Irony is alive and kicking at Wirral Council: Freedom of Information and Policy Council
Irony is alive and kicking at Wirral Council: Freedom of Information and Policy Council
I was reading through the Council’s final Annual Governance Statement which is on the agenda for Thursday’s Cabinet meeting and came across this gem in it which is about principle 4 (taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk).
“In December 2012, the Information Commissioner’s Office announced that Wirral would be monitored for three months after concerns emerged regarding the timeliness of responses to freedom of information requests. The Council has also put in place robust processes to respond to freedom of information requests which are regularly reviewed by the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group to ensure that a timely response is provided. These improved processes are having a significant impact on the Council’s response to freedom of information requests.”
1. If the Council does have “robust processes to respond to freedom of information requests” how did this one slip the net?
2. How regularly is “regularly reviewed”? I suppose this one is also an answer to how often does the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group (or its subcommittees) meet, monthly, quarterly?
3. Why didn’t the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group make sure a “timely response was provided” to this request?
4. Does “improved processes are having a significant impact on the Council’s response to freedom of information requests” mean they’ve given the council employees involved a big book of FOI exemptions as it’s quicker to turn a request down however thin the reason for the exemption rather than spend time answering it?
Another curious paragraph I found in the same document was this:-
“An annual Policy Council meeting will take place with the first scheduled for November 2013 in order to discuss, debate and further shape the future purpose of the organisation and its response to key national and local drivers. Policy Council will play a direct role in informing the annual review of the Corporate Plan and future savings for the Council, as well as contributing to the development of a longer term vision for the borough in 2030 in partnership with other key stakeholders. A state of the borough report is being prepared as the foundation for developing this long-term vision.”
At the bottom of this document that I’ve already heavily quoted from is space for the signatures of the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive both putting their names to this following statement:
“We are aware of the implications of the review of the effectiveness of the adequacy governance framework and are absolutely committed to addressing the identified weaknesses and ensuring continuous improvement of the system is in place.
We are pleased that considerable progress has been made to address the significant governance issues identified and this is acknowledged by the Council’s recent Corporate Peer Challenge. However, it is also recognised that a number of the developments that are being put in place have recently been agreed and require implementation and
robust review.
We will take prompt actions over the coming year to ensure that all of the above matters are addressed as appropriate to enhance our governance arrangements further. Many improvement actions represent work already in progress and we are committed to increasing the pace of these actions. We are satisfied that these steps will address the need for improvements that were identified in our review of effectiveness and will monitor their implementation and operation as part of our next annual review.”
Let’s hope the “robust review” of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements result in changes rather than the “robust processes to respond to freedom of information requests” which just seem to have led to more Freedom of Information requests turned down so the Council can meet its target and tell to the Information Commissioner’s Office that things have improved.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Each year (this year it was from 15th July to the 9th August as you can read from this notice published on Wirral Council’s website), anybody can inspect the accounts for Wirral Council for the previous financial year and any books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts. This is a right the public have enshrined in legislation. If this person is also someone who can vote in the Wirral area they also have a right to make objections to the auditor (which in Wirral Council’s case is Grant Thornton UK LLP (previously it was the Audit Commission)).
One of the areas I was interested in is to do with Nigel Hobro’s question to Cllr Phil Davies at the last Council meeting and the Grant Thornton report into the Business Investment Grants program. The end of Cllr Phil Davies’ answer to Mr. Hobro was “Errm however if it turns out that err others have been affected similarly since the report came to us I’m happy to ensure they’re properly investigated and indeed if there are any further evidence of wrongdoing or the irregularities of accountancy methods brought to my attention, then errm I am errm willing and indeed I make a commitment to refer those to others.”
On the 17th July I requested the following (using the above audit rights) “I’d also be interested to see and have a copy of any contract Wirral Council has with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd” and on Tuesday afternoon (20th August) I was invited along to receive it (I’ve since scanned in and links to all of it are at the start of this blog post). It is for the ISUS (Intensive Startup Scheme) side of the business grants program and covers “awareness and development workshops”, monitoring the businesses that receive grants for three years after they receive grants at at least ten points over that three years and for “provision of specialist post start and aftercare adviser support”. Basically all pretty important things for Wirral Council to prove value for money for the taxpayer for these grants.
The contract states just under a million pounds of taxpayer’s money is involved and as a lot of records would rest with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd requires them to supply information to do with the project including invoices, certificates, vouchers, books and records if required as well as keeping copies of documentation (and make them available for inspection) for seven years after the grants are awarded.
Section seventeen of the contract allows Wirral Council to vary the amount of grant payable, suspend payment of grant, withhold payment of grant or require Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to repay some or all of the grant if the terms and conditions are breached at any time before three years after Wirral Council has last paid them the grant. It also requires Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to if required to pay back money to Wirral Council to do so within fourteen days, otherwise interest at 3% above the base lending rate of NATWEST Bank plc will be charged.
However the most interesting bit of the contract is page ten. It’s not signed by Wirral Council or Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd. However invoices from Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd were paid and according to this Freedom of Information Act request Wirral Council also used Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to produce business plans for organisations wanting to take over Council assets as part of the Community Asset Transfer program (in the request’s case New Brighton Community Centre).
In that FOI request the Council admits “there was no contract with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd” and the fact that the one drafted between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for the ISUS project (which according to the copy I’ve been given wasn’t signed by either party) how can Wirral Council prove it got value for money both to the public (and its auditor)?
Isn’t actually getting a signed contract in place, before you make any payments the kind of basic good governance that Wirral residents should expect from Wirral Council?
Is Cllr Davies’ commitment if he knows of “further wrongdoing” or “irregularities of accountancy methods” to “refer these to others” going to help matters? Referring the whistleblower’s concerns to Grant Thornton and Merseyside Police allowed Wirral Council to draw a veil over the matter and claim exemptions to legitimate questions asked by the public through Freedom of Information Act requests. Councillor Phil Davies is the Cabinet Member for Finance, he’s the elected politician at Wirral Council with democratic accountability to the public for financial matters. I clearly remember Cllr Davies saying last year that when he became leader that there would be more openness and transparency, not less.
Unless politicians (of all political persuasions) are willing to persistently ask difficult questions of senior officers at Wirral Council and put them on the spot during public meetings, instead preferring to be seen to be doing something by requesting reports (there’s the recent example of the case of the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme which was never published in full) I fear that all the talk about improved corporate governance and glowing peer reviews at Wirral Council won’t be believed by the public.
A report on the special Cabinet meeting of the 8th August 2013 convened to discuss the plans for a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Yesterday in a short meeting, Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to consult the public on plans for a new combined authority for Merseyside (and Halton) covering transport (taking over the responsibilities of Merseytravel), economic development and employment. The reason behind the plans are the promise of further funding from government if it goes ahead.
Once the consultation finishes the plans are to be discussed at an extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council on the 19th September. One of the policy and performance committees will also examine what’s proposed during the consultation period. The idea of a new authority doesn’t attract universal support among Wirral councillors, with Cllr Lewis claiming that the proposal would cost millions to bring about. Cllr Phil Davies disputed this saying it would “be cost neutral”.
A transcript of the first question asked (along with the first answer) at the Council meeting of the 15th July from Nigel Hobro to Cllr Phil Davies about the Grant Thornton report into the Business Investment Grant Scheme.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
This is a transcript of the first question and answer at public question time (to Cllr Phil Davies).
Nigel Hobro: Err thank you for errm hearing me. Err You will have already heard me probably on a daily basis sending you information with regards to my question. Can I ask Cllr Davies errm what external bodies are preventing you from finally publishing the BIG Fund report by Grant Thornton?
Cllr Phil Davies: Indeed, can I err thank Mr. Hobro for err that question errm and the fact that he’s err raised this through the Council’s whistleblowing policy?
Errm I just wanted to err add a slight err concern, not solely, not solely about errm some of the err, some of the emails I’ve had indeed from Mr. Hobro, but I think it is unfortunate there have been errm emails from other errm people who have errm directed some fairly, some fairly sort of I think injudicious comments towards particularly err local government officers of Wirral Council’s .. certainly for me.
However errm that being said errm my approach to claims about both the BIG report, BIG which for those who don’t know stands for business investment grants and the err ISUS which was the errm other grant scheme I think that you were asking about, ISUS is intensive startup support.
Any complaints we’ve received about the err way those two grant machines have been handled have been looked at by errm independent errm consultants and where there has been any hint of illegality I have asked the police errm to err investigate.
Errm with regard to the BIG scheme which was the one you were specifically asking about Mr. Hobro. Errm we published the Grant Thornton report on the 1st July following an extensive fact checking between Grant Thornton who did the independent appraisal and the Council.
I do appreciate the frustration which you’d kind of had about that statement, but I felt it was important that a robust report should be produced following errm a robust investigation.
Errm as you may know if you’ve seen the report, the recommendations were that the Council needs to review the criteria used to consider the business investment grants, grants like that to avoid any ambiguity in criteria used to assess applications and where panels are used to review applications, panels are given written terms of reference and errm I accept those recommendations errm in full.
Errm as again you’ll know err you were informed with the exception of one errm of the companies that were brought to our attention, all as far as I’m aware are still trading.
Errm the consultants did raise concern about how one grant request which I referred to the police. Errm however if it turns out that err others have been affected similarly since the report came to us I’m happy to ensure they’re properly investigated and indeed if there are any further evidence of wrongdoing or the irregularities of accountancy methods brought to my attention, then errm I am errm willing and indeed I make a commitment to refer those to others.
Part two of a report on the sixth item of the Council’s Extraordinary meeting of the 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Phil Davies speaks for and Cllr Jeff Green against | Also HD video
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.
The Mayor referred to Standing Order 5H. Cllr Phil Davies moved the revisions to the constitution, Cllr Ann McLachlan seconded them. There were two amendments, one was proposed by Cllr Jeff Green and seconded by Cllr Lesley Rennie, the second was proposed by Cllr Tom Harney and seconded by Cllr Phil Gilchrist.
The Mayor said he had been advised by the legal officer that Cllr Phil Davies had fifteen minutes and it would be dealt with as one debate only but with separate votes on the two amendments.
Cllr Phil Davies said he was moving the recommendation from Cabinet which had been forwarded to Council around the revisions to the Council’s constitution. He said that the changes that they were discussing had their origins in the recommendations from the Corporate Peer Challenge, which had taken place last October. It had resulted in a detailed report, which contained a recommendation that the Council should “take the urgent steps you have identified to strengthen governance, make sure you complete a full review of your decision-making currently including the Scheme of Delegation assuring the arrangements are understood and adhered to”.
He referred to a review of the overview and scrutiny system arrangements including how councillors were supported by the organisation and how they would get independent and impartial support from the Corporate Policy Unit. They had sought the expertise of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, whose director was present at one of their councillor seminars.
The Corporate Challenge Team had also noted they’d started to consider the role of Neighbourhood Forums, as part of this they’d looked outside Wirral for examples of good practice. Cllr Davies said these issues had already been included in the Improvement Plan, which was part of the work that the Improvement Board had carried out. In addition to this there had been a smaller group of councillors called the Democracy Working Group chaired by the Deputy Leader of the Council looking at governance issues. There had also been five events for councillors, which had been generally well attended as well as a questionnaire that had been sent out to all councillors.
Cllr Davies felt there’d been an exhaustive appraisal of all these matters in response to the recommendations of the Corporate Peer Challenge Team. He wanted to make it clear that the administration intended to continue to operate the Cabinet and Leader model, he acknowledged there was a difference of opinion on this issue between themselves and the other groups on the Council. Cllr Davies said he had not seen convincing evidence that changing back to the committee system would address all the issues that the Corporate Peer Team had raised in October.
He said the changes were predicated on the Council continuing to operate the Cabinet and Leader system with improvements, which they believed was the best model to take forward. His observation was that any model works best if all councillors and officers have a positive mindset and engage constructively, which was their key challenge in changing the culture of Wirral Council.
The aims of the changes were to improve their governance and decision-making procedures, ensure there was clarity about the role of officers and councillors, enhance the role of councillors not in the Cabinet through changing the scrutiny process, establish a new model of neighbourhood working achieving greater engagement with local residents and introduce a new procedure for Council so that it focuses on issues its responsible for and holds the Cabinet better to account.
Cllr Davies said this recognised the outcome of the elections by giving the ruling [Labour] Group appropriate authority to carry out its policies but at the same time having a transparent process for holding the [Labour] Administration to account. He said the changes gave the opposition opportunity to question the Executive and propose alternatives.
On scrutiny the six existing overview and scrutiny committees would be replaced with three policy and performance committees, which would broadly align with the three strategic directorates. There would also be a coordinating committee to oversee the new arrangements and deal with cross cutting matters. The key point he wanted to emphasise was that the new committees would be much more involved in influencing Council policy before it’s considered by the Cabinet. This would be moving away from the current model reacting to Cabinet decisions to a model which influenced policy.
To be effective it would need joint working between the Cabinet and the new committees particularly around the Forward Plan. He gave his assurance that they would seek a new relationship with the Policy and Performance Committees and where possible take on board their views before decisions are made.
The second change was the introduction of four committees based on the parliamentary constituencies to replace the existing network of eleven Area Forums. He claimed that the Area Forums cost £1,300 a year per each resident and that the footprint of the existing Area Forums was too small to coordinate services effectively to save money. Cllr Phil Davies said the new arrangements would save £391,000 would aim to have more strategic bodies with an emphasis on the priorities in the Neighbourhood Plans with an emphasis on tackling poverty and deprivation. Although these bodies would be initially given Council money, there was the expectation that this would be matched by money from other organisations. The Neighbourhood Officers would be based in each constituency whose responsibility would be to engage with local residents.
The third set of changes were to procedures for full Council, Cllr Phil Davies said it was his belief that the current format didn’t work, that councillors spent time trying to score political points against each other and often dwell on issues that the Council wasn’t directly responsible for. The intention of the changes was to move to a procedure which focused on services delivered by Wirral Council, with an emphasis on written reports by the Leader and Chairs of the new Policy and Performance Committees. All would be able to be questioned by a councillor. There would still be notices of motion on the agenda, but these would normally be referred to Cabinet or the relevant committee unless Council thought the issue was sufficiently important to be debated by full Council.
The scheme of delegation was also to be amended to introduce greater clarity and consistency around the roles of officers and councillors. He said that they intended that the new arrangements would apply from the start of the municipal year with the impact of the changes being monitored by the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee and the Leaders Board.
He thanked all councillors who’ve engaged by attending seminars and filling out questionnaires. Cllr Phil Davies particularly wanted to thank the councillors on the Democracy Working Party. He said their aim was to improve governance and make sure they were more open and transparent about how they operate. Cllr Davies wanted to focus on taking the organisation forward on their key priorities which were tackling inequalities, delivering growth in Wirral’s economy and attracting new jobs and new investment and protecting vulnerable people. He also wanted to develop a new culture where they move away from a position where everything is politicised, to concentrating on practical improvements, which will improve the quality of life for residents who councillors represent. Cllr Phil Davies said the changes weren’t particularly radical, to quote a member of the Improvement Board, who attended the last councillor’s development evening, “They are not particularly transformational, they are what normal Councils do.” He said he hoped all councillors would engage with the new models of governance and resist the temptation to oppose everything without giving the changes a chance to work.
Cllr Jeff Green then addressed his amendment. He said nowhere in the Corporate Peer Challenge did it say they should remove the right of councillors to debate in the Council Chamber on behalf of their residents. He also said he didn’t think the Local Government Association Improvement Board had said it either. He said that it was possibly the last debate in the Council Chamber not approved by the Labour Party, as in the future the Labour Party would decide would could or couldn’t be debated in the Council Chamber.
Cllr Green said that Labour did have a majority and the right to determine the outcome of a debate, but what he took exception to what that they wanted to decide what is debated and what isn’t. He said that people were suffering due to the bin tax and increases in parking charges and the closure of…. At this point he was heckled by Labour councillors shouting bedroom tax.
Cllr Davies heckled and was rebuked by the Mayor. Cllr Green quipped that he was glad to see that Labour wanted to end Punch and Judy politics. He said residents were suffering under the bin tax, the increases in parking charges and the closure of day centres, it felt prosaic that they were having a debate on the constitution. The reason he found the constitution important was because he saw its role as protecting the public of Wirral from an over mighty administration.
Cllr Green said that it hadn’t taken very long for the administration and officers to determine “that’s all a bit messy having to go through these politicians, we just want to get on and do things”. He’d always said to officers that said that to him “perhaps you’re in the wrong job” and that councillors were inclined to think about the impact on their constituents.
One of the elements was to remove the Children and Young People and Health and Wellbeing scrutiny committees. Given Wirral’s history and the abuse of the most vulnerable in society and child protection issues it seemed to Cllr Green a “backward and dangerous step” to remove any of the scrutiny.
