Claims of 'culture of silence' over senior staff departures and finances in Cumberland
A Conservative chairman has called for more transparency over exit costs and finances
Concerns have been raised over senior staff departures and Cumberland Council’s finances amid a claimed ‘culture of silence’.
Chris Whiteside, the chairman of Whitehaven & Workington Conservatives, made the claims following the departure of the former senior director of children and family wellbeing, Martin Birch.
He was critical of the council’s Labour administration for fostering the ‘culture of silence’ and he added: “Labour needs to come clean and provide more transparency about the circumstances of the departure of Martin Birch.
“This came against the backdrop of serious concerns over the authority’s finances and its record of costly staff departures.
“The way Cumberland Council is going it will have to adopt Haydn’s Farewell Symphony as a signature tune – and these departures have not been cheap for the taxpayer, with the cost of over £2million including nearly £600k exit fees for a single staff member.”
Mr Birch’s departure came just months after he raised concerns about the council’s children’s services budget and Mr Whiteside claimed those concerns were sufficiently serious that the council subsequently allocated an extra £2million to address pressures within children’s services.
Cumberland Council’s published accounts show that it incurred £2.16million in exit packages in 2024/25 with one individual package costing £596,328.
Meanwhile the council has required exceptional support from the Government, with independent reviewers identifying a £25.6million budget gap for 2027/28.
Mr Whiteside, who is also a former chairman of the Conservative Party in the north-west of England and was the last deputy leader of the Conservative group on the former Cumbria County Council added: “It is time to end the culture of silence and for the council to be more transparent and accountable about its finances and about how the council is being run.
“The people of Cumberland are entitled to know how public money, our money, is being spent. That does not just include the cost of exit packages for departing officers, the public are entitled to know about the concerns raised by auditors, who identified pervasive and material issues with the management of the council.”
He said he recently submitted a Freedom of Information request asking a number of questions about the council’s finances and governance. He added: “I asked for clarification of the auditors’ words about ‘pervasive and material’ issues.
“The public are entitled to an explanation of what the auditors said. The council’s initial response suggested, wrongly, that they did not have to answer because I was supposedly asking them to ‘create new information’.”
He said that was not the case and he just wanted the public to know what the auditors had said. He added: “I have resubmitted the FOI request to make this absolutely clear.
“I also asked a straightforward question, whether the council could give an assurance that there is no danger that they will have to issue a Section 114 notice – the local government equivalent of declaring bankruptcy. The council declined to answer on the same grounds.
“You do not get good local government by giving the public the mushroom treatment. Local residents and taxpayers deserve answers, not a wall of silence.”
According to the council the auditors used the phrase ‘material and pervasive’ in their disclaimer of opinion and according to the council’s statutory notices, the draft accounts were published late partly because of the work needed to clear four years of unpublished accounts inherited from the legacy authorities.
This meant that the auditors were unable to obtain sufficient evidence by the national backstop date to provide an opinion and the wording describes the potential effect of matters on which the auditors were unable to obtain sufficient evidence, and it was not a finding that the accounts were wrong.
Currently the council does not meet the threshold where a Section 114 notice is required but it does not mean there is no financial risk – the risk register, which is published through the audit committee, identifies financial sustainability as a significant risk but the risk is being managed by the council.
A council spokesman said: “Our accounts, budget papers and independent CIPFA reviews of our finances are all published in full and scrutinised by elected members. CIPFA’s latest review found a high level of confidence that we can balance our 2027/28 budget without further government support.
“Exit costs are published every year in our statement of accounts. The 2024/25 figure covers 46 departures, in a year when we were bringing four councils together.
“Many formed part of our long-term savings plans that will reduce our staffing costs in the coming years. All exit payments are based on statutory regulations, council policies and contractual obligations.”