Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

                                  

This tale is a rather tangled web involving Liverpool City Council’s involvement in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election, the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office. It’s an update to Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?

Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015

You would think that asking the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above) for a copy of the candidates’ nomination papers would be a simple matter.

After all shouldn’t it be I ask, they are sent? It ran smooth enough with the nomination papers for candidates in the Claughton byelection and we can then publish them.

Instead this ends up being a tangled web of corporate governance involving Liverpool City Council, the Electoral Commission, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Considering there is a general election on the way might it be an idea to have some clarity on these issues?

Liverpool City Council’s response is that I am not allowed to inspect based on Electoral Commission guidance which refers to a candidate’s right to inspect and object.

The Electoral Commission agrees with me that the Electoral Administration Act 2006 applies (but only if there is other secondary legislation that applies), specifically s.42, s.43 and s.44 but state that the legislation I am requesting a copy of the nomination papers under Sch.3, Pt 2, para 11 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 doesn’t apply to elections of combined authority mayors because rule 2 in their view doesn’t cover combined authority mayoral elections.

I am then referred back to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017.

The problem is the guidance that the Electoral Commission issued and their current guidance relies on the original version of the Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 from 2006.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017, Schedule 4, paragraph 3 amended Rule 2 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.

The Cabinet Office was approached for their response. The Cabinet Office Press Office emailed us and stated that the Cabinet Office cannot comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral Election because Parliament has been dissolved and we are in the pre-election period before a general election. I thank the Cabinet Office for taking the time to reply.

So of course when I wrote about this, (published at 9:52 on the 3rd May 2017) within 37 minutes of publishing Wirral Council contact me and refuse my press accreditation for the Claughton byelection, general election and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election.

Then shortly after the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Returning Officer refused a similar request to attend the count too.

Local government officials are paid large amounts extra on their salary be paid to do a job. The overall amount paid for by the taxpayer for running this election (which is paid for by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) is from memory £2.5 million (although this report agreed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority states that’s £2 million for staff and £0.5 million on the candidates booklet sent to each household (although the candidates in it had to pay towards its costs too).

I admit the above is a minor point but if it symptomatic of what is going on then shouldn’t some of these fees either be claimed back or not paid at all?

At the Employment Tribunal of Alison Mountney we heard that Surjit Tour and Kate Robinson provided assurance (and were both paid extra) that the election was being run as it should. For this they were paid extra money (a four-figure sum extra each).

I’ve no idea who provides the assurance in a Combined Authority Mayoral election to the Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald or the Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson.

All I will say is that pieces like this wouldn’t be possible to write if you’d approved our attendance at the count as we wouldn’t have the time to write them! So 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.

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?

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
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
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
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
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
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.

Underhill, Kay and Tomlinson LJJ dismiss appeal of former Wirral Council solicitor Gregory Eyitene of earlier Employment Appeals Tribunal decision involving allegations of race and disability discrimination

Underhill, Kay and Tomlinson LJJ dismiss appeal of former Wirral Council solicitor Gregory Eyitene of earlier Employment Appeals Tribunal decision involving allegations of race and disability discrimination

Underhill, Kay and Tomlinson LJJ dismiss appeal of former Wirral Council solicitor Gregory Eyitene of earlier Employment Appeals Tribunal decision involving allegations of race and disability discrimination

                                                                        

Tim D N Kenward Invoice 2 Page 1 of 2 7 Harrington Street Chambers 19th April 2013 Gregory Eyitene v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council £900 written advice draft letter
Tim D N Kenward Invoice 2 Page 1 of 2 7 Harrington Street Chambers 19th April 2013 Gregory Eyitene v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council £900 written advice draft letter

I’m going to write about a rather complicated story now involving a former Wirral Council employee who worked as a solicitor there called Gregory Eyitene.

Mr Eyitene made claims of race and disability discrimination against Wirral Council which was heard by an Employment Tribunal in Liverpool (Employment Judge Ryan, Mr Roberts and Mr Gates) many years ago (the decision was sent out to parties in February 2012). The Employment Tribunal decided in favour of Wirral Council, but Gregory Eyitene then appealed this Employment Tribunal decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

When it was heard by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in 2013, HHJ Richardson, Mrs A Gallico and Ms G Mills dismissed his appeal of the earlier Employment Tribunal decision. Mr Kenward of 7 Harrington Street Chambers appeared at this stage on behalf of Wirral Council.

Gregory Eyitene then appealed the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Underhill, Kay and Tomlinson LJJ dismissed his appeal in 2014. The latest decision in the case can be read online [2014] EWCA Civ 1243 and makes for interesting reading.

Mr Tim Kenward of 7 Harrington Street Chambers (who had also appeared for Wirral Council at the EAT stage) also appeared for Wirral Council in the Court of Appeal. Gregory Eyitene (the appellant) who was representing himself, had written in before the hearing to state he was unwell and couldn’t attend but was happy for it to go ahead without him there.

Although you can read the judgement for yourself [2014] EWCA Civ 1243, permission to appeal was granted (mainly) on one point, that is allegations of bias made by the appellant about the original Employment Judge Ryan who referred to a particular aspect of the Appellant’s conduct in the written reasons as “brinkmanship” (paragraph 2.37 of the reasons) as well as other reasons. The lay members (Mr Roberts and Mr Gates) to the original Employment Tribunal decision had stated they hadn’t seen the written reasons before Employment Judge Ryan had sent them out.

The view of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on their original ET decision as quoted in the judgement were as follows on this:

“In our judgment, there is no force in this point at all. The practice is for the Employment Judge to consult the members and agree findings, conclusions and reasons before the judgment and reasons are given. Based on the results of that consultation, the Employment Judge will then give reasons either orally or in writing. There is no reason to doubt that this process occurred here. The fact, if such it be, that the members did not receive a copy of the written reasons does not provide any support for the proposition that they did not associate themselves with the judgment and reasons. The members said they did not have a copy of the written reasons, but nothing in their comments suggests for a moment that they would or did disagree on the question concerned.”

The two lay members at the Employment Tribunal stage stated the following after Elias LJ had required the original Employment Judge and members to provide their comments.

Mr Roberts (one of the two lay members on the ET decision stated):

“This was a lengthy and complex case which generated a considerable amount of discussion between Tribunal members in chambers following completion of the case. I had access to my copies of the bundles and my handwritten notes totalling in excess of 80 pages. Colleagues consulted their own bundles and notes as necessary. In my many years of Tribunal experience, I have rarely been asked to comment on a draft version of the final written reasons for a judgment, nor have I been regularly copied into the written reasons sent to the parties. But I have always contributed fully to discussion and deliberations and been fully consulted in agreeing findings of fact conclusions and a final judgment. I have never had any reason to doubt that the written reasons sent to the parties would do anything other than accurately reflect the views of the Tribunal, unanimous or otherwise. I am content that Judge Ryan issued written reasons in this case that fully reflected the Tribunal’s findings and conclusions.”

and M Gates (one of the two lay members on the Employment Tribunal stated)

“Judge Ryan, Mr Roberts and myself sat down and discussed the issues and matters of fact in relation to all aspects of the case in great detail. We debated the numerous issues that had been raised throughout the hearing. Judge Ryan made full notes on all points and drafted the decision; again, standard practice in my experience. The decision we reached was a unanimous one with a full consideration and input from all the members. Judge Ryan had it typed and sent to the parties. I say this is normal/standard practice on the basis that I have sat as an ET member for over ten years sitting in six Tribunal hearing centres with judges from at least five Tribunal regions, the process followed in the various Tribunals and regions being broadly similar. Throughout my time sitting, I have only twice received from a judge a copy of the typed decision. On both these occasions, the decision of the Tribunal was not unanimous, but majority decisions; the judges on both occasions asking the members to consider the points relating to the differing views in particular.”

So Wirral Council successfully defended themselves at the Employment Tribunal stage, Employment Appeals Tribunal stage and the Court of Appeal stage of the decisions in this matter.

Some of the invoices for earlier stages in this case (for the FY 2013/14) were published in this earlier blog post. Colin Hughes was the solicitor at Wirral Council dealing with this matter at the EAT stage.

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