This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Waveney District Council Whistleblowing'.

 
 
 
Our reference 
RM/BH 
1 June 2010 
Mr B Morton 
Direct line 
0844 798 8802 
Sent via email 
Email 
r-mauler@audit-
 
commission.gov.uk 
 
 
Dear Mr Morton 
Your information request 
Thank you for your letter in which you asked for a review of your recent Freedom of Information 
(FOI) request. 
I’ve now concluded my review, and have taken into account Shaun Kavanagh’s original decision 
and your thoughts on where the public interest stands. Following my review I have decided that 
we can release some information, but not all. 
Before I explain my reasoning, it may be helpful to set out the difference in the roles of the 
Commission and the appointed auditor in relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA).  
The Commission is a ‘prescribed person’ under PIDA, which means that local authorities can 
make disclosures to us. We, the Commission, log those disclosures and then pass the 
information to the appointed auditor for him to action under his statutory responsibilities, as set 
out in the Code of Audit Practice. The Code governs the way that auditors carry out the parts of 
their job that are covered by the Audit Commission Act 1998.  
Under the Code, appointed auditors act independently. They must make their professional 
judgements separately from the Commission and any Commission staff, and independently of 
the organisation being audited. This means that no-one, including the Chairman, Chief 
Executive or a Board member at the Audit Commission, can influence an appointed auditor's 
professional skill and judgement. 
Although our initial response dealt with your request as a whole,I have decided to deal with 
each part separately.  
 
 
 
 
 
Audit Commission, Westward House, Lime Kiln Close, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, BS34 8SR 
0844 798 6757  0844 798 4100  www.audit-commission.gov.uk 
 

 

In your request, you asked: 
What was the nature and substance of this whistle blowing disclosure? 
We originally declined to provide you with this information, and although there are real concerns 
about the sensitivity of PIDA disclosures, I feel that it would be in the public interest to provide 
an edited summary. 
The disclosure was about the tender process for formal contracts. 
Further information would be exempt under section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act. This 
is because releasing further information would, in our view, prejudice the functions of the 
Commission. We believe this for the same reasons that were set out in our original response.  
You asked: 
What was amended in the Annual Governance Statement as a result? 
In our previous response, we said that we didn’t hold this information and this is still the case. 
As I explained earlier in this letter, when carrying out work under their statutory power, auditors 
do so independently of the Commission. We do not hold any drafts. 
Auditors are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and so only information held by, or on 
behalf of, the Commission can be considered. 
You asked; 
What actions have you or any other bodies taken as a result of this disclosure (that you 
are aware of?) 

We, the Commission, logged and passed the disclosure to the auditor for his consideration.  It is 
my understanding that the auditor has considered the matter, but is yet to present his findings to 
the Council.  
You asked for; 
Any and all other information you have pertaining to the whistle blowing disclosure 
including (but not limited to) communication between yourselves and Waveney District 
Council, any internal discussion on the subject and any third-party discussions on the 
subject. 
 
We, the Commission, hold four pieces of correspondence about the disclosure. One is fully 
exempt under section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act for the same reasons that I have set 
out above. I have decided that we can release the other three, however these have been 
redacted under section 33 and section 40(3)(a)(i) as they contain personal information. To 
release such information would be likely to breach the fist data protection principal, namely that 
the disclosure would be unfair and unlawful. 
 
 


 

I hope that our reconsideration of the disclosure of the information satisfies your request. 
However if you remain unhappy, you can approach the Information Commissioner. Details of 
how to do this are contained in our leaflet Access to Information, Complaints and Appeals. 
Please click on the link below to access a copy. 
http://www.audit-
commission.gov.uk/legal/freedomofinformation/Pages/informationcomplaintsprocedure.aspx 
 
Yours sincerely 
Rob Mauler 
Public Enquiries Manager