Dear Will,

There is now widespread public concern that there has been deliberate use of the wrong dates by our planning department when they reported on their performance to central government (Office of Deputy Prime Minister).

I was briefed, as leader of the opposition in March last year but was given the impression that the wrong dates were used by mistake and that the ODPM had been informed of the mistake, that the practice had ceased immediately and that disciplinary action had been taken.

In the intervening months I made the political point that the Tory claims of a highly successful planning department were based on error and that we now knew that the planning performance was below government targets and that grant given as reward for good performance might have to be repaid, amounting to almost £300,000. I did not use any information about disciplinary matters.

Gradually, in a series of meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, it was reported that wrong dates had been used because of an error in the computer system; then that it was an error in entering data into the computer and finally that there had been an instruction to use the wrong dates.

But it was not until early this month that I learned that there had been an unambiguous intent to use the wrong dates deliberately to improve the performance figures reported to the ODPM. I learned this, early in February 2005, when I received an anonymous copy of the instruction that had been sent to staff by email on 6th February 2004. The final paragraph of the email reads as follows:

”DECISION DESPATCHED: This is a key date as it is what is used to measure performance by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This should be the date when the decision is put in the post tray. If that date is different to the DECISION MADE date but otherwise within the 8 or 13 week expiry period that’s fine. However, if the despatched date would take the case outside the 8 or 13 week period then the DECISION MADE date must be used. If this is not done then our 8 or 13 week performance figures will be adversely affected.”

Up until the point at which I received my anonymous copy of the email, I had not realised that there had been an email and that the email showed unambiguously that there was intent to improve the performance figures (the percentage of applications dealt with in 8 weeks, or 13 weeks for major developments) on which government grant is calculated.. I quoted the final paragraph at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and it has since been published in the Herald newspapers who had also received an anonymous copy.

There is clear evidence, too, of a cover-up: the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29th September 2004 state that:

”The Internal Audit Manager reported that, following allegations that there were inconsistencies in the planning performance statistics, an investigation had been conducted. A sample of planning decisions had been reviewed and inconsistencies in the data were found which could have had a detrimental impact on the amount of grant received by the Council. The problems were identified as being associated with the Acolaid computer system.

The Head of Planning Control reported that the problems had commenced following an upgrade to the Acolaid system in 2003. It had been established that information contained on the system could inadvertently be amended by subsequent operations.”

In other words, on 29th September 2004, Councillors were being led to believe that the false entries were made ”inadvertently” and that the problems were ”associated with the Acolaid computer system”. This was the view of the Internal Audit Manager in spite of the existence of the email which had been sent on 6th February 2004. The Internal Audit Manager reported that there had been no evidence of fraud in this case.

These facts lead to a number of questions:

1. When was the Internal Audit Manager first aware of the email and its content?

2. Now that he is aware of both, would he revise his conclusion that there had been no fraud?

3. Why did the Head of Planning Control lead members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to believe the problems were inadvertent and due to the computer system when he knew of the email and its content?

4. Did the then Leader of the Council, Mrs Cartwright, know of the email and its content, if so, when?

5. When did the present Leader of the Council learn of the email and its content?

6. When did the Cabinet member responsible, Patrick Burridge, learn of the email and its content?

It has been alleged, more recently, that the email simply confirmed what had been standard practice within the department for some years. The minutes of 29th September state that the problems started following an upgrade to the computer system in 2003 but that report cannot be trusted so:

7. When did the practice of using the wrong dates start?

It seems to me that a proper enquiry is essential. The obvious place is Overview and Scrutiny Committee but that has been made ineffective recently because it has divided on party lines, with acrimony. Unless the Committee starts to scrutinise properly, we should consider using an independent reviewer such as the Audit Commission.

Yours sincerely

Tony