures and how well they were complied with to ensure that individuals with genuine concerns have confidence that issues will be fully investigated and lessons learnt.” (page 15)

“During the period when the contract was tendered and let any external challenge by aggrieved bidders could have lead to damages being paid.” (page 23)

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What Everybody Ought to Know About Taxpayer Funded Monitoring Of Blogs

Unusual blog entries lead to a story about media monitoring, Tesco, Audit Commission and Gorkana Group Limited

As this is a WordPress blog, I have access to statistics about visitors to it. Normally the websites referring traffic are just search engines, other blogs and social media sites (Twitter etc), but this week a few unusual entries caught my eye.

The first one were two referrals from editors.s360.co, the referral string helpfully included two pages, which were the comments section on the recent writeup about the planning application in Wallasey Village being turned down and the page itself. When I dug a little deeper I found out that Social 360 do corporate social media monitoring for Tesco. Fair enough I thought, they’re a big brand so it makes sense for them to keep an eye on what’s being written about them online.

Then I spotted another unusual entry auditcommission.mediacoverage.co.uk/x/socialmedia/monitoring?pageNumber=2 . Hmm that’s strange I thought, why would the Audit Commission (or what’s left of them after the audit work got outsourced) be interested in my blog? It turns out the Audit Commission pay a PR firm called Gorkana Group Limited for “media monitoring”. They pay them monthly amounts between ÂŁ200 and ÂŁ300 a month.

It seems when the Conservatives were in opposition back in 2008 they called the spending of ÂŁ16 million on media monitoring by various government departments and quangos “a colossal waste of money, and taxpayers will be furious that when everyone else is tightening their belts the last thing to get cut is the government’s own PR”. Since then they’ve gone curiously quiet on the subject.

So if you have a blog and have written about Tesco or the Audit Commission and see some unusual referral strings now you know what they are!

Local Government Association/ Wirral Council Improvement Board 19th October 2012

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Present:
LGA (Local Government Association)

Joyce Redfearn (Chair of Improvement Board, LGA)
Cllr Stephen Houghton CBE (Labour Peer, Barnsley Council, LGA)
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat Peer, LGA)
Gillian Connolly, LGA Team
Pat (Commissioning)
Dr. Gill Taylor, Principal Adviser, North West (LGA)

Wirral Council

Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour, Wirral Council),
Cllr Phil Davies (Labour, Wirral Council),
Cllr Tom Harney (Liberal Democrat, Wirral Council)
Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative, Wirral Council)
Graham Burgess, Interim Chief Executive (Wirral Council)
Fiona Johnstone, Joint Director of Public Health (Wirral Council/NHS)
Steve Rowley, Adult Social Services (Wirral Council)
Chris Hyams, Human Resources and Organisational Development (Wirral Council)
Kevin Adderley, Regeneration, Housing & Planning (Wirral Council)
Emma Degg, Communications and Engagement (Wirral Council)
Christopher Dowly? Unknown (Technical Services) (Wirral Council)
Surjit Tour, Acting Director of Law, HR and Asset Management (Wirral Council)
Julia Hassall, Acting Director of Children’s Services (Wirral Council)
Mike Thomas (District Auditor, auditor for Wirral Council appointed by Audit Commission)
Three other unknown Wirral Council officers

Press/Public
Various members of the press and public

Agenda Item 1 Welcome and Introductions to the Improvement Board 00:01 to 02:18

Joyce Redfearn: We’ve got absolutely everybody in the room. Really delighted to see you here, but particularly to members of the public who take the time and effort to come and join us, and I think who are recording the proceedings as we are speaking as well. A warm welcome to you to the public part of the meeting, would it help if members of the Board and the Management Team just introduced themselves, so you know who’s present in the room?
John Brace: Sorry, could you use the microphone please so we can hear you at the back?
Joyce Redfearn: That’s working well, I’m requested to use the microphone so people can hear. Is that better for you?
John Brace: Yes.
Joyce Redfearn: Good. OK, introductions. I’m Joyce Redfearn and I’m the Independent Chair of the Improvement Board.
Graham Burgess: I’m Graham Burgess and I’m the Chief the Executive of Wirral Borough Council.
Gillian Connolly: I’m Gill Connolly and I’m a part of the LGA Team.
Pat: I’m Pat Ho???, Commissioning.
Stephen Houghton: I’m Stephen and I’m an LGA Peer.
*door squeaks as Julia Hassall arrives late*
Gill Taylor: Gill Taylor, I’m the Principal Adviser for the North West for the LGA.
*Julia Hassall arrives and walks in front of camera*
Fiona Johnstone: I’m Fiona Johnstone, Director of Public Health and the *indecipherable*.
Steve Rowley: I’m Steve Rowley, I’m here for the Director of Adult Social Services, Graham Hodkinson.
Chris Hyams: Errm, I’m Chris Hyams, Head of HR and OD.
Kevin Adderley: I’m Kevin Adderley, Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning.
Emma Degg: I’m Emma Degg, *microphone feedback* Head of Communications and Engagement.
Christopher Dowly?: Interim Executive Director of Law.
??? ???: Technical Services
Surjit Tour: Acting Director of Law, HR and Asset Management.
Julia Hassall: I’m Julia Hassall, I’m Acting, sorry, Director of Children’s Services.
Cllr Ann McLachlan: I’m Cllr Ann McLachlan, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Improvement and Governance.
Cllr Phil Davies: Errm, hi, I’m Phil Davies, Leader of the Council.
Paul Rowen: Err Paul Rowen, I’m Chair of the *indecipherable*.
Cllr Tom Harney: Tom Harney, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group. ???? ???: I’m Dennis ????, LGA Peer.
Cllr Jeff Green: Jeff Green, Leader of the Conservative Group.
Joyce Redfearn: OK, thank you very much everybody for introducing and even bringing in a piece of teamwork, as we worked out how to share mikes. *indecipherable* I’m very glad. Errm, the format has changed,

Agenda Item 2 Improvement Board Progress to Date 02:18 to 14:10

Improvement Board Progress to Date Report

The Chair, Joyce Redfearn spoke about the report.

Agenda Item 3 Questions from the Public 14:10 to 15:12

There were a number of questions from myself, John Brace which were answered by the Chair, Joyce Redfearn.

Agenda Item 4 Unknown

Agenda Item 5 Unknown

Agenda Item 6 Unknown

Agenda Item 7 Unknown

Agenda Item 8 Unknown

Agenda Item 9 Unknown

Agenda Item 10 Unknown

Agenda Item 11 Unknown

Agenda Item 12 Unknown

Agenda Item 13 Unknown

Agenda Item 14 Unknown

Other agenda items unknown

Letter Before Claim to Wirral Council.

Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) Part 1 Colas contract (HESPE)

The Chair, Cllr John Hale welcomed those present and asked for any declarations of interest. No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 28th March 2012 were agreed, with the Chair asking for a further report on the consultation on library opening hours.

Cllr Steve Williams was elected as Vice-Chair (proposed by Cllr Hale, seconded by Cllr Fraser).

The Chair said he had asked officers to produce the Committee’s terms of reference.

On item 5 Highway and Engineering Services Contract – Third Annual Review he said they had expected a presentation by Steve Grimes, the Contracts Manager for Colas Ltd. Due to the public interest report Colas’s legal representative had advised them it wouldn’t be appropriate.

Mark Smith said that the annual review was part of the management arrangements, but they did have Wirral Council’s highways manager Rob Clifford and Brian Smith the project manager, sadly Colas had declined to attend.

Rob Clifford said there were challenges and risks associated with extending the project and asked if there were any questions.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked why greater progress hadn’t been made on IT and whether this was their responsibility or Colas’s?

Brian Smith answered that they had tried to tender, but it was unaffordable as the expenditure would be three times what they’d save.

The Chair said he thought that Colas must think “the writing was on the wall” and they had no incentive to cooperate. He said the quality had been abysmal, there were potholes in newly surfaced areas and that the work being carried out was not up to standard.

Brian Smith defended Colas stating that generally the quality of Colas’ work was good and that Wirral compared well to other areas.

Cllr Tony Sullivan was critical of work on Pensby Road. Cllr Fraser asked about where any report on significant cost changes would go, Brian Smith answered that it would go to the Cabinet, however they had been waiting for the auditors’ report first and it would go to Cabinet on the 19th July.

Cllr Fraser asked what was meant by the phrase “inaccurate perception of facts”, were they implying residents don’t understand the facts?

Brian Smith said that residential streets weren’t resurfaced very often and they were starting to use different materials. Residents still expected rolling machines but they were not the only Borough using these surface treatments which would be the subject of a future report.

He then answered a question about the capital program expenditure and how some projects got delayed to the next financial year. The Budget was agreed annually by Council, but it was being flagged up as a risk as until they got tenders back they wouldn’t know the costs of what other providers charged.

Brian Smith answered another question with the answer that the weather often caused delays to planned work, that was why the letters to residents were sent out at short notice. The same councillor asked why the metal signs about the work hadn’t been removed when it was finished? She said it makes it seem to the outside world like they can’t organise getting the roads done.

Cllr Mitchell said that communication was poor but his own road had been done perfectly.

The Chair said the concerns were about lack of coordination, concerns about quality and the attitude that workmen had towards residents and the community.

A councillor felt he couldn’t agree with the recommendation that the work was satisfactory. The Chair suggested it was changed. Mark Smith said that their views could influence the future and whether the Colas contract was extended.

There was a debate about whether to leave satisfactory in the recommendation or not. Eventually they agreed upon the following.

(i) Note the progress of the contract during the past year, and endorse Officers’
views in the report that the performance of the contract is satisfactory.
Noting officers’ views but registering serious concerns in relation to coordination, quality and communication issues.

(ii) Recommend to Cabinet that the existing contract not be extended beyond its current 5 year term, and that the Director of Technical Services be requested to prepare an options appraisal for the delivery of highway and engineering services from 1st April 2014 in a report to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

(iii) Ask the Director of Technical Services to report on progress on preparation and delivery of a comprehensive exit and handover strategy relating to the satisfactory completion of the current contract, and effective and efficient transition to the new service delivery arrangements, in his future annual reports on the contract.

(iv) Note that officers will be undertaking actions, to be agreed by Council, in response to the External Auditors’ Report in the Public Interest; specifically in relation to the management of the contract; and ask that the Director of Technical Services reports on progress in delivering those specific actions
relating to the management of this contract in his annual report to the Committee in 2013.

Audit Commission Report on Wirral Council (public interest report)

Public Interest Report written by the Audit Commission about Wirral Council’s procurement process for the provision of highway and engineering services in 2008/09.

There have been a number of readers interested in the public interest report published by the Audit Commission. Links to it and related material are below.

The 24-page report (as a pdf file) entitled “Wirral Council: Report in the public interest” . ED – 29th December 2013 This link previously linked to the Audit Commission’s website. However the Audit Commission is in the process of being abolished so the previous link now points to a copy of the public interest report hosted on this blog.

The Wirral Council press release about it dated 8th June 2012 ED – 29th December 2013 The press release relating to the public interest report is no longer available on Wirral Council’s website and merely returns an “Access denied” page.

A page on the Audit Commission website specifying the report is about Wirral Council’s procurement process for the provision of highway and engineering services in 2008/09 *This previously linked to a page on the Audit Commission’s website. However the page is no longer there as the Audit Commission is in the process of being abolished.

There have also been a number of press articles about it, Twitters etc… I’m pretty sure it’ll be discussed at the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting on Thursday too, based on the tweet of a Labour councillor.

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other