Those with even longer memories will remember that two senior managers in Wirral Council’s Social Services department left the employment of Wirral Council the day before the Anna Klonowski Associates report was published at a cost of £109,496.45 for the Head of Support Services (Finance Department) and Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing (Department of Adult Social Services) at a cost of £111,042.95 .
There was a certain degree of public anger that in the case of these last two councillors were not directly involved in the decision. Outrage at the amount involved led to a change to Wirral Council’s constitution, so councillors did decide whether to agree to a compromise contract in Bill Norman’s case. This also led to changes at the national level.
The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP wrote to all leaders of local councils in England in February 2013, you can read read his letter here which contained the following on what should happen with regards to large severance payments.
Full Council should also be given the opportunity to vote on severance payments over £100,000. Many believe that pay-offs to senior local government staff are excessive and too frequent. The Localism Act brings out into the open the approach taken to severance across the sector. There is a clear case for going further and ensuring that, as well as approving their authority’s policy on severance, Members are able to consider each time it is proposed to spend local taxpayers’ money on a large pay-off.
This follows on from my announcement in November 2012 where I said that I intend to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. I am currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.
Accompanying Eric Pickles’ letter was guidance, which section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 stated that “A relevant authority in England must, in performing its functions under section 38 or 39, have regard to any guidance issued or approved by the Secretary of State.” Sections 38 and 39 of the Localism Act 2011 relate to pay policy statements.
At Liverpool City Council’s Budget meeting of the 5th March 2014, the pay policy for 2014/15 was agreed. The bit about large severance payments is phrased in an interesting way:
6.6(ii) Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on severance payment puts forward a case for offering full Council the opportunity to vote on severance packages above a certain threshold and that is placed at £100k. Full Council delegates this function to the Council’s Appointments Panel. Council does so, on the basis that such delegation facilitates compliance with Data Protection legislation in respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned without prejudicing transparency as that is achieved by the City Council ensuring compliance with Access to Information Rules, Legislation and all accounting requirements placed upon the Authority.
In other words instead of following the guidance and giving all councillors a vote at Liverpool City Council on severance payments over £100,000 and the requirement in section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 to have regard to the guidance when drawing up their pay policy statement, Liverpool City Council decided just to do things differently.
So did the Appointments Panel at Liverpool City Council decide on this? The meeting of the Appointments Panel of Monday 24th February 2014 (the one directly before to the Director of Public Health leaving in April 2014) curiously has no agenda and no minutes published on Liverpool City Council’s website.
11. There has been a great deal of public scrutiny of the level of severance payments awarded to senior local government staff and rightly so. Authorities should ensure that they manage their workforces in a way that best delivers best value for money for local taxpayers and sets the right example on restraint. This includes any payments offered to staff leaving the authority.
12. Authorities are already required to publish their policies on severance for chief officers 5 and their policy on discretionary compensation for relevant staff in the event of redundancy. 6 In addition, other regulations provide for disclosure of remuneration of senior employees including details of severance payments within authorities’ annual statement of accounts. 7
13. Taken together, these measures enable greater scrutiny of the money spent by authorities on severance. However, given continuing public concern about the level and frequency of such payments, there is a case for going further to ensure that decisions to spend local taxpayers’ money on large pay-offs are subject to appropriate levels of accountability. Authorities should, therefore, offer full council (or a meeting of members in the case of fire authorities) the opportunity to vote before large severance packages beyond a particular threshold are approved for staff leaving the organisation. As with salaries on appointment, the Secretary of State considers that £100,000 is the right level for that threshold to be set.
14. In presenting information to full council, authorities should set out clearly the components of relevant severance packages. These components may include salary paid in lieu, redundancy compensation, pension entitlements, holiday pay and any bonuses, fees or allowances paid.
15. This follows on from the Secretary of State’s announcement 8 that he intends to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. We are currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.
So according to the guidance, should all of Liverpool City Council councillors had a vote on the £110,000 payment to the former Director of Public Health along with a published breakdown as to how this £110,000 figure was arrived at?
Why is the agenda (and minutes if it met) of the public meeting of Liverpool City Council’s Appointments Panel immediately prior the Director of Public Health not available?
Why state in the pay policy about “respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned” when there is legislation requiring such payments to senior officers to be included in the statement of accounts anyway (see Regulation 7(3)(iv) of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011)?
Doesn’t this all seem to show that when the Coalition government tried to improve transparency and accountability in this area that Liverpool City Council just blatantly decide to carry on what it was doing before regardless of what the new guidance stated?
Does anyone know if following consultation with the Local Government Association and others whether regulations about this area came into force (if so what are they called) or was guidance considered sufficient?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
2 replies later, why is there still a wall of silence about why a Wirral Council employee took their employer to an Employment Tribunal?
2 replies later, why is there still a wall of silence about why a Wirral Council employee took their employer to an Employment Tribunal?
About two months ago I noticed a 3 day Employment Tribunal case was listed involving a Wirral Council employee (or possibly former employee) to be heard at Vernon Street in Liverpool (see picture below).
Liverpool Civil and Family Court Vernon Street, Liverpool
Had it gone ahead on the original dates I would have been able to attend, however it was rescheduled to the next week and unfortunately on those days I was unable to attend.
So I requested a copy by post of the judgement from:
Judgment Register
Triton House
St Andrew’s Street (N)
Bury St Edmunds
IP33 1TR
A few days later I received this reply.
Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service envelope 1
When I opened the envelope it contained this compliments slip:
HM Courts and Tribunal Service reply 1 re copy of Employment Tribunal judgement
The handwriting above reads “UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT HAVE THE JUDGEMENT (2403874/2014) AT THE PRESENT TIME. I WOULD SUGGEST TRYING AGAIN IN 3 OR 4 WEEKS.
AS FOR COPIES OF OTHER JUDGEMENTS, IT IS £10 FOR THE FIRST AND £5 FOR ANY EXTRAS.
WE HAVE RETURNED YOUR CHEQUE.”
OK, fair enough I thought, a bit like the county court, you can be there in person at the public hearing and hear the judge dictate his or her judgement, but it can take a few weeks before it’s typed up and ready as a judgement that’s sent out in the post to the parties involved.
So four weeks later I wrote again.
Once again I received a reply (see the envelope below).
Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service envelope 2
Oh good I thought, I’ll finally get to read what this interesting case is finally about! However no, this was the reply I got instead!
HMCTS letter re copy of Employment Tribunal judgement dated 15th July 2015
This formal letter states (I’ve left out the logo, address, telephone number, email address and website address which you can read above):
Your ref:
Date: 15 July
Dear Sir/Madam,
Unfortunately, we still do not have a copy of the judgement, Mrs M Foulston v Wirral Borough Council – 2403874/2014 – If you are positive this employment tribunal has concluded, all I can suggest is once again trying again in a few weeks or if you know the court where the tribunal was held, you could try contacting them directly.
I have enclosed your returned check.
Apologies and thanks
From 01 April 2011, the Employment Tribunals became part of the new HM Courts and Tribunal Service, administered by the Ministry of Justice. Future requests for copy Employment Tribunal judgements should be accompanied by a cheque or Postal Order made payable to HM Courts and Tribunal Service or HMCTS.
Yours faithfully,
(signature)
Jodie Rose
So, I double checked the name and case reference number. They’re both correct. It was originally scheduled to be on the 20th, 21st and 22nd May 2015.
However this got rescheduled to the 27th, 28th and 29th May 2015 instead where it’s listed with the same case number.
It’s not listed the week after (so it didn’t get rescheduled again), however I didn’t check the daily list for either the 27th, 28th or 29th May.
So can anyone please shed some light as to what happened and/or answer the below questions?
Did the hearing go ahead, but due to its complexity the judgement isn’t available yet from the Judgements Register?
Could a deal have been done at the last moment which meant it didn’t go to a hearing (which explains the problems over requesting a copy of the judgement?
Finally, there’s a right to get a copy of the judgement, but if an Employment Tribunal case is filed but doesn’t go to a hearing, is there any right to a copy of the papers submitted similar to Civil Procedure Rule 5.4C for civil cases?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious?
Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious?
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
Wirral Council have over the years discussed the issue of Freedom of Information at many public meetings. I wanted to write about my experience of one request where it took 2 years and 3 and a half months for Wirral Council to release some of the information I requested.
Way back on the 29th March 2013 I made a FOI request to Wirral Council for minutes of various panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties that councillors are on.
I asked merely for the minutes of the meeting held before making the request. One of these (numbered 5 on my list) was the minutes of the Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE).
This is what happened next.
20 working days went past and Wirral Council didn’t respond to the request, so on the 29th April 2013 I requested an internal review of Wirral Council’s lack of response.
On the 30th April 2013 Wirral Council replied refusing the request based on section 12 and claimed it would take longer than the 18.5 hours allowed to respond to the request.
I clarified what appeared to be a misunderstanding in the way I had phrased the original request and requested an internal review of this decision disputing that it would take over the 18.5 hour limit.
On the 14th August 2013 I appealed this decision to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
On the 19th June 2014 Wirral Council amended its response. It still refused this part of the request but now decided to amend its reason for withholding the information. It was no longer withheld relying on section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) but back to section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The parts of the request that could be described as environmental information were refused using Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as being “manifestly unreasonable”. This is the EIR equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act’s vexatious exemption.
The 9 page decision notice said that Wirral Council had breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 by not responding to this request within the first 20 working days of making it.
In addition to this it had breached s.16(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and regulation 9(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which require Wirral Council to provide advice and assistance to those making requests.
Finally the decision notice required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response to this request within 35 calendar days of the 8th September 2014 that did not rely upon the exemption in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (cost grounds) or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (that the environmental part of the request was “manifestly unreasonable”.
On the 4th November 2014 Wirral Council released redacted minutes of the Special Advisory Committee on Religious Education’s meeting of the 7th February 2013. Apart from the councillors on the committee anybody else on the committee had their name replaced by “name redacted”.
The minutes now looked like this:
Name redacted was proposed by Councillor Clements and seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
Name redacted nominated Name redacted for the post of Vice Chair and this was seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
I consider that part of the requested information is exempt information under Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in that the Complainant is asking for information which is personal data, in respect of which he is not the data subject. I consider that the disclosure of the requested information would contravene the second data protection principle that personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. Certain individuals named in the Minutes dated 7 February 2013 (not including Councillors) would have a legitimate expectation that their personal data would not be further processed in a manner incompatible with the specified and lawful purposes of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education. I consider that the Complainant’s request for information can be met by giving him a redacted copy of the minutes dated 7 February 2013, which redacts the names of certain individuals and these are attached.
On the 12th November 2014 I requested an internal review of this (also challenging other information they had withheld). This is what I stated about this part of the request:
“5. Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)
This relates to the minutes of the meeting held on 7th February 2013.
By statute this meeting meets in public. Another part of statute allows me to request the names and personal addresses of those on the committee. Other local authorities routinely publish the minutes of these SACRE public meetings. They do not redact the information you have.
My internal review on the redactions is then on the basis that:
a) the minutes relate to a meeting held in public
b) because of the above there is no legitimate expectation of privacy
You state “would have a legitimate expectation that their personal data would not be further processed in a manner incompatible with the specified and lawful purposes of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education.”
I will give more detail as to the lawful purposes of the SACRE referred to in relation to meeting minutes.
“7. (1) After a meeting the following documents shall be available for inspection by members of the public at the offices of the authority until the expiration of six years beginning with the date of the meeting, namely,—
(a) a copy of the agenda for the meeting;
(b) a copy of so much of any report for the meeting as relates to any item during which the meeting was open to members of the public; and
(c) a copy of so much of the minutes of the meeting as relates to any such item.”
The minutes of the meeting have been held in the last 6 years. Therefore I have an existing right of inspection to a copy of the minutes in unredacted form. Therefore the names of people in the minutes cannot have the private and personal nature that you ascribe to this information.
Secondly in addition to the names, the Group (ranging from A to C) of the individuals present has also been removed. Unless there’s only one representative from that group, merely the group letter
cannot be used to identify an individual.
Therefore I am asking for an internal review based of the information that has been withheld not being provided.”
No response was received in response to the internal review request, so I complained to ICO again.
On the 30th April 2015 (nearly 6 months after the internal review request that are supposed to take a maximum of 40 days) Wirral Council responded.
Today (over 8 months since the last internal review request that they claimed was “vexatious”) Wirral Council got back in touch.
They now want to “amend their response”. Apparently the bit about the SACRE meeting minutes was not vexatious. They no longer seek to rely on the exemption contained in section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
However, this change of heart of Wirral Council wasn’t just about the part of the request for a meeting of the Special Advisory Council on Religious Education. Their response to the part of the request for minutes of a meeting of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee was modified as follows:
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Part 21
Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee
I enclose an extract from an email provided to the Information Management Team which was as follows:-
“There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”
This is the reason that the council responded to your original request that it did not hold any information
I asked a councillor on Twitter about whether the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee existed prior to 2014.
Two councillors were kind enough to reply to my question. Cllr Chris Carubia stated “From the discussions today I know it has been in existence for over 5 years at least”.
Cllr Pat Williams replied, “Yes I was a proud member for a number of years.”
Personally I believe the two Lib Dem councillors (one of whom was on the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee) rather than Wirral Council’s officially stated position and I think I should draw to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office how their view differs from what Wirral Council states.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
BBC launches consultation on collaboration with hyperlocal blogs but do bloggers know there’s a consultation?
BBC launches consultation on collaboration with hyperlocal blogs but do bloggers know there’s a consultation?
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting 19th June 2015
I’ll start by declaring an interest in this piece as I write for and run this blog. Earlier this week I got an email from a well-known journalist about a consultation the BBC is running. More information on this is on the BBC’s website.
Personally I’m not sure what to make of it. I don’t have the benefit of working for a media organisation like the BBC that is funded by taxes so gets a guaranteed income. Tomorrow I’ll be filming a public meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
At the previous meeting (19th June 2015) there were three filming the meeting itself:
a) myself
b) Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and
c) the BBC for the Sunday Politics show.
However out of those three the footage I took was available to the public first. However I am getting off the point a little. The BBC just used clips of the meeting with a voice over during its Sunday Politics show.
Below is my footage on Youtube (which can be viewed in resolutions to 1080p HD). It has at the time of writing 19 views.
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.
In comparison here is the footage on Youtube filmed by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (at the start of each meeting the Chair generally announces they’re filming and the meeting can be watched on their Youtube channel). It can be watched in resolutions up to 480p. As you can see when they uploaded it to Youtube it’s resulted in a blank black area right, left and top. Generally my view is that if there’s a natural source of light in the room you should try to film with the light behind the camera (this was what the BBC cameraman was trying to do at the start too). Some of the time they film pointing at the windows. However at the time of writing they have 28 views.
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.
Now I’m definitely biased but I think my footage is better (but not as good as the BBC’s (unfortunately I don’t have a link of their video footage to hand to show)).
I do see competition in the media as a good thing though. If people want to watch footage of this public meeting they have a choice.
That’s why I don’t fully understand what the BBC is proposing. We’re all competing with each other, which means over time we learn from each other and get better. Providing people with a choice is good. It’s how the marketplace and media works.
Collaboration between competing bodies could work to reduce that choice in the long-term if two or more previous competitors collaborate.
Links from the BBC’s website to a hyperlocal blog (through this proposed external linking system) would cause a spike in traffic to the hyperlocal blog as links from the BBC’s website carry a lot of weight.
However hyperlocal blogs who weren’t collaborating with the BBC would lose out on this source of visitors.
What’s really needed is not what the BBC propose. A lot of hyperlocal blogs have filled a media void once occupied by the newspapers. Newspapers get a guaranteed income from the taxpayer through things like public notices as the legislation specifically refers to public notices being published in local newspapers.
Considering the community benefit of hyperlocal blogs what’s really needed is a decent discussion about their long-term sustainability and how essentially their community benefit is priceless. They’re doing media work that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Hyperlocal blogs (including this one) have written stories that lead to front page news stories in newspapers, have highlighted extremely important issues and contributed to greater scrutiny of public bodies.
Apart from the first of these issues, the two latter have a “community benefit” can’t be easily measured or quantified. Anyway going back to the BBC consultation I was asked a further few questions so I thought I’d do a poll here (or you can leave a comment).
Why weren’t Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service “open and transparent” about the estimated £0.5 million they could receive from the sale of Upton and West Kirby fire stations?
Why weren’t Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service “open and transparent” about the estimated £0.5 million they could receive from the sale of Upton and West Kirby fire stations?
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 30th June 2015 L to R Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Cllr Byrom (Vice-Chair), Janet Henshaw (Monitoring Officer)
So surprised was Cllr Byrom (above) by heckling that he forgot to propose a resolution keeping details out of the public domain about how much they’d receive for Upton and West Kirby fire stations if they sold them.
On the 14th June 2015 I made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for two unpublished reports to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on “the costs of any new build station, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton and West Kirby.” You can read my original request on the whatdotheyknow website.
On the 15th June 2015 I received an acknowledgement of my request stating that the request would be responded to either under the Freedom of Information legislation or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 within 20 working days.
On the 8th July 2015 Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service refused the request referring to two regulations in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as justification:
Regulation 12 (5) (d) Confidentiality of public authority proceedings when covered by law.
Regulation 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, when protected by law to cover legitimate economic interest.
Below is my (admittedly rather cross) response seeking the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 equivalent of an internal review which is referred to in the legislation as a representation and reconsideration.
Dear Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s handling of my FOI request ‘Reports on Upton & West Kirby fire stations’.
Thank you for your response (dated 8th July 2015) to my request dated 14th June 2015.
Firstly I wish to contest the sentences which state “As the information you have requested does not contain environmental information we have processed your request under Freedom of Information legislation. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2004 this letter acts as a Public Interest Refusal Notice. “
As stated in my request the information requested contains “the costs of any new build station, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton
and West Kirby”.
“the same meaning as in Article 2(1) of the Directive, namely any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on—
(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);
(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;
(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;
(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and
(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);”
As you can see from the above, the information requested would fall under (c) and (e) above.
There is no such thing as the Freedom of Information Act 2004.
If you are referring to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, then your refusal notice does not contain the information required by law. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 c.36 requires a refusal notice to specify the exemption (or exemptions) in question and why they apply.
However, considering that you wrote “Freedom of Information Act 2004” when you meant to write “Environmental Information Regulations 2004” and when you wrote “does not contain environmental information” must have meant “does contain environmental information” (otherwise why quote reasons for refusal referring to regulations that are part of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, please class this as a representation (see regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004) for reconsideration.
“(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect—
….
(d)the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law;”
I am aware that at the public meetings of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority held on the 2nd October 2014 and 29th January 2015 that a resolution at each meeting (based on the recommendation of
officer/s) was agreed by councillors.
Although a recommendation was made by officers that councillors at that meeting pass a resolution excluding this information from the public domain, no such resolution was agreed at that meeting.
Such matters are dealt with as the first item on the agenda which the agenda of the meeting of the 30th June 2015 specified thus:
“1. Preliminary Matters
The Authority is requested to consider the identification of:
a) declarations of interest by individual Members in relation to any item of business on the Agenda
b) any additional items of business which the Chair has determined should be considered as matters of urgency; and
c) items of business which may require the exclusion of the press and public during consideration thereof because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.”
You can watch a video recording of this part of the meeting here (see below)
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.
, but for the purposes of this reconsideration I include a transcript of that items 1 & 2 of that meeting below:
“Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): You may start recording from this moment if you like. Moving to preliminary matters, we have two minutes of the previous meetings.
Member of public: Excuse me, could you introduce yourselves so we know who you are?
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): We don’t normally do that. We don’t normally do that, everybody has their…
Member of public: Well I can’t see who you are from here!
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): I’m going to press on with the meeting and if I may say you know I’m assuming that everybody is going to be respectful and follow the normal procedures for meetings. I don’t think like Barack Obama we’re going to have to sing to bring order back again.
We will proceed with the meeting, I’m chairing the meeting and we’ll carry on if you don’t mind. So we move on to minutes of the previous meeting, those are on pages seven to twenty. Are they agreed?
Councillors: Agreed.
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): There is an issue about declarations of interest, do Members have any declarations of interest?
Is there any suggestions about the changes in the agenda and the items of business? Councillor Rennie?
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Lead Member for Operational Preparedness): Chair, could I ask because there are so many members of the public and obviously ward councillors for the items on the agenda 7 and 8 in relation to Saughall Massie, would you errm be willing to perhaps rearrange the order of business in order to facilitate them for an early getaway or is there a reason perhaps why that may not be possible?
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): We have had some discussions about this. There are a number of items and they won’t be long I don’t think that relate to the financial background to the Authority which I think would be helpful to the members of the public to understand the context against which we’re making some discussions.
There are also proposals for changes and amalgamations in err St Helens, and I think again I don’t think it’ll be a long item, but I think for the public who are here to look at decisions further down the agenda it would be useful and interesting to see, you know that it’s not just in isolation, there are other items on the agenda as well.
So if you don’t mind, I think we could, we will…
Member of the public: You can’t do that.
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): Would you give order please? Errm, we will proceed with the agenda as it’s printed if that’s alright, but if it gets lengthy, if it get’s lengthy we’ll look at that because I’ll know the public have got some distance to travel, but we’ll sit with the agenda as printed if you don’t mind. So we’ll move on to item 3 on the agenda, that’s pages 21-30 and that is the petition concerning the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations.”
As you can see from the above no resolution was agreed by councillors at that meeting keeping the report on capital costs out of the public domain. That decision (made on the 30th June 2015) was made before your decision on my request (made on the 8th July 2015).
Section 100C of the Local Government Act 1972 states (please note in the definitions in 100J(1)(f)“principal council” also refers to fire and rescue authorities such as the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, therefore this report is open to public inspection as no resolution was passed:
“(1) After a meeting of a principal council the following documents shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date of the meeting, namely—
(a) the minutes, or a copy of the minutes, of the meeting, excluding so much of the minutes of proceedings during which the meeting was not open to the public as discloses exempt information;
(b) where applicable, a summary under subsection (2) below;
(c) a copy of the agenda for the meeting; and
(d) a copy of so much of any report for the meeting as relates to any item during which the meeting was open to the public.
(2) Where, in consequence of the exclusion of parts of the minutes which disclose exempt information, the document open to inspection under subsection (1)(a) above does not provide members of the public with a reasonably fair and coherent record of the whole or part of the proceedings, the proper officer shall make a written summary of the proceedings or the part, as the case may be, which provides such a record without disclosing the exempt information.”
Decisions and background papers to be made available to the public
“8.—(1) The written record, together with any background papers, must as soon as reasonably practicable after the record is made, be made available for inspection by members of the public—
(a) at all reasonable hours, at the offices of the relevant local government body;
(b) on the website of the relevant local government body, if it has one; and,
(c) by such other means that the relevant local government body considers appropriate.
(2) On request and on receipt of payment of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, the relevant local government body must provide to the person who has made the request and paid the appropriate charges—
(a) a copy of the written record;
(b) a copy of any background papers.
(3) The written record must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of six years beginning with the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.
(4) Any background papers must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of four years beginning with the date on which the decision, to which the background papers relate, was made.
(5) In this regulation “written record” means the record required to be made by regulation 7(1) or the record referred to in regulation 7(4), as the case may be.”
Offences
10.—(1) A person who has custody of a document which is required by regulation 8 to be available for inspection by members of the public commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person—
(a) intentionally obstructs any person exercising a right conferred under this Part in relation to inspecting written records and background papers; or
(b) refuses any request under this Part to provide written records or background papers.
(2) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.”
As no resolution was passed at the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s meeting of the 30th June 2015 to exclude this information from the public domain, the above regulations required it to be published “as soon as practicable” on your website (which hasn’t happened).
As this request was refused after the decision made by councillors on the 30th June 2015 that this information should be in the public domain, the fact it’s not been published on your website since is arguably a breach of regulation 8(1)(b) of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and refusal of this request could be interpreted as a criminal offence (see regulation 10).
Dealing with your refusal under Regulation 12(5)(e)“Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, when protected by law to cover legitimate economic interest”, obviously if you agree with me on the above points refusal on this ground is a moot point.
Earlier this year I made a request to Wirral Council for the address of land they had purchased. Like yourselves, the request was refused with reference to regulation 12(5)(e) at internal review.
In your response you state “The reason why the public interest favours withholding the information is because the information contained within these documents is deemed to be commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such information is not deemed to be in the public interest as it may jeopardise the Authority’s position with regards to any future negotiations concerning the sites in question. As a Public Authority Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority have a duty to negotiate the best possible financial deal to protect the public purse which in course enable’s the authority to provide the best possible service.”
At the moment, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have not got planning permission for a new fire station on the Saughall Massie site. This is a process that could take as long as six months (or longer if permission is refused then appealed to the Planning Inspectorate). During that time it is highly likely that land & property prices in the areas of Saughall Massie, Upton and West Kirby will change, it is also possible that planning permission for the Saughall Massie site will be refused. Therefore if Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority make a decision in the future to sell those sites, a further up to date valuation would have to be done to prove considerations of best value to its auditors and taxpayers on Merseyside.
There is a presumption in favour of disclosure in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I consider that the arguments I have made here in representations in favour of disclosure in relation to your refusal on grounds in Regulation 12(5)(d), including pointing out why following the meeting of the 30th June 2015 this information (seemingly in breach of regulation 8 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014) hasn’t been published on your website and the issue of whether refusal of this request constitutes a criminal offence (regulations 8/10 of the Local
Government Bodies Regulations 2014) means that this information should be disclosed as a matter of urgency.
As pointed out in the decision notice I refer to (FS50576394), you have a legal duty to provide such information within a 20 working day timescale of the original request (made on the 14th June 2015).
I hope having considered this representation carefully you will reconsider your decision and provide the requested information.
Finally (although I didn’t mention this in the request above) Dan Stephens the Chief Fire Officer/Chief Executive of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stated in an email recently to me:
“I would hope you recognise that we have been open and transparent throughout the Greasby and Saughall Massie consultation processes and that it is very important to us that this is maintained throughout.”
So does anyone think that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority are being “open and transparent” about the matter referred to above?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
