What were the 9 most viewed stories on this blog over the last week?

What were the 9 most viewed stories on this blog over the last week?                                                    There are many stories I plan to publish on this blog soon. There’s one involving Hoylake Golf Resort, a story involving a cover-up at Wirral Council sanctioned by a Conservative Minister and of course the steady stream of news that … Continue reading “What were the 9 most viewed stories on this blog over the last week?”

What were the 9 most viewed stories on this blog over the last week?

                                                  

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson on a train
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson on a train

There are many stories I plan to publish on this blog soon. There’s one involving Hoylake Golf Resort, a story involving a cover-up at Wirral Council sanctioned by a Conservative Minister and of course the steady stream of news that is local politics. I also plan to look back at what were the most viewed news stories in 2015.

However it’s time to look back at the 9 most viewed stories of the last week (with a few comments on each of them).

1. Why is Merseytravel spending £57,000 + VAT to monitor this blog?

This is a look at what Merseytravel spend on media monitoring (which covers not just this blog, but newspapers and broadcast media too). It formed part of my citizen audit over the summer (but with tales of councillors’ salmon dinners and stays at gentleman’s clubs by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority councillors) only was published now.

2. Will the 20 councillors on Merseytravel mothball the Mersey Ferry terminal at Woodside?

The big news story of the week was about whether the Mersey Ferries had a future at Woodside. Councillors disagreed with the consultants and asked for an option that kept the three terminals (Woodside, Seacombe and Liverpool Pier Head).

3. A look back to a fictional Birkenhead in 1894 and how things hardly change!

Inspired by the Sherlock Christmas special, this went back in time to 1894 to a fictional conversation around the Brace breakfast table. Yes Wirral is still in Cheshire, blogs don’t yet exist and the first Mersey Tunnel for the railway has recently been opened.

4. Wirral Council’s Cabinet agrees to consultation on £2.498 million of cuts

The consultation started by Cabinet before Christmas on cuts at Wirral Council continues.

5. Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

A FOI request Wirral Council would rather I hadn’t published surfaces to show what senior management thinks of whistleblowers.

6. What was Liverpool City Council’s incredible 6 page response to the FOI consultation?

Number five leads in to Liverpool City Council’s views on Freedom of Information. They suggest a series of radical moves. They want the 18 hour rule changed to 6 or 7 hours, for those making Freedom of Information requests to be charged for the time it takes Liverpool City Council to black out information, more opportunity to deem requests vexatious and to abolish internal reviews.

7. Wirral Council receives extra £725,000 of education funding (but Lyndale is still closing)

A story about how merely doing things differently at Wirral Council led to more money.

8. How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between £1.33 and £6.40/mile)?

Continuing a long-running series of articles on councillors’ expenses, the price list for councillors’ taxi journeys.

9. What was Cllr Samantha Dixon (Chester West and Chester Leader)’s response to criticism over disabled parking problems in Chester?

A story about the possible unlawful expenditure of ~£650,000 and the welcome disabled drivers receive in Chester. I’ll be providing updates on this story soon and what The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 has to do with it all.

So that’s it, the top nine stories read in the past week and a teaser for a few to come.

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

Cllr Foulkes on Mersey Ferries “we cherish that service and want to maintain it”

Cllr Foulkes on Mersey Ferries “we cherish that service and want to maintain it”

                                      

MV Snowdrop (one of the iconic Mersey Ferries) on the River Mersey with Liverpool skyline in the background
MV Snowdrop (one of the iconic Mersey Ferries) on the River Mersey with Liverpool skyline in the background

This is an update to an earlier story headlined Will the 20 councillors on Merseytravel mothball the Mersey Ferry terminal at Woodside?.

After a long talk followed by a question and answer session with Jan Chaudry-van der Velde of Merseyrail the meeting got to the agenda item titled Mersey Ferries Long Term Strategy.

Here first is what Cllr Foulkes had to say during the meeting.

Councillor Steve Foulkes talks about the Mersey Ferries at a meeting of the Merseytravel Committee 7th January 2016
Councillor Steve Foulkes talks about the Mersey Ferries at a meeting of the Merseytravel Committee 7th January 2016

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.

Merseytravel Committee meeting (part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) meeting of the 7th January 2016 (Mersey Ferries item starts at 7m 51s)

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour) spoke first, “Yes Chair, obviously we’re going to be moving something a bit later on, but I think I think there has to be some criticism I think from the elected Members in terms of the release of the report and the focus and attention on the negativity of it.

I think that I would like to turn this completely on its head and say that if I was a Leader of a Council or running a Council service and anybody was talking in terms of this day and age where the government that we have is actually savaging public services across the sector. It’s almost waging war on the public sector, if there was once, if I had a service and someone was coming forward with a bit of paper that was offering me a twenty year lifespan and beyond, I would grab that with both hands initially.

I would say that is undoubtedly positive news for the ferry service of this city region, an iconic ferry service that we as an organisation are planning for the next twenty, twenty-five years. So we have to take that as a very, very positive aspect and there are some very good initiatives within the report that would allow us to do that.

In particularly a way forward of getting new vessels which is key obviously we’ve been told they’re aging and vessels that will actually allow us to generate more income and make it even more sustainable. So the word is sustainability.

But obviously everyone’s eyes have been drawn to the one paragraph that doesn’t make good reading. But these are people who in their professional capacity have been asked to do if you know a helicopter view of the service and give us their deliberations.

And this is what to me is why I became a politician, why I joined these organisations is to actually have an influence on behalf of the people that I represent in using these facts, figures and information to actually develop the strategy and this is a good starting point for us for a strategy because that’s what it is you say Chair. It’s a discussion document for us to move forward.

Now I welcome the interest that’s been generated by this report and there are some good ideas coming from the public and from groups who are on their own calling themselves protest groups.

There’s absolutely no reason why those protest groups can’t become a useful ally, a tool in actually developing the strategy as we go on. So, for me it is a document that maybe could’ve been handled in terms of the PR issues a lot better.

But nevertheless it does give people some reassurance that this organisation cherishes the ferry service with all the economic problems it presents and the challenges it presents we cherish that service and want to maintain it for twenty, twenty-five years.

I think there’s a way forward that we can think about, certainly it highlights the purchase of the vessels, there are other models to purchasing the vessels. I would just ask just to consider certainly the logic and strategy we’ve used for building up the reserves for the rolling stock and the project management that we’ve gone through that all Members seem to appreciate it.

Could, alright the figures are still high by anyone’s measure we are talking twenties of millions of pounds in this document, but we can handle that in the simple way as we have to build up these reserves for the rolling stock, ie building up a reserve for capital, having some separate you know ways of generating money.

The other thing I would say though Chair, that that shouldn’t stop us from this long-term strategy we’ve debated. I still think that there are ways to make the ferry service more efficient and operationally more successful and there are things that are coming out, as we move on, and things that have already happened such as the annualised hours of the people that work on the ferries.

And there are some glaring costs that we need to remedy, for example keeping the boat on the River overnight with a full crew. It doesn’t seem a good use of public money. So there are lots of things we can do as we build up this strategy but my overall view is that apart from the one negative paragraph, it’s a positive way forward for the longevity of the much-loved ferry service and I’ll hope to reassure the public when you move your resolution. Thank you.”

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

Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

Incredible: FOI reveals “the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton”

                                                       

Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee  Wirral Council  3rd November 2014   L to R Legal adviser who was missing Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair), Clare Fish and Graham Hodkinson
Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee Wirral Council 3rd November 2014 L to R Legal adviser who was missing Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair), Clare Fish and Graham Hodkinson
Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations” (George Orwell)
 

There are many areas of journalism the public sector wished I hadn’t written about. For example claiming an email from Graham Burgess inviting some councillors to the Open Golf Championship was fraudulent, then 5 minutes later executing a screeching U-turn.

Or as Mr. Tour put it before the U-turn, “This is clearly a serious matter and I formally request that you immediately remove the email and the associated commentary concerning this subject matter from your blog.” Yes it seems even Mr. Tour can get quite cross!

The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service press office repeatedly phoned asking me to remove this multi-million pound PFI contract. Merseytravel’s press office were horrified at my reporting of their Head of Internal Audit stating at a public meeting that some whistleblowing was “Mickey Mouse” & “complete nonsense”.

And of course after the story INCREDIBLE: £2,877.35 spent by Wirral Council last year in previously hidden payments on taxis for Labour councillors! Wirral Council decided to just downright ignore my FOI requests.

This is the public sector, I’m writing news that falls within the George Orwell quote above, news that from a public relations perspective “they” don’t want the public to know.

I think if I could be paid off with a generous pension and a large six-figure redundancy payment and a confidentiality agreement, they’d have tried it by now!

So it’s time for some more public interest journalism. Something that falls within the George Orwell quote above.

This is an email which sums Wirral Council up, but I’d better explain. Emma Degg was the head of the press office, Surjit refers to Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer/Head of their Legal Department), Joe Blott has responsibility for industrial relations and is Surjit Tour’s line manager, Graham Burgess was Chief Executive and Joe Blott’s line manager.

Graham Hodkinson is in charge of Adult Social Services (you can read the war of words between him and Cllr Blakleley over Girtrell Court elsewhere in the press) and Rob Vickers, well I don’t like to spoil the surprise (but he’s not the famous rugby player of the same name).

This response to a FOI request was made through whatdotheyknow.com, but Wirral Council felt the information was so embarrassing that they didn’t want it published there.

So here it is, it falls within the George Orwell quote above, it’s something that someone else does not want printed here. Enjoy! Strangely Mr. Hodkinson doesn’t take on board Emma Degg’s advice about oversight and scrutiny, but have a read for yourself. You can read the Anna Klonowski Associates report on Wirral Council’s website and the appendices to the AKA report on this blog (they were never published by Wirral Council). However in order to understand the report please also read the key which shows that Service Provider 3 (referred to below) was Salisbury Independent Living (SIL) who sued Wirral Council for £3 million.


From: Vickers, Rob
Sent: 18 June 2013 08:09
To: Hodkinson, Graham R.
Subject: FW: Financial Liability

Hi Graham, I have now discussed this matter with Emma Degg, still no response from Surjit, Emma has advised that we should respond to Mr Morton as we would respond to anyone else and that our reply should be concise and cover the following – thank him for his Email, note his continuing oversight and scrutiny of the matters referenced and reinforce that the matter is subject to due process. The response should be in letter form and we should share letter with Joe Blott and Graham Burgess, due to wider matters relating to Mr Morton – the Council are seeking to draw a line under matters in relation to Mr Morton. Given the advice the letter would be as follows –

Dear Mr Morton

I write to acknowledge receipt of your Email dated 5th June 2013 and note your continued oversight and scrutiny of the matters you referenced allied to the AKA Report and specifically Service Provider 3. I can confirm that these matters are subject to due process and that we are seeking to bring matters to a conclusion.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Vickers

Graham, such a response is blunt but captures the advice provided, what do you think.

Rob


From: Hodkinson, Graham R.
Sent: 18 June 2013 12:52
To: Vickers, Rob
Subject: RE: Financial Liability

I would refer to continued interest as a citizen rather than scrutiny/oversight as below :

Dear Mr Morton

I write to acknowledge receipt of your Email dated 5th June 2013. Thank you for taking the time to write, setting out your views in relation to matters relating to a former care provider. I note your continued interest as a concerned citizen into the matters you referenced allied to the AKA Report and specifically Service Provider 3. I can confirm at this stage that these matters are subject to due process and that we are seeking to bring matters to a conclusion.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Vickers

Graham Hodkinson
Director of Adult Social Services
Five ways to add years to your life:
Connect • Be Active • Take Notice • Keep Learning • Give
Wirral Council
Please save paper and only print out what is necessary


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

What was in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s 2 page response to the FOI consultation?

What was in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s 2 page response to the FOI consultation?

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Next is the response to the FOI consultation from the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

Again I’ll declare an interest as I’m alluded to in their response (in fact my profession is named) and my appeal to the Information Commissioners Office last year is explicitly referred to in a report going to councillors next week.

Now by their own figures, responding to all the FOI requests over the whole of last year (2015) used up the equivalent of ~0.375 of a full-time employee.

From what I remember, this means that they allocate more resources to their press office than FOI.

Staff wide Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had last year an estimated 700 firefighters and I’d estimate 300 staff that aren’t firefighters (of course this is directly employed staff, not staff employed by contractors).

So 0.0375% of its staff budget (approx) is spent on answering FOI requests, the equivalent of around a third of a job of a full-time employee.

Personally if I was on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority I’d be more worried about the other ~999.625 jobs, but there you go! It’s nice to see that they have some nice things to say about journalists in their response though and a report on FOI request will be considered by councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority next Tuesday afternoon. The agenda for that meeting is here and the Wirral Council councillors on it are Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr Jean Stapleton.

Below is the MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] response to the FOI consultation, which you can compare to Liverpool City Council’s response.

Although it states it’s from the MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] by the way it’s written “The Service considers” one assumes that as with LCC’s response it’s been drafted by officers. Unlike the attitude taken by Liverpool City Council Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service state they are "supportive of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act".


Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Freedom of Information Call for Evidence

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (MFRA) would like to make the following comments in relation to questions 3 and 6 of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information Call for Evidence:

Question 3:What protection should there be for information which involves candid assessment of risk? For how long does such information remain sensitive?

The Service considers that there should be some protection for public authorities in relation to the release of risk registers. High level information about risks and mitigation is appropriate for release and many authorities will publish this as a matter of course. When a request is made for detailed risk registers relating to on-going projects or activities, this is much more difficult for this Service to deal with. It is vital when ensuring that public services are being delivered effectively, that all risk are considered and that staff feel able to “think the unthinkable”. Often these risks are mitigated, but they still remain in risk registers and are open to misinterpretation or being sensationalised. The Service would request that consideration be given to risk registers of this type only being release after the project is completed.
Equally releasing risk mitigation measures prior to the completion of the project may compromise the
measures themselves exposing services to additional risk.

Question 6: Is the burden imposed on public authorities under the Act justified by the public interest in the public’s right to know? Or are controls needed to reduce the burden of FoI on public authorities? If controls are justified, should these be targeted at the kinds of requests which impose a disproportionate burden on public authorities? What kinds of requests do impose a disproportionate burden?

The Service is supportive of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, and values its role in allowing people access to information and giving them the right to find out about matters and decisions that affect them. However, use of the Act has become increasingly popular and the volume of FoI requests has increased over the years. For example, the table below shows the increase in requests to MFRS since 2011:

Year

FoI Requests received

FoI requests believed to be for commercial purposes (as far as can be established with the information available)

2011 72 Not recorded
2012 82 Not recorded
2013 101 Not recorded
2014 138 13
2015 131 17
 
 
 

Dealing with this increase in requests has had an impact on the Service which for Merseyside Fire Authority undoubtedly places increased pressure on relatively small teams. Over the last four years, the Fire and Rescue Authority has had to make savings of £20 million as a result of Government spending cuts. The Authority is required to make a further £6.3 million savings in 2015/16. It is also clear that the Authority will also face further significant cuts over the course of the next Parliament. The Authority has already made significant reductions in its support services and staffing, which means there are fewer staff available to service FoI requests. To save £6.3 million in 2015/16, the Authority has identified another £2.9 million to be cut from support services, further reducing capacity.

Whilst the Service respects the rights of citizens to ask for information that may affect their lives and communities and recognises the role that journalists may play in seeking out inefficiencies or poor practices in the public sector, there is a cost associated with that. The staff collecting, collating, checking, redacting and authorising release of the requested information all have other work to do. As a result, dealing with a FoI request is likely to take staff away from core business.

What the Service believes is particularly difficult to justify is the extent to which commercial organisations use FoI to request information to develop new business leads or seek a commercial advantage. The private sector is effectively using the diminishing resources of the public sector for free, when those resources could be put to better use and there is no return on that investment for the public sector.

What we would ask the Commission to consider is either, levying a charge for such requests, or the ability for an organisation to refuse the request where the applicant is not able to demonstrate that the request is in the public interest.
Even when requests could be considered to be in the public interest, for example in relation to a public consultation on the Service’s plans, the enthusiasm of some members of the public to seek more and more detailed information can place significant pressure on a small authority. Five requests from one person for similar but subtly different complex information in the space of one or two months does result in disproportionate effort. This is despite the fact that individually, the cost of meeting the requests would not be sufficient to justify refusal and the subtle differences between requests rule out treating them as vexatious. It is the cumulative effect that has the impact.

It is also difficult to treat requests as vexatious or indeed classify the work required as excessive without it being perceived by the requestor or indeed the public or press as defensive – so in effect services provide the information for fear of being perceived as less than transparent.

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service has been recording the time spent by all officers involved in processing all FoI requests since July 2015 (32 completed requests). Given it was already keen to understand and share the impact of such requests with the Authority and Government departments.

As such the total time spent since recording began has totalled 153 hours spread across a range of staff from administrators to the Chief Fire Officer. This equates to an average of 4.8 hours per request. If this was applied to the total number of requests received so far this year it would total 629 hours or 90 working days. With the lost time costs in the thousands.

This is resource that can be ill afforded during these times of austerity, so it is vital that the FoI requests processed are of valid public interest and not to further the profits of a commercial organisation.

The Service has welcomed the opportunity to contribute to this call for evidence and looks forward to the publication of the outcomes.


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

What was Liverpool City Council’s incredible 6 page response to the FOI consultation?

What was Liverpool City Council’s incredible 6 page response to the FOI consultation?

                                                                  

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

You can tell a lot about the culture at a public body by its response and reaction to issues such as FOI and filming of public meetings.

I had better declare an interest as a FOI request I made to Liverpool City Council is currently being considered by ICO for a decision notice.

Considering there were over 30,000 responses to the recent consultation on changes to FOI legislation it’s something that attracts a lot of strong feeling.

I’m going to start first with Liverpool City Council’s response to the consultation. Those who know Liverpool City Council may say that their response sums up their attitude. From the tone of their response they don’t like openness and transparency and recommend that the goalposts are moved to prevent having to respond to so many FOI requests (whilst displaying a lack of awareness as to why they receive so many FOI requests in the first place). I think that responses like this are often like a window on an organisation’s soul.

It gives some telling insights on the internal review process of FOI requests at Liverpool City Council with comment such as “that an Internal Review is unlikely to reach a different conclusion”, therefore they propose abolishing internal reviews.

They also want advance notice of decision notices so that they can for want of a better word nobble ICO to change what they don’t like as in LCC’s world decision notices are described as “inappropriate”.



Liverpool City Council

Rt. Hon. Lord Burns
Chair – Commission on Freedom of Information Cabinet Office
9th Floor
102 Petty France London
SW1H 9AJ

Evidence Submission on review of Freedom of Information Legislation

I write further to my letter of 12 October and with regard to the Call for Evidence document issued by the Commission on Freedom of Information on 9 October, enclosing for the attention of the Commission the formal evidence submission of Liverpool City Council.

I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and would again take the opportunity to affirm our willingness to continue to engage constructively with the Commission during the course of its review.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours
sincerely

Ged Fitzgerald
Chief Executive

Response

These matters all have a starting point and undergo a number of iterations before coming forward as formal options. It is essential that this process should not be undermined by requests being made for copies of any emails or communications which formed part of the iterative process of decision making. Ultimately the governance framework ensures any decisions taken are informed and legal. This is a cornerstone of any effective public authority – from Central Government to local authorities – and it is essential that this ability to develop policy, proposals and explore options is maintained otherwise it would impair the quality and ability of public authorities to make informed decisions.

The application of this Exemption requires a person qualified under the Act to give their reasonable opinion, and guidance has been issued by the ICO as to the acceptable format of this. It is clear from the consultation document as well as practical experience that there is a need for such Exemption otherwise the quality of both record-keeping and decision-making by public authorities would be impaired.

Current guidance issued by the ICO (“the evidence required by the ICO would be to assess the quality of the Qualified Persons reasoning process and assist in their determination as to whether a substantive opinion could be considered reasonable…”) would appear to indicate that once the Qualified Person has reached and recorded their reasonable opinion then the ICO may only require the production of such a record but may not compel the disclosure of the information to which the Reasonable Opinion relates.

The key issue is that the Qualified Person’s opinion and record of reasoning which includes the public interest test is recorded. The ICO have produced a template for this purpose. The Information Commissioners Guidance also indicates that the potential prejudice claimed arising from any such disclosures must be at least or exceed a 50% chance of occurring.

How long after should that remain sensitive?
An additional key aspect of the decision-making process of public authorities is the duration of how long information which falls under the Exemption may be withheld from disclosure on the basis of the opinion of the Qualified Person. Information relating to ‘internal deliberations’ should remain capable of being withheld from disclosure for as long as the public authority considers necessary. Whether the information held continued to be subject to non-disclosure would of necessity be a matter for the relevant public authority to determine. It would be inappropriate to set any form of definitive time limit after which information could be deemed to no longer be sensitive if published. The sensitivity of any specific piece of information directly relates to the subject of the information itself as opposed to the date when this was created. There should be no limitation as to the period which a Qualified Person may determine that such information should not be disclosed if the subject of a formal request.

The City Council would also consider that opinions issued by Qualified Persons should not be subject to overturn if reached on a reasonable basis and in a manner consistent with ICO guidance and using their standard template. An alternative and more appropriate mechanism would be for any such opinions to be published on the website of the respective public authority and referenced accordingly within the publication scheme of that public authority. This would satisfy the accessibility and transparency requirements for such declarations and for the purposes of Liverpool City Council it is the Monitoring Officer.

An anomaly which the City Council would bring to the attention of the Commission is that of how the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) allow an exception (as opposed to the term ‘exemption as used under FOIA) for internal communications under Regulation 12(4) (d) and yet no parallel exemption is extant under FOIA.

Recommendations from Liverpool City Council –

(i) Qualified Person Opinion & Publication – that the Section 36 Exemption be revised to state that the reasonable opinion of the Qualified Person, once drafted and recorded on the relevant ICO template and published to the website of the public authority and referenced within the Publication Scheme, that this may not then be the subject of further review by the ICO.
 

Questions 2 – this question relates purely to matters within the legislation which are applicable only to Central Government and as such no response is proposed to be made.

Questions 3 & 4 see response to question 6 below.

Question 5 – What is the appropriate enforcement and appeal system for Freedom of Information Requests? What is the appropriate enforcement and appeal system for Freedom of Information Requests?

Appeals & Internal Review
Current legislation includes provision whereby public authorities must provide an internal review process whereby requestors may ask the Public Authority to review the original decision of the Public Authority on their specific request.

The burden placed on public authorities in preparing responses to initial requests is further exacerbated by the requirement to undertake an Internal Review to assess the validity of its response, when in the first instance such responses are issued following careful consideration of information held in the context of FOIA legislation. In terms of the figures set out in this response below, in 2014 of 2,139 requests a total of 49 requestors sought an Internal Review. Of these, only 5 appeals were the subject of Decision Notices from the ICO with only 1 of which requiring any form of action from the City Council – approximately 0.00047% of all requests processed by the City Council.

It is our position that our approach to an FOI request is robust and thorough from the outset, and that the legislation is applied by trained experienced staff so that an Internal Review is unlikely to reach a different conclusion as evidenced by these statistics.

Essentially public authorities are being asked to repeat an assessment when undertaking an Internal Review and to undertake work twice when conducting reviews, which is inefficient and places an excessive burden on local authorities.

ICO Review
We would draw attention to the process which the ICO then undertakes when seeking information from public authorities in such instances when informing their own decision-making. Frequently the level of information sought by the ICO goes beyond that of verifying the information held or application of the exemption concerned and indeed the subject matter of the original request. This process can be both resource intensive and give additional uncertainty in those circumstances where the ICO seeks information or reasoning beyond that which could reasonably be expected on a specific case. We would seek greater clarity as to the remit of the ICO in such circumstances and of the extent to which they may undertake a review.

Decision Notices
Additionally, in concluding reviews, the ICO will then issue a Notice (Decision or Enforcement Notice) setting out their decision on the request concerned. We would suggest that this process be reviewed and aligned more closely to that used by the Local Government Ombudsman whereby any Notices proposed to be issued should firstly be sent to the public authority concerned for response. This would provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for public authorities and the ICO to address any clear factual inaccuracies, assist in maximising the value of any recommendations contained within the final Notice issued and possibly prevent a costly First Tier Tribunal being convened. The timescale for responses by the Public Authority to any Decision Notice to be 10 working days. The inclusion of unsubstantiated and factually inaccurate statements within ICO Notices, issued without opportunity to the public authority of correction or rebuttal, is inappropriate and requires addressing.

Applications to First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
The final opportunity for requestors – if unsatisfied with the outcome of a review undertaken by the ICO – is to submit an Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. There is no threshold to be met before such applications are made and, in seeking to respond, public authorities are required to expend significant resources in responding. Only on the most fundamental principles of information law should this facility be available or otherwise a cost mechanism for such applications should be introduced in the same manner adopted for applications for Judicial Review.

Recommendations from Liverpool City Council –

(ii) Internal Review – that this mechanism be withdrawn on the basis that this offers no practical benefit for requestors and merely requires the duplication of effort by public authorities.

(iii) ICO drafting of Decision Notices – a requirement be introduced whereby the ICO in drafting a Decision Notice and prior to publication, be required to formally consult the subject public authority and allowing not less than ten working days for issues to be raised by the public authority. Such issues if not accepted by the ICO must be recorded as having been raised by the public authority.

(iv) Applications to First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) – a threshold or application fee be introduced for applications to the First Tier Tribunal, in a similar manner to that used for applications for Judicial Review.

Question 6 – Burden imposed under the Act and whether justified by the public interest in the public’s right to know

Public authorities are subject to detailed requirements set out in the Local Government Acts to date requiring the publication of information and prescribing how this is to be made available to the public. In addition, the introduction of the Local Government Transparency Code as statutory guidance introduced additional publication requirements on public authorities regarding openness and transparency in local government, which represents additional obligations beyond that already seen. Combined these elements demonstrate the breadth of requirements already inherent on public authorities to make information publicly available.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (and parallel Environmental Information Regulations 2004) place additional substantial burdens on public authorities. In terms of the resources public authorities are required to commit to dealing with Freedom of Information requests, there are a number of key points to be made.

Burden on Public Authorities
Under Section 16 FOIA and Section 45 Code of Practice, all public authorities are already under an obligation to give advice and assistance to requestors both in terms of framing requests as well as giving advice to bring such requests within the cost ceiling as laid down within the legislation. The current ceiling set out in the legislation is 18 hours, which is high in terms of resource and cost implications.

Firstly, by way of example of the experience of Liverpool City Council, the number of requests received in 2010 (1,217 requests) to the number of requests received in 2014 (2,139) shows an increase of 922 or in percentages of approximately 76%, and an increase in costs of approximately £150K per annum. This increase can be set against a context whereby the City Council has seen the funding it receives from Central Government reduced by 58% during the same period, placing substantial pressures on the viability of the delivery of essential services for its residents.

In real terms and using the figure for the average costs incurred in responding to an FOI request as set out in the Consultation Document issued by the Independent Commission, of £164 per request, the cost of responding to FOI requests based solely on this is £350K per annum to Liverpool City Council alone.

This does not take into account more complex, technical and detailed requests which have to be dealt with and which cost substantially more. The Council’s response rate within 20 working days was 88% in 2014.

The City Council would draw to the Commission’s attention the fact that that the average cost per request it has included within its consultation document is based on calculations undertaken in 2008.

It is highly probable that a similar calculation conducted today would reach a substantially higher ‘cost per request’ figure.

Table 1. Number of request received by Liverpool City Council in 2010 and 2014 and associated costs

























2010

2014


Month received



Total


Month received


Total


Jan-1092Jan-14226
Feb-1062Feb-14215
Mar-1082Mar-14177
Apr-1097Apr-14189
May-10104May-14161
Jun-10109Jun-14151
Jul-10116Jul-14143
Aug-10106Aug-14187
Sep-10126Sep-14171
Oct-10105Oct-14180
Nov-10140Nov-14193
Dec-1078Dec-14146
12172139

£164 per request

£199,588

£164 per request

£350,796

Vexatious Requests
The City Council welcomes the revised ICO guidance. However there needs to be additional clear guidance within that around the real public interest rather than the private interests of unelected individuals or concerted campaigns which are a drain on public resources. This type of requestor continues to rise in terms of complexity and their impact on available resources.

Based on the experience of Liverpool City Council and using the average cost idicated above, a small number of “frequent requesters” are costing a disproportionate amount of time and resources responding to their requests, of up to £7,000 per individual. This needs to be reflected and addressed within a substantive manner within any Guidance issued by the ICO.

There are also resource implications even associated with dealing with frivolous requests such as “what is the total number of red pens bought by the Council in the past year”. Even though this is classed as vexatious a formal response to that effect is still required to be issued, effectively occupying valuable resources.

Charging
A further burden associated with FOIA is that of the limited charging mechanisms available under the legislation, specifically, under FOIA public authorities may only charge where the time to deal with the request exceeds 18 hours in total.

The current 18 hours threshold (Section 12) is itself a significant demand on Council resources in that a request can take up to anything just below that timescale and no charge can be made. This in effect is up to and two and half days work . This threshold should be reviewed in the light of some of the research undertaken to date i.e. the average time taken to respond to an FOI request by public authorities of 6 hours and 10 minutes with a lower threshold being established.

In terms of the current charging regime associated with Freedom of Information legislation, again the experience of Liverpool City Council in responding to requests is that the art of redacting specific documents can be very time consuming and should be included within the costs permitted when determining whether complying with a request may exceed 18 hours.

In terms of charging the approach set out in the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 (EIR) assumes information will be available to inspect ‘for free’ but if information is asked to be supplied in a different format a ‘reasonable’ charge may be made for that supply. Specifically, this charge may extend to the time spent by Officers in responding to the EIR request and supplying the information. This differs to the approach adopted in FOIA and should be made consistent.

The City Council would also draw attention to the difficulties caused by the two disclosure regimes operable in the form of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). There is considerable overlap between requests which may be received under FOI but which, by virtue of the wide definition under EIR should be considered under that regime. The City Council would seek to encourage greater consistency between both regimes, through either a single consolidating Act or through amendments to both existing regimes to provide for a single common charging mechanism and consistency of the requirements for exemptions and exceptions.

Technical Issues

An additional technical issue which we would seek to highlight is that of an Exemption (Section 21 absolute, class based) which is applied in those instances where information is either already in the public domain or accessible by alternative means. The legislation still requires this to be issued with a supporting Section 17 Refusal Notice. The City Council considers that the application of this Exemption should not require the issue of a Refusal Notice as no information is being withheld given it is either already in the public domain or accessible by other means to which the requestor is then directed. The use of a Refusal Notice in such instances can give rise to an Internal Review which of its nature would only generate additional unnecessary burdens for public authorities.

Recommendations from Liverpool City Council –

(v) 18 Hour Rule – that a review of the 18 hour limit beyond which charging or refusal is permitted be undertaken and consideration given to reducing this threshold to either 6 or 7 hours.

(vi) Charging/Reasonable recovery of costs – public authorities be given greater opportunity to levy charges for compliance with requests to ensure the recovery of reasonable costs associated with fulfilling requests which would include the time taken to redact any documents. To align the charging policies for EIR and FOI.

(vii) Vexatious Requests –that Guidance issued by the ICO in relation to dealing with Vexatious requests be further reviewed and strengthened in respect of frequent and persistent requesters

(viii) FOIA and EIR Alignment of Regimes – that a concurrent review be undertaken of the FOIA and EIR to ensure greater alignment of both pieces of legislation or one consolidating Act.

(ix) Refusal Notices – the requirements for issue of Refusal Notices be reviewed to remove requirements to issue these in such instances where a Section 21 (information in public domain or reasonably accessible by other means) Exemption is applicable.

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