Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

In January 2021 PWC was commissioned by GMCA to carry out a review of Greater Manchester Police.

(1) Please disclose the final report
(2) Please disclose all previous drafts
(3) Please disclose all emails and communications, between Greater Manchester Police and the GMCA in relation to the content and publication of this report?
(4) Please disclose the data, including minutes and notes, of all meetings between GMP and GMCA in relation to the contents of this report

Yours faithfully,

Matt O'Donoghue

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

[1]GMCA logo
 
Dear Mr O'Donoghue
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Your request for information was received by us on 27 April 2021,
regarding 
In January 2021 PWC was commissioned by GMCA to carry out a review of
Greater Manchester Police.
(1) Please disclose the final report
(2) Please disclose all previous drafts
(3) Please disclose all emails and communications, between Greater
Manchester Police and the GMCA in relation to the content and publication
of this report?
(4) Please disclose the data, including minutes and notes, of all meetings
between GMP and GMCA in relation to the contents of this report

 
We are processing it in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000. 
 
We aim to respond as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days
(26 May 2021) following the date of receipt. If the timescale needs to be
extended you will be notified of this.
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or
all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an assessment
and if any exemptions apply to some or all of the information then we
might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if this is
the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal review and
to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
 
If you have any queries or concerns then please do not hesitate to contact
us, quoting your reference number.
 
Yours sincerely,
William Monaghan
Information Governance Officer
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

show quoted sections

References

Visible links

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

[1]GMCA logo
Dear Mr O'Donoghue
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your request received on 27 April 2021 concerning 
In January 2021 PWC was commissioned by GMCA to carry out a review of
Greater Manchester Police.
(1) Please disclose the final report
(2) Please disclose all previous drafts
(3) Please disclose all emails and communications, between Greater
Manchester Police and the GMCA in relation to the content and publication
of this report?
(4) Please disclose the data, including minutes and notes, of all meetings
between GMP and GMCA in relation to the contents of this report
 
We are now considering the request but we need more time to process it.
This is because we are currently considering a Public Interest Test
regarding the use of Section 36 - Prejudice to effective conduct of public
affairs. We will now try to respond to you by 24 June 2021.
 
 
​If you have any queries or concerns then please do not hesitate to
contact us, quoting your reference number: 2327808
If you are not satisfied with this response you may ask for an internal
review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of
the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be
addressed to:
 
foi.officer@ greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk
 
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
 
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
 
Yours sincerely,
William Monaghan
Information Governance Officer
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

show quoted sections

References

Visible links

Matt O'Donoghue

Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

This response was due back on May 26th and is now overdue.
You have failed to adhere to the statutory time limit for adequate response.
It is not appropriate that your reply seeks to extend the time limit with your prior notification of a potential objection.
The public has a right to know the outcome of the PWC Report and share its findings.
Further obfuscation on the release of the PWC Report will only serve to undermine the public's confidence in Greater Manchester Police.
As you have failed to respond as per your statutory obligation within the proscribed time limit, this really should be referred straight to the Information Commission as a breach.
As a gesture of goodwill and understanding and in pre-emption of your reliance upon the stated exemption, please respond by Wednesday June 2nd, or this will be referred to the Information Commissioner's Office as a formal complaint.

Kindest regards,

Matt O'Donoghue

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

1 Attachment

[1]GMCA logo
Dear Mr O'Donoghue
 
Thank you for your request for information received on 27 April 2021.
 
Please find attached our response to your request.
 
Yours sincerely,
William Monaghan
Information Governance Officer
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

show quoted sections

References

Visible links

Matt O'Donoghue

Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I would like to request an internal review of your decision to rely upon Section 36(2)(b)(i) and Section 36(2)(c) in your decision to refuse my request ref: 2327808 “PWSecrets”

It is my true and honest belief that your opinions are not reasonable.

You state:

“The PCC has recently appointed a new Chief Constable who has taken up his post this week. It is reasonable for him to be able to have full and frank advice and exchange of views with the PCC, Deputy PCC and officers on the content of the report. Publication would inhibit that process”.

1/ Please provide all the evidence and argument that lead to this opinion and be clear as to how the prejudice or inhibition may arise and would be likely to occur. It is unclear in your response how an elected official and his self-appointed deputy may be inhibited by the publication of this report.

2/ Public officials are expected to be impartial and robust when giving advice, and not easily deterred from expressing their views by the possibility of future disclosure. The threat of future disclosure could actually lead to better quality advice.

3/ To allow the continue the failure in transparency and public accountability that has lead Greater Manchester Police to the current magnitude of failure, will lead to a further hiding of fact and truth for no other reason than political expedience. It is the historic failure of statutory duty to hold the Chief Constable and his senior leadership team to account that has eroded public confidence in the current abilities of Greater Manchester Police to fight crime and protect the people they serve and destroyed moral within the rank and file.

4/ The purpose of the PWC Report, commissioned by the Mayor’s Office at a cost to the public purse of £240,000 was laid down in the decision notice and states:

“Provide an independent review of GMP’s VSA Strategy and Improvement Plan with a focus on establishing and testing the validity, scope and credibility of the actions and recommendations set out within it”.

The reasons for PWC receiving £240,000 of council tax payer’s money were:

“The Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime have asked for an independent review to assure them that the action plan being put in place will tackle these issues and lead to long-term behavioural change. A particular focus is on ensuring that actions taking place will provide a return on investment and that changes which are implemented will result in the long-term cultural change that the organisation requires”.

GMP’s Action was put in place following the devastating HMIC Report that, amongst other failures, highlighted an abject failure to respond to 80,000 reports from victims of crime. As this action plan has now been finalised and is in process, and PWC’s report has been concluded and delivered, the reasonableness of a generalised argument around the chilling effect on future discussions is weakened.

5/ Please could you provide all the evidence and argument given to the weight of this alleged chilling effect when carrying out the public interest test.

6/ The Information Commissioner’s Guidance states:

“Section 36(2)(c) is concerned with the effects of making the information public. However, it does not relate, for example, to the internal effect on the public authority of collating information that has been requested or of making decisions on redaction”.

7/ Please consider as part of this internal review, providing the data requested in a redacted format.

8/ Please could you provide all the evidence and argument, where you have reasoned that the disclosure would prejudice the public authority’s ability to offer an effective public service or to meet its wider objectives or purposes due to the disruption caused by the disclosure or the diversion of resources in managing the impact of disclosure”.

You also state:

“Publication is also likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs in that the Chief Constable and PCC would be required to deal with the publicity and media attention caused by publication rather than the substantive issues that are the subject of the report”.

9/ To effectively say: ‘I’m not releasing this further devastating and excoriating exposure of failure and coverup, because then everyone will know about it and the difficult media will ask awkward questions and hold us to account”, could further erode confidence in a system of supposed accountability that has already failed. It is also the newly appointed Chief’s job to deal with legitimate media inquiry and not to continue the failure to be open and accountable of his predecessor.

10/ Please could you provide all the evidence and argument as to why legitimate public scrutiny from the media, over concerns and potential failures to address the crisis within Greater Manchester Police, should be a reason for withholding release of the PWC Report.

This response therefore acts as a request for an internal review and provision of the evidence and argument as requested above.

Kindest regards,

Matt O’Donoghue

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

[1]GMCA logo
Dear Mr O'Donoghue
 
Thank you for your request for a review received on 21 June 2021. I am
sorry that you are dissatisfied with our attempts to handle your request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
I can confirm that we are considering your concerns and we will aim to
provide you with a response by 19 July 2021.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Amy Higginson
Senior Information Governance Officer
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

show quoted sections

References

Visible links

Matt O'Donoghue

Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

Thank you and I look forward with interest to understanding the reasoning behind this continued failure in transparency and public accountability.

One could conclude that continued obfuscation bolsters the appearance of a 'cover-up', orchestrated by the Mayor's Office, for reasons of self-serving advancement under the guise of proud public service.

Yours sincerely,

Matt O'Donoghue

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

1 Attachment

[1]GMCA logo
Dear Mr O'Donoghue,
 
Please find attached response to your internal review, sent on behalf of
GMCA's Monitoring Officer, Gwynne Williams.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Amy Higginson
Senior Information Governance Officer
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

show quoted sections

References

Visible links