What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

                                 

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

On the 5th August 2016 a former Wirral Council employee Martin Morton made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for a copy of a report commissioned from Nick Warren on whistleblowing by former Wirral Council employees.

After Wirral Council had ignored his request for a month, Martin Morton requested an internal review on the 6th September 2016.

Wirral Council completed that internal review and communicated the results to Martin Morton on the 3rd October 2016 refusing to supply the report in its entirety.

The refusal was made by Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36).

Martin Morton then appealed Surjit Tour’s decision to the regulator ICO (the Information Commissioner’s Office).

During the course of ICO’s investigation, Wirral Council apologised for how long it had taken to reply to Martin Morton‘s request, but added an additional reason for refusing some of the information giving personal information (section 40) as a further reason.

On the 27th April 2017 ICO issued a decision notice (FS50649341). The decision notice required some of the information requested to be released to Martin Morton within 35 calendar days as ICO disagreed with Wirral Council and felt there were parts of the report to which neither section 36 nor section 40 applied.

Wirral Council released that information yesterday which comprise paragraphs 1-8 of the report (although part of paragraph 4 is redacted) and paragraph 76. I’ve put in a line break between different pages and in the conversion from print to HTML there may be some minor formatting changes.

I include what has been released below yesterday as it is rather short. A series of XXXX represents the redacted bit. I’ve made two additions. The first is that I’ve linked the words “precise terms of reference” in paragraph 4 to the terms of reference as the report makes more sense when read together with the terms of reference. The second is that I’ve made it clearer that paragraphs 5-75 haven’t been released of the report.



Report


A. INTRODUCTION

  1. This review arises from events which formed part of a dismal decade for Wirral Borough Council (“Wirral”) culminating in a remarkable joint statement from the Leader of the Council and the then Chief Executive (CE) which have accepted a number of failings and recognised the need to improve Wirral’s corporate governance, culture and workforce policies.

  2. Part of the statement concerned the Highways and Engineering Services procurement exercise (“HESPE”). This work was put out to tender; there were bids from the private sector and an in house bid from the Wirral “DLO”. It is convenient to state here some important dates concerning HESPE.







    Dec 2007 Announcement in the Official EU Journal.
    13 March 2008 Qualifying bidders chosen
    2 July 2008 Bidders invited to tender according to a Bill of Quantities.
    4 Sept 2008
    (later extended to
    5 Sept 2008)
    Tender return date.
    16 Oct 2008 Contract formally awarded to COLAS.


  3. The DLO bid was therefore unsuccessful. This meant that the DLO staff would transfer to COLAS from April 2009.



  4. In November 2008 some employees of the DLO made a disclosure on the advice of their Trade Union to Wirral’s CE. I will refer to them collectively as “the Whistleblowers”. They had all worked for Wirral for many years. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I have been asked to review the treatment of the Whistleblowers. It is not necessary to recite precise terms of reference.

  5. I have interviewed the Whistleblowers and other witnesses and have read a large number of documents provided by Wirral. I thank Wirral staff for the co-operation which I have received. I will not deal with all the evidence because I want to make my report as short and as readable as I can. If required, I can expand on or explore any individual issue.

  6. I have of course used hindsight. That is in the very nature of a review. There is nothing wrong with this provided I do not use it to criticise people or actions unfairly.

    B. WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE DONE FOR WIRRAL


  7. It took Wirral about four months to respond to the Whistleblowers. They were dissatisfied and went to the Audit Commission. The Commission took the


    unusual step of issuing a public report identifying serious weakness in Wirral’s arrangements for:-

    (a) Declaration of Interests.
    (b) Internal Audit
    (c) Reporting to Elected Members
    (d) Dealing with Whistleblowers
    (e) Evaluating Tenders

  8. As a result Wirral has altered and improved its procedures in these important areas of work. It seems clear that the weaknesses would not have been exposed, nor would the improvements have come about, if the Whistleblowers had not had the courage to speak out. I am not aware that Wirral has acknowledged publicly or privately the contribution which the Whistleblowers thus made to our community.

    (Paragraphs 5-75 are redacted).

    L. CONCLUSION



  1. The Whistleblowers have not received sufficient credit for exposing poor practice within Wirral. The “informal” nature of the first investigation resulted


    in them having to work under great stress for several months. While they were still Wirral employees, their names were disclosed to their new employer as being in some way untrustworthy. Their health and their jobs were adversely affected over an extended period.

    Nicholas Warren 6th October 2015.


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

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

                                        

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.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017 Item 8 Station Mergers Project – Progress Report

Below is a transcript of what was said at a public meeting yesterday of councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about the station mergers project. Above is video for that item (with a subtitle track).

Acronyms
MFRA Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
MFRS Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): Item 8 was the err update on the station merger, mergers, Phil?

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): Thanks Chair and again a personal report is provided, a progress report to Members on the station mergers project up to the end of April 2017 and the recommendation that Members note the report.

Err and I’ll keep this relatively brief because the content of the err update is contained within, other than to say work has commenced at Prescot, err I’ll draw to your attention to paragraph nine which says, “All foundations and ground beams have been laid and the concrete errm slab has now been poured as of the 26th of April 2017. The retaining walls for the approach road are in place and steel work has started and has been put in place through the period of May.” and we are looking at now a completion date for the new Prescot site which as clearly Members will be aware is a fire station, police station colocated and that work is looking to be completed March 2018 and that is on schedule.

With regards to Saughall Massie and the proposal to put a planning application in, to errm build a fire station, err on West Wirral, a revised planning application was submitted to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council on the 13th of March and formally validated on the 28th of March ’17.

Err as part and parcel of that application we sort of err sort of addressed some of the concerns that were raised, err through the refusal of the initial planning permission and as a result of that we have reduced the overall size of the fire station by some 30%, err sorry, yeah by 30%, the overall size of the site, the fire station itself by some 10% and realigned some elements of the building itself so it’s simply smaller. We’ve also significantly improved some of the errm, the layout of the site and the landscaping associated with some of the concerns that were raised.That planning submission that we believe is going to Planning Committee on the 22nd of June errm where it will be considered and we’ll inform Members subsequently with options available to us to refer it to the Secretary of State, if we’re unsuccessful through that process but as Elected Members will be aware, we are hopeful that that planning application will be successful and we’ll be able to build a new fire station in Saughall Massie, which will be able to serve as part of the Wirral, which may be affected should we not be able to be afforded that opportunity. With regards to Saint Helens, err and a number of conversations that we’ve had with Pilkingtons who own the site at Canal Street.

Subsequently, the site, or the initial site that was proposed has been withdrawn by Pilkingtons, however Pilkingtons have offered us a further site, which is not you know too far away from the original site, at Watson Street. When we’ve looked at the analysis in regards to our operational response, from Watson Street as opposed to Canal Street, it’s actually a more preferable err base from which to respond. So again, those conversations have been had and discussions are progressing, err nicely. We’ve also extended those discussions as part of our collaborative err duty to Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service and then so this was really some conversation with Saint Helens err Council.

As a result of those conversations, Merseyside Police have made it clear that they’re not necessarily in a position at this moment in time to progress around a collaborative endeavor there. However North West Ambulance Service would seem a little keener, but they have yet to come back to us and we’re expecting a response from them err within the next seven days when they can potentially seek to put a make ready facility at St Helens colocated with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, but again that is yet to be determined.

Irrespective of those matters, we will be on site relatively shortly at Watson Street in Saint Helens to do some basic sampling of the land there to establish any remediation you know that will be required as part and parcel of the build. Again, you know our relationship with Pilkington was very good, Saint Helens Metropolitan Borough Council is very good and we are keen to progress to build a new station er as described at Watson Street in Saint Helens.

Other than that Members will probably the rest of the detail is contained within the report itself but I’m happy to take any questions on any particular issues.

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, thanks for that report.

Unknown councillor (MFRA): Thanks Chair, yes could I just ask Phil about this err thirty percent decrease on the Saughall Massie site and the building? I mean that’s a significant decrease and yet you’d still got to get everything still in there, the kit and the engines. How’s it going to work out practically?

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): Yeah, it’s the overall site that we’ve reduced by thirty percent, the station by around ten percent, so it is reduced in size, let’s be absolutely clear about that and some of the kind of the training facilities would be compromised as a result of that, as will some of the facilities that we provide from, from the operational crews. But we’re trying to kind of have, you know manage the footprint of the building, the aesthetics in relation to the kind of responses that we’ve received from the Planning Committee and equally we’ve took on board some of the kind of recommendations from the planners themselves to say, well actually this might be more aesthetically pleasing if you did this, if we moved some things like the car park over, which was you know adjacent to some of the housing in that location, that we’ve moved that to the back. We’ve moved some of the general spacing and so on and so forth, we’re trying to be as flexible as we possibly can be to some of the kind of concerns that were raised in the first instance, without preventing it being an operational base from which to function from.

Err but to be reflective of the comments that have been made, up to this point because it’s really important to get you know a response base from err the Saughall Massie area in terms of West Kirby and Hoylake. Thank you.

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): And just to add to that, I too have serious reservations about this. However you shouldn’t underestimate the need for this fire station to maintain response times into west Wirral. Hence, why against my better judgement, I’ve arrived at this. Which is why, we pursued this route instead of the going straight to the Secretary of State which would’ve been the route that we err, could’ve taken.

But err credit to Phil [Garrigan] and Colin Schofield, who really have err, they have done everything they possibly can do to address those err the issues that were raised at the err Planning Committee. Well as I say, and I’ll say again for the record, I have some err quite serious reservations about the extent to which we are compromising the functionality of that err that fire station.

But again, we’re going to have to do that, because we err, because we need it to maintain response times.

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, errm this is just an update report and we’ll have further reports as we go on with the err, with the schemes and obviously the outcome of the Planning Committee when it meets on the 22nd June, so hopefully we’ll be successful. We’ll wait and see. Errm, so that concludes the business. Errm could I just ask Members just to stay for just and officers for just a couple of minutes, because the Chief wants to give us just a brief update of obviously the events of err what happened in Manchester on Monday and obviously how err as an employer on Merseyside, we have to do that in closed session unfortunately? So if any members of the public, press or public can I just ask to leave? Peter? Err.

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

Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation

Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation

Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation

                                   

Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015

Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above), Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council has been arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation.

He is also Chief Executive of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and was the Combined Authority Returning Officer (CARO) for the recent LCRCA Mayoral election.

Both bodies have public meetings this week (Liverpool City Council meets on Wednesday and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets on Friday).

Those who are regular readers of this blog will know Ged Fitzgerald from two earlier stories this month when he blocked a request for copies of the nomination papers in the Mayoral election and along with Wirral Council’s Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson classed us as not a “bona fide” media organisation and therefore barred from the Count.

The arrest of Ged Fitzgerald was made as part of Operation Sheridan.

Operation Sheridan is a long-running Lancashire Constabulary corporate corruption investigation.

Matters relating to the Operation Sheridan investigation have been raised at two different Liverpool City Council public meetings.

Each time democratic debate on the issue has been curtailed.

Apologies for stopping comments on this blog post, but it is unknown at this point if Ged Fitzgerald has or will be charged.

Due to Ged Fitzgerald being a high-profile individual, it is believed that the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service will be working with the Lancashire Constabulary on this matter.

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

What would ICO make of these 2 documents open to public inspection?

What would ICO make of these 2 documents open to public inspection?

What would ICO make of these 2 documents open to public inspection?

                                    

19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Chief Constable Andy Cooke Merseyside Police (right)
19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Chief Constable Andy Cooke Merseyside Police (right)
19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Jane Kennedy PCC Merseyside center
19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Jane Kennedy PCC Merseyside center

Above are photos of the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Andy Cooke and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside. One has responsibility for the operational side of policing, the other for the political side of policing. It was a sixteen and a half minute meeting to discuss collaboration and can be viewed on Youtube here.

CCF22052017 00000 restricted email Estuary Park stamp duty
CCF22052017 00000 restricted email Estuary Park stamp duty

For some reason this email (see above) about a stamp duty amount of £103,200 is marked restricted.

So the following has been blacked out:

Blackburn Dawn
Riley John Michael Edward
John Riley
Chief Finance Officer
0151 777 5177
john.riley@merseysidepcc.info

So far, that information is in the public domain already.

So, that’s probably a one off you’re thinking. But what about this £2.58 million payment?

Oh yes they’ve done it again!

Estuary Park payment
Estuary Park payment

Bank Name: Lloyds Bank PLC
Branch: Merchants Court, 2-12 Lord Street, Liverpool, L1 1TS
Reference: PCCM Estuary Park
Sort Code 30-95-11
Account No: 01091450
Payee: DWF LLP

On the plus side, unlike the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service they didn’t accidentally release the specimen signatures for the bank accounts too!

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

Are you interested in 385 pages about the Saughall Massie Fire Station project?

Are you interested in 385 pages about the Saughall Massie Fire Station project?

Are you interested in 385 pages about the Saughall Massie Fire Station project?

                                                   

This continues from an earlier blog post which contains the first 44 pages of the bundle for case EA/2016/0054.

Below are pages 45 to 429 of the bundle for the hearing last year.

Since that time, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Services’ planning application has been refused by Wirral Council and a revised planning application submitted earlier this year has yet to be determined.

Photos on the valuation reports written by Hardie Brack have been removed and so has the First-tier Tribunal crest on First-tier Tribunal orders.

There are some typographical errors in the pages below.

Documents originally in colour have been converted to black and white for the bundle.

The current planning application (APP/17/00306) can be read on Wirral Council’s website.

Despite this matter being ended by consent order in September 2016, eight months later there are sub judice matters involving costs.

I therefore will not be commenting on those matters until they are resolved.

The revised planning application is expected to be on the agenda of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee for a public meeting on the 22nd June 2017 and if the Planning Committee decides on a site visit it will be finally determined at its public meeting scheduled for the 20th July 2017.



Continue reading “Are you interested in 385 pages about the Saughall Massie Fire Station project?”

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other