skip to main |
skip to sidebar
ASKED recently on the BBC News Channel programme ‘Dateline London’ what she thought too little attention was paid to, Bronwen Maddox, director of the Institute for Government, replied ‘Corruption in Local Government’.
I have previously described the difficulties I have had in getting answers from my local council to Freedom of Information (FOI) questions regarding the ‘declarable interests’ of Councillor Faisal Rana. My conclusion was that Rochdale Borough Council is ‘Institutionally Corrupt’.
It is surely extraordinary that only after the intervention of my local MP, Chris Clarkson, have I been able to get a response to questions I first submitted in April.
Corruption isn’t only about money in brown envelopes and influencing planning decisions it’s also about a commitment to openness by council officers in the dealings with the public.
******************************************************************
THERE are good reasons why it is a rule that all Councillors should file with the local body upon which they serve a list of their beneficial interests in a borough and that this should be publicly available as the Register of Members Interests. One of these is to ensure that council members do not vote on anything in which they have a pecuniary interest. Anyone trying to apply this simple test to Rochdale’s own Councillor Faisal ‘Two Votes’ Rana since his election in 2018 has faced an uphill struggle.
In April of this year I noticed that the entry for ‘Two Votes’ had been replaced with the words 'Not shown on website'.
So I wrote to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow as follows:
Dear Sir,
I refer to the Register of interests for Councillor Faisal Rana.
https://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=6271&HID=2563&FID=0&HPID=14660973
I note that Section 7 Securities: contains the words 'Not shown on website'.
Could you please clarify whether this conforms to what is commonly known as 'Best Practice' which is usually taken to mean a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements? I assume that in the interests of open government RMBC would normally wish to be seen as implementing 'Best Practice'.
If there is a reason for 'Best Practice' not being followed in this case could you please inform me of the reason?
N.B. the material at the above link was changed on 28 June 2021 as detailed below.
I did not get a reply so two further reminders were sent. The third of these elicited the following response:
In relation to the register of interest for Cllr Faisal Rana. The entries not shown on the website are due to the items being considered as sensitive by the previous Monitoring Officer of the Council. Any requests for such information should be submitted via the freedom of information process.
So on 23 May I wrote to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow as follows:
My understanding is that any request for information should be treated as a request for information governed by the FOI Act even if that term is not expressly used by the requestor. I request the following information which if necessary you should treat as Freedom of Information requests;
What information is held by RMBC in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana and on what date was each of these individual interests registered?
On what date did the previous monitoring officer conclude that the information in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana was ‘sensitive’ and should be withheld from the public unless a Freedom of Information request was made?
Has the present monitoring officer concluded that the information in the register members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana is ‘sensitive’ and should be withheld from the public unless a Freedom of Information request is made?
If the present monitoring officer has concluded that the information in the register of members interests for Councillor Faisal Rana is ‘sensitive’, why is this information considered to be ‘sensitive’ and on what date was the decision made?
I still require an answer to the second and third parts of my original query which relate to what is commonly called ‘best practice’.
Five weeks later I still had not received an answer to these questions so on Sunday 27 May I sent the following to Rochdale Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow and on 30 May followed this with a printed copy sent by Royal Mail:
Dear Mr Rumbelow,
I wrote to you on 21 April 2021 with regard to the entry in the Register of Interests for Councillor Faisal Rana. I did not receive a response from you and sent a reminder on 5 May 2021. This reminder did not elicit a response and on 20 May I sent a second reminder.
I received a partial response to this from a Michael Garraway but the original question about ‘Best Practice’ and the reason why it is not being followed in this case remains unanswered. Mr Garraway informed me that if I required any information about this councillor’s declarable interests I should submit this through the ‘Freedom of Information’ process.
On 23 May I submitted four further questions regarding this councillor’s declarable interests, and why and when the decision(s) had been taken not to allow these to appear on the Rochdale Council website.
To date I have not received a response to these and the previous two questions. When I raised similar queries about the register of interests relating to the same councillor in the autumn of 2018 I met similar delays and evasiveness on the part of the officer(s) I dealt with.
You will be aware that in a recent report into the failings of the Metropolitan Police the term ‘Institutional Corruption’ was used and the report of the investigating panel referred to the fact that the investigation had been impeded by the organisation.
In their working definition the panel included the following actions or inactions as indicators of Institutional Corruption; failing to identify corruption; failing to confront corruption; failing to manage investigations and ensure proper oversight; failing to make a voluntarily commitment to candour; failing to be open and transparent.
I made reference to the question of whether some officers of Rochdale Council have become corrupted and no longer act in a non-political manner in my communication of 20 May. Within RMBC there has been a failure to ensure proper oversight with the result that officers who fail to carry out their duties and to act within the legal framework set out by the UK government with regard to the provision of information to the public, are not censured. There is no commitment to candour, and there is a failure to be open and transparent.
I am forced to conclude that RMBC is institutionally corrupt. If you object to this conclusion then you may prefer the statement by the panel that ‘failings do not all automatically fall within the definition of corruption. Some may result from professional incompetence or poor management.’
Irrespective of which parts of the last paragraph are applicable, as you are the Chief Executive the responsibility for this lies entirely with yourself.
You will note that I have sent a courtesy copy of this communication to my MP, Mr Chris Clarkson. I will follow it up with a separate e-mail requesting that it be held on file. I have done this to ensure that he is fully aware of the situation should it be necessary at some future date to request him to take up these matters with the office of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
This did produce a response in the form of a change in the web entry which now carries a submission of Rana’s interests within Rochdale timed at 6.16pm on Monday 28 June, i.e. the same day that the above letter would have been received and read. This may of course just be a remarkable coincidence!
The interesting thing about this new entry is that it does not contain the long list of mainly residential properties which were previously declared by Rana and published on 25 March 2021, but not made available on the web. I intend to publish this full list at a later date if it does not miraculously appear on the web from an ‘official’ source before then.
Now of course it is entirely possible that in the last three months these properties have been sold or brought under the umbrella of one of the businesses or partnerships owned or operated by Councillor Rana. The question which then arises is whether officers of the council have deliberately not replied to my FOI requests in order to give him time to do so.
The further questions of who has gained from this evasiveness by council officers and who authorised it will be dealt with in the next few days.
**************************************************************
EARLIER today in a telephone conversation with a friend he commented that he thought his local MP was ‘a bit of a deadleg’. Now I’ve not had any dealings with this gentleman, who is the MP for Heywood and Middleton, so I cannot comment on the veracity of this statement. But it did take me back a few years to when our old friend Simon Danczuk, or as he is now more commonly called ‘the disgraced Simon Danczuk’, was MP for the neighbouring constituency of Rochdale.
MPs (and Councillors) hold their position thanks to the trust of the public so if you want to shift them because you don’t think they are up to the job or not being honest with the people who voted for them, it’s the public you have to find a way of telling.
After Danczuk published his book about Cyril Smith in 2014 the Letters page of the Rochdale Observer was for the next 18 months or so filled with correspondence challenging Danczuk account, asking that he produce some evidence for his attempts to link Smith with the unsavoury goings on at Knowl View school and pointing out that a story in the book involving the Northamptonshire Police was completely untrue.
If my friend wants to use the local media to publish his disquiet about his MP Chris Clarkson, he won’t be so lucky. The reader’s letters page of the Rochdale Observer has shrunk almost to the point of invisibility. In 2015 it occupied a full page and there was enough room for the editor to allow a three quarter page letter from Andrew Wastling, who now sends material to Northern Voices because he cannot get it published elsewhere.
Those of us who contribute to NV don’t fool ourselves into thinking that it is read by as many people as read the Rochdale Observer so it is no substitute for an inquisitive and questioning local paper with a boisterous letters page.
NV’s readership is more likely to be drawn from the subset of potential Observer readers who would identify themselves as to the left of the political spectrum, but who refuse to be be swayed by the present vogue for identity politics and the drift towards ‘cancel culture’, so in no sense does it compete with other local news outlets. Seeing it as a competitor was the mistake Rochdale Online made when it wanted to use material from Northern Voices without attribution to its author.
Local News Partnerships, which include both the Rochdale Observer and Rochdale Online, are a well intentioned attempt to support local news outlets and maintain their viability at a time when they have come under pressure from the availability of news on the World Wide Web 24/7. But the unintended consequences have been that the sense of place and local identity which local newspapers provided has vanished because essentially the same story can appear in a regional and local paper, and a diversity of voices has been replaced by what is essentially a single uninquisitive ‘foghorn’.
This lack of scrutiny has emboldened some of our local politicians to start down the track of believing that they no longer accountable for their actions. Rochdale already has one local councillor who first solicited a postal vote then voted twice in the 2018 local election, seemingly without suffering any consequences. In recent weeks we have seen that one councillor did not seem to think he had to even accept e-mails sent to his Rochdale MBC account. We have also seen that at least one councillor think it unacceptable that he should be questioned about why a council official who is supposedly doing a full time job with Rochdale MBC is being allowed to ‘moonlight’ in another well remunerated role.
In about eleven weeks time people in Rochdale are going to be asked to choose who they want to represent them on the Council. If all we are treated to are press releases from councillors because they are ‘good copy’ how can we do this in any meaningful way? It is time to shine some light on the murky political world of Rochdale.
********************************************************
Posts
