Glasgow - Scottish Information Commissioner
I received confirmation the other day that the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) has agreed to conduct a formal investigation into my appeal regarding Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme.
I'll have much more to say in the days ahead, but essentially this comes down to the FOI response from senior officials who claim that GCC has virtually no records of the WPBR exist, despite the fact that Equal Pay/WPBR are the biggest employment issues Glasgow City Council has ever faced, since it was established in 1996 following local government reorganisation.
Now I find the City Council's position to be, literally, quite incredible - impossible to believe given the enormity of the subject matter and the importance that Scotland's largest, best resourced council normally attaches to keeping vital records.
So watch this space - my appeal letter to SIC will follow soon.
Glasgow - What a Shocker! (30/01/18)
Glasgow is Scotland's largest and best resourced council by a long way, but I am still taken aback at times at the way the city council is managed by very senior and highly paid officials.
For example, in this response to a recent FoI Review Request, Glasgow says it has no proper records of what fees were paid to the external consultants who developed up the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR).
Now this was a really major decision on Glasgow's part, arguably the single, most important employment issue facing the Council in its history (back in 2005/06), but as you can see from the Council's response no one can explain what the WPBR actually cost - and apparently all the senior officials who might have been able to help have since left GCC's employment.
I have to say my initial reaction was - 'You couldn't make this up!'
I've still to decide whether to appeal this decision to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) although it does seem quite astonishing to me that the Council is unable to give a proper account of how large sums of public money were spent.
Particularly as the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, has since judged the WPBR to be 'unfit for purpose' and yet no one within the City Council has been held responsible for this shocking state of affairs.
Dear Mr Irvine
REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (“THE ACT”)
Thank you for your email of 7 December 2017 requesting a review of the response by Glasgow City Council (“the Council”) to your request for information under the Act.
YOUR REQUEST
You submitted a request on for the following information:
- “Please confirm the total monies paid to Steve Watson and/or Hays HR Consulting in connection with the introduction of Glasgow City Council’s Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) and the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)?
- Please confirm whether these monies were paid in instalments and if so, the dates on which individual payments were made?
- Please provide a breakdown of these payments between WPBR and EDC?”
The Council emailed you on 6 December 2017 and provided you with a response to your request for information.
You were advised that in accordance with section 17 of the Act, the information that you were looking for is not held by the Council. You were advised that the Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting. However the information available does not allow for the identification of the reasons for payment. It is therefore not possible to identify payments made in respect of Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or the Employee Development Commitment (EDC).
YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW
On 7 December 2016 you emailed the Council requesting a formal review of the decision. A copy of your review request is attached at the Appendix to this letter.
THE REVIEW DECISION
I have carried out a full and impartial review of the initial response provided to you.
I can confirm that the Council does not hold the information that you have requested in accordance with section 17(1) of the Act.
As advised in the Council’s initial response letter, the Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting but it is not possible to identify the reason why older payments were made. I have been advised that payments are also recorded as being made to Hays HR Personnel and Hays Recruitment Specialists. This information has been obtained from our SAP system which was introduced in 2006. I am advised that the earliest payment that we currently have hold in SAP to Hays is on 5/8/2008.
The SAP system contains the invoice number, date, amount paid and other codes such as assignment number and document number. There is also a notes section on SAP but this is not a mandatory field to complete and often this field is left blank. In our order to identify if a payment has been made in respect of the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or Employee Development Commitment (EDC), it is necessary to use the invoice number/charge code listed on SAP to check the invoices. I am advised that in line with the Council’s file retention policy, invoices are normally retained for 5 years plus the current financial year before being destroyed. Without the invoices, I have been advised that it is not possible to identify the reason for a payment being made.
You have asked whether we can explain “what other work Hays HR Consulting (Steve Watson) carried out during the period covered by the invoices and how much these invoices were for, as this would obviously help to sort the ‘wheat from the chaff’, so to speak”. Payments can be made to Hays for a variety of reasons, for example, for the payment of agency workers. As explained above, if invoices are no longer held it is not possible to identify the reason why an individual payment was made. Unfortunately it would therefore not be possible to provide any accurate figures which would be of assistance to you.
I have also checked whether any staff within the Council would be able to identify which payments have been made to Hays/Hays HR Consulting for WPBR and/or EDC. However, all senior managers who were involved in WPBR/EDC and may have been able to assist with the identification of payments have since left the Council.
7 December 2017
Carole Forrest
Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council
Glasgow City Council
By email to: FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk
Dear Ms Forrest
FoI Review Request
I refer to the letter from Glasgow City Council dated 6 December 2017 responding to my earlier FoI request dated 8 November 2017, a key extract of which is reproduced below for easy reference:
"In accordance with Section 17 of the Act we would advise you that the information you are looking for is not held by the Council. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request. The reasons for this as follows:
"Glasgow City Council have no record of any payments being made to Steve Watson.
"Glasgow City Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting. However, the information available does not allow for the identification of the reasons for payment. It is therefore not possible to identify payments made in respect of Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)."
I am asking for a review of the City Council's initial decision for the following reasons:
1) The information I requested relates to the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WBR) and Employee Development Commitment (EDC) - two very specific and discrete issues on which the Council was advised by Steve Watson of Hays HR Consulting.
2) My request covers the period from August 2005 onwards when the City Council first began to consider new, supposedly non-discriminatory pay arrangements (the WPBR and EDC) which were finally introduced in January 2007.
3) For example, I am in possession of a document from Hays HR Consulting dated December 2006 which bears the title: Glasgow City Council - Employee Development Commitment. The document states that it has been "Prepared by Steve Watson" and "Prepared for Elma Murray" whom I believe was your predecessor as Director of Governance at Glasgow City Council.
4) So, I am absolutely astounded to hear that the City Council does have records of payments being made to HR Consulting (and therefore Steve Watson), but that the FOI Team has no idea why these payments were made - because this must surely amount to an extremely serious breach of the council's Financial Management and Control Regulations.
5) I attach a copy of Glasgow's Financial and Management Control Regulations (from May 2017), in case you are not familiar with this document, and separately from my FoI Review Request I am quite prepared to raise this matter with the City Council's internal and external auditors, as well as making a complaint to the Accounts Commission for Scotland.
6) In any event I simply do not believe that Scotland's largest and best resourced council is unable to explain the basis of these potentially large payments to Hays HR Consulting and Steve Watson who were engaged by Glasgow City Council for a very specific and clearly identifiable purpose during the period I have identified.
7) Perhaps you can explain in your response to my Review Request what other work Hays HR Consulting (Steve Watson) carried out during the period covered by their invoices and how much these invoices were for, as this would obviously help to sort the 'wheat from the chaff', so to speak.
8) In any event, I am very concerned that the FOI Team is somehow being misled or misdirected because the only other explanation I can think of is that the City Council is deliberately withholding this information.
I look forward to your response to my Review request and would be grateful if you could reply to me by email at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
