The damning report into Liverpool Direct Limited in full
Even before the Daily Post and ECHO had reported the findings of the damning report into Liverpool Direct Limited, the company was already briefing staff that the article would be misleading.
Here is a statement that appeared on LDL's internal intranet on Friday. A similarly worded message appeared on the council's own intranet and was sent to Labour councillors this week.
A story is likely to appear in the local press early next week about Liverpool Direct Limited (LDL), the council's joint venture with BT with misleading headlines around costs and charges. The story is based on a draft report prepared by consultants who we understand are no longer engaged by the city council. This draft report has been leaked to the media. This is very unfortunate and I know this is not the way the council wishes to conducts its business.
A number of the draft report's findings are based on assumptions which need to be tested. Liverpool Direct Limited has not yet had sight of this report and therefore has had no opportunity to comment on this work. Until a full appraisal is carried out by all parties, the report does not represent the council's views. As you would expect the city council keeps all its contracts under constant review to ensure the taxpayer receives value for money and that the council receives the highest quality in the wide range of services provided.
The council is currently discussing with BT and Liverpool Direct Limited the 'refresh' of the Partnership to ensure the council continues to receive value for money and to make the most of the relationship. The District Auditor is fully aware of these negotiations.
Whilst disappointing to receive such negative media coverage based on draft reports we must all remain totally focused on delivering only the highest standards of performance and customer service. Please keep up the great work.
Liverpool Direct Limited Management Team
Misleading our articles certainly were not. They were a completely accurate portrayal of the report, one which the council has shown no desire to make public.
When we were enquiring about said report the council did not state in its response that it was a draft report, albeit these are often more illuminating than the finished polished version.
Interesting there is no suggestion in the document that it is a draft. And in three months since it was written it has not yet been amended.
Anyway if you want to read the report and judge for yourself click on the links to download the two parts of the report. LDL investigation report, part 1.pdf and LDL investigation report, part 2.pdf
8 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Brilliant. Needs digesting, but some things are glaringly obvious.
First of all, this is not a draft, as you rightly state - it looks like this is an amplification/comment (by external consultants?)of a previous, internal council report (the Dolan and Cosgrove one, presumably). So there's more stuff to be had: chunks of text have been pasted in (crookedly) in boxes throughout the document - see, for instance, page 5 and page 9 - what document(s) did all this come from??
The LDL statement in itself is highly revealing:
"prepared by consultants who we understand are no longer engaged by the city council"...
poisonous phrasing implying the consultants were dumped as not up to scratch?? Can we find out who they were? Surely someone like KPMG, Price Waterhouse, etc.??
and, even more revealing:
"Until a full appraisal is carried out by all parties, the report does not represent the council's views".
So the council's views are subject to the approval of LDL??
as well as
"I know this is not the way the council wishes to conducts its business"
Really. Who exactly are you, and how do you know this??
Finally, it is clear that the LCC director on the LDL board (a sequence of mainly LibDem councillors - Clein, Hurst, Bradley and, briefly, Anderson)was not given proper information about the operations and finances of the company. Or kept quiet, and let the waste and overcharging continue. Either way, they all failed in their duties as directors.
Well done David, this is 1st class journalism and please please keep exposing this scandal
Yep, brilliant, challenging, crusading journalism.
Probably the best reporting we have seen in the city for a long time - and on a subject that desperately needs the light of public scrutiny all over it.
Just one question: When is just one Labour councillor going to have the bottle to stand up and challenge this disgraceful waste of public money and abuse of power?
Isnt the very existence of this statement evidence that McElhinney is involved in the council's consideration of these matters?
No one else is capable of such Orwellian doublespeak.
Em, at least one Labour councillor has been on record criticising precisely the matters that the report covers, especially over the IT charges, and those comments go back several years, they were not written for popularity in the light of this report. (And those "records" are still online if you use a popular search engine to check). You will also find motions to Full Council and Select Committees going back years on this topic too.
Yes, Labourite, Deputy Leader Brant did - but he's conspicuously silent now, isn't he??
Demented Avenger wrote a great comment, last night, to the Echo article on 29/7 on Councillor CleinâÂÂs reaction to the leak:
So, Joe Anderson has declined to comment and a council spokesman says that the report does not represent the council's view as they have not had time to evaluate it. How strange given that the report effectively repeats the same allegations raised in 2008 by the IDeA and reported by Dave Bartlett in the Daily Post on 27th June 2008. In fact, the same article refers to a secret KPMG report from November 2006 which also reported "huge failings in the LDL contract". So, this report is nothing new. It reaffirms the findings of the IDeA in 2008 and KPMG in 2006.
In fact, Deputy Labour leader Cllr Paul Brant said at the time: âÂÂThis information is a devastating indictment of the council's relationship with LDL.
âÂÂFor years, Labour councillors have been pointing out potential conflicts of interest with senior Lib-Dem councillors and officers on the LDL Board, contrasted with the lack of real financial information available for external scrutiny.
âÂÂIt is essential that a fair relationship delivers good value for money for Liverpool residents and excellent service levels, but many fear that there is a real risk Liverpool is being ripped off by these contracts.
âÂÂI am glad that, after all these years of being warned by us, the council is finally recognising that it needs to have a long, hard look at this arrangement.âÂÂ
Councillor Paul Brant quoted in the Daily Post 27th June 2008. Link below.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/06/27/rip-off-fears-prompt-urgent-review-into-city-s-bt-70m-contract-64375-21159620/2/
Funny how, now that they are in power, Labour have forgotten these earlier reports which they embraced wholeheartedly and are suddenly saying that they need time to evaluate the findings of this "new" report and that it does not represent their views.
What brought about this sudden change of mind by the Labour leadership? Why should thousands of council workers be thrown onto the scrapheap, precious local services be decimated, all causing untold damage to the local economy of the city, whilst millions of pounds are squandered on a monumental scale on a contract that has long been universally condemned as a "rip off"?
Roll on the May elections
They have some serious explaining to do - including why Jo Anderson, who according to the information on file with Companies House (webcheck), was appointed the LCC director on the board of LDL in July, left the board in August. Why was this? The appointment gave him access to all sorts of information about the company's operations. Why did he step down - and, more importantly, who is representing the council's interests now - since we appear to have no director?
So what on earth is going on - what are they doing about all this?
Sorry, this was the first time I used tags, and I got it wrong - the quote ends at .... May elections.
Depressing that Labourite tries to cover up the inactivity and reluctance to speak up for the people of Liverpool, just because Labour is now in power.
What was wrong in 2008 is wrong now.
Stand up and speak up for the city now, for God's sake.
The fact that Labour is now in power is just more reason for such action.
Failure to take proper action will be duly noted.
And people of integrity and principle will walk away from Labour in Liverpool.
Joe Anderson is already risking his reputation for this - and for what?
So he can stand in the middle of Dale Street and boast that he has introuduced super fast broadband (coutesy of BT) to Liverpool?
That's not a price worth paying.
Nor is 100 new apprentices, much less the smaller numbers Mcilhenniey is promising him.
For allowing them to rip of the city for ã10million a year? You must be joking.
Its not worth it, Joe. Do the decent thing.