A blog about Wirral Council's public meetings, Wirral Council's councillors, Bidston & St. James ward and other public bodies on Merseyside
Author: John Brace
New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council.
Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.
Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?
Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?
This year I went to the offices of Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (previously called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) where I inspected various invoices and contracts that relate to the 2014/15 financial year.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority deal with the rubbish collected by each council on Merseyside, provide thirteen Household Waste Recycling Centres (the ones on the Wirral are the Bidston Household Waste Recycling Centre in Wallasey Bridge Road, Clatterbridge Household Waste Recycling Centre in Mount Road and West Kirby Household Waste Recycling Centre in Greenbank Road) and are also responsible for closed landfill sites such as the one at Bidston Moss.
Their 2014/15 budget was £68.6 million which comes from a levy on each on the Merseyside councils which each have to pay based on a tonnage basis. Councillor Irene Williams (Labour) and Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative) represent Wirral Council on the Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority.
In 2005 after a tender exercise MRWA (then called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) appointed Daniel Harris Associates for “the provision of public relations and communications services for Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority”. DH Communications Limited (also known as Daniel Harris Associates or DHA) won the tender exercise with a bid of £650 per a day (see letter below).
Letter to Daniel Harris Associates from Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority confirming they have won tender for PR contract 13th December 2005
The tender that DHA won was for a three-year contract from 1st November 2005 to the 1st November 2008. DHA were paid £25,200 a year for 3 and a half days work each month. However at some point in 2009 Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority realised that “The contract with DHA was not reviewed in line with its prescribed timetable resulting in the continuation of the contract beyond the specified term.” (see pages below).
Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 1 of 2Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 2 of 2
Carl Beer is Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority’s Chief Executive. The contract was retrospectively extended from the 1st November 2008 to 1st November 2009 and an extra 12 months was added which extended the contract to 2010.
In 2014 there were a number of emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in relation to how DHA would be charging Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in future.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority were at this stage paying DHA a £1,625 monthly retainer. However DHA wrote in an email that they felt “the authority has not always maximised the value of the fee it pays to us: i.e. it has made minimal call on our services”. They set out a number of options:
Option One
DHA estimated that over the last two to three years that the average cost of the work Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority had asked them to do was £990 + VAT a month (whilst they were being paid a £1,625 monthly retainer). Option one would keep the monthly retainer but reduce it to £990 + VAT instead.
Option Two
DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority on a project basis at £600 + VAT a day.
Option Three
DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority a monthly retainer of £600 + VAT a month, but if they needed more work from DHA then they would be charged £600 a day.
Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority decided to go for option 2 (from April 2015). The emails that go into the detail of these negotiations are below.
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 1 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 2 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 3 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 4 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 5 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 6 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 7 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 8 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 9 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 10 of 10
Below are a number of the invoices submitted to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority during the 2014/15 financial year.
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 1DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 2DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 3DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 4DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 5DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 6DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 7DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 8
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3
Above are three photos of Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton taken on the 29th June 2015. Over the busier summer holidays this car park will be full.
Future Council Wirral logo
As part of the Future Council consultation last year Wirral Council consulted the public on £2.5 million of budget cuts. In the end only £2.4 million of cuts were agreed because of savings that resulted from the extended Biffa contract.
Last year as part of that budget consultation, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on the 4th November 2014 where councillors discussed the budget option for charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park.
You can watch that discussion in the Youtube video below which should start at the point about the Fort Perch Rock car park.
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.
At that meeting Cllr Jerry Williams (Wirral Council’s Heritage Champion and a Labour councillor) tried to move a recommendation that the budget option of charging at Fort Perch Rock car park be removed from the budget options. However the solicitor advising the Committee said that it couldn’t be removed, so instead it was watered down to a recommendation to Cabinet that the budget option wasn’t adopted. The recommendation was seconded by Cllr Robert Gregson (also a Labour councillor representing New Brighton ward). This is what the recommendation stated:
“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Anita Leech (Labour), Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour), Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour), Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour), Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative), Cllr John Hale (Conservative), Cllr Jerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) voted in favour of the recommendation.
Two councillors voted against that recommendation (Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem) and Cllr Mike Sullivan (Chair, Labour)).
On the 9th December 2014 Cabinet (which is ten Labour councillors including one for New Brighton Cllr Pat Hackett) met. They didn’t agree with the recommendation from the Policy and Performance Committee and instead voted to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton. The minutes of that meeting state “We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.” .
This Cabinet budget proposal then formed the Cabinet’s proposal for Labour’s budget to the 2015/16 budget meeting of all councillors held on the 24th February 2015.
All the Labour councillors on the 24th February 2015 present at that meeting (including those who had three months earlier voted for a recommendation to Cabinet not to start charging for parking at Fort Perch Rock) voted for the Labour budget apart from Cllr Steve Foulkes (who was Mayor and Mayor’s traditionally abstain from votes on party political matters). You can see which way each councillor voted on the Labour’s budget here.
Earlier this year Wirral Council had a formal consultation on introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park. You can see the public notice (which has more detail as to how much they could charge for parking) for that consultation below. That consultation ended on the 3rd July 2015.
So what happens next? In September there will be a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider objections people have made to introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.
The Chair of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel is Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative). Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) are the rest of the panel. This panel meets during the day and if any of the three councillors can’t make it to the meeting they can send a deputy in their place.
When the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in September, it will make a recommendation on whether to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park to the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee meet in public on the 15th September 2015 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee can alter any recommendation they receive from the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.
The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee then make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation Cllr Stuart Whittingham who then makes a formal decision on the matter which is published on Wirral Council’s website.
Such a large petition also grants the petition organiser for five minutes to explain their petition at a meeting of all councillors, which then triggers a debate of a maximum of fifteen minutes. However as the next meeting of Council is on the 12th October 2015 (probably after all this will be decided) this is a moot point.
What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?
What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?
Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2
Above is one of the documents I requested under the 2013/14 audit last year, which is a page of a lease that Wirral Council have with Neptune that states that if Wirral Council introduce car parking in the Fort Perch Rock car park, then charges can be introduced in the free car parks part of the Marine Point development.
Each year for the past few years I have exercised a right you get to exercise only for three weeks each year, which is a right under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to inspect documents relating to the previous financial year (2014/15) during the audit.
This has in years gone past has been the only way to see such financial information and to give one example of a story that resulted in many interesting stories on this blog (ranging from councillor’s expenses and taxis to an unsigned contract for a million pounds worth of work).
This year I have exercised my s.15 right not just with Wirral Council, but with Liverpool City Council, Merseytravel, the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority.
A couple of weeks before the three-week period when the public can inspect these documents each of these bodies has to publish a public notice in a newspaper that circulates in the area covered by that body. The regulations also require each body to publish this notice on their website. Wirral Council’s notice can be found on their website here.
All of the notices (apart from the Merseytravel one) had a name of someone at that public body who I wrote to (whether by letter or by email). In the case of Merseytravel I wrote to the Chief Executive, who passed my request on to the person at Merseytravel dealing with it.
So far the responses have been as follows:
Merseytravel – dates of Monday 27th July 2015/Tuesday 28th July 2015 agreed to come in and inspect the documents. They have a “paperless office”, but will be printing off copies of the invoices/contracts I requested so their legal department can redact parts of them.
Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority – dates of Friday 24th July and Wednesday 29th July 2015 have been agreed to come in and inspect documents.
Liverpool City Council – email sent yesterday, no reply received yet
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority – email sent and acknowledged on the 15th July 2015, no further reply received since
Wirral Council – email sent with request for contracts & councillor expenses on 19th July 2015, reply received yesterday, list of invoices sent this morning, no reply received yet or date/s arranged
The main differences will be next year that a new ground of refusing a request on grounds of “commercial confidentiality” has been added in to the legislation unless there is an “overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure”.
This puts on a statutory footing the Veolia case, see [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 if you’re curious about what I mean.
The new section 26 also means that determinations about what is “personal information” on documents (therefore not open to inspection) will in future be made by the public body themselves and not the situation at present of the public body having to get agreement from their external auditor to this. It does make it crystal clear that the names of sole traders on invoices is not covered by the definition of “personal information” and defines “personal information” as “identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified”. The restriction on information about the public body’s staff remains in section 26 next year.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
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.
