ITV on SouthWest One

Submitted by JMB on Wed 23/Jul/2008

A while ago I wrote about SouthWest One, a Joint Venture Shared Service Company, which has taken over the administration and "back office" functions of several local government bodies and most recently the Avon & Somerset Constabulary.

Somerset & Sedgemoor MP Liddell Grainger (Con) has really torn into this one. In particular he has highlighted the vague rationale for undertaking such a high-risk approach to delivering public service, and the astonishing level of secrecy associated with the contract. The following paragraphs are from his speech, made last month, to the House of Commons:

Southwest One is formed of two councils—Somerset county and Taunton Deane borough—plus one police authority, Avon and Somerset constabulary. I remind the House that its business partner is IBM. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that IBM owns 75 per cent. of the company. That means that, if Southwest One ever makes a profit, the “Big Blue” will pocket three quarters of it. It is a 10-year venture, which was supposed to save money. Somerset council claims that it will save it £200 million—£20 million a year. Yet the county offers no logical explanation or business realisation plan. Why? There is not one. [...]

[T]he architects of the joint venture company have strangled information to such a tiny trickle that nobody outside the magic inner circle knows what is going on.

Not one elected councillor of any persuasion has been given unrestricted access to the 3,000 page contract, which was signed last September. Most of it stays hidden. Councillors, the unions and the public who, like me, pay for all that, have been treated like mushrooms. We have been left in the dark and, every now and then, some smug soul chucks a bucket of manure over us. The last big bucket of dung was delivered yesterday by the very man who boasted that not a single job would be put at risk by the deal.

Trade magazine Computer Weekly are now taking an interest, and SouthWest One is working hard to dodge Freedom of Information requests. You can follow the story on Tony Collins's IT Projects Blog.

ITV West are doing a special programme on the subject on Thursday 24th July at 19:30 in the West Eye View documentary slot. One to watch, I think. While you're waiting, here's a short video delivered at last year's [2007] Society of IT Managers Annual Conference.

Comments

Audit Commission Act

Submitted by The Bristol Blogger on Thu 24/Jul/2008.

Strictly speaking Somerset CC are trying to dodge the Audit Commission Act, which I blogged about a while ago, not FoI. The joy of the AC Act being there's no "commercial confidentiality" get out clauses although that doesn't seem to stop IBM trying.

ACO or FoI

Submitted by JMB on Thu 24/Jul/2008.

Good point - I hadn't appreciated the difference between the two.

Audit Commission Act 1998

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Audit Commission Act

Submitted by The Bristol Blogger on Thu 24/Jul/2008.
Yeah, the Audit Commission Act is much tougher on councils than FoI. Liddell-Grainger, on his blog, has managed to get hold of advice from a top notch brief (pdf) to Somerset County Council in 1996 on the ACA (they were obviously expecting probems!). And as you can read for yourself, even the best legal advice money can buy isn't going to get councils (or their partners like IBM) out of their obligations under the Act.

Fascinating stuff

Submitted by JMB on Thu 24/Jul/2008.
That's a really interesting document, particularly the historical references to Bristol v. HTV. I saw your post about this a while back, but wasn't able to free up time to have a poke about in Bristol's receipts. Related news: Somerset County Council Leader Clare Shortland (Liberal Democrat) left a comment on the You Tube video. I think she's got me confused with Ian Liddell-Grainger. Ms Shortland's You Tube profile is worth a read: http://www.furl.net/item/35781398/cached "A place to support the life and work of Alan Jones [Somerset County Council Chief Executive]. Alan is a treasure and human dynamo. We cherish him in Taunton for his vision, energy and sense of fairness. To Alan everyone is a true equal. He always opens doors to Ladies and much else besides." He must be doing something right. You don't hear Helen Holland saying that sort of thing about Jan Ormendroyd. Mind you, I don't think I'd want to.

Jill Shortland lied on West Eye View piece....

Submitted by Appalled member of staff on Fri 25/Jul/2008.
On the West Eye view porgramme broadcast on 24/7/2008, Jill Shortland claims that they had consulted with the union UNISON and the Staffing Agreement document sent at 8pm (they signed at 4am on a Saturday - why?) just had a few corrections to something UNISON had already seen. My understanding is is that UNISON had never seen any of the Staffing Agreement sent out at 8pm - not one page, not one sentence! So Jill is lying. Currently UNISON is taking Somerset County Council to a tribunal in October on a "failure to consult" under the ACAS Code. Wanting to see a "Staffing Agreement" for a secret deal signed at 4am on a Saturday morning with US multinational IBM is a basic role and right of any union properly representing it's Members. The law in the UK says so. Jill Shortland's ridiculous assertion that someone in UNISON should have sat in the County Hall Office just in case something comes through is patently ridiculous. Besides the offices at County Hall close at 7pm, as she well knows. All the secrecy and failing to consult is hardly Liberal or Democratic is it? What do they want to hide? What do they want you NOT to see? If this 10-year £440m+ deal is in the public interest, then why isn't it public? Why are we allowing an avaricious US company like IBM to prevent access by the representatives and people of Somerset to their own Somerset County Council accounts and contract documentation under the UK law? Something dodgy is going on and it will be the people of Somerset who will pay....

FOI and ACA 1998

Submitted by tony on Mon 04/Aug/2008.

I was interested to see that finally the ACA'98 is starting to be used. I have been going on about this and using it for years. The Act is really powerful to the elector. There is very little apart from personal data that can be hidden from an enquirer and its free of course ! No wonder they hate it. The trick is to couch any and all gripes against a Council in terms of a financial issue or ensure it has a financial angle so that complaint can be made against the accounts in the year just gone. S.15 relates to access and S.16 to the objections to the accounts. Then the DA can inspect the gripe and will report. There are two outcomes he can publish a public report or refer it to the High Court depending on how dodgy the dealings have been at the Council. The Act will get you access to most of the important documents - yes you get see and handle the actual documents not just copies. The criminal offence bit unfortunately only applies as a penalty on Council staff who try to bar enquirers from the Accounts not in trying to bar them from the documents - sad. In terms of enforcing your rights of access you will find that the Information Commissioner, The Audit Commission, and the Local Government Ombudsman are not that supportive, though the LGO should be if you can show a personal loss arising. I know this as I have tried them all and it comes back to a court action to effect access which you would win but would costs up front. Good luck one and all ! Tony