Watch more of our videos on Shots!
and live on Freeview channel 276

Shock findings of an annual audit revealed that in one case the wording of a recommendation was later changed by an official.

The report, presented to the council’s Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee, highlighted a range of issues including a lack of oversight over the implementation of whistleblowing recommendations, instructions not fully being followed and failure to retain evidence of changes being made.

Auditors concluded the current processes in place are “inadequate and/or not operating effectively”. They said the risks associated with their findings were “lack of clarity and understanding” of the roles and responsibilities of some council officers to act on whistleblowing recommendations, “limited assurance” that management actions resulting from disclosures are “fully implemented” and “inaccurate / incomplete reporting to committee and citizens on whistleblowing disclosures”.

Conservative councillor Phil Doggart said parts of the report “back up my concerns around light touch audits”. He said: “Could an executive director explain to me, given the value we attach to audit, why those processes were inadequate?”

The council’s chief executive Andrew Kerr said: “I’m not sure I can actually answer why they’re inadequate because I don’t think that’s the case consistently across the board.”

Cllr Doggart said the “most serious” inadequacy highlighted by the review was a case in which the wording of a recommendation made following an investigation was “changed by the service director responsible for completion of the recommendations”. The report said: “The officer revisions meant some context from the original recommendation was not tracked through to completion.”

Cllr Doggart asked: “Why did the service director believe it appropriate to change recommendations that had been made without seemingly notifying anyone else? It’s not as if whistleblowing is not attracting attention to this organisation. Whistleblowers have come forward, given up their anonymity, declared that they have no faith in the process, the process was under way when this report was presented to this committee last year. Why was it changed and what has happened in respect of that action?”

The audit report found multiple failings in the council's whistleblowing system. Picture: Neil Hanna.

Laura Calder, interim senior audit manager for the council, told the committee the staff member responsible for amending the wording was “no longer with the organisation”. She explained the audit team used “sample testing” to evaluate the effectiveness of internal processes and added: “It just so happened that this is one of the ones that we looked at.”

Cllr Doggart replied: “The sample testing has highlighted a number of flaws in a number of different areas.” He added incidents like the one mentioned in the report “happen all the time”. And he continued: “If the sample is throwing up this number of problems, how do we know that the whole process, as some whistle-blowers suggest, is not flawed?,” he said. In light of this evidence – and this is evidence – if someone blows the whistle today, what confidence do they have that the process will be followed correctly and that their whistleblowing will be dealt with in the right way?”

Responding to the question, head of legal and risk monitoring officer Nick Smith said staff should have “absolute confidence” their claims are investigated by Safecall, the council’s external whistleblowing service, officials and councillors. He said the council “makes sure we get to the bottom of whatever the truth is then come out with a report”.

Mr Smith added: “There are then recommendations often that are taken forward, that are brought back here and approved. We want to see that those recommendations are absolutely implemented, we have processes to make sure that we are following up directorates to make sure that happens.”

Edinburgh council's whistleblowing system 'inadequate' says audit report