At some point, and we are almost there, reporting on the law-breaking of one of the country’s most inept, opaque, perennially disgraced local authorities will become futile.
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, under the Labour administration that has now held power since 2011, is not going to change of its own motion: The Leader, Cllr Arooj Shah, a mostly supine Cabinet and her cabal of, very largely, ineffective senior paid officers, consider themselves above Parliament and deeply resent any form of public interest scrutiny.
The situation now requires intervention of either the Government or Labour Party HQ, as has happened elsewhere. Notably in Rotherham, where Government appointed Commissioners took over the running of the Council, and Birmingham, where the Labour National Executive Committee removed their own Leader. In neighbouring Kirklees, other councillors took matters into their own hands and put down a motion of no confidence in their Leader, Shabir Pandor. He resigned before the vote took place.
The NEC is the governing body of the UK Labour Party, setting the overall strategic direction of the party and policy development. Parliamentarians, whom Cllr Shah is openly and routinely defying, sitting on that Committee include the Leader, Keir Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, and his Deputy, Angela Rayner, a part of whose constituency is in Oldham.
By a curious quirk of fate, Cllr Shah is, actually, the present Chair of the similarly named National Constitutional Committee (NCC), which is principally concerned with discipline of Labour Party Members, and, if as seems likely, a complaint is made to that Committee over her Council’s persistent law-breaking , citing also an alarming ethical and professional deficit that permeates, top down, in the Civic Centre, then she may also be asked to stand down from that role, also.
The latest infraction, may not amount to a great deal taken in isolation, but it forms a significant part of a wider matrix in which the instinctive reaction to almost any given situation is for Oldham Council to conceal the truth, or delay the telling of it. Their reputation for ‘covering-up’ is, very arguably, unrivalled in the UK. Although, well known democracy advocates, Gwen Swinburn (City of York) and Julian Saunders (Sandwell), may have something to say about that.
On 19th August, 2023 a request for a statement was made to Oldham Council’s press office regarding the circumstances leading to the removal of security screens in the civic chamber that were erected 2020 and have remained in place until their surprise removal earlier this year. A series of Full Council meetings have seen serious public disorder with the screens providing what at times has been seen as an absolutely vital barrier between protesters and elected Members.
The response from the Council Leader can, most charitably, be described as sub-optimal.
It did not address the core issues put to her and she was, respectfully, invited to make a second attempt. The email carrying that further request was not acknowledged. In those circumstances, one of the available options to a journalist is to park the matter and move on; another is to seek answers via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That involves additional, and needless, expense to both the requester and the Council seeking to withhold the same information, but is likely to prove several points of significant public (and voter) interest.
The author of this article, Neil Wilby, also has the advantage of knowing whom was the driving force behind the removal of the screens and, consequently, how the decision-making process came about. Information that cannot be shared publicly in order to both respect the informant’s wishes and eliminate risk of jigsaw identification.
Another reason for persisting with the matter is the professional curiosity as to how the Council marshall their defence of that situation.
On 24th August, 2023 a FOIA request was made to Oldham Council and asked these simple questions:
“Please disclose the following information under the Act:
1. The date upon which a Group Party Leaders’ meeting took place, earlier in 2023, at which it was decided to remove the security screens enclosing the public galleries in the civic chamber.
2. The relevant minute from that meeting.
3. The health and safety risk assessment that formed part of that Group Leaders’ decision making process.
4. The report to the Group Leaders outlining the outcome of the consultations with (a) Greater Manchester Police (b) the Council’s security contractors (c) Council Members.
5. The date the screens were actually removed.”
It was acknowledged on the same day. Since then, nothing has been heard from the Council even though, at the very latest by law, a substantive response should have been received by 21st August, 2023.
By way of Section 45 of the Act, if a public authority adopts ‘Good Practice’ recommended by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), an applicant (the person making the request) has the right to request make a complaint and have the response to the request, or lack of one, reviewed by a different officer to one originally involved in handling the request. In Oldham Council’s case, the internal reviews are handled by the Borough Solicitor.
Regrettably, there is a lengthy history of non-compliance with the ICO’s recommended practice by Paul Entwistle.
Earlier today (22nd September, 2023), the following was submitted to the Council:
“Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
“I am writing to request an internal review of Oldham Council’s handling of my FOI request.
“Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act states:
“Time for compliance with request.
(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with section 1(1) PROMPTLY and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.
“There are many rulings from First Tier Tribunal (information Rights) judges to the effect that , under the Act, the twentieth working day is a backstop, not a target date. ‘Promptly’, is the key indicator.
“The instant request is very simple in its construction and the retrieval of three simple, readily accessible documents (if they actually exist) and two dates of events that may, or may not, have taken place, obviously places no undue burden on your Council.
“It is, therefore, profoundly disappointing that Oldham Council, yet again, chooses to flagrantly disrespect Parliament (and the applicant) in this way – and on a public platform with a substantial and influential audience reach and penetration, no less.
“Your Council is, accordingly and respectfully, encouraged to remedy this unlawful defect at the earliest available opportunity.
“A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r…
The ICO expects a public authority handling a FOIA request to finalise an internal review outcome within 20 working days. Although it will not accept a complaint before 40 working days have elapsed if one is not provided. A loophole that Oldham’s Borough Solicitor has regularly exploited in the past.
As with many other articles on Neil Wilby Media that feature Oldham Council, the ‘cover-up’ has now become the story, but this one may now have far wider consequences for those purportedly running a hapless public authority that, with each passing day, more and more resembles Greater Manchester Police before it was placed in ‘Special Measures’ by the Home Secretary.
This journalist has decided enough is enough, the proverbial last straw has broken the camel’s back, and matters, hereafter, will be escalated, legitimately and proportionately, at every opportunity. A situation upon which Cllr Shah and her soon-to-depart chief executive, Harry Catherall, were advised on 1st September, 2023 following another epic communication fail and, upon which, matters remain unreported whilst investigations are still ongoing.
All too predictably, that email, reproduced below, was not even acknowledged either. The same fate befell a polite reminder on 6th September, 2023.
“Cllr Shah/Harry
“I refer to the below email chain, the contents of which are self explanatory.
“May I firstly say how disappointing it is that you both set out to deceive not only the only local journalist holding your Council to account, but every single resident in the Borough?
“Absent of a statement, setting out (i) an acknowledgement that without my intervention no such emails would have been sent to the CSE stakeholders (ii) your reasons for attempting to conceal that fact, and (iii) an apology to the Borough residents for your actions, then the matter will be escalated appropriately.
“If this was an isolated incident where opacity at its best, and blatant deceit at its worst, was in issue, then a journalist would, usually, just shrug his shoulders and move on.
“But it isn’t; rather, on overwhelming evidence, it is the norm, and it is quite simply unacceptable in public life.
“As a ‘social watchdog’ (as courts sometimes refer to journalists), it is very necessary to bring this concerning state of affairs to public and stakeholder attention – and campaign for change.”
An interesting few months lie ahead: Not least as that same less than dynamic duo has sanctioned the defence of a data breach claim brought against their Council by Neil Wilby (read more here), and probably the waste of tens of thousands of pounds of public funds, by instructing heavyweight external lawyers.
The Labour Party press office has been asked whether Oldham is one of ‘more than a dozen’ councils presently part of their Campaign Improvement Boards, sent in to ‘struggling and marginal’ local authorities that they presently control politically (read more here).
If they are not – then they most definitely should be.
UPDATE: Cllr Shah was offered the usual courtesy of right of reply. Via a spokesperson, it was reported she ‘didn’t wish to comment on the story’. This is in line with the her Council’s overarching media strategy revealed exclusively on this website last month (read here).
Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.
Page last updated: Saturday 23rd September, 2023 at 19h55
Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Picture credit: OMBC
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2023. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment