Leaked secret document reveals investigators found ruling councillors knowingly broke EU law (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting WFNEWS to 80360, or email us
Waltham Forest News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos
Leaked secret document reveals investigators found ruling councillors knowingly broke EU law
4:07pm Wednesday 27th January 2010 in
RULING councillors deliberately broke the law over a £2.5 million contract, it has emerged.
A confidential 2006 report by council fraud investigators found council cabinet members, some of whom are still in place, were aware a decision to extend a recycling collection agreement with company ECT contravened EU legislation.
Cabinet waived rules regarding the extension, which it is entitled to do in exceptional circumstances, but investigators found no justification for the move.
The report states: “The inability to waive EU procurement rules was drawn to the attention of cabinet in the proposal.
“When rules are broken for no apparent reason or necessity, there is little motivation for others to abide by them.
“It is difficult to understand how (the council) expects to uphold the law when its own cabinet deliberately breaks it.”
Council leader Chris Robbins, former leader Clyde Loakes and current cabinet members Liaquat Ali and Keith Rayner were all present at the meeting.
The report also states that senior council officer Keith Weir deliberately misled the authority in pushing for the extension.
Rather than include the warning of legal risk to the authority in the main body of his report to cabinet, he buried it in an unpublished appendix.
Mr Weir said he pushed for the 12-month extension “because tendering processes had been overlooked”.
But this is described in the report as “very difficult to believe”.
The council’s former head of procurement, Henry Swan, had previously agreed to a six-month extension as a compromise.
But the report states that, to the surprise of Mr Swann and the authority’s corporate solicitor, Mr Weir’s 12-month extension proposal still went to cabinet.
The proposal is also described as “poorly justified”.
“A request for a bank loan for £20k would require more justification than this,” investigators conclude.
The findings informed the recent independent investigation into the long-term mismanagement of taxpayers’ money by the authority.
But it has been kept secret after the council decided releasing it would not be in the public interest.
The independent report by Sir Peter Rogers found rules to prevent fraud were regularly ignored over a number of years and those responsible were not held to account.
The council declined to answer a number of questions regarding the report, but released the following statement: "We can confirm the recommendations of this confidential report were addressed after it was published in 2006. The Council cannot comment on the details of confidential documents.
‘The Chief Executive commissioned an Independent Panel in 2009 to deal with concerns about the management of contracts. In December 2009 the Panel published it's final report and made a series of far reaching recommendations. The council accepted the findings and recommendations of the report in full.
"We are working hard to implement the recommendations of the Independent Panel in order to restore confidence in Council’s ability to procure and manage contracts and improve services for our residents."
Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter
Comments(42)
Walthamster
says...
4:53pm Wed 27 Jan 10
But the report was "kept secret after the council decided releasing it would not be in the public interest".
How is the public interest served by keeping breaches of the law secret? Secrecy only serves the interests of those who broke the law.
Explanation, please, from the councillors named: current council leader Chris Robbins, ex-leader Clyde Loakes, ex-mayor Liaquat Ali and ex-deputy leader Keith Rayner.
PCanal
says...
4:55pm Wed 27 Jan 10
There are rumours of millions being squandered on Clyde Loakes watch. Council Tax Payers have the right to know and the Guardian has the moral courage to expose the egregious behaviour of arguably the least competent council in London.
NT
says...
5:17pm Wed 27 Jan 10
The current chief executive justified withholding material in the Independent Panel's report from rank and file councillors and the public on legal grounds, but we now discover that the excised appendices contain this tawdry story, in which the council's own internal corporate audit and anti-fraud team (CAAFT) are to be found chastising the Cabinet for knowingly - not accidently - breaking the law. The line 'It is difficult to understand how LBWF expects to uphold the law when its own Cabinet deliberately breaks it' is priceless, especially in the context of the current NRF/BNI fiasco.
Some serious questions need to be answered, and answered quickly. One is as follows. The CAAFT report referred to went to all the senior officers in the Council. Thus, they all had knowledge of a serious allegation that an unlawful act had been committed. What did they do about it?
There is an old Turkish proverb: 'The fish goes rotten from the head'. Never has it been more applicable.
Walthamster
says...
5:21pm Wed 27 Jan 10
1) The unwanted 'regeneration' scheme to repave the St James Street end of the High Street market. The market was closed for months and has never recovered. There are only a handful of stalls now where there used to be scores of them, and some of the shops went under too.
2. The £3.5 million 'refurbishment' of Walthamstow's town-square library, a listed building. This added on impractical extensions (partly still unuseable), damaged the roof, caused leaks that have destroyed 100-year-old decorations, increased the heating bills, made the acoustics worse and put the DVDs in a spot where they're easy to steal. Apart from the DVD-thieves, the only obvious beneficiaries are whoever got the contract to design and make this mess.
Tom Thumb
says...
5:32pm Wed 27 Jan 10
I fail to understand why no officer has been sacked and no councillor has been forced to resign.
What a rabble!
Well done the Guardian for exposing yet another scandal. And shame on everyone in the local Labour Party for staying silent about these matters. Shame, too, on the Council for squandering vast sums of public money on its pathetic fortnightly "newspaper" which consists of nothing but empty propaganda and self-praise.
sensibility
says...
5:48pm Wed 27 Jan 10
NT
says...
6:00pm Wed 27 Jan 10
http://www1.walthamf
orest.gov.uk/moderng
ov/ieListDocuments.a
sp?CId=287&MId=1311&
Ver=4
It would be interesting to know who exactly was responsible for the fact that Mr. Weir's appendices were excluded from the published record. Mr. Weir might have desired this end, as the CAAFT report hints at, but he had no responsibility for how the Cabinet minutes were compiled, nor the format in which they were eventually put into the public domain.
Fedupwithitall
says...
6:41pm Wed 27 Jan 10
newyear
says...
7:14pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Malcolm Shykles
says...
7:28pm Wed 27 Jan 10
The problem is that the Government also needs to be in “Special Measures”.
Techno2
says...
8:11pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Techno2
says...
8:22pm Wed 27 Jan 10
In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that malfeasance in public office, (which is tort at common law as well as a crime) has 3 essential elements:
1. The defendant must be a public officer
2. The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
3. The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence say that the elements of the offence are when:
1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
In the decision not to prosecute Damien Green, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that "the breach must have been such a serious departure from acceptable standards as to constitute a criminal offence; and to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the public official;" citing the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General's Reference No.3 of 2003 EWCA Crim 868
jrp
says...
8:38pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Techno2
says...
9:00pm Wed 27 Jan 10
jrp wrote:You thinking of standing?
This is the dawning of the era of the independent councilor maybe.
Avenueroad
says...
9:00pm Wed 27 Jan 10
so watch this space.
Tom Thumb
says...
9:06pm Wed 27 Jan 10
According to Wikipedia:
“Established following the Local Government Act 2000, it is responsible for promoting high ethical standards in local democracy. It oversees the Code of Conduct, which covers elected and co-opted members who serve on a range of authorities. Standards for England maintains an independent national overview of local investigations into allegations that members' conduct may have fallen short of the required standards. In certain cases, Standards for England investigates allegations itself. Standards for England cannot impose sanctions on members, but if it considers that further action may be necessary, it refers cases to the Adjudication Panel for England or to the relevant authority's own standards committee for determination. Standards committees can suspend members for up to six months. The Adjudication Panel can disqualify members for up to five years.”
Those involved in this latest scandal should not be allowed to get away with it.
Techno2
says...
9:23pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Tom Thumb wrote:That is one route, though what we are looking at here is not just a breach of an ethical code but also a possible crime, to be considered in a court of law. I can't see why this is not a matter for the police and Director of Public Prosecutions.
If not the police, isn’t this a matter for Standards for England (“formerly known as the Standards Board for England”)? According to Wikipedia: “Established following the Local Government Act 2000, it is responsible for promoting high ethical standards in local democracy. It oversees the Code of Conduct, which covers elected and co-opted members who serve on a range of authorities. Standards for England maintains an independent national overview of local investigations into allegations that members' conduct may have fallen short of the required standards. In certain cases, Standards for England investigates allegations itself. Standards for England cannot impose sanctions on members, but if it considers that further action may be necessary, it refers cases to the Adjudication Panel for England or to the relevant authority's own standards committee for determination. Standards committees can suspend members for up to six months. The Adjudication Panel can disqualify members for up to five years.” Those involved in this latest scandal should not be allowed to get away with it.
As to who should be making the complaint, isn't that a duty the council officers are under? If not, any other honest councillors. I take it we can include Mr Macklin or Mr Davis in that. Failing them, I suppose a private individual could do it or one of the anti-corruption pressure groups.
Let's see if they are all willing to resign tomorrow.
NT
says...
10:35pm Wed 27 Jan 10
The contracts register was 'incomplete', and so unreliable; 'many of the Council's officers' did not follow the rules, but nothing was done about it; recommendations to Cabinet were 'poorly drafted, strategically flawed and incomplete', to the extent that it was difficult to see how they could form any basis for reaching 'sound decisions'; of five cases looked at in detail, 'no original contract could be found in any of the cases'; the tendering process was 'not transparent'; the evidence suggested 'a risk' that major contracts were being awarded to favoured companies, regardless of merit; and so on.
Little wonder that so many people have wanted to keep this report a secret.
Fedupwithitall
says...
10:37pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Techno2
says...
11:04pm Wed 27 Jan 10
Fedupwithitall wrote:I am not aware of allegations of dishonesty relating to Mr Macklin, so assume him to be honest. For the purposes of dealing with the mess between now and any election (or if and when these people step down), I think we can assume he is in a position to exercise reponsibility and make any report on our behalf to the relevant bodies. I expect that legal people in the council will be able to advise him and other councillors on the options and duties if need be.
Techno talks about honest Councillors, but it will be interesting to see whether Cllr Macklin will be making any complaint to the Standards Board seeing as the Cabinet that actually broke the law back in 2005 consisted of a number of Lib Dem Councillors at the time, although the only one still serving is Rayner. I think its important to remember that the Lib Dems are as much in the mire here as Labour.
If you know of anything that would make it impossible for him to do that I suppose Mr Davis would be able to do the necessary just as well. It might be good if a cross-party approach could be taken and if a few untainted Labour councillors could be found who are willing to show leadership and responsibility to help clean up the borough as well. I have been nagging away for months asking people to show some cajones and speak up but sadly no-one has done so as yet, but maybe this will wake them up.
What I hope most reasonable folk would agree is that there can be no more messing about, covering up and delays. This state of affairs has to stop, no matter who has been involved. Whatever the state of the party politics has been up to now, things are going to have to change.
jrp
says...
9:25am Thu 28 Jan 10
Techno2 wrote:I am thinking of letting my dog stand!! He will do a better job.
jrp wrote:You thinking of standing?
This is the dawning of the era of the independent councilor maybe.
Touchwood
says...
10:59am Thu 28 Jan 10
Techno2
says...
11:18am Thu 28 Jan 10
jrp wrote:Get him on the ballot paper then and let's see how he does. :)
Techno2 wrote:I am thinking of letting my dog stand!! He will do a better job.jrp wrote: This is the dawning of the era of the independent councilor maybe.You thinking of standing?
newyear
says...
11:27am Thu 28 Jan 10
SarahSE
says...
3:05pm Thu 28 Jan 10
Investigations
says...
7:08pm Thu 28 Jan 10
mdj
says...
11:02pm Thu 28 Jan 10
Once again, it was only local residents, not Councillors or officers, who thwartedthe attempt to disregard the law.
Were the independent panel members even made aware of this matter?
jrp
says...
9:02am Fri 29 Jan 10
Tom Thumb
says...
9:38am Fri 29 Jan 10
jrp wrote:The silence from everyone but residents is deafening. No one in the Labour Party is saying a word. The opposition parties are mute.
The silence from the town hall is deafening!!
I think the rot set in with the Blair local government reforms, which transferred power from council committee meetings which were open to the public, to a tiny decision-making clique known as 'the cabinet' who reach decisions with council officers behind closed doors. All those councillors not in the cabinet are now powerless and excluded from open decision-making, apart from toothless and cosmetic 'scrutinty committees'.
Power has become concentrated among a few individuals. Because councillors now get lavish expenses none seems to be prepared to speak out, for fear of losing their perks.
Unfortunately the local Tories are just as keen on cabinet government as Labour and the Lib Dems, so don't expect anything to change after May.
newyear
says...
9:57am Fri 29 Jan 10
LEYTONOLDBOY
says...
11:15am Fri 29 Jan 10
chris duran
says...
8:40pm Fri 29 Jan 10
As you went on to say later, even the majority of Councillors are kept in the dark these days. You can be sure that the local members won't have known any more than you did.
As for Fedupwithitalls hope for a cross party alliance including untainted Labour Councillors, I can promise you that any Labour Cuncillor who puts loyalty totheir consituents above that to theirleaders will be isolated and prevented from standing next time.
As we have recently seen, councillors who put loyalty to their leader first are protected by the party's ruling officials. So local party members have no power to remove them
Janet1
says...
9:19pm Fri 29 Jan 10
chris duran wrote:My sympathy for the unknowing councillors is much reduced by the large allowances (minimum £10,000, and most are on a great deal more) each one of them accepts.
Tom Thumb hits the nail on the head in his latest post, but your attack on the local Labour Party is unfair.
As you went on to say later, even the majority of Councillors are kept in the dark these days. You can be sure that the local members won't have known any more than you did.
As for Fedupwithitalls hope for a cross party alliance including untainted Labour Councillors, I can promise you that any Labour Cuncillor who puts loyalty totheir consituents above that to theirleaders will be isolated and prevented from standing next time.
As we have recently seen, councillors who put loyalty to their leader first are protected by the party's ruling officials. So local party members have no power to remove them
I'm a freelance. If i accept money I do the work. If I can't do the work I don't accept the job. If I took the job and then found I couldn't do the work, I wouldn't expect to be paid.
wfmywordmybond
says...
10:47pm Fri 29 Jan 10
Janet1 wrote:Janet - The councillors' allowances are not the issue here. The issue is about the probity of some of our elected representatives.
chris duran wrote:My sympathy for the unknowing councillors is much reduced by the large allowances (minimum £10,000, and most are on a great deal more) each one of them accepts.
Tom Thumb hits the nail on the head in his latest post, but your attack on the local Labour Party is unfair.
As you went on to say later, even the majority of Councillors are kept in the dark these days. You can be sure that the local members won't have known any more than you did.
As for Fedupwithitalls hope for a cross party alliance including untainted Labour Councillors, I can promise you that any Labour Cuncillor who puts loyalty totheir consituents above that to theirleaders will be isolated and prevented from standing next time.
As we have recently seen, councillors who put loyalty to their leader first are protected by the party's ruling officials. So local party members have no power to remove them
I'm a freelance. If i accept money I do the work. If I can't do the work I don't accept the job. If I took the job and then found I couldn't do the work, I wouldn't expect to be paid.
The years between 2002 & 2006 seem to have been very dark times indeed for this council with the BNI/NRF debacle and now this.
What concerns me is a few power hungry politicians tarring all the others with the same brush. Yes, you heard right...their not all corrupt!Those who have been put in the frame should stand aside whilst an 'independent' investigation is conducted particularly those who hold positions of trust elsewhere as a Justice of the Peace.
If we can't trust our magistrates who can we trust?
Janet1
says...
11:23pm Sat 30 Jan 10
The fact is that they've sat back meekly, year after year, and let council officers (if that's who is to blame) get away with multi-million dollar mismanagement.
All of this has been dragged to light by Nick Tiratsoo, an ordinary local resident. He's been working on this for years, posting information on the WF Guardian site as he goes along. It isn't some shocking unexpected revelation that's taken councillors by surprise. They should have been digging away at this pit themselves as soon as he had alerted them.
That's why they're not innocent bystanders. By letting the scandal continue when they knew what was going on -- by letting wrong-doers knew they could continue in safety -- the councillors share the blame.
Fedupwithitall
says...
12:39am Sun 31 Jan 10
jrp
says...
11:17am Sun 31 Jan 10
Janet1 wrote:It is a clear fact that these 'elected' people chose to sit there with their fingers up their backsides ignoring what was being said to them for years,because they took the attitude of, 'what can one or two local residents do' Now it has come home to roost, Loakes, Robbins, Pye and the rest of the tainted bunch are still sitting there thinking they are untouchable. They thought this before and came unstuck. I cannot wait to see them fall on their face. I have celebrations already planned when it happens.
I don't imagine they're all corrupt, WFBond. What matters is that elected councillors are meant to be running the show. That's what they're paid for. If anything goes wrong they're meant to be poking their noses in and finding out why.
The fact is that they've sat back meekly, year after year, and let council officers (if that's who is to blame) get away with multi-million dollar mismanagement.
All of this has been dragged to light by Nick Tiratsoo, an ordinary local resident. He's been working on this for years, posting information on the WF Guardian site as he goes along. It isn't some shocking unexpected revelation that's taken councillors by surprise. They should have been digging away at this pit themselves as soon as he had alerted them.
That's why they're not innocent bystanders. By letting the scandal continue when they knew what was going on -- by letting wrong-doers knew they could continue in safety -- the councillors share the blame.
NT
says...
1:04pm Sun 31 Jan 10
1. The CAAFT team was wrong.
Unlikely. The report was signed off by two senior managers. And it is notable that the Independent Panel then included it without demure or qualification (and incidentally without noting that 'the issue' had been 'dealt with' at the time).
2. The Cabinet did not understand what was going on.
Possible. The rules regarding procurement are straightforward and very clearly spelt out in LBWF's constitution. But I have often been surprised by how little councillors know about them. Even the previous chief executive, Mr. Roger Taylor, seemed a little hazy, for example at first telling me that the Dr Foster contract had been procured properly, when it was obvious (and later confirmed) that it had not.
On the other hand, even if Cabinet members did not follow the detail, surely they would have taken notice when advised 'you are breaking the law if you do this'?
3. Money or favours changed hands
Unlikely. Corruption is a perennial problem in local government. But there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in this case as things stand; the contract was not very big anyway; and if there was some kind of conspiracy, presumably a dozen or so people would have had to be in on it.
4. A cover up of something else.
Possible. This particular episode might have been handled as it was because it was enmeshed in something else, presumably bigger and potentially more damaging to certain parties.
Anyway, that is all speculation, and it will be interesting to see what happens next. As things stand, the current and past Leaders of the Council are accused by the Council's own anti-fraud team of knowingly breaking EU law. It is important that they respond and clear their names.
chris duran
says...
4:26pm Sun 31 Jan 10
Janet1 wrote:Actually I didn't say I was sympathetic to any local councillors, it's ordinary unpaid party members I was defending.
chris duran wrote: Tom Thumb hits the nail on the head in his latest post, but your attack on the local Labour Party is unfair. As you went on to say later, even the majority of Councillors are kept in the dark these days. You can be sure that the local members won't have known any more than you did. As for Fedupwithitalls hope for a cross party alliance including untainted Labour Councillors, I can promise you that any Labour Cuncillor who puts loyalty totheir consituents above that to theirleaders will be isolated and prevented from standing next time. As we have recently seen, councillors who put loyalty to their leader first are protected by the party's ruling officials. So local party members have no power to remove themMy sympathy for the unknowing councillors is much reduced by the large allowances (minimum £10,000, and most are on a great deal more) each one of them accepts. I'm a freelance. If i accept money I do the work. If I can't do the work I don't accept the job. If I took the job and then found I couldn't do the work, I wouldn't expect to be paid.
However, it's hard to see what the back bench councillors could have done to prevent this latest fiasco when they are kept in the dark and have no power. That doesn't mean that I think they have delivered value for money.
I also think that Liberal Democrat Councillors have been junior partners in running this council for most of the period in question, and it's about time they started taking some responsibility.
chris duran
says...
12:23pm Wed 3 Feb 10
The trouble is that the Ombudsman only investigates when you have finished going through the Council's own complaints process, and we have seen that this authority will do everything possible to cover up.
Fedupwithitall
says...
4:25pm Wed 3 Feb 10
Anyone interested in complaining should try: http://www.walthamfo
rest.gov.uk/standard
s-complaints-form.do
c
More Waltham Forest News stories
- LEYTONSTONE: Man charged after drugs raid
- CHINGFORD / LOUGHTON: Motorist cleared of killing gran
- WALTHAMSTOW: Police chase in Coppermill Lane
- LEYTON: Café murder trial to begin
- WALTHAMSTOW: Decision day looms for controversial supermarket bid
- WHIPPS CROSS: Patients' treatment details stolen
- WALTHAM FOREST: Three Kier staff suspended
- CHINGFORD: Still no date for 'peacemaker' inquest
- WALTHAMSTOW: Primary school praised in Ofsted report
- WALTHAMSTOW: Missing man found
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Techno2 says...
4:22pm Wed 27 Jan 10