Can you find the £883,000 in savings needed to keep Upton & West Kirby fire stations open?

Can you find the £883,000 in savings needed to keep Upton & West Kirby fire stations open?

Can you find the £883,000 in savings needed to keep Upton & West Kirby fire stations open?

                                                              

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)

As the consultation closes in the next few days on the issue of closing West Kirby and Upton fire stations and building a new fire station at Saughall Massie (the consultation closes on the 18th May 2015) I thought it would be useful to publish the list of payments over £500 made by the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service over the past year.

Bear in mind that to keep both stations open, £883,000 in savings (or about £74,000 for each month) would have to be found from the revenue budget. Savings can’t come from the payments under the long-term PFI contract with Balfour Beatty Fire and Rescue NW Ltd for building new fire stations. I’m sure there are other long-term contracts that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service have that some of the payments over £500 may be for.

Details of the ways in which you can respond to the consultation are in blog post about the consultation about fire stations on the Wirral.

Unlike Merseytravel, the Merseyside Fire and Rescue service publish both PDF files and comma separated values files of this information.

Below are links to the monthly lists of payments over £500 in both PDF and comma separated values file formats.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 April 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 April 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 May 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 May 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 June 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 June 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 July 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 July 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 August 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 August 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 September 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 September 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 October 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 October 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 November 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 November 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 December 2014 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 December 2014 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 January 2015 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 January 2015 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 February 2015 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 February 2015 (CSV file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 March 2015 (PDF file)

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service payments over £500 March 2015 (CSV file)

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

78 more pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

78 more pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

78 more pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

                      

Last month I published the first 168 pages of Wirral Council’s contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited.

Below are the next 78 pages which are method statements supplied by Biffa which state how they will do the various parts of the contract.

Wirral Council Environmental Streetscene Services Contract page 45 Method Statement 16 Health and Safety
Wirral Council Environmental Streetscene Services Contract page 45 Method Statement 16 Health and Safety

Continue reading “78 more pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited”

Why did Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

Why did Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

Why did Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

                                                

I went to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s Audit Committee yesterday and if you wish you can view the video of that meeting below. The agenda and reports for that meeting is on Merseytravel’s website.

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee meeting 12th May 2015

What did occur to me after the meeting finished was that since the Local Government Transparency Code applies to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, that Merseytravel (which is now part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) would be required to publish a list of payments made over £500 each month on its website.

Unlike Wirral Council and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, who also publish comma separated values files of the same information (which can then be sorted in a spreadsheet) Merseytravel just publish this information as PDF files.

Links to each of these files which cover the last financial year are below.

Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 1 – 01 April 2014 to 27 April 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 02 – 28 April 2014 to 25 May 2014

Ed – added on 22/5/2015 – see edit note below for why Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 03 26 May 2014 to 22 June 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Transactions Period 04 26-06-2014 To 20-07-2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Transactions Period 05 21-07-2014 To 17-08-2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure August September 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 expenditure September October 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure October November 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure November to December 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 expenditure December 2014 to January 2015

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 5th January to 1st February

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 2nd February to 1st March 2015

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 2nd March to 31st March 2015

If you’re observant, you’ll have noticed a gap for the month from the 26th May 2014 to the 25th June 2014. I’ve emailed Merseytravel to ask for the missing month of payments. Ed – 22/5/2015 – Merseytravel got back in touch with me on the 21st May informing me the missing month had now been put on their website, so it is now linked to above. The missing month includes another payment of £680 made to Veale Wasbrough Vizards for legal costs to do with the HQ relocation that was not available to me when originally writing this article.

However the other 11 months make for interesting reading.

There are a number of payments to a Veale Wasbrough Vizards (which is a Bristol based firm of solicitors) relating to Merseytravel’s controversial headquarters move from Hatton Gardens to Mann Island.

1 Mann Island (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority)
1 Mann Island (Merseytravel’s new headquarters)

Here’s a list of the payments made to Veale Wasbrough Vizards:

VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 21/3/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £720
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 30/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £862.50
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 30/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £1,200
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £4,342.25
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/8/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £1,169.89
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/9/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £2,084.00
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/10/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £648
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/11/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £10,315.20
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/12/2014 Other Contractor 15 S-7116- HQ – Direct Costs £7,600
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 22/12/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £4,839.36
        Total £33,781.20
           

Payments are also still being made to Bircham Dyson Bell as you can see below. The Liverpool Echo reported back in 2012 how £1.7 million was paid by Merseytravel to Bircham Dyson Bell without the work being put out to tender.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 28/3/2014 Court Fees S-2031 Legal and Committee Team £1,050.90
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 28/3/2014 Specialist Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £754.70
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 29/4/2014 Court Fees S-2031 Legal and Committee Team £1,362.10
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 30/6/2014 Consultants Fees R-0200 Rolling Stock Programme £1,915.79
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 19/2/2015 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £1,665.50
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 27/11/2012 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £7,427.50
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 20/5/2013 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £7,800.00
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 25/2/2015 Consultants Fees R-0200 Rolling Stock Programme £5,210.89
        Total £27,187.38
           

Merseytravel also paid £977.50 to Sara Bradbury in October 2014 for “Counsels Fees”.

A number of insurance payments were made by Merseytravel with compensation given as the reason.

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 16/5/2014 Compensation – Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £7,008
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 18/7/2014 Compensation – Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £2,717.00
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 14/8/2014 Compensation Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £8,500.00
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 25/7/2014 Compensation Misc S-2101 Ins – General £11,575.00
THOMAS COOPER 8/8/2014 Compensation Misc S-2101 Ins – General £7,300.00
MERCURY LEGAL LLP 18/12/2014 Compensation Employers Liability S-2101 Ins – General £7,182.17
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 18/12/2014 Compensation Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £16,790.00
        Total £61,072.17
           

There was a payment for £507 to Weightmans LLP for an invoice dated 31st March 2014 for “specialist services”. Merseytravel also paid five amounts (£3,800, £2,600, £4,400, £750 and £2,145) to a firm of solicitors called Davies Wallis Foyster LLP for invoices in 2014 for the services of a solicitor.

Two payments of £15,115 and £15,590 were made to Royal & Sun Alliance for invoices dated 27th August 2014 and the 3rd December 2014 for the costs of external 3rd party solicitors.

Robert Jackson Solicitors charged £2,000 in an invoice dated 13th February 2015 for legal costs associated with an insurance claim, in the same month Merseytravel paid £4,812 to CS Cooper C/O Collins Long Solicitors which was again for legal costs to do with an insurance claim.

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

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office

                                               

Last year, during the 2013/14 audit I requested various information on various payments Wirral Council has made to legal firms. One of these was an invoice for £700 for conveyancing done by DLA Piper UK LLP (a copy of which is below).

Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance £700 7th August 2013
Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance £700 7th August 2013

As you can see above it’s for a BACS payment (although the payments over £500 list this as a CHAPS payment) for £700, split into £200 for a contribution towards sewers (although the rest of what the £200 is for can’t be made out due to bad handwriting) and £500 to do with the purchase of the freehold title.

If you look at the image above you’ll find the address of the property is blacked out. Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 allow Wirral Council to redact information if it relates to a member of their staff (or payments or other benefits made to their staff connected with their employment) or to withhold personal information if the external auditor agrees to it.

However their auditor has confirmed that there were no such requests. Wirral Council also rely on the decision in Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 in blacking out information that falls into the meaning of “commercial confidentiality”.

So going back to the PR1 form above I wanted to know what the address that this £700 for conveyancing spent by Wirral Council was, so back on the 26th January 2015 I asked using the Freedom of Information Act for the address.

By the 24th February 2015, having received no reply to my request of the 26th January 2015 within the 20 days Wirral Council have to respond to FOI requests, I requested an internal review because of the lack of response.

On the 23rd March 2015, a Rosemary Lyon who is a solicitor working at Wirral Council replied to my request for an internal review. She regarded the request as one that fell within the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, so considered it as a representation under regulation 11.

She then went on to refuse the request using an exception in Regulation 12(5)(e) which states:

“the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;”

The reasons she gave for refusing the request were:                                    

“in that a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. I have had regard to the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, “Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information (regulation 12 (5) (e) Version 1.2. I consider that the following applies to the requested information in the context of the other information included in the payment requisition fund:-

  • The information is commercial or industrial in nature
  • Confidentiality is provided by law
  • The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest
  • The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure.

I consider that the information relates to the commercial activity of a third party. I also consider that confidentiality is provided by law in that it is imposed on the Council as a public authority by the common law of confidence and contractual obligation. I consider that the confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest. The First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) confirmed in Elmbridge Borough Council v. Information Commissioner and Gladedale Group Ltd (EA/2010/0106, 4 January 2011) that to satisfy this element of the test, disclosure of the confidential information would have to adversely affect a legitimate economic interest of the person the confidentiality is designed to protect. I consider that disclosure of the requested information would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of the third party and also that of the Council.

This exception is subject to the public interest test.

Public interest factors in favour of disclosure

  • Promotion of transparency and accountability of public authorities

Public interest factors in maintaining the exception

  • Disclosure would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party and interfere with commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations
  • Disclosure of the requested information would also affect the bargaining position of the Council with third parties.

I consider that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I am therefore refusing your request for information on the basis that the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the EIR applies.”

On the 25th March 2015 I appealed Wirral Council’s refusal to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Today Wirral Council reversed their position and stated:

“Following your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council has decided to reverse its position, having previously relied on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do not consider that releasing the information would now adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party. The address of the property, which you have requested is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead. I have copied this response to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

Now I know the address is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead, I know what this payment for conveyancing is for. The properties in this road as far as I remember had been demolished by the date that this payment to DLA Piper UK LLP for conveyancing happened in August 2013.

In August 2013, Keepmoat were granted planning permission for 125 new houses here and have since built them and sold them on. In fact 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead doesn’t exist any more, it’s either part of the public open space at the back of the Laird Street Baptist Church or an off-street car parking space for one of the new properties.

So what was the “legitimate interest of a third party” that Wirral Council claimed it was protecting by not supplying the address? How on earth does giving this address interfere with Wirral Council’s “commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations”?

Unlike the Freedom of Information legislation, regulation 12(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 state:

A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.
Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance 7th August 2013 address added
Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance 7th August 2013 address added

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?

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
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.


From: Davies, Phil L. (Councillor)

Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:35 AM

To: **** ********

Subject: RE: leaders blog

Dear Mr ********,

 

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

Tel: 0151 691 8540

Mob: 07720073154

Email: phildavies@wirral.gov.uk <mailto:phildavies@wirral.gov.uk>

<http://birkenheadandtranmerewlp.org.uk>

Most Improved Council logo
Most Improved Council logo

‘Most Improved Council’


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.

Since 1st January 2014, the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 have been in force. If the procedures in the regulations are followed, then the operator of the blog has a defence under s.5 of the Defamation Act 2013 in respect of third party content such as comments posted on the blog in respect of libel court cases. Out of 3,171 comments on this blog only two have been removed (after following the procedure outlined in the regulations) following complaints received.

Wordpress admin panel Discussion Sharing comment moderation
WordPress admin panel Discussion Sharing comment moderation

 


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
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
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 website
banner for Labour website
Labour website imprint
Labour 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).

Here is what Wirral Council’s Councillor’s Code of Conduct states on the matter:


2. When using or authorising the use by others of the resources of the authority-

….

2.2. DO make sure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes); and

2.3. DO have regard to any applicable Local Authority Code of Publicity made under the Local Government Act 1986 (as amended).


So was writing to a resident using Wirral Council’s email system including a link to a party political website improper use of Wirral Council’s resources by Councillor Phil Davies? If you think so, you can make a complaint using the online form linked to from this page.

Not so long ago over in Liverpool (back in November 2013), a committee found that Cllr Richard Kemp had improperly used Liverpool City Council letterheads and the Liverpool City Council mail system for party political purposes. The result was a formal motion of censure.

So what are your views on this? Please leave a comment to let me know what 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.