Liverpool council failed to provide to Rotherham investigators any findings of an ‘investigation’ it said it had held into chief executive Ged Fitzgerald’s involvement in the town’s child sex exploitation scandal.
The report published today by lawyers acting for the South Yorkshire
authority said that “it had not been provided with any details of the
evidence considered or conclusions reached” by Liverpool’s probe.
Despite this comment – Liverpool Council insists it did communicate with the author’s of today’s Rotherham report.
While the Rotherham report authors said they did not want to “make
comment as to the adequacy or robustness of those processes or their
findings”, the ECHO can reveal that the ‘investigation’ carried out by
Liverpool council was in fact a meeting Mr Fitzgerald was invited to
attend on a voluntary basis, which took no evidence from anyone other
than him.
Mr Fitzgerald
was chief executive of Rotherham Council between 2001-2003 and today’s
report criticised him for “missing opportunities” to deal with grooming
in the town, although did not suggest disciplinary action against him.
In a Freedom of Information (FOI) response to questions from the
ECHO, the council stated that the “chief executive responded openly and
fully to all issues as part of a clear and transparent process”.
No-one but Mr Fitzgerald was asked to give any evidence.
Opposition leaders today questioned whether that process could
legitimately be called an investigation at all, and the council’s
response to the ECHO’s FOI request about the meeting makes no reference
to it being an “investigation”.
The Liverpool Council meeting was called in 2014 after Professor
Alexis Jay’s explosive report revealed that 1400 children had been the
victims of abuse and grooming in the town between 1997 and 2013.
A response by Liverpool council to a Freedom of Information request
from the ECHO stated that on September 17 2014, arrangements were made
for the chief executive to meet with Mayor Joe Anderson and opposition
group leaders to answer any questions they may have had.
Ged Fitzgerald
The meeting then took place on November 5 2014 and was entered into “voluntarily” by Mr Fitzgerald.
As well as the Mayor and group leaders at the time, there was an
independent chair present in Sir Howard Newby, who was vice chancellor
of the University of Liverpool at the time.
The council confirmed that aside from Sir Howard, there was no external body involved in the process.
The response stated: “The Chief Executive answered all questions
which were put to him by those present at the meeting and also those
questions put forward by other councillors who had availed themselves of
the opportunity to do so.”
The council response states that Mayor Anderson reported back to the
city council meeting on November 12 and stated that “the Chief executive
responded openly and fully to all issues as part of a clear and
transparent process.”
But Liverpool Lib Dem leader Richard Kemp – who refused to attend the
2014 meeting, criticised the council and Mayor Anderson for the manner
of the investigation.
He said: “Instead of trying to deal authoritatively with the evidence
he (Mayor Anderson) invited the Group Leaders to attend a private
meeting with Mr Fitzgerald at which questions could be asked. This
discussion appears to have been later referred to as an
‘investigation.’”
“The council has shown no indication it is remotely interested in holding the chief executive to account.”
He added: “The Council needs to address the issues of the Rotherham report.”
A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Following publication
of Professor Alexis Jay’s 2014 report into child sexual exploitation in
Rotherham, Mayor Anderson established an independent process chaired by
the then Vice Chancellor of Liverpool University, Sir Howard Newby,
where group leaders were invited to discuss the issues arising from the
reports directly with Ged Fitzgerald.
“In addition, all other members of the council were invited to ask questions of Mr. Fitzgerald.”
Files relating to a Home Office researcher’s attempts to investigate
street grooming of children in the town by gangs of paedophiles were
stolen from a locked council office – but no culprits can be identified,
investigators have concluded.
An investigation was ordered into the theft of files after evidence
about the incident was given to MPs by the researcher in 2014 in which
she said an unknown individual had gained access to her office in the
Risky Business youth project and removed all the data relating to her
work with the Home Office in 2002.
Her computer records were also “impaired” in the incident.
The report found: “There is a considerable amount of circumstantial
evidence to support an assertion that an incident occurred involving the
removal of files and/or impairment of computer records belonging to the
former researcher.
“On the basis of our investigation and taking into account the
circumstantial evidence available, our conclusion is that on the balance
of probability it is likely files were removed from the Risky Business
Office and computer records impaired.”
But the report added: “We have no information about who might have
been the culprit(s), if files were removed and/or computer records
impaired. We have found no evidence that would suggest any council
officers referred to in this report were involved in the alleged
incident.
“The work of Risky Business was gaining profile in 2002 and with what
is known now about the exploitation of children, there might well have
been strong motivation for individuals to prevent the information held
in Risky Business files from being reported to statutory agencies.”
The report said the allegation had been first raised in 2002 as part
of a grievance procedure but the grievance was withdrawn and the
allegation not followed up.
Council officers interviewed as part of the new investigation “denied any knowledge of the alleged incident”.
The report added: “The council missed an opportunity to confirm at
the time whether any removal of documents and/or impairment of computer
files had occurred or not. In view of the significance of the matter,
the council’s procedures should have led the council to look at the
matter outside of the grievance.
Not least, there should have been
recognition of the potential loss of data, reportable under the Data
Protection Act.”
