Category: Transformation and Resources

Cllr Ann McLachlan “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”

Cllr Ann McLachlan “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”

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.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet discuss freedom of information (19th June 2014) starts at 2:29 in the video above


Wirral Council’s Cabinet discuss the Freedom of Information Scrutiny Review (19th June 2014) L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Chris Jones, Shirley Hudspeth, Surjit Tour, Cllr Phil Davies, Graham Burgess

Cllr Ann McLachlan “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”

                         

Wirral Council’s Cabinet discussed the Freedom of Information Scrutiny report, the Cabinet report, report and final report of the scrutiny panel can be viewed on Wirral Council’s website. The reason for it being on Cabinet’s agenda is that it was referred to Cabinet by the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on the 14th April. I wrote a transcript of what was said then back on the 17th April so I’ll be following the same format here.

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES (Chair)
Right, which takes us on to item 16 in the governance, commissioning and improvement. It’s the freedom of information scrutiny review. This was a piece of work done under the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee. I’m delighted that Councillor Sykes, you’ve come along tonight to Cabinet and it’s really good that we’re giving you kind of an opportunity just to make to talk to the recommendations. OK, thank you.

COUNCILLOR ADAM SYKES
Chair, I’ll keep things brief because everyone eager to get home.

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES
What’s happening tonight?

COUNCILLOR ADAM SYKES
Apparently there’s some football. During the last municipal year, the Transformation and Resources Committee carried out a scrutiny review to look into the FOI performance of the Council. As we began the review, the Council already began taking steps to improve FOI response times after the Information Commissioner had investigated and asked us to make some improvements and I’d like you to know obviously that you know that improvement came, response times to over 85% now within the guidelines which has improved since this report was done.

Eight recommendations came out of the report which are detailed in the report so I won’t go through each individually but I’ll take any questions should people ask them. They basically covered a couple of areas, firstly having designated people who are responsible for FOI throughout the Council rather than the current situation which is different across the Council depending on departments which answer your question.

Also to produce a more consistent and robust process throughout the Council as to how the FOI request is tracked and how it proceeds to make sure things run on track and things move forward in a quick fashion. Finally, to also improve the monitoring for carrying out both the scrutiny duty in the, in the… finally note the improvement in that and also by councillors as well, a strategic review that the Council’s put in place. That’s the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group. So I’m happy to take any questions.

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES
Thanks for that Adam, I’m going to ask our Cabinet Member who this item comes under Councillor Ann McLachlan just to respond to this report, Ann over to you.

COUNCILLOR ANN MCLACHLAN (Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement)
Yes thank you, well, Chair I’d like to start by congratulating Adam and Councillor Whittingham I believe and it’s Councillor Muspratt who formed this scrutiny review for Council and undertook what is an excellent piece of task and finish work really helping us to refine and you know be more efficient in dealing with a particular problem area and certainly it’s an excellent piece of work and I’d really like to congratulate you but as you’ve pointed out Adam there are eight recommendations which flow from your, from your review and as a result of that now in conjunction with Surjit [Tour], Head of the Legal Service I’ve now worked on an action plan to address those eight recommendations.

Just briefly I’d like to talk about that Chair and what those actions will be, but suffice to say that those actions will be implemented between now and December and we will have further reports to Cabinet and certainly to Council on those and they will include the nomination of champions. So a single point of contact for FOIs within departments and I understand the strategic directors and heads of service will be identified in nominating champions and that action will be done fairly soon.

There are a number of actions that are going to relate to our CRM which is our customer relationship management software system and we’re going to look at that in particular in a number of areas. One is how can we do better recording and monitoring to shorten the timescales when we receive FOI requests and also a solution possibly to look at how we capture all the information about an FOI before it’s actually disseminated so we’ve got it all in one place and a further piece of work is going to be undertaken with our software also to look at whether it’s actually fit for purpose to deal with some of these issues and if it is identified that we actually need a new kind of piece of software then we’re going to ask for a business case to be brought forward to show that we demonstrate that that’s going to you know have some good outcomes for us.

Also in terms of one of the recommendations that you made was you know at what level in an organisation are the FOIs dealt with. From the FOI reporting is now going to be escalated to the Chief Executive and his Strategy Group but also and I think quite importantly to go to the policy and performance committees into our new performance management framework now. So you can actually have much more oversight in terms of scrutiny of this area.

Another piece of work is going to be undertaken to identify all the new trends and themes really, so we can categorise FOIs. You know that the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people who request them but are some of those on particular trends and themes, when we could create something on our website which would be like frequently asked questions so that information is there it’s readily accessible.

What we want to do is make sure that we’re as open and transparent as we possibly can be in order that we can lessen the number of FOI requests that need to put through the Council. Another piece of work that we’ll be undertaking with our marketing team to look at how is information structured and accessed on our website in other words how accessible is information? If you come onto the Council’s website and you’re trying to find something out, how easy is it? So we’re going to ask the department to kind of market test queries and see whether we need to do some work there but I think all in all what this piece of, this exercise has demonstrated is that members [councillors] working together have come up with shared solutions that are going to help us to deal with this in a more effective way.

It is going to involve some of internal systems, some of our ICT but again I’d like to thank you and I’d also like to thank Surjit [Tour] and his team and those people that are going to undertake the workload going forward and I’ll be looking forward Chair to reporting to the Cabinet and Council on what I hope will be you know will be a more successful story going forward in terms of the numbers of requests that we’re receiving. OK, thank you.

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES
OK, thanks Ann, well can I suggest we agree kind of Ann’s sort of plan for taking this work forward and that means, I’d just like to reiterate I think it’s been a really excellent piece of work by the scrutiny team so well done Adam to you and your colleagues and thanks for coming along tonight to take us through it. OK, thanks very much. OK

COUNCILLOR ADAM SYKES
OK, I’d just thank the Cabinet Member and the officers for their response in a positive way in moving this forward and I’m grateful for the recommendations.

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES
OK, thanks very much. OK, so we’ll agree that as a way forward. Is that agreed Cabinet?

CABINET
Agreed

COUNCILLOR PHIL DAVIES
Thank you.

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

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

                                    

On Thursday I wrote about the Transformation and Resource’s Policy and Performance Committee’s Scrutiny Review on Freedom of Information.

Scrutiny reviews are not held in public. It could be argued that scrutiny review panels are subcommittees of their parent committee, therefore as a subcommittee they should meet in public. Although Wirral Council’s constitution states that citizens have the right to “participate in the Council’s question time and contribute to investigations by the Policy and Performance committees”, this scrutiny review was just officers and councillors meeting behind closed doors and there is no mention of anyone else being involved such as councillors actually talking to people who make Freedom of Information requests to Wirral Council.

Councillors seem to just be relying on information from Wirral Council employees (which then appears in their final report. The report mentions the monitoring action undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office between January and March of 2013 and July to September of the same year.

The way things are written in the report are a little misleading too, for example “The scrutiny review was conducted to ensure Wirral Council is moving in the right direction to manage Freedom of Information in compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Office.” Wirral Council have legal requirements to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, whereas this sentence implies that Wirral Council just have to persuade the Information Commissioner’s Office that they’re improving and everything will be OK.

Recommendation one renames what used to be called the Freedom of Information departmental leads as “Freedom of Information Champions”. It also means that each champion will have a deputy and receive training and hopes this will be done by December 2014. Maybe the training is to try to speed up requests by the “Freedom of Information Champions” not having to ask Wirral Council’s legal department so much whether exemptions apply. However with so many exemptions and existing cases which determine the interpretation of how these exemptions should be applied (as well as guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to how exemptions should be applied) I still think that “Freedom of Information Champions” will be asking Wirral Council’s legal department for advice in the future.

Recommendation two (Freedom of Information Champions access to the customer relationship management software) should also include their deputies too if it’s going to be effective. If a request is made to Streetscene by email then an automatic email is sent out allocating a case number. I really don’t understand why this couldn’t be the case with Freedom of Information requests made via email and why they have to be entered manually which leads into recommendation three. If this is already being done for Streetscene requests why does they need a “technical solution identified” and “proper business case developed”? I have no problem with Wirral Council using case management software for freedom of information requests as it would save staff time.

Recommendation four refers to Freedom of Information performance information supplied to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group. Rather ironically Surjit Tour deems minutes of the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group to be exempt from Freedom of Information requests under s.36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) yet the scrutiny review “identified specific improvements to the performance information presented to” “the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group”.

Recommendation five states that the percentage of Freedom of Information requests responded to within twenty days (broken down at department and directorate level too) should be included in the information going to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.

Recommendation six is interesting as it suggests “identifying emerging themes and trends” of all Freedom of Information requests received by Wirral Council and publishing this information as well as including it in the Council’s publication scheme. It refers to other bodies publishing Freedom of Information requests. Wirral Council could go further than this and publish (with the requester’s details removed) its responses to Freedom of Information requests. This forms part of recommendation seven (but only for commonly asked requests). Problems with the search function on Wirral Council’s website leading to Freedom of Information requests for information that is already published is referred to. Recommendation eight recommends that the search function should be improved.

This particular paragraph in the report (page eleven) states what was known already, that Wirral Council involves its press department over some Freedom of Information requests.

“The Panel was interested in how departments dealt with disclosing information that could be deemed sensitive or damaging. Officers explained that if any exemptions to information being disclosed were to be applied, as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, these could be made by departments. Advice from either the Information and Central Services Manager or the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is available if required. The Council has a legal duty to disclose information and reputational damage does not enter into the equation. There is a quality assurance process by Legal and Member Services and, where appropriate, Press and Public Relations.”

However the following areas of Freedom of Information requests are either only referred to briefly or not at all. The only reference to internal reviews is “The hours and respective costs for Legal Services also includes: The additional time and resources expended by solicitors dealing with internal reviews”. No mention is made over the fact that there have been freedom of information requests made to Wirral Council where the requester has submitted an internal review request and even years later has not received a response! Although the Information Commissioner’s Office suggests (if memory serves me correctly) a maximum time of forty days for internal reviews, there is no specific time limit for internal reviews specified in the legislation and in the past Wirral Council has taken full advantage of it by effectively ignoring internal review requests for requests it doesn’t wish to be answered or appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Once Wirral Council has completed an internal review, the requester can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The past four years have seen the Information Commissioner’s Office issue thirty nine decision notices about Freedom of Information requests made to Wirral Council. Most appeals are upheld. Here’s a brief summary of each decision notice.

Decision notice FS50141012 3/3/08 Wirral Council claimed a s.43 (commercial interests) exemption, then a s.22 (information intended for future publication) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with both (complaint upheld).

Decision notice FS50234468 18/5/10 Wirral Council claimed a s.14 (vexatious) exemption. The Information Commissioner considered that Wirral Council should’ve considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and therefore breached Regulation 14(3) by not providing an adequate refusal notice.

Decision notice FER0262449 22/11/10 The Information Commissioner’s Office found Wirral Council had failed to comply with regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 6(1).

Decision notice FS50398901 21/11/11 Wirral Council claimed a s.12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) exemption. The information was later supplied to the requester after the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved. The Information Commissioner’s Office said that Wirral Council breached s. 10 by not supplying the information within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50414910 15/11/11 Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414911 15/11/11 Once again Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414915 15/11/11 Wirral Council didn’t provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414916 15/11/11 A response to a request was not provided by Wirral Council within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50406724 15/2/12 Wirral Council claimed a s. 40 (personal information) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed that a s.40 exemption applied and required Wirral Council to provide the information to the requester.

Decision notice FER0422498 8/5/12 Wirral Council claimed they didn’t have to release the information because of exemptions under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(b). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that this applied to some of the information, but decided that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions claimed under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) and therefore required Wirral Council to release some of the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0117 was allowed.

Decision notice FS50416628 13/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. It required Wirral Council to disclose the information and reminded Wirral Council of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).

Decision notice FS50428877 30/8/12 Wirral Council relied on a s.36(2)(b)(i) and s.36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council also claimed an exemption under s.40 (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that some information would fall under a s.40 exemption, however disagreed that either a s.36 or s.40 exemption applied to the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to supply the information it didn’t agree was covered by the s.40 exemption.

Decision notice FS50435531 16/8/12 The requester made various requests to Wirral Council to which it failed to respond to within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440547 16/8/12 Various requests were made that were not answered by Wirral Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that this breached s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to answer the requests.

Decision notice FS50440548 16/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to answer the requests made by the requester as they had not done so within the twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50440553 16/8/12 Wirral Council failed to respond to various requests within the twenty day time limit. The Information Commissioner’s Office saw this as a breach of s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440555 14/8/12 Wirral Council stated it didn’t hold the information requested. During the course of the investigation Wirral Council provided the requester with the names of staff requested. However as this information was recalled from memory it fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s view that it did not hold the information requested.

Decision notice FS50445302 10/10/12 Wirral Council did not provide a response to the Freedom of Information Act request or a refusal notice. The Information Commissioner’s Office required it to either respond to the request or provide a refusal notice to the requester.

Decision notice FS50430602 22/11/12 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Information Commissioner’s decision was that on the balance of probabilities it did not.

Decision notice FS50438500 29/11/12 Wirral Council refused a request claiming a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied. It later disclosed information on the severance payments to two individuals. The Information Commissioner agreed with Wirral Council that a s.40 exemption applied, however ruled that Wirral Council had breached 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act by taking longer than twenty days to respond and a further breach of 10(1) by taking longer than twenty days to disclose the information on severance payments. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0264 was dismissed.

Decision notice FS50468400 30/4/13 Wirral Council relied on a s.40 (personal data) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved, Wirral Council stated that the information was publicly available. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a), s.1(1)(b) and s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and upheld the complaint.

Decision notice FS50468862 23/5/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50470254 4/6/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with Wirral Council’s interpretation that a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied to information which contained names of its employees. It found that Wirral Council was in breach of s.10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to release the information requested by the requester that it didn’t agree that the s.40 exemption applied to.

Decision notice FER0488228 5/8/13 The requester requested an independent viability assessment report in relation to a planning application for a site on Ingleborough Road, Birkenhead. Wirral Council released some information from the report but relied on an exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e) in the Environmental Information Regulations over the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s application of the exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e), but ruled that Wirral Council had breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4).

Decision notice FS50475685 15/8/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption under s.40 (personal data). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s use of the exemption but ruled that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50485049 8/8/13 The Commissioner’s decision was that, on the balance of probabilities, Wirral Borough Council did not hold the requested information so the complaint was not upheld.

Decision notice FS50482286 9/9/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.32 (court records, etc) and s.40 (personal information). Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council decided not to rely on s.32 (court records, etc) and released the document with the names redacted. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50512385 26/9/13 The Information Commissioner found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response and required Wirral Council to provide a response.

Decision notice FS50474741 3/10/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation Wirral Council dropped its reliance on s.42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decided that Wirral was not entitled to rely on section 41 in relation to some of the information, as it was not provided by another party and had not provided sufficient justification for the application of section 41 to the remainder of the information. It required Wirral Council to disclose the requested information.

Decision notice FS50478733 30/10/13 In response to a request Wirral Council linked to some information in the public domain but claimed a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied to the rest. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it released a further three documents to the complainant. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) as its response to the complainant had taken longer than twenty days.

Decision notice FS50491264 8/10/13 Wirral Council relied on s.14 (vexatious or repeated requests) to refuse a request. The Information Commissioner disagreed that a s.14 exemption applied to the requested information and that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response without relying on a s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) exemption.

Decision notice FS50496446 17/10/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50501894 18/12/13 Wirral Council refused a request using a s.40 exemption (personal information). The Information Commissioner decided that s.40 wasn’t engaged and therefore couldn’t be used to withhold the information. It ruled that Wirral Council issued a refusal notice outside of the twenty days breaching s.17(1). It required Wirral Council to provide the information.

Decision notice FS50489913 13/1/14 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold information in response to a request. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council is likely to hold relevant information so had therefore breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. Wirral Council was required to issue a fresh response to the complainant.

Decision notice FS50496910 15/1/14 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption in s.40 (personal information). During the Commissioner’s investigation, Wirral Council provided some of the information requested. The Commissioner agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption to the rest of the information but that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing the information it did provide within twenty days of the original request.

Case FS50506771 11/2/14 Wirral Council refused a request stating that a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had issued a refusal notice outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Case FS50506844 11/2/14 Wirral Council stated that information requested was not held. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had provided a response outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Decision notice FS50502536 19/3/14 Wirral Council claimed that in response to a request that exemptions under s.40 (personal information) and s. 42 (legal professional privilege) applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption, however as its response was outside the twenty day limit ruled it had breached s.10(1).

Decision notice FS50506802 26/3/14 Wirral Council had not provided a response to a request within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

                            

On Monday I asked a question at the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee. Wirral Council had at the start of this month has 3,780 computers running Windows XP. It’s planning to spend £2.5 million on new computers to replace the old computers so that Windows 7 can be installed.

My question was firstly whether Wirral Council was getting anything for these thousands of old computers (the estimate given was that 90% would need to be replaced whereas the other 10% could run Windows 7) and a technical question about SCC plc who Wirral Council is paying to help them install the new computers.

The answer surprised me and is below (which the councillors on the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee have been copied into).

=======================================================================================================

From: “Sankey, Steve”
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:33:53 +0100
Subject: Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee – Unanswered question about what happens to the old computers

Dear Mr Brace

Thank you for your questions regarding what happens to the old computers, when we move to new computers running Windows 7.

I can confirm that the Council has a contract with a company called SITR, which handles the secure disposal of IT equipment. The company picks up the old computers and securely removes all data in compliance with agreed standards and directives (eg Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive WEEE). It issues the Council with a certificate confirming we comply with UK government standards of disposal.

The company recycles/sells the computers on the open market. The Council does not pay for the collection of the equipment, and receives 50% of any resale value when the equipment is resold.

Finally you enquired about the framework agreement we have used to procure SCC services. I can confirm that the process for the appointment of SCC was via the Crown Commercial Service (formerly Government Procurement Service) Framework – RM720 – Sprint II.

Yours truly,

Steve

Steve Sankey

Wirral Council
Treasury Building, Cleveland Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 6BU
Tel: 0151 666 3029
E-mail: stevesankey@wirral.gov.uk
Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================

So let me just get this straight. Wirral Council is only getting 50% of the resale cost of thousands of old computers, but it’s currently consulting on closing Lyndale School over a projected shortfall of £120,000 a year from 2015/16 onwards.

Here are some ballpark figures on the sale of the computers.

Wirral Council estimate that 90% of the machines will need replacing. 90% * 3,780 = 3,402 machines.

An estimate of £100 each for each unit (computer, monitor and keyboard) that SITR sell £100 * 3,402 machines = £340,200.

Amount that Wirral Council gets £170,000, amount that SITR gets £170,000. £170,000 is enough to keep Lyndale School open for a further year, if Wirral Council were to do this themselves. If Wirral Council were to do it in house instead and we take off from that £340,000 amount the costs of two full time staff (£50,000) to securely wipe the hard drives before they’re resold and do the certificates they say are required (assuming each person can wipe seven hard drives a day with enough time left to organise selling the rest) it’s a considerable sum of money! So what do you think?

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

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

                        

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.

Video of Wirral Council’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance meeting of the 14th April 2014. The item on the Freedom of Information Scrutiny Review starts at 1:53

The covering report for this item and the final report of the scrutiny review can be downloaded from Wirral Council’s website.

Below is a transcript of this item as it didn’t attract much discussion.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM
This is the final report, despite having draft as an imprint. I’m sure that when, if this evening agrees, this report goes to Cabinet the draft will be removed. I’d like to invite Adam if you want to introduce this item.

COUNCILLOR ADAM SYKES
Thank you Chair. Building on what’s on page twenty-seven in my opening statement basically we took upon this review as the Council had been under monitoring action from the Information Commissioner and had already improved its result on FOI to over 85%.

We didn’t want to merely reach the baseline, we wanted to exceed this figure and be a guiding light for FOI for other councils. So taking on various strands of the whole process, how actually it goes through the system to how we can improve items coming in, how they’re managed once they’re here and also how we can reduce the number of requests in the first place because obviously the actual costs of these FOI requests are quite significant.

It’s quite shocking actually well when you see how much we’ve spent on a weekly basis on FOI requests that could be better spent elsewhere in the Council. So, I don’t know whether I need to go into much more detail as the recommendations are all in the pack. Obviously we’re happy taking any questions, I’m sure the other members of the group are.

I’d just like to conclude by thanking the officers for their time in the you know producing the report, Jane Corrin, Surjit and also support from the scrutiny officer Mike and it was really very helpful and an interesting review to be part of.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you very much. Christina, do you have anything to add?

COUNCILLOR CHRISTINA MUSPRATT
Just apologies for being late.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, I’d like to thank Adam and thanks to the officers for this overview and scrutiny review and thank both yourself and Christina for what I really think is a …

COUNCILLOR ANDREW HODSON (CONSERVATIVE SPOKESPERSON)
I was going to say members of the committee were told by the effective leader of yourself, Christina and Adam of all the work you’ve put in on this, but obviously if you wasn’t aware of … so very good.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Yes, thank you. Right, Phil?

COUNCILLOR PHIL GILCHRIST (LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SPOKESPERSON)
Could I say that I welcome the sort of crisp and concise way that the report was written and the recommendations but might I asking while Mr. Blott’s beaming at the moment, through you Chair, whether we can perhaps have a bit of advice on what can be done with the search facility on the website. The work the Committee sought was to try and reduce requests that could be answered in any other way and clearly when I try and find things searching it always says “are you sure you’ve spelt it right?” which is about the only guidance the website gives us.

I wondered if officers rather perhaps than note the use and power of that, whilst we were noting perhaps they could give advice on how it could be progressed elsewhere and what sort of timescale.

JOE BLOTT (STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR TRANSFORMATION AND RESOURCES)
Yeah, thank you Chair. Thanks very much indeed, I think a couple of comments on that. Certainly in terms of a response to the particular question from Councillor Gilchrist. Yeah, certainly as part of our overarching improvements to public access and our customer channels, anything we can do to improve, that that possibility will do so. In terms of timeliness of that, we are looking, we have launched the intranet as we know at the turn of this year, so that’s been reviewed and we are about to embark on a change to the internet access points as well. So I think your point’s well made.

It’s well timed and everything within a very short space of time we’ll be able to improve on that I think and anything we can do to improve the search arrangements in terms of behind our ICT program build we’ll certainly do that. Perhaps we could, if I can, if we note that as part of a minute item which we pick up in June to see where our business is up to.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Any other comments?

JOE BLOTT (STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR TRANSFORMATION AND RESOURCES)
Thanks Chair, just if I may. They’re contained within the report anyway but I think it really does strike me as a really positive approach for the policy and performance committees to drill down into such matters and I think that from an officer perspective, to receive the balanced report is really encouraging. I think more than anything else it demonstrates progress that we had taken. I think it demonstrates progress that we were taking in advance of the ICO’s intervention, nevertheless quite clearly we were duty bound to follow that and I think it is important to see both in terms of context which I think is helpful on page nineteen in terms of the numbers of requests we get, but in terms of page eighteen in terms of how we responded to those requests but I guess as the report sets out it’s really important that this is a journey that we’re on here and we haven’t reached our end game yet.

The end game is the consistency of response times to the FOI requests that links heavily into Councillor Gilchrist’s point that the more information we can provide upfront, then hopefully less number of FOIs we’ll have to deal with which equally comes back to the Chair’s comments around the costs of FOI enquiries which are extremely high and I was quite sure in the briefing that we can use the resources to greater effect in terms of impact on service users and our residents.

So certainly from an officer perspective regarding the report, happy to again as an officer to accept all the recommendations and ensure they will see due progress over the coming months.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you Joe, Surjit do you have anything to add?

SURJIT TOUR
No.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, anyone else got any further comments or questions? OK, I’ll move onto the recommendations. 4.1 agreed? It’s on page ten. 4.1 the Committee is asked to note the contents of the report. Agreed?

COUNCILLORS
Agreed.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, at 4.2 we’re requested to consider whether or not we wish to refer the report to Cabinet. I suggest that we do, is that agreed?

COUNCILLORS
Agreed.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you.

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

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

                         

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

In an update to the blog post headlined Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?, something seems to have happened “behind the scenes” as Surjit Tour had this to say to councillors on the subject at last night’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on an item about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (the bit he says about Wirral Council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity is the relevant part):

“Thank you Chair, just very briefly taking you through this particular report. It’s a report that’s already been considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 14th March and the report seeks to summarise the key provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

On the 13th August of 2010 the government announced its intention if you recall to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a decentralised process and arrangements with regard to the audit of public bodies. This Act seeks to set out the necessary framework in relation to the audit arrangements and I’ll turn your attention if I may to page fifty-seven of the report and that provides an explanatory note in terms of the key features of the current and new arrangements that are being introduced.

Paragraph 2.1 sets out and highlights features of the new arrangements and notably the abolition of the Audit Commission and with a view to arrangements being put in place. Under the new arrangements public bodies will be required to appoint an external, independent auditor on the advice of an independent audit panel. The audit panel which the Council must have in place and each local authority is required to have that audit panel in place to discharge their responsibilities, the appointment of an auditor. Various other… may be deferred on that particular panel by the Secretary of State.

The make up of that particular panel it talks about in the report of the recommended changes in the explanatory forward. The actual amend to the legislative framework with regards to council tax referendums and the revised measures to ensure local authorities’ compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

The Act also then introduces greater transparency and openness to meetings of Council meetings in particular by allowing local residents to film, tweet, blog and access the information in relation to decision-making in those committees. So it goes further than just the filming and the arrangements that we currently have.

We also then have arrangements and changes with regards to any local audit, taking account value for money elements which needs to be also factored in and we have a transfer of responsibilities of setting a new code of audit practice going now to the National Audit Office as part of these arrangements. So you see that in a bit more detail in paragraph three some of those provisions there in more detail.

In terms of our current arrangements, there are outsourcing arrangements in place and as you know we have Grant Thornton who is the external auditor for Council and that arrangement continues until 2017 at which point arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of a new local auditor and this is where the new local auditor panel will be engaged in the procurement of that particular body.

There will be a series of approved, accredited firms that will be able to do that and they will be made subject to assessment and criteria by the Financial Reporting Council and relevant professional accountancy bodies who are regulated in the provision of local government services.

In terms of the panel itself, details of its make up are set out in paragraph six of the explanatory note and this is where we need to have a panel which would consist of a majority of independent members and it would be chaired by an independent member. Now our Audit and Risk Management Committee can act as the Council’s auditor panel under the act if so required and if we need to appoint individuals then there’ll be a process that’ll need to be gone through.

You’ll recall that the Audit and Risk Management Committee, in fact it happened last year, indicated that it wished to be a majority of members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be independent and there will, arrangements are in hand to make those necessary arrangements. However the Secretary of State is still yet to publish regulations in relation to this particular Act, particularly the criteria and it needs to be expanded on what appears in the Act itself. So the draft regulations are not complete in terms of what the criteria will be for the appointment of independent members and as such a decision has been taken to await the Act or indeed those final regulations to ensure that any appointment that is made is compliant with those regulations.”

The Chair said, “Thanks Surjit, any questions, comments? Pat?”

Cllr Patricia Glasman said, “Paragraph 2.1.5 access information relating to the decisions made in those meetings, I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on that specifically the Pensions Committee we have attachments which are not available to the public. It’s business meetings and I just wondered was there any change to really the way those are treated?”

Surjit Tour replied, “No, there’s no, those changes with regards to information at committees considering the exempt schedules, the schedules before them so those provisions remain unchanged. This is very much the ability to report in open session at committee meetings, individuals being able to not only film, but to tweet, blog information in real-time and as decisions are made.”

The Chair said, “If there’s no further questions, can we agree the recommendations on page fifty-five, 11.1 agreed?”

The Committee agreed the following recommendation:

That the Committee notes the Report and Appendix 1 concerning the changes being introduced by the Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and its implications.

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