Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?
Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens
17/8/16 Amended to correct name of Phil Goodman to Peter Goodman.
Firstly, I’m cross with Wirral Council.
What is it this time you may wonder?
Well I have a long list of grievances, but not being a Wirral Council employee no formal route (ok I could bring some of these up with my trade union) to take these to a grievance hearing, nor the time or inclination at this stage to get the judiciary involved.
I’m cross at being shouted at by junior public facing employees of Wirral Council who I will gladly name here from what I remember as Shirley Hudspeth (Legal and Member Services) and Peter Goodman (whatever the facilities management side of Wirral Council is called as frankly I’ve lost track of restructures? Is it infrastructure, asset management something like that?) with their view that it was a private meeting, but I’m not cross at them in a major way because I’m more cross at what I presume are their senior manager/s or senior manager/s from another department at Wirral Council who told both of them to say this to me (even though it isn’t true) as it seems a senior manager/s at Wirral Council would stoop that low as to instruct junior employees to do what they (senior manager/s) should have the guts to do face to face themselves.
I’m cross at Wirral Council for its website not working as I write this at democracy.wirral.gov.uk so I can’t include links or refer to the details. But yeah, whoever’s job it is to fix it may be on holiday.
However in Joe Blott’s defence I don’t think he understood why the legal advice he got was flawed and had the external legal advisor pointed out why it was flawed he’d have had to have criticised his client (Wirral Council) which is a big no-no if he ever wants further work from Wirral Council in the future.
I’m not cross with Surjit Tour who seems to have a conflict of interest. But if he does have one, Joe Blott is supposed to deal with it!!!
I am cross with the fact that 5 clear working days notice of the date, time, agenda and reports (if not recommended to be heard in closed session) for the Standards Panel meeting on the 28th June 2016 was not given by the 20th June 2016, but instead yesterday the 3rd of August 2016.
I’m cross that a complaint about a councillor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) as to what happened in July 2013 has taken Wirral Council around three years to resolve.
I’m cross that Patricia Thynne in her report refers to myself as having filmed a YouTube video referred to when I didn’t film it and it was indeed someone else! I’m also cross with myself that relying on Patricia Thynne’s report I then left a comment on the Wirral Leaks blog only to be embarrassed into being told it is a mistake in her report.
I’ve recently learned that Cllr Gilchrist was the Chair of the Standards Panel, I’m cross that I wasn’t allowed to go to the public bit of the Standards Panel meeting where this was decided on the 28th June 2016 to find this out and had to wait around a month to know whether it was Cllr Chris Blakeley or Cllr Phil Gilchrist.
I’m cross that in messing up what’s detailed above Wirral Council is relying on a legal power that was repealed years ago.
I’m cross that for reasons of internal capacity here I didn’t take things further over what happened to us at the meeting on the 28th June 2016 whether by letter or subsequent legal action against Wirral Council.
However, moving to the complaint itself, yes I was there in the public gallery in July 2013 in the adjournment while it happened. Yes Cllr Steve Foulkes came in and spoke with Liam Murphy (referred to as Person C). Yes, I was too far away (at the other end of the public gallery to hear what they were saying). Yes I remember Mr Nigel Hobro coming in to the public gallery at this point and wanting to speak with Liam Murphy but getting the brush off.
Yes, my opinion (not that it matters really) is that I think it is fair that Cllr Foulkes should apologise.
However, isn’t it ironic that as Cllr Foulkes previously made a complaint about Cllr Chris Blakeley talking to the Liverpool Echo about whether Cllr Foulkes should be made Mayor (a complaint that Cllr Chris Blakeley was cleared of as you can read about here) that Cllr Chris Blakeley should then be on the Standards Panel to decide about a complaint about Cllr Foulkes leaking information to a Liverpool Echo journalist? Or is that just karma?
Yes Person C in the report is Liam Murphy. Yes I feel sorry for him, yes it is a breach of journalistic ethics to reveal the source of information, but by the sounds of it he (Liam Murphy) was being used by Cllr Foulkes anyway for political gain.
As to the payoff to Emma Degg, her initial silence (prompted in part it seems by the payment of public money), followed by what I presume was a guilty conscience, well at least she finally did the right thing!
As to the allegation that witnesses “colluded” to bring down Cllr Foulkes, well Patricia Thynne feels this is not credible. I will comment however that unless you are in disguise, nobody knows what you look like or in an echo chamber, it’s frankly foolish in the extreme to bring up anything confidential (whether in conversation or by passing it to them) with a journalist when you have people watching you do it, in a public place, in a public building, in the adjournment to a high-profile public meeting.
However Cllr Foulkes’ explanation is he was under a lot of pressure.
Tip for people reading this, if you want in the future to leak something to me, there’s the post (probably the most secure method), email or telephone (if you want the intelligence agencies to read/listen to it in transit) or other ways of sending it to me online.
Yes you can talk to me or hand me things in person, but there are always people watching!
I did ask Cllr Steve Foulkes in person at the end of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on the evening of Thursday 28th July 2016 to comment on the complaint. He refused to comment directly on the matter (I presume following Mr. Tour’s advice to councillors to keep their mouth shut) and referred me to Wirral Council instead.
So yes, I’m still cross and Wirral Council is finally well dealing with what should’ve been done properly the first time!!!
By first time, I don’t just mean the original complaint (that this morphed into), but what happened at the Standards Panel meeting too.
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 asks Wirral councillors to agree to changes to how complaints about councillors are dealt with
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer, left) speaking at the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting of Wirral Council on the 2nd June 2016 Right Cllr Denise Roberts (Chair)
As I am referred to at this meeting because of an email I wrote to the Committee and others I will declare an interest at the outset. I will also declare an interest as a paid member of the press who are referred to in a report that was agenda item 4.
The public meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee was a special meeting held in Committee Room 3 at Wallasey Town Hall without microphones.
The following councillors were present: Cllr Eddie Boult (Conservative) deputy for Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr David Elderton (Conservative), Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative spokesperson), Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour Chair), Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour), Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour), Cllr Jean Stapleton (Labour) deputy for Cllr Brian Kenny (Labour), Cllr Paul Stuart (Labour) and Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson).
There were also two independent people on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee present who were Brian Cummings and Professor Ronald Jones.
Wirral Council officers present were Surjit Tour and Shirley Hudspeth.
Present from the press & public were myself and Leonora Brace.
The new Chair (Cllr Denise Roberts) welcomed people to the first meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee of the municipal year.
Apologies were given for Cllr Gerry Ellis (Cllr Eddie Boult was deputy for him) and Cllr Brian Kenny (Cllr Jean Stapleton was deputy for him).
Essentially there are three points that Mr. Brace has raised.
One is in relation to the supplementary agenda, the report that you have before you not being circulated with the original initial agenda, but that was the reason for that, we were still in the process of trying to co-ordinate dates for the Standards Panel which we need to establish and there was a slight delay in terms of getting the finalised date.
I can confirm that there is a date that has now been confirmed and I’ll come onto that as part of the substantive item. So that was the reason for why the report was not published because I wanted to actually provide you with a date as part of ??? rather than leave you with a outstanding issue.
Unfortunately that caused a difficulty with regards to the date when I published the supplementary agenda despite our efforts to try and provide the full report to you in terms of the date that a particular Panel would meet.
With regards to concerns around errm the article 6 arguments or the section 6 arguments and Article 10 provisions that have been referred to, errm the Protocol and the paragraph within the Protocol paragraph 12.5, simply requires anyone who’s involved in the investigation is being advised not to share information with the press or media rather than go through our Press Office purely because any investigation it’s important that the integrity of the investigation is maintained and if information appears provided in the public domain, it could have the effect of prejudicing the investigation.
It is only an advisory point, individuals are entitled to ignore that advice if they so wish, but they do so in the knowledge that they could potentially jeopardise an investigation.
So if you’re a complainant you could find that the subject councillor is prejudiced because you could bring about a potential conclusion of the investigation prematurely and clearly if it’s a subject councillor again could find themselves bringing the Council into disrepute by not adhering to appropriate advice and undermining the ethical framework.
So paragraph 12.5 in the first instance specifically makes reference to anyone involved in the investigation, who will be advised, it doesn’t require and doesn’t say that they are prohibited from sharing information in the public domain and clearly they would be advised against that.
So I don’t believe that provision in any shape or form either contravenes either section 6 or indeed article 10.
With regards to the constitutional changes, with regards to paragraph 7 of the Access to Information Rules, we’re aware of that change. It was an oversight and you know in previous reviews the Standards Working Group of this Committee when it meets in July, if you’re minded to re-establish the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Working Group again. One of its tasks will be to again review the full ethical framework and see if there any constitutional changes that are required and so I’m grateful to Mr. Brace to raise that, we’ll be aware that that change needs to take place and the constitutional amendment and that will take place as part of the Standards Working Group Working Program if you’re minded to re-establish it, if not then I’ll bring a separate report requiring that change to be made in relation to Council be made for that amendment to be made to the Constitution accordingly.
Thank you Chair, with regards to the substantive matter before you, the purpose of this meeting is to establish or for the Committee to establish formally the Standards Panel and the Standards Appeal Panel which all form part of the arrangements for dealing with standards complaints under paragraph 9.5 of article 9 of the Council’s constitution.
You’ll find in the report I’ve attached a number of appendices, there is information on article 9 of the constitution, which effectively sets out the constitutional framework for both panels and that’s in the first agenda document that we’ve got. Can I refer you to page 11 of the original agenda and in particular if you turn to page 13 and 14 and ?? onwards you will have the terms of reference of both the Standards Panel and the Standards Appeals Panel setting out not only its composition, but also its scope, remit and indeed its authority in terms of any sanctions that may be imposed.
So the purpose of this Committee is really to establish formally those two panels, not least because there is a particular matter that needs to be considered by the Standards Panel and therefore this Committee by formally establishing those enables the particular Standards Panel to be progressed to the first meeting of the Standards Panel.
With regards to that particular Panel meeting, we have canvassed dates. It has been a matter that has been long-standing in terms of both its progression, but we have now managed to secure a convenient date for a number of parties who need to be attending including at least one of our independent members and the date that is now available for that Standards Panel to meet is Tuesday 28th June at 6.00pm. There is also the possibility of a further date of the following day the 29th of June which I would suggest that we keep that date as a hold over provisional date that if we’re not able to conclude matters on Tuesday evening, we are in a position to adjourn to the following day where all the parties who are required are also available for Wednesday the 29th.
I’m not anticipating the matter having to extend to a second day, but it would be prudent now that we have a date to hold both days indeed if that we need them.
So Chair, the report itself sets out the position, I would like to just remind all people to bring to the attention of everyone the procedure, suggested procedure in appendix 4 of the supplement which sets out the suggested procedure for how matters will be dealt with by either the Standards Panel or indeed the Standards Appeals Panel.
As essentially an indicative process or procedure that would be followed. There is the discretion here for the Chairperson of the Panel to vary the ??? procedure if it’s necessary in the interests of fairness to all parties I understand, but it’s anticipated that following the process there will be making it ??? who needs to have whose views need to be sought, have the opportunity to share those thoughts with the Panel before the Panel considers its position with regards to the standards matter and also goes so far as to deal with if they do uphold and find that there is a breach, also then to address the issue of any sanctions if any that it thinks are appropriate.
So your approval is also sought in respect of that decision.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Did Cllr Phil Davies breach the Code of Conduct by linking to a party political website in a Wirral Council email?
Did Cllr Phil Davies breach the Code of Conduct by linking to a party political website in a Wirral Council email?
Councillor Phil Davies at a recent Cabinet meeting
Yesterday I was forwarded an interesting email which is a reply to a resident asking the recently reelected Councillor Phil Davies (although at the time of the reply he hadn’t been reelected in Birkenhead and Tranmere yet) in response to a question about why he doesn’t allow comments on his blog. For those who don’t know Cllr Phil Davies is Leader of Wirral Council and of the ruling Labour group of councillors. I’ve obscured the email address & name of the resident he’s writing to. Below is the email followed by some comments of my own.
Thank you for your email. Comments facilities on blogs are generally not moderated, so people can post basically whatever they like and the comment will be published. Given that my blog is linked to the Council website, and available to view by residents of all ages, the Council has taken the decision to disable the comment facility entirely to remove the risk of inappropriate, libellous or otherwise offensive comments being posted on the blog and, by extension, the Council website. If any resident wishes to contact me directly they can do this easily as all of my contact details – email address, phone numbers, home address etc are published on the Council’s website.
Kind regards.
Phil Davies
Councillor Phil Davies
Leader of Wirral Council
Labour Councillor for Birkenhead and Tranmere ward
If Councillor Phil Davies wishes to moderate comments, he need only log into the WordPress admin panel for his blog, click on Settings, then Discussion, tick the box that I’ve highlighted with a red oval below, then scroll down and click on save changes. If he does that then people will be able to leave comments, but he will get to choose if they are approved (and therefore published) or not.
Moving to the sentence where he writes “Given that my blog is linked to the Council website, and available to view by residents of all ages, the Council has taken the decision to disable the comment facility entirely to remove the risk of inappropriate, libellous or otherwise offensive comments being posted on the blog and, by extension, the Council website.”
This is a very curious statement to make. Below is a screenshot of Wirral Council’s homepage which has a picture of Councillor Phil Davies, which also links to the last two posts he’s made to his blog.
Wirral Council homepage
As you can see it just displays the last two headlines from his blog and links to the last two posts made on his blog. Now I have comments enabled on my blog (in fact the latest blog post of an election result has two comments on it). So what happens when I replace the address for my blog with Cllr Phil Davies’ blog on Wirral Council’s homepage?
RSS feed changed on Wirral Council’s homepage
As you can see, even on a blog with comments on such as mine, the script on Wirral Council’s website just displays (and links to) the last two blog posts by whatever headline was used, not the comments. So comments (if he had any) on Cllr Phil Davies’ blog wouldn’t be cross posted to Wirral Council’s website.
Finally I notice that Cllr Phil Davies links in his email to this website (which if you were in any doubt was a party political website I include two screenshots from it below). The first is the top of the website, the bottom is the imprint:
banner for Labour websiteLabour website imprint
Bear in mind that when Cllr Phil Davies wrote that reply, he was a candidate in the election of a councillor in Birkenhead & Tranmere (and a councillor).
EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 “confidential” report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Aretha Franklin – Respect [1967]
Cheshire West and Chester invoice for £1800 for investigating a standards complaint (you can click on the thumbnail for a more high resolution version)
EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 "confidential" report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful
It was a long time ago (19th March) when I first made a Freedom of Information Act request for the external investigation report (and the invoice) for the standards complaint that Councillor Steve Foulkes had made about Councillor Chris Blakeley. Not surprisingly with such a politically sensitive request, my Freedom of Information request was ignored, so on the 17th April I requested an internal review.
On the 24th April Wirral Council supplied the report itself, an appendix and the invoice from Chester West and Chester Council (for £1,800) for the investigation. On the same day this was released, solicitors that work in Wirral Council’s legal department and the officers that take the minutes at public meetings had a meeting in Committee Room 1, the subject of which was “values and culture change”. The fact that only two lines are redacted in the investigation report and Wirral Council hasn’t claimed an Freedom of Information Act exemption applies to the report and appendix A is one example of how the culture has changed at Wirral Council.
Due to the redaction of two lines on page nine, the seventeen page report is an image, therefore it can’t be spidered properly by search engines. Therefore I’ll be including the seventeen page report below this so it can be properly spidered. The report itself explains who Councillor Blakeley and Councillor Foulkes are so I won’t repeat what is in the report itself. It does however give an interesting insight into Wirral’s politics. Appendix A to the report can be downloaded from this blog. I’ve used a series of equals signs to show where individual pages start and end in the report.
Where legislation or individual cases are referred to I have tried to provide a link where possible in case you want to find out more about the legislation or judgements referred to. If you wish to read the original report as a pdf file you can. The two witness statements referred to in the report as Appendix B (the witness statement of Councillor Foulkes) and Appendix C (the witness statement of Councillor Blakeley) haven’t been supplied in response to the Freedom of Information Act request, but I’ve requested an internal review regarding these. In the report below I have not corrected any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors but left these as they appear in the report.
Report of an investigation by Trudie Odaka acting as investigating officer, appointed by Surjit Tour Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council into allegations concerning Councillor Chris Blakeley.
This report is submitted to the Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council, Surjit Tour.
FINAL REPORT
10th March 2014
1 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
======================================================================================================= CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. The relevant legislation and protocols
3. The Evidence Gathered
4. Nomination for the Office of Mayor
5. The Allegations by the Complainant
6. Account by Councillor Foulkes
7. The Liverpool Echo article dated 13th May 2013
8. Response from Councillor Blakeley
9. Summary of the material facts
10.Case Law
11.Reasoning as to whether there has been a failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct
12.Finding
Appendix A – Schedule of Documents
Appendix B – Statement of Councillor Foulkes
Appendix C – Statement of Councillor Blakeley
2 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
Executive Summary
1.1 I have been asked to conduct an investigation in respect of a complaint made by Councillor Steve Foulkes regarding the conduct of Councillor Chris Blakeley.
1.2 The Allegation
An allegation has been made by Councillor Steve Foulkes that Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council by failing to treat him with respect. The allegation made by Councillor Foulkes is that in an article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13th May 2013, when referring to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination as for Deputy Mayor, Councillor Blakeley indicated that he would be voting against the nomination. The complaint contains the quote "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality. Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him".
1.3 I have investigated whether Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with paragraphs 1.1of the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.
Investigation Outcome
1.4 I have investigated Councillor Blakeley’s conduct and in so doing I have considered the article published in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013 which was appended to the complaint. I have taken into account the article as a whole, in order to set the context of any quotes or information contained within it. Whilst concentrating principally on this Liverpool Echo article; I have also considered other articles relating to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination for deputy mayor, articles that appeared in the local press and on the internet. This has enabled me to better understand the background to the complaint, the context of the statement made by Councillor Blakeley and this has allowed me to review the comments made by other members of Wirral Borough Council; members that are not the subject of this complaint but who nonetheless commented publically about the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of Deputy Mayor.
3 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
1.5 I have considered the quotes attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley and I have investigated – whether the quotes were made by him and if made; the context.
1.6 I have considered the comments contained within the complaint and I have interviewed both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley to listen to their account of events. Through interviewing each member separately; I have paid particular attention to what each of them has said and taken into account how the comments were perceived by them including the intention of the subject member Councillor Blakeley. I have also taken into account the public forum in which the comments were made; being publication of the comments within a newspaper.
1.7 Whilst concentrating the investigation upon the Liverpool Echo article and the conduct of Councillor Blakeley; in reaching a conclusion, I have taken into account the political context at the time by reviewing the press and other public forums where the nomination was mentioned, although the information found is relevant for setting context (as it revealed that others made comments about the nomination) I have not repeated what I have found within this report as it does not relate to the exact detail of this complaint. Copies are contained in the list of documents at appendix A.
1.8 I have investigated whether or not the conduct complained of was directed at Councillor Foulkes as an individual or his personal characteristics.
1.9 I conclude that when quoted in the Liverpool Echo article on 13th May 2013, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity as a councillor of Wirral Borough Council.
1.10 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that, the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley made in response to a nomination by the council’s cabinet for the position of deputy mayor; the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor namely the proposed next incumbent for the position of deputy mayor. In making the statements Councillor Blakeley appears to have been seeking to explain the reason why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor; against the Wirral Council’s established tradition of members not challenging nominations made for the positions of mayor and deputy mayor. Councillor Blakeley is quoted as saying "Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year?" Taking into account all the material facts, I do not find that the quotes
4 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse/attack directed at the Complainant Councillor Foulkes.
1.11 In reaching my conclusion, I have taken into account the fact that Wirral Borough Council being a public body is under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; this includes the consideration of possible breaches of the Member’s Code of Conduct. Article 10 is a European Convention Right that gives protection to the right of freedom of expression, a right which the courts have strongly upheld in cases involving the expression of political opinion, and as such, Councillor Blakeley’s comments to the Liverpool Echo are protected by Article 10.
1.12 I find that there has been no failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct.
2. The Relevant Legislation, Code and Protocols
The Code of Conduct
2.1 Wirral Borough Council adopted a Code of Conduct with effect from 1st July 2012 in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.
2.2 The Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct imposes a general obligation on all its councillors, that when acting in their role as a member of the council they will treat others with respect.
2.3 Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct
Paragraph 1.1 of the Code states –
(1) when acting in your role as a Member of the Council;
1.1 DO treat others with respect
Relevant legislation
2.4 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
5 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
society, in the interests of…the protection of the reputation or rights of others."
2.5 Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 identifies the rights under the European Convention of Human Rights which have effect for the purposes of that Act. They include Articles 6 and 10 of the ECHR.
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act provides that so far as it is possible to do so subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights.
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. (In light of this provision I have taken into account the provisions of the ECHR when conducting this investigation).
(2) Disapplies the section in certain very limited circumstances concerning primary legislation. (This does not apply to the present case)
3. The Evidence Gathered
3.1 I have interviewed –
The Complainant Councillor Steve Foulkes
The subject member Councillor Chris Blakeley
3.2 I have spoken to Surjit Tour, the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
3.3 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.
3.4 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Member’s Code of Conduct protocol.
3.5 I have obtained copies of other articles within the press relating to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor found as a result of a speculative search of the internet. Copies of these are contained within Appendix A
4 Nomination for the Office of Mayor
4.1 Both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley have explained the process for mayor making to me. My understanding is that in essence nominations to
6 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
the offices of mayor and deputy mayor are made by the Wirral Council Cabinet. All three parties take a rotational turn to put forward their nomination for the role. In 2013 the rotational turn belonged to the Labour Group. I am told by Councillor Foulkes that the selection of the Labour Group nomination is based upon seniority due to length of service.
4.2 In accordance with custom and practice the role of deputy mayor is normally followed a year later by the holder’s nomination to the position of mayor. My understanding is that the naming of a mayor and deputy mayor is not normally controversial in Wirral.
4.3 The nomination to the mayoralty and deputy mayoralty is traditionally unopposed by any of the parties as the position is considered apolitical.
5 The Allegations by the Complainant
5.1 The complaint stems from a statement which appeared in the a Liverpool Echo article dated 13th May 2013 and a quote attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley, words taken from the article of :
"I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."
"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."
5.2 Within his complaint Councillor Foulkes explains "I have a proud record of public service over 22 years. During that time I have never been found guilty of being unfit to hold public office. By questioning by fitness to hold the offices of Council Leader, Deputy Mayor and Mayor, Cllr Blakeley is in clear breach of one of the key elements of the Members Protocol, i.e. ‘failing to treat people with respect."
6 Account by Councillor Foulkes
6.1 Councillor Foulkes is an elected Councillor of Wirral Borough Council and following his nomination to the office, he became the Deputy Mayor of Wirral Borough Council.
7 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
6.2 Councillor Foulkes made the complaint on 17th May 2013 following the article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013.
6.3 Councillor Foulkes has complained about the comments attributed to Councillor Blakeley within the Liverpool Echo explaining that he took exception to the word ‘unfit’ saying "The use of the word ‘unfit’ implies things, gives connotations that there is criminality involved with your character or malpractice. For this to be true ‘he’ would need evidence. That is what is required to say a holder of a drinks licence or a taxi licence is unfit – you need to explain what makes a person ‘unfit’."
6.4 When interviewed Councillor Foulkes differentiated the comments made by Councillor Blakeley from the other comments contained within the article "The first comment that I found mildly offensive was the comment ‘divisive’ I did not take action about this." "… people are allowed poetic licence even though it was not a great comment; people say many things in political tit for tat. I did not take action over this."
6.5 Councillor Foulkes explained the effect of the quotes on:
him as an individual, "The statements made have had an effect on me as an individual. First it made life difficult for me" "People who read it associated it with criminality or malpractice. I was very concerned that this was what people were thinking of me." "I have to survive in the real world. I have a career. If people associate my name with being ‘unfit’ or ‘divisive’ it will discourage people from taking the role of politician if that sort of language continues"
him as a politician, "Understanding the local people, I knew the phase ‘unfit’ could be interpreted in a whole host of ways. It took me aback that Councillor Blakeley though he knew something that would show me as unfit. Leaders of Council’s are accountable. This is right and correct. This however was an attack on my character."
his family and friends "it has clearly created tension for my friends and family" "I received comments from friends and people that I met "what’s he got on you to call you ‘unfit’?" As I said, normally the use of the word ‘unfit is connected to criminality e.g. in the context of licensing. What have I done? I have never done
8 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
anything. If Councillor Blakeley thought that I was unfit on those grounds then he should have made it clearer.”
6.6 Councillor Foulkes explained why he took exception to the quotes attributed to Councillor Blakeley "I would never say that I don’t have respect for someone. I feel that by saying this Councillor Blakeley has gone beyond the normal attacks that occur." "Where Councillor Blakeley says I was unfit it shows a lack of respect this is made worse when his comments are then emblazoned in the press."
6.7 Quoting directly from Councillor Foulkes’ statement he said "Lots of others called for my resignation, others spoke in support. It doesn’t mean that someone who has been the Leader cannot be Mayor. I have done the job as Leader to the best of my ability. I have made mistakes but I do not think that I have done anything to warrant me being called ‘unfit’. This is personalised attack on my character not based on anything I might have done or anything that he believes that I have done."
"At this point in time there is not a blemish on my character. I would say that as a politician I have made mistakes. I made decisions with the best interests of Wirral and the Council I never knowingly did anything that would breach decent behaviour or any Code of Conduct."
7 The Liverpool Echo Article dated 13th May 2013
7.1 The Article which is the subject of this complaint appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13th May 2013 under the title "Rivals in row over choice of Deputy Mayor" by Liam Murphy.
7.2 The article is introduced with the editorial "A long-standing tradition of not making mayoralty a political issue looks set to be shattered in Wirral tonight"
7.3 The editorial continues "Former council leader, Labour’s Steve Foulkes, is being put forward as deputy mayor; but a leading Tory has said he will vote against him Cllr Foulkes and other members of the Conservative party are expected to join him or abstain."
7.4 The article sets out the context of the mayor making process explaining "the three parties in Wirral council take turns nominating a councillor to the
9 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
======================================================================================================= mayoralty seen as a non-political role which raises thousands of pounds for chosen charities."
7.5 Within the article Tory Leader Councillor Jeff Green has a quote attributed to him, ‘he was surprised by the decision to nominate such a "divisive figure"’
7.6 The editorial commentary introduces Councillor Blakeley’s quote with "ahead of night’s meeting to nominate the new mayor and his deputy, Tory chief whip Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would be voting against Cllr Foulkes"
7.7 Councillor Blakeley is then quoted as having said "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."
"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."
7.8 The article ends with a commentary from the complainant Councillor Foulkes "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves" . "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."
8 Response from Councillor Blakeley
8.1 During my interview with Councillor Blakeley he explained that he felt the complaint was a tit for tat complaint made by the complainant.
8.2 Councillor Blakeley was and is unhappy with the process followed in the handling of this complaint.
8.3 When interviewed Councillor Blakeley described the council as "factionalised politically".
8.4 In relation to the quotes attributed to him, Councillor Blakeley did not remember the exact words used however he did not dispute the words quoted "When I saw the article I was not shocked by what it said. But I
10 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
can’t say if what they printed was correct because I can’t recall word for word what was actually said".
8.5 Councillor Blakeley explained "I am extremely proud that I voted against Councillor Foulkes as Deputy Mayor along with my colleagues who also voted against and those in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Group who also did not support Cllr Foulkes nomination by abstaining."
8.6 When referring to the mayor making process Councillor Blakeley explained "The traditional view is that the Mayor Making is a non-political event. No vote is taken on either role and it is all done with niceties and everyone is pleasant".
8.7 With reference to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor Councillor Blakeley explained "The selection of Councillor Foulkes made it a political event. When Labour nominated Councillor Foulkes, the Labour Group knew what they were doing, sticking two fingers up to the Council and to the people of Wirral. As explained by Councillor Jeff Green’s comment "he was surprised by the decision to nominate such ‘a divisive figure’." If you knew and understood the history of politics in Wirral you would understand that".
8.8 In relation to the use of the wording ‘unfit’ Councillor Blakeley explained "Councillor Foulkes was voted out as Leader of the Council in 2011 because of a vote of no confidence. I voted against Councillor Foulkes when he was leader. I vote against him because we all believed he was no longer fit to lead this Council. We need a majority of Councillors to carry a vote of no confidence, clearly that majority was achieved. It wasn’t my words that he wasn’t ‘fit’ it was the Council motion".
8.9 Councillor Blakeley explained the context of his statements "Wirral Borough Council is a ‘bear put’ of a political arena. Since Councillor Davies took over as Leader of the Council there have been calls for him to resign. If the shoe was on the other foot; I am sure that he would be calling for the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Leader to resign. Calling on Leaders to resign is not unusual in Wirral, regardless of which political party it is, that is the confrontational nature of politics that exists in Wirral".
8.10 Councillor Blakeley went on to explain "Wirral Council is exceptionally political." "..I am sure that both he and I and others have said far
11 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
worse in the Council Chamber than is printed on that newspaper page".
8.11 In conclusion Councillor Blakeley said "Looking at the seven principles in public life that are in the Schedule to the Members Code of Conduct, I have been honest in what I have said. I have been accountable about what I have said".
9 Summary of the material facts
9.1 The comments published in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013 complained about are attributed to Councillor Blakeley.
9.2 The article and all the quotes contained within it including those attributed to the Councillor Blakeley "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him." all relate to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor.
9.3 It is clear that the comments are connected to the intended departure from a long established tradition of nominations relating to the mayoralty being apolitical "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves". "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."
9.4 The nomination of councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor led to comments being made publicly about the nomination from a number of Wirral Borough Councillors.
9.5 I note that in relation to the ‘unfit’ comment Councillor Foulkes explained to his employer "that is was just political stuff" I also note that Councillor Foulkes’ response to the comments contained within the article is also quoted (paragraph 7.8 above refers).
10 Case Law
In coming to a conclusion over whether or not there has been a breach of the Wirral Code of Conduct, I have taken into account case law concerning the freedom of expression, in particular political expression and the application of the article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression) to complaints under the Code of Conduct. Including the most recent high court cases of R (Dennehy) v London Borough of Ealing [2013]
12 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
"The recognition of the importance of expression in the political sphere and the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of politicians acting in their public capacity than they are in the case of private individuals… This recognition involves both a higher level of protection ("enhanced protection") for statements in the political sphere and the expectation that if the subjects of such statements are politicians acting in their public capacity, they lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds and are expected to possess a thicker skin and greater tolerance than ordinary members of the public … Although the protection of Article 10(2) extends to politicians, the Strasbourg Court has stated that where a politician seeks to rely on it, "the requirements have to be weighed in relation to the open discussion of political issues".
10.2 In Sanders v Steven Kingston Wilkie J considered the relationship between Article 10 and paragraph 2(b) of the then Code of Conduct. The provision equates to paragraphs 1.1 of the Wirral Council’s new Code with which this investigation is concerned. In paragraph 69 of his judgement, Wilkie J reviewed a number of authorities. In my view the paragraphs taken from the judgement are relevant to this investigation as they relate to the freedom of expression and political expression in particular.
10.3 In Lingens v Austria Wilkie J noted [at para.69] that the following was said:
"In this connection the court has to recall that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information or ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to
13 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
those that offend shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no democratic society. More generally freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society which prevails throughout the convention… In such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues."
10.4 From R v Central Independent Television plc (1994) Fam 192 Wilkie J set out the following passage from the speech of Lord Justice Hoffman:
"Publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which "right thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins."
"Members of Councils are politicians and their actions as such are often political actions. An obvious example is when they are speaking in Council meetings where robust political debate may reflect lack of respect for political opponents or may result in views being expressed which many might regard as offensive. It cannot be the case, in my judgement, that the sole source of obligation in that context is the code of conduct unmediated by consideration of Article 10."
"The burden is on [the Adjudication Panel for England] to justify interference with freedom of speech. However offensive and undeserving of protection the appellant’s outburst may have appeared to some, it is important that any individual knows that he can say what he likes, provided it is not unlawful, unless there are clear and satisfactory reasons within the terms of Article 10(2) to render him liable to sanctions.”
14 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
11 Reasoning as to whether there has been failure to comply with the Code of Conduct
11.1 Two matters fall for determination on the basis of the facts as found:
Whether when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2014, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his role as a member of the Council and
Whether Councillor Blakeley’s conduct was such that he failed to treat others with respect.
Failure to Treat Others with Respect
11.2 Failure to treat others with respect will occur when unfair, unreasonable or demeaning behaviour is directed by one person against another. The circumstances in which the behaviour occurred are relevant in assessing whether the behaviour is disrespectful. The circumstances include the place where the behaviour occurred, who observed the behaviour, the behaviour itself and its proportionality to the circumstances, the character and relationship of the people involved and the behaviour of anyone who prompted the alleged disrespect.
11.3 It is recognised that in politics rival groupings are common and, within this context it is expected that each will campaign for their ideas, and they may also seek to discredit the policies and actions of their opponents. It is very clear from case law that ideas and policies can be robustly criticised, but individuals should not be subject to unreasonable or excessive personal attack, it is also clear from case law that the right to freedom of expression is a crucially important right that can only be interfered with where there are convincing and compelling reasons within article 10(2) to justify that interference "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins" (paragraph 10.4 above refers).
11.4 Councillor Blakeley does not deny making the quotes contained in the Liverpool Echo article.
11.5 There is agreement by the complainant and the subject member that the quotes contained within the article were as a direct response to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor.
11.6 I find that the quotes in the article related to a matter within Councillor Blakeley’s legitimate concern as a councillor. I consider that the right of Councillor Blakeley as a democratically elected member of a public authority to free speech is engaged. I find that in making the statements he was
15 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
seeking to explain why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality." This appears to have been said by way of explanation against the accepted Wirral tradition that when such nominations are made by a party for the position of deputy mayor, the nominations are accepted without opposition from any of the other parties’ members "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him.".
11.7 Personal Attack or Malice
In relation to the article, I have also considered whether or not there was a personal attack against Councillor Foulkes contained within the quotes made. I have concentrated in particular on the use of the wording ‘unfit’ and taking into account Councillor Foulkes’ views when he said "I believe Councillor Blakeley used the words ‘unfit’ for effect. Perhaps politicians think in a different way." I have also taken into account Councillor Foulkes’ own account of the use of the wording "’unfit’ in his explanation to his employer "I explained to them that it was just political stuff.
11.8 I have taken into account that the complainant is directly referred to and is singled out as the subject of the article however I have balanced this with the fact that the article and the comments contained within it relate to a nomination to the very public position of deputy mayor. I have taken the view that in being nominated and agreeing to be put out for nomination the complainant accepted that fellow elected members may or may not approve of the nomination and as a result may voice their support or opposition to the proposed nomination publically using the various media forums available to them. This by the nature of the political arena in which it is set was a direct possibility despite the fact that within Wirral, tradition tended to show that nominations for mayoralty positions are dealt with unopposed.
11.9 The quotes appear to be an explanation of the voting direction Councillor Blakeley intended to take. I am not satisfied that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo amount to any more than political commentary following a group nomination to the position of deputy mayor.
11.10 I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice /anger, or personal abuse directed at the complainant Councillor Foulkes.
16 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
11.11 On the basis that the quotes in the article constituted the legitimate expression of a political view by Councillor Blakeley which is afforded the highest level of protection under article 10 and the fact that the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor; I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.
12 Finding
Official Capacity
12.1 I find that Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013, he spoke in his capacity as a councillor about the nomination for the office of deputy mayor and he spoke of his intention to vote at the mayor making council meeting.
Failure to Treat Others with Respect
12.2 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Foulkes to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley; quotes relating to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor. I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse directed at the Complainant.
Code of Conduct
12.3 My finding is that there has been no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct of Wirral Borough Council.
Trudie Odaka
Investigator
10th March 2014
17 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?
If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?
At the time of writing, there is an election underway. Once the results are know, twenty-three people will become councillors and asked to sign a declaration that they each accept the office of councillor. Regulation 2 of The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) Order 1990 specifies the form that a declaration should take. It is short so it is copied below.
DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
I, ……. having been elected to the office of councillor declare that I take that office upon myself, and will duly and faithfully fulfill the duties of it according to the best of my judgement and ability.
I undertake to be guided by the National Code of Local Government Conduct in the performance of my functions in that office.
Date ………. Signed ……..
This declaration was made and signed before me
Signed ……..
*Proper officer of the council of the county, district or London Borough of ……
*If the declaration is made before any other person authorised by section 83(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, adapt accordingly.
So all the councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee have each signed a clause in their acceptance of office which states they will “be guided” by the National Code of Local Government Conduct when undertaking their duties as councillor.
The National Code of Local Government Conduct, which the Secretary of State issues under s.31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 states this on the subject of lobbying about planning applications.
LOCAL SUPPLEMENT TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS
Contracts, Planning Applications etc: Canvassing
If you are canvassed by any member of the public who requests, directly or indirectly, your aid in securing a business contract with the Council or in the determination of a planning or other application you shall, subject to the qualification contained in the following paragraph, report such canvassing to the Director of Corporate Services, who shall investigate and, where appropriate, report on such canvassing to the Council.
Subject to paragraph 6 below in relation to contracts, a passing comment by a member of the public on a matter of public interest should not necessarily be construed as canvassing; in assessing whether an approach merits reporting the matter to the Director of Corporate Services, you should consider the circumstances of the approach and whether the approach appears to be made from a narrow vested interest or whether it can justly be described as being in the wider public interest.
Wirral Council has a Code of Conduct to guide both councillors and officers in how planning matters are dealt with. The sections of it that deal with lobbying and the National Code of Local Government Conduct are included below.
1.2 This Code of Conduct relating to Planning Matters is intended to be supplementary to the National Code of Local Government Conduct prepared by the Secretary of State for the Environment under provision of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The provisions of the National Code continue to have full force and effect. The purpose of this Code is to provide more detailed guidance on the standards to be applied in relation to planning related issues.
….
1.6 It is recognised that Members will, from time to time, be approached by developers and objectors in relation to planning proposals.
1.7 Part of this Code is intended to assist Members in dealing with and recording such approaches and is designed to ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is preserved.
2. Lobbying
2.1 To ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is not impaired, either in reality or in perception, through the lobbying of members who will make decisions, it is important that any approaches by lobbyists are recorded and that any representations made to members form part of the public information leading to any decision. If an approach is received by a member of the Planning Committee, from an applicant, agent or other interested party in relation to an existing or proposed planning application, then the member shall:
Inform such applicant, agent or interested party that, in order to avoid accusations of partiality, he/she is only able to offer procedural advice and that any such person should either write to officers of the Council or write or speak to a member(s) who is not on the Planning Committee. This should not however be taken to mean that members who are on the Planning Committee should not listen to the views that the lobbyist wishes to express.
Complete the standard form provided, and forward this to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. This will enable a record to be kept of any such approach. This form of record keeping will assist individual members to counter any accusations that his or her decision has in some way been biased or partial.
Where a member of the Planning Committee receives written representations directly in relation to a planning application, (or proposed planning application) the member should pass a copy of the correspondence to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning in order that those representations can be included in the officer’s report to the Committee.
2.2 Members of the Planning Committee should avoid organising support for or opposition to a planning application and avoid lobbying other Members. Such actions can easily be misunderstood by parties to the application and by the general public. Members of the Planning Committee should also not put pressure on officers for a particular recommendation.
So to recap, both the National Code of Local Government Conduct (which councillors on the Planning Committee have signed a form to state that they’ll be guided by in their decision-making) and Wirral Council’s own Code of Conduct state that if a councillor on the Planning Committee is lobbied over a planning application, then the councillor should contact an employee of Wirral Council to report it. Wirral Council’s Code of Conduct makes it clear that this is to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. The post of Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning no longer exists since the senior management restructure. However the equivalent officer now would either be the Director of Regeneration David Ball or the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment Kevin Adderley.
Last month I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for both a copy of the blank form that councillors are to use to record such lobbying approaches and a copy of any forms submitted over the past twelve months (March 2013 to March 2014).
Despite the 20 day legal time limit for responding to my request expiring five days ago, Wirral Council haven’t (yet) supplied a copy of a blank form. However Wirral Council have stated that covering the period March 2013 to March 2014 it has no records of any forms detailing lobbying approaches to councillors on the Planning Committee.
On the 20th February the Planning Committee decided to refuse planning application APP/13/01375. The Planning Committee’s decision to refuse has since been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who will reach a decision at some point after 21st May.
Prior to the Planning Committee deciding to refuse the application, the Chair of the Planning Committee Councillor Bernie Mooney received a two-page letter. The letter was sent by Edward Landor Associates who were acting on behalf of the applicant and states “It is requested a copy of this letter is made available to all Committee Members”. The two page letter is below and you can click on each page for a higher definition and more readable image if you want to read it in full.
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 1 of 2 Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 2 of 2
This two page letter is clearly lobbying of a councillor on the Planning Committee. If the letter was circulated to the whole Planning Committee it is a letter lobbying every councillor on the Planning Committee. Shouldn’t councillors on the Planning Committee who received the letter have filled out a form recording this lobbying? So why do Wirral Council in response to my FOI request state “Wirral Borough Council can confirm that no such forms have been submitted during the specified timeframe”?
