Seldom can I recall a council decision so poorly made and so poorly
justified as the council’s planned changes to the operation of Ormskirk market
from April.
I’d much prefer to be able to show you the officer report which went to
the council’s cabinet and critique it, but the report is private and
confidential and it seems from the reaction of the council since then, that the
attitude of “least said, soonest mended” prevails. Unfortunately for the council, public disquiet
understandably continues, so I will try to shed some light on the matter.
The decision was taken by the council cabinet (7 Labour councillors who
hold the senior decision-making positions) in June last year to approve
changes to the operation of the market from April 2020. The report before councillors gave the
impression that the changes were required to save money and that the market
traders had been widely consulted and were in favour of the changes. The report was passed by the councillors on
cabinet in less than 1 minute with no questions asked or comments made.
Our West Lancashire wanted to ask the officers who wrote the report
some questions at the subsequent scrutiny committee, but no relevant officer
attended the meeting. This pattern of
rapid decisions by cabinet followed by no chance for effective scrutiny is a
sustained pattern at the council. The first
three questions I asked at Overview and Scrutiny Committee this year received
the answer “We don’t know” from the officers present.
So, in Our West Lancashire we set about our own investigations. We discovered financial inconsistencies in
the reported financial position of the market.
The report to cabinet in June presented a financial position based on budgeted
figures for the current year, not the previous year’s actual figures. Expenditure is usually overestimated. In addition, the financial figures presented
to cabinet included costs for “pilots” involving gazebos that the council stated in the same report would end. If
that was the case, those costs should have been removed from the figures
presented to councillors.
We carried out a survey of market traders. It was clear that there had been no meaningful
consultation with the traders by the council and the council subsequently confirmed
to us that they have never asked the market traders if they are in favour of
the proposed changes. Our West
Lancashire asked and found that only 1 in 5 traders supported the changes.
An inclusive, self-learning organisation involves, consults and seeks
improvements from its employees. I will
be careful what I say here, but I can say that the council employees who put up
the market stalls were not involved in the proposed changes and their ideas
were not sought by their managers. Up
to sixteen of these staff face receiving redundancy notices in the coming weeks.
So, in the autumn, Our West Lancashire started raising concerns with council
officers and cabinet members. We raised
the profile of the matter through press releases and Facebook postings. Throughout, the council has deemed that it
does not need to comment on or justify its actions in any way. This is not the sign of a organisation confident in its rationale at the service of its population.
We asked for information on the financial inconsistencies. It was finally received only after repeated
requests and many weeks late.
Residents contacted Labour cabinet members asking for an explanation of
the changes to be made. Those residents
have not received substantive responses after several months.
We raised questions with the council’s health and safety manager. After two weeks he went away on holiday with
the questions unanswered.
I raised concerns with the portfolio holder, Councillor Yates in
November. He promised to keep me updated
about his discussions with officers.
Nothing.
I asked questions of the Council Leader, Councillor Moran in the council meeting in December. No answers.
I corresponded again with Councillor Yates at the beginning of January…
well you can guess the result.
There are aspects of the council’s plans for the market that make good
sense to me, but others raise real concerns.
It’s difficult for me to talk about all those in detail because the
report is private and confidential, but the council could easily release large parts
of it into the public domain without breaching commercial confidence.
If the council think that least said, soonest mended will continue to
stand them in good stead they are mistaken, they will pay a price. In the meantime, they could start to rebuild
some trust by fully answering the questions put to them and justifying the
decisions they have made.
