How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

                                   

I went to Merseytravel’s headquarters to inspect various invoices and contracts. A Superlambanana costs £500 to repaint, but a penguin only costs £400 as you can see from the invoice below.

Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014

Below are invoices that I requested from the first month of expenditure in 2014/15 that had something blacked out on them.

First there’s a larger invoice for £1,241.08 from Bircham Dyson Bell. This is for a “claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House” and more specifically “To professional charges acting for you in the above claim for compensation in connection with advising you by Mr Charles Denton for the period from 21 December 2013 to 26 March 2014 for the Olympia Public House as set out in the attached breakdown. Actual fees £1,721.90 less £771.00 as per email dated 19th March 2014.”

Blacked out are the hourly rates charged. These are:

(Partner) 0.10 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £14.19
(Partner) 1.00 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £141.92
(Partner) 5.60 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £794.79

Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £1241.08 Claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House 28th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £1241.08 Claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House 28th March 2014

Next is a two page invoice from Hays for agency staff. Whereas Merseytravel have blacked out the name of the person whose services this invoice relates to on the front of the invoice, the name is clearly visible on the timesheet on the second page of this invoice (Melissa Waring). The timesheet also shows this is for 35 hours of work (a detail again blacked out on the front of the invoice) at a rate of £30.35 an hour + VAT.

Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014 timesheet

There are three further invoices from Hays from that month which are each for the services of Melissa Waring. However the timesheets on the back of those invoices aren’t included. Those invoices (including the second page where you’d expect the timesheets) are below.

Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accountant 3rd April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accountant 3rd April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accounant 3rd April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accounant 3rd April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014

Finally there is an invoice for £3,800 from DWF for the services of Martin Stafford seconded to Merseytravel at £200 a day. It was pretty pointless blacking out the daily rate of £200 a day on this invoice and leaving in “for 19 days work carried out from 3rd March 2014 to 31st March 2014” along with the amount of £3,800.

Merseytravel invoice DWF £4560.00 Martin Stafford secondment 31st March 2014
Merseytravel invoice DWF £4560.00 Martin Stafford secondment 31st March 2014

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Government consults on introducing £100 (papers) and £500 (hearing) fees for appeals to ICO decision notices

Government consults on introducing £100 (papers) and £500 (hearing) fees for appeals to ICO decision notices

Government consults on introducing £100 (papers) and £500 (hearing) fees for appeals to ICO decision notices

                                                 

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Four days ago the Ministry of Justice started consulting on increasing fees for various civil courts and tribunals. The consultation closes on the 15th September 2015.

This is what one of their consultation documents states:

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
124. The General Regulatory Chamber hears a wide range of appeals on regulatory matters, for example charities, consumer credit, transport and appeals from decisions of the Information Commissioner. We do not currently charge fees for proceedings in this chamber, with the exception of appeals in relation to gambling licences. In these cases, the fee charged is based on the value of the licences that are in dispute. We are not proposing to change the fees for these proceedings.

125. In 2013–14 the estimated cost of the General Regulatory Chamber (including Gambling) was £1.6m. The fee income generated from Gambling proceedings (the only fee charging tribunal within the General Regulatory Chamber) was £11,600.

126. In the remaining jurisdictions within the General Regulatory Chamber, we have proposed one fee for an appeal decision on the papers and one fee for an oral hearing. Our proposal is to charge a fee of £100 to issue proceedings, which would entitle the claimant to a decision based on a review of the papers. The claimant may alternatively elect for an oral hearing, in which case a further fee of £500 would be payable. Based on current volumes, we estimate that this proposal would generate a cost recovery percentage of around 17% after remissions.

127. The fees will also apply to “reference” cases where cases are started in the first-tier Tribunal but have to be referred directly to the Upper Tribunal for a first instance hearing.

Questions
Question 14: Do you agree with the proposed fees for all proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber: specifically £100 to start proceedings with a determination on the papers; and a further fee of £500 for a hearing? Please give reasons.

Question 15: Are there any proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber that should be exempt from fees? Please give reasons.

I’d better explain a bit better what the above is about by explaining the process to making a FOI request.

You make a Freedom of Information Act request to a public body and if is turned down (whether in part or in full) you can ask the same public body for an internal review.

If at the internal review there is still information withheld and you feel that they shouldn’t have withheld the information you can appeal the internal review decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The Information Commissioner’s Office then look into the matter (which can take months as ICO have a backlog of cases) and issue a decision notice (sometimes even if the public body changes their mind and releases the information requested during this time). You can see an example of a decision notice ICO issued for a request I made to Wirral Council on ICO’s website here.

If either the public body or the person making the FOI request disagree with the decision notice, they have 28 days to appeal the decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber.

Appeals can then be made of decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) on a point of law only to the Upper Tribunal.

The consultation is proposing that if someone (whether the public body or the person making the request) wishes to challenge an ICO decision notice by appealing it to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) that there will be a charge of £100 if the decision is made on the papers and £500 if a hearing is required.

The Panopticon blog has also written about this consultation (far more eloquently and in a more entertaining way than I could manage) in a piece headlined Circle the Wagons: They are Coming for the Information Tribunal.

So what do readers think about this proposed change? Most of the appeals to ICO decision notices to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) are by litigants in person, who unless they fall into one of the categories of people who don’t have to pay fees a fee of £100 or £500 may make them think twice before appealing a decision.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?

Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?

Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?

                                                           

This year I went to the offices of Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (previously called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) where I inspected various invoices and contracts that relate to the 2014/15 financial year.

Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority deal with the rubbish collected by each council on Merseyside, provide thirteen Household Waste Recycling Centres (the ones on the Wirral are the Bidston Household Waste Recycling Centre in Wallasey Bridge Road, Clatterbridge Household Waste Recycling Centre in Mount Road and West Kirby Household Waste Recycling Centre in Greenbank Road) and are also responsible for closed landfill sites such as the one at Bidston Moss.

Their 2014/15 budget was £68.6 million which comes from a levy on each on the Merseyside councils which each have to pay based on a tonnage basis. Councillor Irene Williams (Labour) and Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative) represent Wirral Council on the Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority.

In 2005 after a tender exercise MRWA (then called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) appointed Daniel Harris Associates for “the provision of public relations and communications services for Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority”. DH Communications Limited (also known as Daniel Harris Associates or DHA) won the tender exercise with a bid of £650 per a day (see letter below).

Letter to Daniel Harris Associates from Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority confirming they have won tender for PR contract 13th December 2005
Letter to Daniel Harris Associates from Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority confirming they have won tender for PR contract 13th December 2005

The tender that DHA won was for a three-year contract from 1st November 2005 to the 1st November 2008. DHA were paid £25,200 a year for 3 and a half days work each month. However at some point in 2009 Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority realised that “The contract with DHA was not reviewed in line with its prescribed timetable resulting in the continuation of the contract beyond the specified term.” (see pages below).

Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 1 of 2
Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 1 of 2
Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 2 of 2
Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 2 of 2

Carl Beer is Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority’s Chief Executive. The contract was retrospectively extended from the 1st November 2008 to 1st November 2009 and an extra 12 months was added which extended the contract to 2010.

In 2014 there were a number of emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in relation to how DHA would be charging Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in future.

Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority were at this stage paying DHA a £1,625 monthly retainer. However DHA wrote in an email that they felt “the authority has not always maximised the value of the fee it pays to us: i.e. it has made minimal call on our services”. They set out a number of options:

Option One

DHA estimated that over the last two to three years that the average cost of the work Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority had asked them to do was £990 + VAT a month (whilst they were being paid a £1,625 monthly retainer). Option one would keep the monthly retainer but reduce it to £990 + VAT instead.

Option Two

DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority on a project basis at £600 + VAT a day.

Option Three

DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority a monthly retainer of £600 + VAT a month, but if they needed more work from DHA then they would be charged £600 a day.

Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority decided to go for option 2 (from April 2015). The emails that go into the detail of these negotiations are below.

Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 1 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 1 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 2 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 2 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 3 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 3 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 4 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 4 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 5 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 5 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 6 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 6 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 7 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 7 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 8 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 8 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 9 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 9 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 10 of 10
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 10 of 10

Below are a number of the invoices submitted to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority during the 2014/15 financial year.

DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 1
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 1
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 2
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 2
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 3
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 3
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 4
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 4
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 5
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 5
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 6
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 6
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 7
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 7
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 8
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 8

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

                                                            

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3

Above are three photos of Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton taken on the 29th June 2015. Over the busier summer holidays this car park will be full.

Future Council Wirral logo
Future Council Wirral logo

As part of the Future Council consultation last year Wirral Council consulted the public on £2.5 million of budget cuts. In the end only £2.4 million of cuts were agreed because of savings that resulted from the extended Biffa contract.

One of the budget options as part of the Future Council consultation was to introduce car parking charges at the Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton. Councillors were told that this would bring in an estimated £25,000 in 2015/16 and £10,000 in 2016/17. A public document (that wasn’t part of the documents shared with the public as part of the Future Council consultation) estimated that the cost of providing cash payment ticket machines would be £20,000 (see section 6.2 page 9).

Last year as part of that budget consultation, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on the 4th November 2014 where councillors discussed the budget option for charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park.

You can watch that discussion in the Youtube video below which should start at the point about the Fort Perch Rock car park.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The minutes of what was agreed at the public meeting of the 4th November 2014 are included in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting that decided on the budget options.

At that meeting Cllr Jerry Williams (Wirral Council’s Heritage Champion and a Labour councillor) tried to move a recommendation that the budget option of charging at Fort Perch Rock car park be removed from the budget options. However the solicitor advising the Committee said that it couldn’t be removed, so instead it was watered down to a recommendation to Cabinet that the budget option wasn’t adopted. The recommendation was seconded by Cllr Robert Gregson (also a Labour councillor representing New Brighton ward). This is what the recommendation stated:

“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”

                                                            
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Anita Leech (Labour), Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour), Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour), Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour), Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative), Cllr John Hale (Conservative), Cllr Jerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) voted in favour of the recommendation.

Two councillors voted against that recommendation (Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem) and Cllr Mike Sullivan (Chair, Labour)).

On the 9th December 2014 Cabinet (which is ten Labour councillors including one for New Brighton Cllr Pat Hackett) met. They didn’t agree with the recommendation from the Policy and Performance Committee and instead voted to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton. The minutes of that meeting state “We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.” .

This Cabinet budget proposal then formed the Cabinet’s proposal for Labour’s budget to the 2015/16 budget meeting of all councillors held on the 24th February 2015.

All the Labour councillors on the 24th February 2015 present at that meeting (including those who had three months earlier voted for a recommendation to Cabinet not to start charging for parking at Fort Perch Rock) voted for the Labour budget apart from Cllr Steve Foulkes (who was Mayor and Mayor’s traditionally abstain from votes on party political matters). You can see which way each councillor voted on the Labour’s budget here.

On December 22nd 2014 I wrote When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces? which details how if car parking charges are brought in at Fort Perch Rock car park then under the terms of the lease that Wirral Council has for the Marine Point development at New Brighton, that charges could be introduced at two free car parks (the supermarket car park and the health & fitness car park).

Earlier this year Wirral Council had a formal consultation on introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park. You can see the public notice (which has more detail as to how much they could charge for parking) for that consultation below. That consultation ended on the 3rd July 2015.

Fort Perch Rock car park public notice
Fort Perch Rock car park public notice

There is a large petition against introducing charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton which at the time of writing has 3,395 signatures.

So what happens next? In September there will be a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider objections people have made to introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.

The Chair of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel is Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative). Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) are the rest of the panel. This panel meets during the day and if any of the three councillors can’t make it to the meeting they can send a deputy in their place.

When the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in September, it will make a recommendation on whether to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park to the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee meet in public on the 15th September 2015 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee can alter any recommendation they receive from the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee then make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation Cllr Stuart Whittingham who then makes a formal decision on the matter which is published on Wirral Council’s website.

Such a large petition also grants the petition organiser for five minutes to explain their petition at a meeting of all councillors, which then triggers a debate of a maximum of fifteen minutes. However as the next meeting of Council is on the 12th October 2015 (probably after all this will be decided) this is a moot point.

Finally, what’s known now, but wasn’t known last year, is that Wirral Council had an underspend last year of £510,000 last year (which is money that is carried over to this year).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What are the changes next year to the public's right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

                                             

Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2
Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2

Above is one of the documents I requested under the 2013/14 audit last year, which is a page of a lease that Wirral Council have with Neptune that states that if Wirral Council introduce car parking in the Fort Perch Rock car park, then charges can be introduced in the free car parks part of the Marine Point development.

Each year for the past few years I have exercised a right you get to exercise only for three weeks each year, which is a right under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to inspect documents relating to the previous financial year (2014/15) during the audit.

This has in years gone past has been the only way to see such financial information and to give one example of a story that resulted in many interesting stories on this blog (ranging from councillor’s expenses and taxis to an unsigned contract for a million pounds worth of work).

This year I have exercised my s.15 right not just with Wirral Council, but with Liverpool City Council, Merseytravel, the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority.

A couple of weeks before the three-week period when the public can inspect these documents each of these bodies has to publish a public notice in a newspaper that circulates in the area covered by that body. The regulations also require each body to publish this notice on their website. Wirral Council’s notice can be found on their website here.

To save myself trekking off to Birkenhead Central library and spending an afternoon going through back issues of the local newspapers trying to find the public notices, I found this website that has a searchable database of all public notices published by the Trinity Mirror group.

All of the notices (apart from the Merseytravel one) had a name of someone at that public body who I wrote to (whether by letter or by email). In the case of Merseytravel I wrote to the Chief Executive, who passed my request on to the person at Merseytravel dealing with it.

So far the responses have been as follows:

Merseytravel – dates of Monday 27th July 2015/Tuesday 28th July 2015 agreed to come in and inspect the documents. They have a “paperless office”, but will be printing off copies of the invoices/contracts I requested so their legal department can redact parts of them.

Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority – dates of Friday 24th July and Wednesday 29th July 2015 have been agreed to come in and inspect documents.

Liverpool City Council – email sent yesterday, no reply received yet

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority – email sent and acknowledged on the 15th July 2015, no further reply received since

Wirral Council – email sent with request for contracts & councillor expenses on 19th July 2015, reply received yesterday, list of invoices sent this morning, no reply received yet or date/s arranged

Next year, any right of access to invoices and contracts will be under the new section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

The main differences will be next year that a new ground of refusing a request on grounds of “commercial confidentiality” has been added in to the legislation unless there is an “overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure”.

This puts on a statutory footing the Veolia case, see [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 if you’re curious about what I mean.

The new section 26 also means that determinations about what is “personal information” on documents (therefore not open to inspection) will in future be made by the public body themselves and not the situation at present of the public body having to get agreement from their external auditor to this. It does make it crystal clear that the names of sole traders on invoices is not covered by the definition of “personal information” and defines “personal information” as “identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified”. The restriction on information about the public body’s staff remains in section 26 next year.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.