5 questions for Wirral Council’s auditors

Dear Mike Thomas (Grant Thornton),

I am writing to you in your capacity as the auditor for Wirral Council.

Last Friday I received a series of emails from Wirral Council’s Head of Legal and Member Services Surjit Tour about a comment left by an individual on a blog I write about Wirral Council. The comment made was about Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) and was in relation to his invitation to some Wirral Council councillors offering them tickets to the Open Golf Championship.

The first email from Mr. Tour contained the lines “This is clearly a serious matter and I formally request that you immediately remove the email and the associated commentary concerning this subject matter from your blog.

The Council would prefer to avoid taking action in respect of this entry; however, I must put you on notice that the Council will have little alternative but to consider alternative action should you refuse or fail to remove this entry from your blog forthwith.”

It transpired later that the email was genuine (despite Mr. Surjit Tour first claiming it wasn’t).

The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004 prevent local authorities providing insurance or indemnities to officers (or councillors) to start libel cases. However in this case Wirral Council’s Head of Legal and Member Services seemed to be making a threat of exactly that on behalf of Wirral Council’s Chief Executive Graham Burgess.

Other people have noticed comments about Wirral Council officers have disappeared from the local newspaper website (Wirral Globe), therefore I would like you to investigate and respond to the following questions please:

1. Has Wirral Council ever sued any individual or organisation since The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004 came into effect on the 23rd November 2004?

2. Why are the resources of the authority being used to make such threats when Wirral Council is barred in law from starting such a claim in the courts?

3. Is there currently any indemnity or insurance provided to officers within the terms of The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004 and if so which officers does this cover and at what cost (or approximate cost)?

4. If there is any indemnity or insurance provided to officers (or councillors) has this been agreed by councillors and if so when?

5. How many times over the last 12 months have the media (whether print, broadcast or online) received communications from Wirral Council threatening legal action unless they remove content?

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

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

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

In an update to the blog post headlined Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?, something seems to have happened “behind the scenes” as Surjit Tour had this to say to councillors on the subject at last night’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on an item about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (the bit he says about Wirral Council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity is the relevant part):

“Thank you Chair, just very briefly taking you through this particular report. It’s a report that’s already been considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 14th March and the report seeks to summarise the key provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

On the 13th August of 2010 the government announced its intention if you recall to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a decentralised process and arrangements with regard to the audit of public bodies. This Act seeks to set out the necessary framework in relation to the audit arrangements and I’ll turn your attention if I may to page fifty-seven of the report and that provides an explanatory note in terms of the key features of the current and new arrangements that are being introduced.

Paragraph 2.1 sets out and highlights features of the new arrangements and notably the abolition of the Audit Commission and with a view to arrangements being put in place. Under the new arrangements public bodies will be required to appoint an external, independent auditor on the advice of an independent audit panel. The audit panel which the Council must have in place and each local authority is required to have that audit panel in place to discharge their responsibilities, the appointment of an auditor. Various other… may be deferred on that particular panel by the Secretary of State.

The make up of that particular panel it talks about in the report of the recommended changes in the explanatory forward. The actual amend to the legislative framework with regards to council tax referendums and the revised measures to ensure local authorities’ compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

The Act also then introduces greater transparency and openness to meetings of Council meetings in particular by allowing local residents to film, tweet, blog and access the information in relation to decision-making in those committees. So it goes further than just the filming and the arrangements that we currently have.

We also then have arrangements and changes with regards to any local audit, taking account value for money elements which needs to be also factored in and we have a transfer of responsibilities of setting a new code of audit practice going now to the National Audit Office as part of these arrangements. So you see that in a bit more detail in paragraph three some of those provisions there in more detail.

In terms of our current arrangements, there are outsourcing arrangements in place and as you know we have Grant Thornton who is the external auditor for Council and that arrangement continues until 2017 at which point arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of a new local auditor and this is where the new local auditor panel will be engaged in the procurement of that particular body.

There will be a series of approved, accredited firms that will be able to do that and they will be made subject to assessment and criteria by the Financial Reporting Council and relevant professional accountancy bodies who are regulated in the provision of local government services.

In terms of the panel itself, details of its make up are set out in paragraph six of the explanatory note and this is where we need to have a panel which would consist of a majority of independent members and it would be chaired by an independent member. Now our Audit and Risk Management Committee can act as the Council’s auditor panel under the act if so required and if we need to appoint individuals then there’ll be a process that’ll need to be gone through.

You’ll recall that the Audit and Risk Management Committee, in fact it happened last year, indicated that it wished to be a majority of members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be independent and there will, arrangements are in hand to make those necessary arrangements. However the Secretary of State is still yet to publish regulations in relation to this particular Act, particularly the criteria and it needs to be expanded on what appears in the Act itself. So the draft regulations are not complete in terms of what the criteria will be for the appointment of independent members and as such a decision has been taken to await the Act or indeed those final regulations to ensure that any appointment that is made is compliant with those regulations.”

The Chair said, “Thanks Surjit, any questions, comments? Pat?”

Cllr Patricia Glasman said, “Paragraph 2.1.5 access information relating to the decisions made in those meetings, I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on that specifically the Pensions Committee we have attachments which are not available to the public. It’s business meetings and I just wondered was there any change to really the way those are treated?”

Surjit Tour replied, “No, there’s no, those changes with regards to information at committees considering the exempt schedules, the schedules before them so those provisions remain unchanged. This is very much the ability to report in open session at committee meetings, individuals being able to not only film, but to tweet, blog information in real-time and as decisions are made.”

The Chair said, “If there’s no further questions, can we agree the recommendations on page fifty-five, 11.1 agreed?”

The Committee agreed the following recommendation:

That the Committee notes the Report and Appendix 1 concerning the changes being introduced by the Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and its implications.

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

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Just before Christmas started Wirral Leaks asked for a guide to the BIG Fund/ISUS/Working Neighbourhood investigation. Well where to start?

BIG stands for business investment grants. ISUS stands for intensive start-up support.

BIG is not to be confused with Think Big (marketed under the rather terrible catchphrase Think Big! Think Wirral). Think BIG was for grants of over £20,000 and as far as I know isn’t included in the whistleblowing allegations. Think BIG had a budget of £300k a year in Wirral Council’s budget from 2009/10 and is now called the Think Big Investment Fund.

Business Investment Grants (for under £20,000) were awarded to companies that were successful in applying for a business investment grant. Grant Thornton (who are also Wirral Council’s auditors) were asked in October 2012 for a quotation for work to look into the whistleblowers’ concerns. As a result of this work, two reports were produced and sent to Wirral Council. One report was on BIG and the other on ISUS.

In response to a question from Nigel Hobro to Cllr Phil Davies at the full Council meeting in July, Wirral Council published the summary of Grant Thornton’s report into the BIG program.

I made a Freedom of Information request for Grant Thornton’s ISUS report in August 2013. On the 23rd September 2013 Wirral Council stated that “the report, which has been reported previously, has been handed over to the Police for their consideration, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report” and refused providing the report using a s.30 exemption (Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities).

I asked for an internal review as the investigation had been carried out by Grant Thornton UK LLP (who isn’t a public authority). Another factor I pointed out was that Wirral Council weren’t bringing criminal proceedings, but instead passing it to the police. I also pointed out that s.30 was a qualified exemption and subject to a public interest test (which Wirral Council hadn’t included in its original reply).

Wirral Council’s response to the internal review was that they still refused to release the report. However they did provide further detail as to why. Firstly they stated that the investigation into the BIG and ISUS program was done independently of Grant Thornton’s role as Wirral Council’s auditors. This was to “review the earlier investigation conducted by the authority’s Internal Audit section and to conduct their own investigation into these allegations” and referred to an assurance by Grant Thornton that their work on BIG & ISUS was independent to that of their work auditing Wirral Council’s accounts.

Wirral Council regarded the work that Grant Thornton had done on BIG and ISUS as on Wirral Council’s behalf, therefore in Wirral Council’s view a s.30 exemption still applied. Stating this in English only a person with a legal background would write “as such Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is still appropriate as the investigation was conducted by an organisation acting on behalf of the organisation.” Despite referring it to the police, Wirral Council gave the impression they hadn’t made their minds up as to whether they would start a criminal prosecution themselves. However if they hadn’t made their mind up already not to institute criminal proceedings on this why refer it to the police?

In a concession though, they did agree with me that the original refusal should have included Wirral Council considering the public interest test. The person doing the internal review did carry out a public interest test (of sorts).

They gave many reasons against disclosure (and none for). The reasons they gave were that they regarding it being in the public interest not to disclose the report were that “the investigatory process is safeguarded“, that it would “undermine an investigation/prosecution of criminal matters“, “dissuade members of the public from reporting potential or actual wrongdoings“, “undermine the prosecution process and the role of the criminal courts” and “could prejudice the right to a fair trial“.

However, there is more than this in this story. As referred to in this previous blog post headlined “Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed” and referred to at 1.16 to 1.22 of Grant Thornton’s report the contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions Limited (also known as Wirral Biz) was never signed (a copy of the unsigned contract is linked to from that blog post).

Therefore Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd don’t regard it as a binding contract. Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd are quoted in Grant Thornton’s report as stating in a letter to Wirral Council from December 2012 “this company has nothing to hide in relation to its involvement in any of the above programmes [one of which was the BIG programme] on which it provided services. We are therefore prepared to grant access on the basis requested, on the understanding that your costs of the exercise are borne by the Council.”

Despite this commitment by Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to Wirral Council by letter in December 2012, that they had “nothing to hide” Grant Thornton state in 1.21 of their report that “we have not been given access to the documentation retained by the company concerning the services it provided under the BIG programme and have, therefore, been unable to discuss these with Enterprise Solutions.”

Complicating the matter further, Wirral Council was also in receipt of money from the (since abolished) North West Development Agency in the form of grants. This was for the ISUS (intensive startup side of things). The first ninety pages of the contract with the North West Development Agency is here and a further thirty-six pages here.

The North West Development Agency money given to Wirral Council under the terms in the contract (one hundred and twenty-six pages isn’t the whole contract as there were pages on publicity requirements I haven’t scanned in yet) came from Europe. Just to complicate things even further, Wirral Council also used Working Neighbourhood Funds money to fund these programs.

The whistleblowers’ concerns were that companies that didn’t qualify for grants were given them. On the BIG side, applications were first reviewed by the BIG Panel then the award of the grants were agreed by Wirral Council’s Cabinet (not part of public meetings of Cabinet but in private after the press and public were excluded) due to “commercial confidentiality“.

Grant Thornton looked into the applications of six companies that had applied for business investment grants. In five of these they found “financial anomalies” which were not explained to the BIG Panels. Four of these five were “significant anomalies” which had not been brought to the BIG Panel’s attention. The types of anomalies are outlined in 2.33 but ranged from accounts that indicated that the applicant had paid unlawful dividends (contrary to the Companies Acts) to balance sheets were one year’s opening balance didn’t match the previous year’s closing balance.

One applicant had included a £500 grant from Wirral Council in its accounts, which had been received four months before the accounting period that the accounts covered. Grant Thornton recommended that out of the six applications it looked at that Wirral Council should claw back the grant to the company referred to as BIG6 and refer that application to the police (which happened at some point earlier this year).

I asked Merseyside Police some questions in September about their investigation in September. The reply I got from a Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson was “This matter is currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council and any requests for information you have should be directed to them, perhaps by way of a Fredom of Information enquiry” (yes freedom is spelt incorrectly in the reply, but to be fair to Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson I would guess that freedom is a word used very rarely by police officers).

This blog post contains a transcript of the answer given to Nigel Hobro by Cllr Phil Davies back in July 2013.

So who knows what’ll happen next in this overly complicated saga? Who knows? Certainly my attempts to make inquiries have been stonewalled (apart from the contracts which I’ve published). However there is an unconfirmed rumour that DCLG (the Department for Communities and Local Government) are going to clawback grant money from Wirral Council in 2014 which could come to a six-figure amount.

So there you have it, nearly everything I know about the BIG/ISUS saga and Wirral Council.

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

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 10th October 2013 Cllr Phil Davies “we’re not out the woods yet by any means”

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.

Youtube playlist of Cabinet meeting of 10th October 2013

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 10th October 2013 Cllr Phil Davies “we’re not out the woods yet by any means”

FINANCE
4. Statement of Accounts 2012/13 8:26 | Cabinet report | Statement of Accounts 2012/13

Cllr Phil Davies said, “OK so that takes us on now to item four, the err Statement of Accounts for 2012/13.

Errm, again, errm this err, I think these Statement of Accounts have been to Audit and Risk Management Committee, err err, but the thing that err again I want to draw your attention to is in paragraph 2.10, clearly this is a report that relates to 12/13, the statement of accounts relates to 12/13, err when we had a number of errm pretty err you know big challenges err on errm to you know address. Not least errm a £17 million overspend from the previous administration errm which you know which was a huge challenge and again I think it reflects the distance that we’ve travelled, that we’ve addressed that and later in the financial monitoring report we’re actually reporting an underspend now in the first few months of this year which is err great.

Errm but I think the the the paragraph 2.10, errm Grant Thornton err recognise the progress made by the Council during 12/13 with the direction of travel being rated as amber, errm so I think that’s, err we’re not out of the woods yet by any means, but I think that’s encouraging errm external validation if you like of the progress that we’ve made, so I think that’s very welcome.

So I don’t really want to say much more than that except to say that we’re err being asked to note the Statement of Accounts err and the audit report by Grant Thornton and that errm at 12.2 progress on delivering the actions identified in the audit findings report will be monitored by Audit and Risk Management Committee. So can we agree those recommendations?”

Cabinet: “Agreed”

Cllr Phil Davies: “OK, very good thank you.”

Ed – although Cllr Phil Davies refers to a £17 million overspend which he blames on the previous Conservative/Lib Dem administration, this wasn’t an overspend but a projected overspend of £17 million, which after a spending freeze reduced to £4.7 million. The Labour Cabinet in October 2012, after the projected overspend of £17 million was known, agreed to extra spending (beyond what was in the 2012/13 budget) of £700,000.

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

BIG/ISUS Reports: Wirral Council and Merseyside Police in “Alice in Wonderland”

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

BIG/ISUS Reports: Wirral Council and Merseyside Police in “Alice in Wonderland”

Last month I got a response from Wirral Council over my Freedom of Information Act request for Grant Thornton’s report into Wirral Council’s ISUS (Intensive Start Up Support) program. You can view Wirral Council’s rather wordy response saying no on the whatdotheyknow website. Here is a brief quote from their refusal:

“Wirral Council can confirm it is not possible, at this moment in time, to make available copies of the report into ISUS that was produced by Grant Thornton following their investigations, either in full or in a redacted format, as the report, which has been reported previously, has been handed over to the Police for their consideration, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

As such any disclosures either in full or in part are not appropriate at this time, until the Police have concluded their enquiries or determined that no further action should be taken, for fear of compromising further actions that may result as a consequence of that report.”

So I emailed the Chief Constable on the day I got that refusal (23rd September) asking the following questions about their investigation, a copy of my questions are below. I even pointed out that I’d publish the responses.

1) Have Merseyside Police concluded their inquiries into the issues raised in the BIG & ISUS reports referred to them by Wirral Council?
2) Has anyone been charged in relation to this?
3) Who is conducting (or if it has concluded conducted) the investigation and what are their contact details?
4) If the investigation is ongoing when is it likely to reach a conclusion?

This is the response I got today (4th October 2013) by email:

Dear Mr Brace,

I have looked into the matters that you have raised but I’m afraid that there is not a lot I am able to tell you.

This matter is currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council and any requests for information you have should be directed to them, perhaps by way of a Fredom[sic] of Information enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Gareth Thompson
Detective Chief Inspector
Staff Officer to the Chief Constable
Merseyside Police

So, just to summarise Wirral Council won’t say anything because it’s in the hands of Merseyside Police, but Merseyside Police say it’s “currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council”… you couldn’t make it up if you tried could you? So any constructive suggestions as to where to go with this next?

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

5 questions for Wirral Council’s auditors

Share this:

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Share this:

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Share this:

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 10th October 2013 Cllr Phil Davies “we’re not out the woods yet by any means”

Share this:

BIG/ISUS Reports: Wirral Council and Merseyside Police in “Alice in Wonderland”

Share this: