Proposed by Councillor Phil Davies

Seconded by Councillor Steve Foulkes

(1)  This Council notes that new EU procurement rules now in place can lead to much tougher penalties if procurement rules are broken, including the fact that the High Court has the power to set aside a signed contract, leading to potentially “significant and costly litigation” against the Council, with substantial damages being claimed, according to the latest Audit Commission report on Procurement, which followed the HESPE PIDA report.

(2)  In order to ensure that the Council avoids any such litigation, the Audit Commission recommends that the Council should:

“Strengthen procurement and general governance policies and procedures to ensure the Council promotes the right culture, the risk and incidence of external challenge is managed and the benefits of procurement initiatives are not put at risk”. It also points out the need for “formal documentation to include the thought process leading up to agreed decisions.”

(3)  This Council is therefore deeply concerned that no attempt has been made to manage the potential risk to the Council from the use of Task Forces, set up outside the normal procedures, without elected members, to advise Cabinet on the budget, which could include recommendations to outsource Council services.

(4)  This Council believes serious risks exist because:

·  There is no requirement on Task Force members to fill in any register of interests, or to declare any interests in a meeting, but the potential is there for a conflict of interest should individual members of a Task Force, or their companies, friends, family or associates, recommend to Cabinet the outsourcing of services for which they could subsequently tender if Cabinet agreed their recommendation.

·  Members of the Task Force have been given access to financial information in their advisory role.

·  There is no record of any selection or vetting procedure for Task Force members.

·  There is no formal Cabinet record of the setting up of the Task Forces, or agreed terms of reference. The only Cabinet record, which does not refer in any way to the setting up of individual Task Forces, refers only in more general terms to (setting up a consultation procedure) leaving all details to the approval of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the administration, which is outside usual Constitutional procedures.

·  Subsequent details of the setting up of the Task Forces, the role they had to play, the individuals who would sit on them, and the consultation time table were not taken to Cabinet, but announced in a press release.

·  The draft questionnaire, apparently drawn up by members of the press office following input on options from the Task Forces, was not placed before Cabinet for consideration, as has been normal practice in the past on major consultations, but was again publicised in the press and on the Council’s web site.

·  Although the Council has well established procedures for conducting independent customer satisfaction surveys which ensure a balanced response across Wirral’s population, these have not been used.

·  The questionnaire is flawed, with questions either unclear or open to accusations of bias.

·  The Constitutional democratic processes of the Council have been ignored and the Constitutional ability to call the Executive to account by calling decisions into the Scrutiny Committees has been bypassed by operating outside the Council’s normal procedures.

·  Council further notes that this process not only puts the Council at risk, but it also unfairly places members of the Task Forces at risk because, without any way of registering or declaring their interests, they are left unprotected from public perceptions of cronyism or impropriety, whatever the actual circumstances, if they receive Council funds in the future, or bid for Council contracts, (whether or not they come under European procurement rules.)

(5)  Council therefore refers this matter to the Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider what steps should be taken to protect both the Council and the members of the Task Forces in the future.

The motion was put and lost (23:38:1)