Why did Wirral Council include Ian Coleman as a whistleblowing contact in the Passenger Transport Contract?
Why did Wirral Council include Ian Coleman as a whistleblowing contact in the Passenger Transport Contract?
Here is my first question to Wirral Council’s auditor (Grant Thornton) about the Passenger Transport Contract.
Wirral Council has a contract with Eye Cab Limited called the "Passenger Transport Contract". This contract started on the 1st September 2014 and runs to the 31st August 2015 and is for the provision of taxi services.
I requested to inspect a copy of the contract (see Audit Commission Act s.15(1)(a)) which was arranged for the 4th September 2015. As a local government elector for the Wirral area, I can question the auditor about the 2014/15 accounts from 9.30am on the 18th August 2015 until the accounts are closed (see Audit Commission Act 1998 s.15(2)).
Page 36 of the contract has a section titled "Section 5 CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (Whistle-blowing) A Guide for Suppliers and Contractors (see attached page 36).
Passenger Transport Contract Wirral Council page 36 of 40
At the bottom of this page of the contract it details two people that a complaint under the whistleblowing procedure can be made to.
The second of these individuals is:
"Ian Coleman, Director of Finance, Wirral Borough Council, Finance Department, Treasury Building, Cleveland Street, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6BU"
Wirral Council’s Employment and Appointments Committee agreed early voluntary retirement for Ian Coleman on the 3rd October 2012 (see attached minutes).
Therefore as Ian Coleman was not an employee of Wirral Council at the time the Passenger Transport Contract was put out to tender (or when the contract was agreed) why was he included as a whistleblowing contact in the contract?
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
However parts 15, 18, 19 and 26 of the request were refused by Wirral Council again.
All those four parts of the request have been withheld because Wirral Council decides that section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) is engaged. The minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group (part 26) have an additional reason for refusal because of section 40 (personal information).
I of course plan to appeal this latest refusal to ICO again (which probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone). Essentially however the problem I face to do with this request (which may be familiar to those who make FOI requests and have more experience than I do).
Public body decides on a reason to refuse a FOI request initially and at internal review (this stage could take up to 60 days). ICO disagree with the reason and issue a decision notice requiring the public body not to use that reason for refusing that request and to either provide the information or another reason.
So the public body comes up with another reason. That reason is challenged at internal review (again adding another 60 days). That reason is then appealed to ICO who disagree with the reason and ICO issue another decision notice.
The public body picks another reason to refuse the request and eventually it becomes a merry-go-round. The public body clearly really doesn’t want to give up the information, yet ICO is giving the public body a loophole each time a decision notice is issued by giving them a chance to pick another reason.
Below are ten A4 pages of expense claims submitted by councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority for the 2014/15 financial year. It’s pages ten to twenty of eighty-nine pages and each thumbnail below should link to a more high-definition (and therefore readable) image for each page.
The councillors these pages are for are Cllr Leslie T Byrom, Cllr Steve Niblock, Cllr Ted Grannell, Cllr Peter Brennan, Cllr Ray Halpin, Cllr Roy Gladden and Cllr Sharon Sullivan.
HQ stand for headquarters, Perf & Scrut means Performance and Scrutiny Committee, Comm Safety and Prot means Community Safety and Protection Committee and TDA refers to Training and Development Academy.
Interestingly the claim by Cllr Sharon Sullivan isn’t signed by her, but someone else on her behalf.
Cllr Ted Grannell taxi expenses December 2014 January 2015 thumbnailCllr Steve Niblock taxi expenses July 2014 October 2014 December 2014 thumbnailCllr Steve Niblock taxi expenses December 2014 January 2015 thumbnailCllr Leslie Byrom car mileage claim parking taxi October 2014 thumbnailCllr Peter Brennan car mileage claim November 2014 to February 2015 page 1 of 2 thumbnailCllr Peter Brennan car mileage claim page 2 of 2 thumbnailCllr Ray Halpin car mileage expenses November 2014 thumbnailCllr Roy Gladden car mileage expenses parking September October 2014 thumbnailCouncillor Steve Niblock expenses claim taxi journeys January February 2015 thumbnailCouncillor Sharon Sullivan taxi expense February 2015 thumbnail
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!
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.
The video above of the Special Meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority of the 2nd September will finish uploading by about 16:30 on the 2/9/15. Once processed it should be available for viewing but is not available at the time this blog post was published.
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail
At a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, councillors, the Mayor of Liverpool and co-opted members agreed a revised set of recommendations. The revised recommendations appeared only minutes before the meeting started.
The revised recommendations approve a request to the Conservative government to devolve powers to the city region as part of a devolution deal.
Here are the original recommendations (with the crossed out parts deleted by the revised recommendations):
It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-
(a) comments upon, and endorses the devolution themes that will form the basis of the Liverpool City Region’s input to the Comprehensive Spending Review on the 4 September 2015 (NB: this detail will form the basis of a follow-on report for members’ consideration); and
(b) notes that the devolution process will remain an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Authority, for members’ consideration."
Here are the revised recommendations agreed today:
1.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is recommended to:
Approve the initial scope of the proposals as outlined in the supplementary report and the presentation made to the Combined Authority as the Liverpool City Region’s formal submission to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, subject to a delegation to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Chair of the Combined Authority and the Lead Officer: Economic Development to make any drafting amendments to the final document;
Continue negotiations with Government over the Autumn period in advance of the publication of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review to secure a bespoke devolution ‘deal’ for Liverpool City Region which will:
Drive economic growth and increase productivity;
Reduce costs and improve outcomes across the whole of the public sector;
and
Improve social outcomes and better health and wellbeing for local residents.
Note that any actual agreement with Government would require the approval of constituent Councils with appropriate consultation put in place;
Note that devolution negotiations are an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Combined Authority, for Member’s consideration and approval; and
Note that any Agreement will only be signed by both the Constituent Councils and Government when both parties are fully satisfied with the final details of the Devolution Deal.
So what are the proposals that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are asking the government for?
The proposals are in this supplementary report and include the points below (plus other asks):
Abolishing Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
Abolishing the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
Asking for a legislation change so that any surplus Mersey Tunnel tolls can be used for economic development
“the repayment of historic Mersey Tunnels debts by government”
Development Corporation Status for the Liverpool City Region
Creation of a Land Commission
“Designation of catapult Centres in the City Region for Manufacturing Technology Centre focused on marine and renewable energy and a Centre of Excellence for Infectious Diseases”
“A Free Trade Zone designation for the Liverpool Wirral Port system that includes provision for Global Zone-to-Zone Transfers, No Duty on Value Added and Enhanced Customs Warehousing”
“We want government to give us a long-term Special Rail Grant (SRG) to help
secure a new fleet of Merseyrail trains.”
“the development of a generation system of regional significance, for example, an offshore tidal lagoon”
Also requested are “asks” under the headings of “cultural partnership and creative dock”, “community safety, enforcement, licensing and regulatory services”, “education”, “children’s services” and “health, wellbeing and social care”
Certainly the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is asking for many changes from the government, which if agreed in principle will be subject to consultation.
Here are what some of the people on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority had to say at today’s public meeting that agreed the proposals:
Mayor Joe Anderson (Mayor of Liverpool, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) said, "There will be opportunities, there also will be more negotiations of more substance with businesses, with other political parties, with other interested groups like health, the voluntary sector, the trade unions and others to engage and involve themselves in the process."
Cllr Phil Davies (Chair, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) asked, "In the near future presumably we’ll be drawing up a consultation programme if you like as the negotiations roll out?"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
The Information Commissioner’s Office (which I will refer to as ICO) have issued a decision notice about a Freedom of Information Act request made by Nigel Hobro to Wirral Council. The unique number for this decision notice is FS50559883. It’s not yet on ICO’s website but should be in the near future. ED: Updated 04/09/2015 I looked on ICO’s website and it has been published since this article was written and decision notice FS50559883 can be viewed on ICO’s website.
The Freedom of Information Act request is for an “incomplete internal audit investigation report” and was originally made on the 20th August 2014.
The reasons given by both Surjit Tour and Eric Robinson for not supplying the information requested (both times an apology was given for taking too long to reach a decision) were two-fold:
section 36(2)(c) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council that applying section 36(2)(c) was reasonable but disagreed with the public interest test element.
ICO requires Wirral Council to take the action below within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice dated the 24th August 2015. This is assuming that Wirral Council do not appeal the decision:
"Disclose the withheld information with redactions made under section 40(2) for the names of individuals within the report"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
