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

ICO issues 2nd decision notice stating Wirral Council breached more laws in how it handled a FOI request

ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

So far I’ve written three blog posts about this one FOI request, which in chronological order are ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request (9th September 2014), Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days (10th November 2014) and Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious? (18th July 2015).

The FOI request this relates to was made through the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website on the 29th March 2013. It’s for minutes of the meetings of 26 different panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties that councillors are appointed to by Wirral Council.

In September 2014, the Information Commissioner’s Office issued 9 page decision notice FS50509081. In a nutshell that decision notice stated that by the 13th October 2014 Wirral Council had to:

a) respond to the FOI request without relying on either section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 c.36 or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The first relates to a costs exemption and the second relates to that “the request for information is manifestly unreasonable”.

and

b) advise whether it held the minutes of these meetings or not.

Wirral Council did not respond to the decision notice by the 13th October 2014. Instead it took a further three weeks than was allowed and Wirral Council responded on the 4th November 2014. Minutes of seven meetings were supplied (some minutes were supplied with some information blacked out). In response to other parts of the request it provided links to its website.

This left nine disputed parts of the request which were in relation to the bodies below (I’ll use the original numbering). JCC stands for Joint Consultative Committee and Members means councillors. I provide under each one what it’s remit was:

4 (School Appeals Panel)

To consider, as part of a statutory review process, appeals against decisions by the Local Authority (or the Governors of voluntary or aided schools) concerning the allocation of places in primary and secondary schools, and decisions by governing bodies concerning the exclusion of pupils.

The School Appeals Panel is drawn from a “pool” of lay members or members with experience in education. However, Councillors are ineligible to serve on Appeals Panels for schools under local authority control.

5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE))

SACRE is responsible for advising the local authority on matters concerning the teaching of religious education and collective acts of worship; it decides on applications for determination of cases in which requirements for Christian collective worship are not to apply; and may require the local authority to review its agreed syllabus.

8 (Adoption / Fostering Panels)

As part of a wider membership, to determine applications for the adoption and for the fostering of children.

10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board)

To consider appeals from applicants who consider they have been unfairly treated or unfairly excluded from the waiting list, having exhausted the Steering Group appeals procedure.

11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel)

To hear requests to discharge service users subject to guardianship upon the application of a professional responsible for their care.

15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC)

To meet with headteachers’ and teachers’ representatives to discuss educational issues.

18 (Members’ Training Steering Group)

To advise on the preparation of the annual programme of training for Council members and on individual applications to attend courses.

19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group)

To review IT equipment provision for members.

26 (Safeguarding Reference Group)

Established by Cabinet on 15 April 2010 for the purpose of ensuring that the most senior community leaders of the Council are enabled to carry out their responsibilities of safeguarding children and adults in Wirral.

Minutes of a School Appeals Panel meeting (part 4 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education meeting (part 5 of the request) were provided but with names other than that of councillors blacked out based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of the Adoption/Fostering Panels (part 8 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board meeting (part 10 of the request) Wirral Council merely stated “Officers are investigating if this Board has ever met/if there are any minutes available and we will answer this part of your enquiry as soon as possible.”

Minutes of a Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel (part 11 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Headteachers and Teachers Joint Consultative Committee meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Members’ Training Steering Group meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Finally, minutes of a Safeguarding Reference Group meeting were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

So I requested an internal review of the application of these exemptions on the 12th November 2014. On the 30th April 2015 Wirral Council responded to the internal review request. I’ll point out here that internal reviews are supposed to be completed within 40 days, but Wirral Council took 5 months.

Wirral Council’s response was that section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied and it didn’t have to do an internal review.

This decision was then appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

On the 17th July 2015, Wirral Council did a U-turn. In respect of part of the internal review that challenged obscuring names (other than councillors) in minutes released of the Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (part 5 of the request), I’d pointed out that the minutes of this public meeting were open to public inspection because of regulation 7 of the Religious Education (Meetings of Local Conferences and Councils) Regulations 1994. Wirral Council agreed with me and released the complete minutes of the SACRE meeting (which meets in public).

Wirral Council also pointed out that since the Council’s housing stock was transferred out of Wirral Council’s control in 2009, that the Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board (part 10 of the request) hadn’t met.

In relation to part 21 (Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee) Wirral Council stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”

However Wirral Council still regarded the rest of the internal review request to be vexatious.

On the 29th July 2015 the Information Commissioner’s Office issued a further 13 page decision notice (FS50569254).

This decision notice found in relation to part 4 (School Appeals Panel) and part 11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel) that Wirral Council does not hold information related to this part of the request.

This finding on the school appeals panels I find odd since the school appeals panel meets at Wallasey Town Hall. In response to a previous FOI request Wirral Council stated that it pays the taxi expenses for school appeals panel members and Wirral Council employees from the Legal & Member Services section of Wirral Council take the minutes of these meetings. Apparently Wirral Council states that there were School Appeal Panel meetings in 2012 but as they only keep the decision notices for 2 years that now it’s 2015 that Wirral Council don’t have them any more.

ICO also found that Wirral Council didn’t hold meetings of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee and believed Wirral Council when it stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”

This is disputed by both Cllr Chris Carubia and Cllr Pat Williams as you can see by their response to a tweet below:

@cllrccarubia Did the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee exist prior to 2014? #FOI #ICO https://t.co/pDHhBls956

— John Brace (@level80) July 17, 2015

@level80 @cllrccarubia Yes, I was a proud member for a number of years.

— Patricia Williams (@mrspatwilliams) July 17, 2015

https://twitter.com/cllrccarubia/status/622150465715859456

However, ICO stated that Wirral Council breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regards to part 5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)) of the request and part 10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board) because “it did not disclose information or provide a response in relation to these parts within 20 working days”.

ICO also stated in its decision notice that Wirral Council had incorrectly applied section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests) to parts 15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC), 18 (Members’ Training Steering Group), 19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group) and 26 (Safeguarding Reference Group) of the request, because “these elements of the request are not vexatious”.

ICO did decide that Wirral Council had correctly applied section 14(1) to part 8 (Adoption/Fostering Panels) of the request because it deemed it to be vexatious (but is clarified in the decision notice as being a “disproportionate burden”). Wirral Council supplied the minutes of one adoption panel meeting and one fostering panel meeting to the Information Commissioners Office which came to a total of 95 pages. Wirral Council estimated it would take 23.5 hours of staff time (just over 15 minutes a page) to make the necessary redactions.

However the minutes of the Headteachers and Teachers JCC meeting, Members’ Training Steering Group meeting, Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting and Safeguarding Reference Group came to less than 15 double-sided pages (30 sides of A4).

The decision notice also states “The complainant will not receive a response to some parts of his request until more than two years after he submitted it.”

Either Wirral Council or myself could appeal this ICO decision notice to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within the next 28 days.

So do you think that now Wirral Council can’t rely on section 12 (exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) or section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) in respect to the Headteachers and Teachers JCC meeting, Members’ Training Steering Group meeting, Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting and Safeguarding Reference Group meeting part of this request that I’ll finally get the information?

Here are some quotes from the decision notice (committee in the first quote refers to Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee).

“The Council, however, confirmed to the Commissioner on 20 July 2015 that, having undertaken a thorough search, it does not hold any Committee minutes from 2013 or earlier.

ICO believed Wirral Council so I suppose these published minutes of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee published on Wirral Council’s website from the 13th April 2007, 23rd November 2006, 13th July 2005 and even as far back as 6th April 2001 are just figments of my imagination. Perhaps I’m not “on message” enough!

Here’s another quote:

“The Council’s information manager had calculated that it took 70 hours and £1,750 to provide its response to the complainant dated 4 November. It argued that the amount of time the information management team had to spend on locating, retrieving and reading information falling within the scope of the request had a detrimental impact on the team.”

On the 4th November 2014 Wirral Council provided 22 A4 pages of information. The rest it either said it didn’t hold, was already on its website or that an exemption applied. That’s £79.54 per a page (or over 3 hours per an A4 page) of released information! How can it have had a “detrimental impact on the team” when Wirral Council took the 35 days the decision notice allowed plus an extra 22 days!

and another

“The Council says this work would cause a disproportionate burden because the request does not appear to have an inherent purpose or value.”

So knowing what and how councillors make important decisions on the public’s behalf doesn’t have an “inherent purpose or value”?

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

U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car parking charges and 2 other updates

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3

There have been developments recently with a number of stories I’ve written about on this blog so I thought I would give an update for each story.

New Brighton Fort Perch Rock car parking charges

A week ago I wrote a story headlined Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

Personally I thought nothing further would happen on this story until the September meeting of Wirral Council’s Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. However, since writing that story Wirral Council have issued a press release that’s titled either “Resort parking plans quashed” (when it’s linked to from their homepage) or “Wirral Council leader says no to plans to charge for parking in New Brighton” from the press release.

There is a very interesting quote in the press release from Councillor Phil Davies that states “Cllr Pat Hackett, our Cabinet Member for the Economy, has been meeting with traders and business leaders in New Brighton to discuss the proposals, and they made a powerful case for not proceeding. When we looked at the plan and the possible impact on parking and tourism across the whole of the resort, I made the decision to stop the proposal”.

On the 22nd December 2014, I wrote on this blog When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces? (later updating it this year by including the public notice). I published the three pages of Wirral Council’s lease for the Marine Point development at New Brighton that detailed if Wirral Council introduced car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park, charges could be introduced at the supermarket car park and the “health and fitness” car park (originally Bubbles was going to be a gym but they couldn’t find a company that wanted to run it as a gym). This was plenty of time before the 2015/16 budget for Wirral Council was agreed on the 24th February 2015 for councillors to change their mind.

An article by Liam Murphy in the Liverpool Echo states “But Promenade Estates, who manage part of the successfully regenerated resort, say if the charges are imposed they would have little choice but to follow suit. This would mean parking charges on the car parks serving Morrisons, The Light Cinema, Bubbles play centre and other businesses.”

So it wasn’t just a “possible impact” but a “probable impact”. On the 9th December 2014, Councillor Phil Davies proposed and voted for this resolution at a Cabinet meeting, that was seconded and agreed by all councillors including Cllr Pat Hackett:

“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.”

“67.We also feel it is appropriate that a modest charge for parking up to 6 pm. at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton should be introduced.”

So Councillor Phil Davies U-turned on his own policy! However it begs the following question, if the reason for stopping the proposal is the impact on parking across the resort (as stated in the quote from Cllr Phil Davies), then why wasn’t he told about the impact on parking elsewhere in Marine Point by his own officers before Cabinet made the decision? As you can see below from the first page of the lease that has the clauses about parking, Wirral Council is the landlord for the Marine Point development.

New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page

I’ll also draw readers attention to a leaflet from April 2015 from Tony Pritchard (the Conservative candidate for New Brighton ward and former councillor opposing parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.

The mysteriously missing Employment Tribunal judgement

I wrote previously about my failed attempts to get a copy of an Employment Tribunal judgement in a case involving Wirral Council. I have since been told by a clerk to the Employment Tribunal that the case hasn’t concluded and that there will be a final hearing listed for November 2015. After the final hearing I can request a copy of the judgement.

Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority and DHA Communications

An earlier story headlined Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day? which involved Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority paying a £1,625 monthly retainer has led to a statement from Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority which I will quote here:

“I confirm that the Authority no longer retains DHA Communications and the use of their services ceased as of March 31st 2015. The Authority recognises that some parts of its relationship with DHA Communications was not fully formalised in some time periods. The Authority has reviewed its practices in relation to this type of contract and has now put in additional measures and monitoring in place to ensure that an accurate audit trail is retained.”

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?

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3

Fort 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.

One of the budget options as part of the Future Council consultation was to introduce car parking charges at the Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton. Councillors were told that this would bring in an estimated £25,000 in 2015/16 and £10,000 in 2016/17. A public document (that wasn’t part of the documents shared with the public as part of the Future Council consultation) estimated that the cost of providing cash payment ticket machines would be £20,000 (see section 6.2 page 9).

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The minutes of what was agreed at the public meeting of the 4th November 2014 are included in the agenda for the Cabinet meeting that decided on the budget options.

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.

On December 22nd 2014 I wrote When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces? which details how if car parking charges are brought in at Fort Perch Rock car park then under the terms of the lease that Wirral Council has for the Marine Point development at New Brighton, that charges could be introduced at two free car parks (the supermarket car park and the health & fitness car park).

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.

There is a large petition against introducing charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton which at the time of writing has 3,395 signatures.

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.

Finally, what’s known now, but wasn’t known last year, is that Wirral Council had an underspend last year of £510,000 last year (which is money that is carried over to this year).

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

Cabinet agrees new 5 year plan for Wirral and makes pledges on increasing tourism jobs and house building

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.

Councillor George Davies pledged to build and improve 7,000 houses by 2020 as part of Cabinet's new 5 year plan — Councillor George Davies pledged to build and improve 7,000 houses by 2020 as part of Cabinet’s new 5 year plan

Wirral Council’s Cabinet have agreed a new five year plan. No longer called the Corporate Plan, the new name for it is Wirral Council Plan: A 2020 Vision.

In introducing the new plan Cllr Phil Davies commented, “but I now think we are broadly akin to a normal council but I think the challenge now is for us to move to become an outstanding council”.

On the plan’s targets he said “this is not just warm words, this is specific targets and commitments that we can measure ourselves against” and “we need to recognise that the Tory government is in power for another five years, I wish that were different but that’s the reality, but we can’t use that as an excuse to do nothing. I think we’ve got a duty to our constituents, our residents to use the resources we’ve got to deliver these priorities”.

So what are the priorities in the new 2020 Vision? They are:

Ensure every child has the best possible start in life;
Equip all our residents with the skills to enable them to secure quality jobs;
Create economic opportunities by attracting enterprise and investment;
Treat everybody with respect and dignity in older age;
Strive to close the gap in health inequalities and
Look after our environment for future generations to enjoy.

Following Cllr Phil Davies’ introduction, each Cabinet Member gave examples from their own Cabinet portfolio of what would improve.

Cllr George Davies (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Housing and Engagement) said, “everybody no matter who they are deserves a good quality home that’s warm, secure and fit for all residents”. He went on to promise more care homes and supported living accommodation which he described as “vital” for an ageing population. Cllr George Davies pledged that by 2020 they would “build and improve 7,000 houses”.

Cabinet Member for the Economy Pat Hackett referred to £250 million of private sector investment over the next five years and highlighted a number of projects including Wirral Waters and a new golf resort at Hoylake.

Cllr Adrian Jones (Support Services) remarked, “We’ve emerged from a terrible period similar to the Dark Ages and in only three years we’ve changed it from perhaps what was widely perceived as a basket case to a Council (a large part of the credit goes not to politicians but to officers who are sitting here at the back of the room) because they’ve driven it from being the Council that’s absolutely the lowest ever Council of the year to a shining example to be looked on in other parts of the country to be learned from and emulated.”

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health (Cllr Chris Jones) described the plan as “fantastic” and welcomed the announcement by Cllr George Davies to build more care homes and supported accommodation.

Other Cabinet Members also welcomed the plan in their areas of transport, education and the environment.

As Councillor Chris Meaden (Cabinet Member for Leisure Sport and Culture) wasn’t present, Cllr Phil Davies highlighted their aspirations to increase the tourism sector on the Wirral and commented on the economic benefit to the Wirral of both the Open Golf tournament in 2014 and the more recent Three Queens event.

Cabinet agreed to recommend the new plan to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors who will meet on Monday 13th July.

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

The dark days of Wirral Council and the "bureaucratic machinations" surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

**Councillor Steve Foulkes answers a question during the public question time section of a Council meeting in December 2011**

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.

The public question time element of the Council meeting on 12th December 2011

I thought I would write a blog post today on what was probably one of those nearly forgotten times in Wirral Council’s history (which you can watch above recorded by my wife).

I include a transcript below about what was said at that meeting and well worth watching is another video below which is a clip from when a discussion of the same issue was on the North West News in January 2012. It was around the time of the news clip that Leonora and I decided to leave the Liberal Democrats.

It’s also worth pointing out at this stage that in 2011 the Liberal Democrats (proposed by Cllr Pat Williams, seconded by former Councillor Ann Bridson) suspended me with one of the reasons given was that I had criticised Cllr Foulkes (a Labour councillor).

The rest as they say is history, shortly after Cllr Foulkes was removed as Leader of Wirral Council in a vote of no confidence and the Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived Conservative/Lib Dem one.

I will at this point, point out two of the Nolan principles which all councillors had signed up to as part of the Code of Conduct which are accountability “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” and openness “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

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.

John Brace: There has been much public interest in the (as yet unpublished) AKA (Anna Klonowksi Associates Ltd) report into issues that need to be remedied at Wirral Council.

My personal view is that Wirral Council needs to publish the report, reassure the public what it’s doing differently now and restore its tarnished reputation as a result of the events that led to the report being commissioned.

Please could you answer:

a) what date the report will be published on and whether changes are to be made between the draft version and final version (if so the reasons why) and

b) an update on changes and decisions made since the report, as a result of the report becoming available in draft form, including progress (which includes consultation) already made and how the changes will benefit Wirral Council, its staff, its councillors and the public?

Cllr Steve Foulkes: [sighs] What a surprise seeing you here John! [laughter]

Well, can I just thank you for your question? And, and this is a genuine, genuine answer, errm which will be backed up by a errm official statement which has been circulated to all elected Members and it is a public document so I’m more than happy for you to have a copy of that.

If you haven’t got it yet you’ll receive it very, very shortly.

As long as I’ve been Leader, I’ve been pressing both Anna Klonowski and the officers to [inaudible] of the long awaited report. It’s not in this Council’s interests for this to drag out any longer.

But it is in the Council’s interests is that procedure is done properly and within err natural justice and err you know protection for the Council’s future err prospects and liabilities. Currently err Miss Klonowski and her independent solicitors are conducting a Right to Reply process.

The purpose of this and its current state of progress is fully explained in the Director of Law’s advice note which has been circulated to all councillors.

Like I just said a copy is on its way to you immediately and I cannot you know give a specific date for publication of the final report but I give you my assurance that I will do all I can to make this soon and as and as reasonably possible.

As I say it’s not in this Council’s best interests to drag on.

We want the department to move forward. We want the Council to move forward.

What we have done though in terms of of what reports are available.

We’ve insisted that the corporate governance issues are up and running and they are believed to be at the stem of some of the issues in the other report.

I can’t say any further than that.

So I can’t you know. It would be wrong to me to tell you lies, or or or to pretend I’m, but at this point of time I cannot given that the Director’s advice note.

I believe we’ll say it’s inappropriate to publish that report.

If we are true to our word that you know whistleblowers should be protected and are important within our Council’s processes, then therefore anyone involved in the whistleblower process should have the same rights as the whistleblower and my view is that individuals have the Right to Reply, have the right for natural justice and I don’t believe that we should hurry justice just for the sake of of of of err public you know public clamour.

If the report is correct, and final replies (inaudible) then we in public cannot in full conscience cannot act upon it.

It’s not at that state yet and that’s not through any fault or mine.

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: OK, Mr. Brace, content with that?

John Brace: I have just one small supplementary.

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: Supplementary [inaudible] understand that.

John Brace: Yes, err can you give an approximate timescale, in the Spring of next year or you know something like that?

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: I think he has answered that Mr. Brace to be fair.

Cllr Steve Foulkes: I would would hope, I would hope it’s as soon as possible.

I’ve not been given an exact date.

But I have been informed, and as we’ve all been informed, that progress has been made on the Right to Reply. Err, there are some late Right to Reply issues come in come into the system as I think are detailed in Bill’s report.

Everything around this issue is within the report of the Director of Law and I think that once you will read that you will understand the difficult position he got in in this type of report.

As I say it’s not in the Council’s interests, or my interests or anybody’s interest for that report to be delayed any longer than it need be.

Because I think quite frankly people need to move on, the Authority needs to move on and rights need to err err wrongs need to be put right, and I’m interested in that happening.

But, I can’t give you an exact date and I’m not going to give you out an answer to this supplementary.

John Brace: Ok, thank you.

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

ICO issues 2nd decision notice stating Wirral Council breached more laws in how it handled a FOI request

Share this:

U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car parking charges and 2 other updates

Share this:

Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

Share this:

Cabinet agrees new 5 year plan for Wirral and makes pledges on increasing tourism jobs and house building

Share this:

The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

Share this: