August, 2015 | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Wirral Council U-turns on refusal of FOI request for values and culture presentation

Over a year ago (3rd July 2014) I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council using the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website for an email (and an attached Powerpoint presentation to the email) sent by Surjit Tour on Thursday 24th April 2014 with the subject of L&MS – Values and Culture Presentation. L&MS stands for Legal and Member Services (Member meaning councillor in local government jargon).

On the last day of July (31st July 2014) I got a reply. Mr Tour had considered the FOI request and refused it. His response referred to section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information 2000. For those familiar with this part of the Freedom of Information Act this is one of the parts that is subject to a public interest test.

Surjit Tour (left) at a recent meeting of Wirral Council's Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee — Surjit Tour (left) at a recent meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee

Mr. Tour (who made the first decision on this request) claimed in refusing the request that releasing his email (and attachment) would:

(b) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views;
or
(c) otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

Further detail was given about why this request was refused “The information requested was used as an integral part of a management meeting where a corporative initiative was openly discussed and debated” and “The Council has held/is holding a series of management meetings where there must be a safe space to share corporate initiatives and openly discuss and debate any issues arising in these meetings. It is also my reasonable opinion that if the requested information were to be disclosed, it would likely have a “chilling effect” that would inhibit the free and frank discussion and debate on matters of importance to the Council and its workforce. Any disclosure is likely to undermine the ability of officers to express themselves in a frank and open manner.”

It was further claimed that “disclosure would restrict the free and frank exchanges of views”, “disclosure would stifle debate at such meetings and could lead to poorer decision making” and “disclosure would have a potential detrimental effect on future management meetings” although “transparency in disclosure of the content of the management meeting” was given as a factor in favour of disclosure. Also stated in the response was “I consider it is crucial that officers are able to engage in discussion and exchange views in an open and frank manner.”

At the time I got this response I didn’t request an internal review. I’d requested internal reviews before when Mr. Tour had claimed section 36 applied to the information requested. You can see an example of a request here for minutes of the Standards Working Group meeting of the 17th December 2013 where Mr. Tour refuses it based on section 36 and at internal review the former Chief Executive of Wirral Council Graham Burgess agrees with Mr. Tour.

At the time I probably thought it pointless to request an internal review as I thought the Chief Executive would just agree with Mr. Tour.

In February 2015 councillors at Wirral Council appointed a new Chief Executive Eric Robinson. So I submitted an internal review request on the 25th March 2015.

The new Chief Executive Eric Robinson on the 21st April 2015 agreed with Mr. Tour.

His responses were as follows, first to my point about whether it was a conflict of interest for Mr. Tour to decide on whether to release his own email:

“I do not agree that Mr. Tour would have been conflicted when he gave careful consideration to and applied the Section 36 exemption.”

In response to the point that the email and attachment was sent before the meeting, didn’t detail what was debated at the meeting therefore how could it “stifle debate at such meetings”?

“The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council. Officers who took part in this management meeting and those who will be present at further meetings, must be afforded a safe space in which they can openly discuss and debate these corporate initiatives.”

Finally responding to my point “well surely if Wirral Council is “open and transparent” then being “open and transparent” here about a very important aspect of the organisation (values and culture) would demonstrate to the public that Wirral Council has changed?” he replied:

“The Council is committed to openness and transparency and communicates this to the public in many ways. As well as the consultation exercises the Council has been involved in with members of the public; we also publish information and communications via our web pages.”

He included various links to the Council’s website to the Corporate Plan, a page on the Transparency Code and a page on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 & the Data Protection 1998.

Finally he stated:

“To summarise, as the Reviewing Officer, I have carefully considered the original response provided by the Monitoring Officer and my reasonable opinion is that I fully concur with his initial response. I am of the opinion that the exemption contained within Section 36 of The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been correctly and appropriately applied. As the Reviewing Officer, I believe I have considered all relevant and material factors and issues.”

and

“After taking all factors into account, it is my reasonable and considered opinion that the reasons and rationale provided by Mr. Tour are valid and robust in nature. I do not consider I need to add anything more in this regard and I am satisfied that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure.”

So on the 19th May 2015 I appealed this decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office. On the 11th August 2015 Wirral Council supplied the attached Powerpoint presentation but stated that the email had since been deleted.

Shortly after I received an email from the Information Commissioner’s Office stating that the case was now closed, although I have emailed them this morning asking them to clear up that the Chief Executive at internal review stated “The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council.” which would suggest more than one attachment to the email, yet only one attachment was supplied.

So what is in this eighteen slide Powerpoint presentation that Mr. Tour and Mr. Robinson seemed so keen to prevent being released?

Ironically (considering what I’ve just written above) slide 10 on integrity states

“We communicate & are open and honest in what we do.”

However that point aside, the slides are about “organisational vision”, “values” and “culture”.

Slide 7 states that Wirral Council’s vision is:

“Wirral should be a place where the vulnerable are safe and protected, where employers want to invest and local businesses thrive and an excellent quality of life is within the reach of everyone who lives here.”

Slide 9 introduces Wirral Council’s values which are:

“integrity, efficiency, confidence and ambition”.

Slides 10 to 13 define each of these values.

“Integrity

We treat everyone with respect
We are accountable and take responsibility for our actions & decisions
We communicate & are open and honest in what we do

Efficiency

We seek innovative & creative solutions
We work effectively together to make the most of our resources
We proactively look for ways to improve

Confidence

We fully use the skills, talents & assets of our partners, communities and organisation
We take decisions and deliver
We learn from & share knowledge and expertise with others

Ambition

We deliver with energy and pace
We are risk aware, not risk averse
We have pride in our place and our people striving to be the best we can for Wirral”

The last slide refers to “support & change agents to be allocated”. If anyone would like to explain to me what a “support & change agent” is please leave a comment!

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

Allegations in eviction court case started by Wirral Council were struck out by Judge

Those with long memories might remember reading a story on this blog a month ago headlined Why did residents endure 11 years of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour from “hell” before Wirral Council took legal action to try to have a tenant evicted? which detailed a legal case where Wirral Council (acting on behalf of Leasowe Community Homes) had tried to have a former Leasowe Community Homes tenant called Danielle New evicted.

Sadly not all the court orders were sent to me. I emailed the Birkenhead County Court on the 13th July (using the email address on their letter) pointing out that a court order dated 9th October 2013 had not been included, only to receive an automated reply stating “The recipient’s e-mail address was not found in the recipient’s e-mail system.”

I tracked down the correct e-mail address, resent the email, but pointed out the incorrect e-mail on the letter. Birkenhead County Court have written to me in a letter received today apologising for the incorrect email address and have pointed out that both the email address and fax number for Birkenhead County Court have recently changed.

The letter also included a copy of the court order dated 9th October 2013 which is below. Interestingly this court order shows that District Judge Peake struck out the schedule of allegations filed by letter dated 26^th September 2013 as it didn’t comply with the court’s directive of the 12th September 2013 that it should be reduced to no more than 12 individual allegations. Unusually this was a court order made without a hearing and without service on the other party.

Birkenhead County Court order Leasowe Community Homes v Danielle New 9th October 2013

The invoice below shows that the allegations in a letter dated 26^th September 2013 struck out by the Judge were sent on the instructions of a solicitor working at Wirral Council to Paul Burns of Exchange Chambers.

Wirral Council invoice Paul Burns Exchange Chambers 22nd November 2013 Page 1 of 2 £4210 115

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

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014

On the right of the photo above is Peter Rushton. He’s chairing a public consultation meeting in Greasby last year, one of the public meetings held to consult with the public on the closure of West Kirby and Upton stations and a replacement fire station at Greasby. It’s a still from this video I took of the public consultation meeting.

He introduces himself as “I’m Peter Rushton from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service”. What I don’t think the public knew then (or perhaps know now) is that Peter Rushton had a contract with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority through his service company Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited.

His contract has a secrecy clause which states:

"Publicity

10.8 Neither the Authority nor the Supplier shall publicise in any media or public announcement information regarding the terms of the Contract, or the Service supplied, without the prior written consent of the other party in either case such consent not to be unreasonably withheld."

However I’m skipping ahead a little here and I’d like to briefly make a point about how this contract was awarded. The contract originally for six months (although it was later extended for a further six months) was for a value of £12,500 and started on the 8th April 2014.

Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited was only incorporated a fortnight before being awarded the contract. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution at the time required that for contracts of this value that two written quotations had to be obtained first. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution required there to be a report if this isn’t the case and 3.3 of their contract standing orders detailed the procedure to be followed:

"For procurement projects under £172,514 for Goods and Services and £4,322,012 for Works, the Head of Procurement or their nominated deputy, and a Director must approve any exemption, prior to any commitment being given by the Authority to any supplier. The Chief Fire Officer will keep a register of exemptions granted detailing the nature and value of the contract, the circumstances justifying the exemption and the name of the contractor awarded the contract."

However what was the contract actually for? That’s detailed in an attachment to the contract. A day was defined earlier in the contract as meaning 7 hours of work.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 1

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES

Background

MFRA is in the process of merging 8 fire stations into 4 as part of a major service reengineering exercise to deliver large scale savings. This will necessitate a large programme of internal and external consultancy.

Project Scope/Deliverables

The service required is to deliver professional communications expertise, a communications strategy and support to the following people during the process:-

CFO and Exec team
Director of Strategy and Performance who leads the restructured corporate communications team in house

It will include devising and over-seeing the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy with all stakeholders to effectively help deliver 4 fire station mergers.

The work will require (but is not limited to) attendance at the following meetings which may take place outside normal office hours:-

Internal PO briefings
Public consultation meetings both open and facilitated
To chair open public consultation meetings
Briefings with stakeholders in the area including MPs, councillors
IRMP meetings

The services will also provide for the following:-

Play a leading role in delivering two events
Long Service & Bravery Awards
The official opening of the Joint Control Centre
Assist Principle Officers on all PO Briefings
Provide strategic communication advice to Principle Officers

Plus any other duties in relation to the station merger programmes as requested by the Director of Strategy and Performance.

Timescales and fees

Timescales
The Services will be provided over a maximum of 8 days per a calendar month for a period of six months from the commencement date with an option to extend on the same or different terms which would be agreed between the parties prior to any extension period.

Times, days and hours of the service to be agreed between the parties in advance of any attendance.

Fees

The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 2

FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE

Peter Rushton will undertake the activities as per the Specification in Attachment 1 during the period 8^th April 2014 to 7^th October 2014 based on a commitment of 8 days per a calendar month. For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority shall only be charged for days actually undertaken by the Supplier.
48 days will be undertaken during the six month period at the standard day rate of £250. The total value of this contract (including any pre-agreed expenses) is therefore £12,000.
The Authority will apply a ceiling to the Travel & Accommodation Expenses Rates payable to the Supplier of £500 for the six month period. Expenses must be approved by the Authority in advance of being incurred and shall be payable at the Authority’s approved rates in force at the time of Contract award. The Supplier will be required to provide copies of relevant accommodation and travel receipts.
Consolidated invoices shall be presented every 4 weeks clearly detailing the dates on which activities were undertaken and itemising any expenses claimed which were incurred during the same 4 week period.
The Authority shall pay the Supplier the sums due under the Contract, on 30 day payment terms, from receipt of a true and valid invoice.

All invoices should be submitted to:

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Exchequer Services Department
Bridle Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L30 4YD

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

AS WITNESS the hands of the parties

Signed by and on behalf of the Authority (In Caps): MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY JANET HENSHAW

Signature: (Janet Henshaw’s signature)

Date: 08/04/2014

Signed by the Supplier (In Caps): PETER RUSHTON CONSULTANCY LIMITED
Signature: (Peter Rushton’s signature)
Date: 08.04.2014

The six month contract was then extended for a further six months (see below).

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2

Finally, the last report to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the outcome of the consultation to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations with a new fire station at Saughall Massie mentioned many of the expenses that related to the consultation, but nothing was in that report about this contract. If the cost of this contract had been included in the report, there should’ve been an extra £6,250 mentioned in the report (£25,000 divided by four is £6,250).

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

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service pay a consultant £2,500/day + expenses?

Principea Consulting Ltd Training Expenses invoice £2901 06p Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

The above invoice was paid by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for a speaker from Principea Consulting Limited for a training event called Exercise Black Swan.

The first part £401.06 is for travel expenses that break down to these categories on the invoice.

£11.60 Single fare on hovercraft to Southsea
£80.00 taxi to/from Southampton Airport
£136.96 Air Fare return to Manchester
£166.50 Two nights in the Premier Inn in Liverpool
£6.00 Single return on fast catamaran

Total £401.06

The second part of the invoice is £2,500 for Speakers Fee for presentation on 3^rd of May 2013 (although this might be a typo and possibly should read 2014) and detailed as for the development and leadership of Exercise Black Swan. The rest of the invoice deals with VAT.

So, if I’ve read this invoice correctly Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid for someone to speak at a one-day training event the sum of £2,500, plus their travel and accommodation expenses of £401.06? Does anyone reading know what Exercise Black Swan was?

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

£millions for PFI fire stations was borrowed from French and German banks

The three boxes on the left are the PFI fire stations contract

There are many people who know more about accountancy than I do. I look forward to reading their comments on this. Below are links to the funding documents, which is part of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority PFI fire stations contract that I wrote about yesterday. I received a copy of the contract from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service when I exercised a right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18 to inspect and receive copies of the contract.

I’ve left out 4.7 (Bank Account Mandates) as this contains details of sort codes and account numbers with specimen signatures for those accounts. It’s probably better that such information isn’t published!

I find these financial documents rather confusing to understand as they use a lot of jargon. To me it seems to be an agreement to borrow up to £50,436,936 between now and 2038 from two banks (Dexia Crédit Local (a Franco-Belgian bank) and Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (a German bank)). The banks then charge interest on the money borrowed.

If anyone can tell me what the interest rate is being charged by the banks for this money (based on the documents below), please leave a comment. I’ve tried reading these documents to figure it out but it seems to be made deliberately obscure (probably because it’s a variable rather than fixed amount).

4.1 Loan Facilities Agreement

4.2 Funders PA Direct Agreement

4.3 Construction Direct Agreement

4.4 FM Direct Agreement

4.6 Account Mandate Agreement

4.8 STID

4.9 Noteholder Subscription Agreement

4.10 ProjCo Loan Note Instrument

4.11.1 Dexia ISDA

4.11.2 Nord LB ISDA

4.12 Agency Fee Letter

4.13 Arrangement Fee Letter