Regulations allow “virtual” public meetings of local councils and other local government bodies in England from Saturday 4th April 2020
Regulations allow “virtual” public meetings of local councils and other local government bodies in England from Saturday 4th April 2020
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.
Why did Liverpool City Council charge £29.80 for copies of nomination papers and consents to nomination for the candidates to be a councillor in the 2018 elections?
Why did Liverpool City Council charge £29.80 for copies of nomination papers and consents to nomination for the candidates to be a councillor in the 2018 elections?
On Wednesday morning I carried out an unannounced inspection on the nomination papers and consents to nomination for the candidates currently standing in elections to be a councillor to Liverpool City Council.
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?
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?
This is a story about secrecy, however it also shows what I have to deal with every day of my working life.
There is not supposed to be secrecy surrounding elections. Why? It’s supposed to be open and transparent so that if anyone tries to game the system it can be spotted.
Elections attract not just domestic interest but international interest.
Part of my role is to monitor what goes on and write about it.
This places me at odds with Liverpool City Council and the Electoral Commission (who have yet to respond at the time of writing this), but that’s why there is independence of the press.
My own view is either a drafting error was made by a civil servant in the legislation for Metro Mayors or the Electoral Commission overlooked something when writing their guidance.
The way the legislation went through parliament as regulations, it couldn’t be amended.
However even Wirral Council is trying to somewhat gag me with a “the dignity of Election proceedings must not be compromised” clause if I want to attend the count on Friday.
Just to be crystal clear, Wirral Council was far as I can tell is running elections as efficiently as they can following the embarrassing revelations surrounding the Employment Tribunal earlier this year, the “technical” offences that the CPS agree happened in the past (but decline to prosecute), well all these factors have meant Wirral Council have learnt from past mistakes and are doing their best.
My criticism is not of the way the elections are being run. This isn’t about the dignity of elections. It’s a more fundamental point about legislation being written in such a way that you don’t end up in this situation.
It’s led to two somewhat contradictory pieces of legislation about inspection and copies of nomination papers.
The two pieces of legislation according to at least the Electoral Commission interpretation contradict each other.
So it wasn’t drafted properly (probably due to the pressures Brexit has put the civil service under).
I am going to explain the two pieces of legislation that apply to Mayoral elections such as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority election.
Firstly, this is the piece of legislation that provides a right of access to nomination papers, it applies to the Metro Mayoral election. Just for information, rule 2(1) means that Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, a bank holiday or a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning are disregarded as days.
The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Schedule 3, Part 2, paragraph 1 states:
Inspection of nomination papers and consents to nomination
11. During ordinary office hours on any day, other than a day specified in rule 2(1), after the latest time for delivery of nomination papers and before the date of the poll, any person may inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, nomination papers and consents to nomination.
Clear enough? What happens if someone tries to block this? The Electoral Administration Act 2006, Pt 6, s.42 and s.43 make blocking access to inspection of election documents a crime. But the person’s supervisor who failed to take appropriate steps can get into trouble too.
“ (1) The relevant officer must—
(a) make relevant election documents available for inspection by members of the public;
(b) supply, on request, copies of or extracts from such description of relevant election documents as is prescribed by regulations.”
So, having made a request to Liverpool City Council’s Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald, which was then forwarded to Stephen Barker, why is this request being blocked???
Well Liverpool City Council’s answer, relying on Electoral Commission guidance (which is only one interpretation of the law) is that the The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 applies. That guidance is based on SI 2017/66, Schedule 1, Part 3, paragraph 11 which is below.
Place for delivery of nomination papers and right to attend nomination
11.—(1) The combined area returning officer must fix the place in the area of the combined authority at which nomination papers are to be delivered to that officer, and must attend there during the time for their delivery and for the making of objections to them.
(2) Except for the purpose of delivering a nomination paper or of assisting the combined authority returning officer, no other person is entitled to attend the proceedings during the time for delivery of nomination papers or for making objections to them unless that person is—
(a) a person standing nominated as a candidate, or
(b) the election agent, proposer or seconder of such a person, or
(c) a person who is entitled to attend by virtue of section 6A or 6B of the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000 Act(1).
(3) Where a candidate is the candidate’s own election agent, the candidate may name one other person and that person is entitled to attend in place of the election agent.
(4) Where a person stands nominated by more than one nomination paper, only the persons subscribing as proposer and seconder—
(a) to such one of those papers as the candidate may select, or
(b) in default of such a selection, to that one of those papers which is first delivered,
are entitled to attend as the person’s proposer and seconder.
(5) The right to attend conferred by this rule includes the right—
(a) to inspect, and
(b) to object to the validity of,
any nomination paper.
(6) Paragraph (5) does not apply to a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(c).
(7) One other person chosen by each candidate is entitled to be present at the delivery of the candidate’s nomination, and may afterwards (so long as the candidate stands nominated) attend the proceedings referred to in paragraph (2) but without the right referred to in paragraph (5).
As you can see, it’s legislation about who can object to a nomination, who can be there when the nomination papers are submitted and so on.
In theory the two pieces of legislation are compatible, that is one right for the candidates to inspect and object, another for any person to inspect and receive copies of the nomination papers.
However Liverpool City Council states that because the Electoral Commission guidance (which I quote from below) which seems to have conveniently forgotten a right to inspect for any person states this, that therefore their view is that I don’t have any right to inspect or receive copies of the nomination papers.
Which of course is similar to the attitude expressed by Liverpool City Council when I tried to film a public meeting. Their view was that it doesn’t matter what the law is, Liverpool City Council can do what it likes! Last year I was the complainant in ICO decision notice FS50591795. Liverpool City Council had thirty-five days to comply with it, or 28 days to appeal it. Liverpool City Council did neither! Not complying is deemed contempt of court. So yes, I’ve experienced problems with Liverpool City Council.
However there are mayoral elections elsewhere in the country too.
So below is a quote from the Electoral Commission guidance (which I disagree with and it wouldn’t be the first time that the Electoral Commission have had to admit that their guidance was incorrect).
Somewhat ironically the guidance is titled Access to documentation after a local government election in England and Wales when the election result won’t be declared till Friday!
Just to be abundantly clear, the junior official Stephen Barker at Liverpool City Council is probably only doing what he thinks is right. It’s Ged Fitzgerald (the Returning Officer) that is ultimately personally responsible for how the Mayoral election is run.
Nomination papers cannot be inspected by anybody else at any time. Nomination papers may only be viewed and supplied to those who have a legal power to obtain documents. This may be a police officer using any powers they may have to take documents into their custody, or a court order.”
So what do people reading think? Please leave a comment. If I’ve made an error or have it wrong, I’d be happy to apologise!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What’s in a ~500 page contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and CRG for a private company to provide detained persons and officers healthcare and medical services?
What’s in a ~500 page contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and CRG for a private company to provide detained persons and officers healthcare and medical services?
I have a big red box file in my office.
What’s in the box you may ask?
Here’s a sample.
Well it’s the result of my citizen audit of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside for the financial year 2015-16.
Just to show how long I’ve been a journalist for, you will find on this blog reports of public meetings of the Merseyside Police Authority. A few years ago the coalition government abolished the Merseyside Police Authority and replaced it with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.
In the box are copies of 49 invoices and details of 10 contracts.
The largest contract at ~500 pages is a contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t/a CRG for the “Provision of Forensic Medical and Healthcare Services for the period, 21st January 2015 – 20th January 2017 with an option to extend by a further 2 years.“ which is reference PCCM / PD / 026 – Bluelight ref. 9KBD-BXVLMV .
This is perhaps the most interesting document although like many of the documents is redacted in part.
There’s also a service level agreement with Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and a secondment agreement with Liverpool City Council.
Some of the redactions were later challenged by myself and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner agreed with me that they didn’t have a legal basis to do so and released further information.
It is somewhat strange however that myself a journalist seems to have a better knowledge (from a legal perspective) over what can be redacted than the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. However I shouldn’t be too harsh on the OPCC for Merseyside as legal advice is a matter contracted under a SLA out to Knowsley Council (but don’t get me started on Knowsley Council and flawed legal advice!)
However the public sector as a whole has a tendency to for want of an expression take the mickey with me over redactions.
Although thankfully I rarely have to involve the judiciary in such matters.
Anyway going back to the large contract, due to its size from a time element it would take some considerable time to scan in, resize, compress and publish on the blog.
Those of a more political bent, may point out that in the public sector paying a private company for medical and healthcare services, that this falls into the political arguments over whether public services should be provided by the public sector. If provided by the private sector, ultimately less is spent on the service as a proportion ends up in profit (and presumably a different amount in taxes). For example 20% of all the money spent on CRG goes on VAT.
However, from CRG‘s last published accounts for 2015-16, they have a turnover of £34.3 million with a gross profit of 23.1%.
So out of £100 spent by the public sector with CRG, I estimate £16.69 will go on VAT, £23.10 on profit, leaving ~£60 out of every £100 on providing a service.
The contract is signed by Jane Kennedy (the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) and Laura Hale (a director of Castlerock Recruitment Group Limited).
Moving on to the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire it states that it’s for the provision of forensic and healthcare services (excluding SARCS).
SARC refers to Sexual Assault Referral Centre.
It explains that police forces and NHS Local Area Teams are working towards the transfer of commissioning responsibility for healthcare in police custody from the Home Office to the Department of Health and that the work of these Police/NHS Partnerships sits within the National Police Transition Programme.
If this happens during the life of the contract it is anticipated that the commissioning authority changes from Merseyside Police to the NHS England Lancashire Area Team and the contract will be novated.
However police forces and the NHS share contract governance, even after this change. This is done through the Strategic Healthcare Joint Partnership Board, at the time chaired by Chief Superintendant Carl Krueger, with representatives from NHS England Lancashire Area Team and NHS England (Merseyside).
PCC in the contract refers to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.
The background explains that Merseyside Police was formed in 1974, serves a population of ~1.5 million people, covering an area of 647 sq km and five Metropolitan Borough Areas (Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Wirral).
It then describes the BCUs (Basic Command Units) in operation at the time, which was one for each borough except Liverpool split into two.
The contract refers to the three universities, two premiership football teams (Tranmere Rovers doesn’t get a mention or maybe its fans are better behaved), a rugby league team and two major racecourses. It states that in 2013, Liverpool received 57 million visitors to the region (referring to tourism). At the time of writing Merseyside Police employed over 6,000 people (*although technically police officers aren’t employees but officers of the Crown) ranging from police officers, PCSOs, support staff, Special Constabulary Officers and volunteers).
The custody suites are listed as follows (five in total) with 131 cells. There are also two mothballed custody suites which can be opened for pre-planned events and operations (which is an extra 32 cells).
Here is the list in the following format
location – BCU – Cells – Current operation
St Anne Street – Liverpool – 33 – 24/7 Wavertree – Liverpool – 20 – 24/7 Copy Lane – Sefton – 24 – 24/7 Wirral – 32 – 24/7 St Helens – 22 – 24/7 (Mothballing or reduced opening hours are currently being considered for this suite) Southport – 12 – Mothballed Belle Vale – South Liverpool – Mothballed
The contract states that services at the time of the contract award were provided by Medacs Healthcare (contact details Helen Kelly (Director of Managed Healthcare)) and that staff employed by Medacs may need to be TUPEd over to the new provider.
There is a list of how many detainees there are for each month from April 2013-14, how many calls there were for a healthcare professional, along with a percentage of HCP calls vs No of detainees.
The total number of detainees varies from 3,510 in April to 3,927 in July. The number of HCP calls varies from 1,698 in March to 2,217 in July. The percentage varies from 46.3% in March to 56.5% in July.
There is then a table for December 2013 of various categories of call out, split by custody suite location with totals.
For example one of the categories, category 6 is Death (All) of which there were 4 in December 2013. This is 4 out of a total of 2,011 calls for a healthcare professional.
The six major categories (all with totals over 100 call outs in that month across Merseyside) in order of calls were:
Injuries (All) – inc Officer Injury,
Fitness to – Detain, Interview, Release, Court, Travel etc,
Medication Administer / Review,
Drink / Drug Withdrawl,
Reassessment / Mental Health Reassessment,
Detainee’s Request / Complaint against police
There were also 27 listed as Taser Removal / self harm / suicide risk.
Below are the first pages of the contract that I’m referring to. Are people interested in the rest or is police officer healthcare and detained persons’ healthcare an issue you assumed was provided by the NHS?