ICO request Merseytravel complete internal review in 20-40 working days on information request made in July 2018 for copies of invoices!

ICO request Merseytravel complete internal review in 20-40 working days on information request made in July 2018 for copies of invoices!

ICO request Merseytravel complete internal review in 20-40 working days on information request made in July 2018 for copies of invoices!

                                   

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Lead Member for Finance and Organisational Development) front (right) answering a question at a public meeting of the Transport Committee (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) 9th August 2018
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Lead Member for Finance and Organisational Development) front (right) answering a question at a public meeting of the Transport Committee (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) 9th August 2018

Updated 31.1.19 Merseytravel state to ICO that they won’t do an internal review, ICO now don’t class it as a FOI request.

This is an update to a blog post from August 2018 headlined What was the answer to my question to Cllr Steve Foulkes about openness at Merseytravel and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?

I made an appeal to the regulator for information requests (ICO) on the 12th August 2018. Merseytravel have now been requested to treat my correspondence of 10th August 2018 as a request for an internal review of my earlier information request in July 2018 and have been requested by ICO after that internal review is complete to provide a fresh response within 20-40 working days (from the 25th January 2019).
Continue reading “ICO request Merseytravel complete internal review in 20-40 working days on information request made in July 2018 for copies of invoices!”

What were the top 10 most watched videos during an incredible 2017?

What were the top 10 most watched videos during an incredible 2017?

What were the top 10 most watched videos during an incredible 2017?

                                           

Cllr Phil Davies on Hoylake Golf Resort at Hoylake Community Centre 9th December 2017
Cllr Phil Davies on Hoylake Golf Resort at Hoylake Community Centre 9th December 2017

Happy New Year! So what were the ten most watched videos on this blog’s Youtube channel in 2017 (by minutes viewed)?


10 In reverse order, number ten was a video not filmed in 2017, but during the general election in 2015 when there was a well attended public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie about a proposed fire station.
Continue reading “What were the top 10 most watched videos during an incredible 2017?”

So what happened each month in 2017?

So what happened each month in 2017?

So what happened each month in 2017?

                                    

Cllr Phil Davies on Hoylake Golf Resort at Hoylake Community Centre 9th December 2017
Cllr Phil Davies on Hoylake Golf Resort at Hoylake Community Centre 9th December 2017

2017 was such a newsworthy year it’s hard to know where to start.

January

The year started with councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority furious over the refusal of planning permission for a new fire station in Saughall Massie.
Continue reading “So what happened each month in 2017?”

Should EU laws on the environment be disregarded by the British judiciary before the UK has left the EU?

Should EU laws on the environment be disregarded by the British judiciary before the UK has left the EU?

Should EU laws on the environment be disregarded by the British judiciary before the UK has left the EU?

                                                 

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) site visit Saughall Massie fire station 18th July 2017
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) site visit Saughall Massie fire station 18th July 2017 (this is the site for the proposed fire station)

In a follow-up to yesterday’s story Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree 150 year lease for fire station in Saughall Massie I am going to write an editorial on a related matter. I’ll start by pointing out that I was the Appellant in the First-tier Tribunal matter referred to and Applicant in the related Upper Tribunal case.

Below is an opinion piece, I am not a legal professional and one of the costs decision referred to is sub judice. However as Editor I have decided there is a public interest in these matters being written about for various reasons.

Continue reading “Should EU laws on the environment be disregarded by the British judiciary before the UK has left the EU?”

What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”

                                 

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

On the 5th August 2016 a former Wirral Council employee Martin Morton made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for a copy of a report commissioned from Nick Warren on whistleblowing by former Wirral Council employees.

After Wirral Council had ignored his request for a month, Martin Morton requested an internal review on the 6th September 2016.

Wirral Council completed that internal review and communicated the results to Martin Morton on the 3rd October 2016 refusing to supply the report in its entirety.

The refusal was made by Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36).

Martin Morton then appealed Surjit Tour’s decision to the regulator ICO (the Information Commissioner’s Office).

During the course of ICO’s investigation, Wirral Council apologised for how long it had taken to reply to Martin Morton‘s request, but added an additional reason for refusing some of the information giving personal information (section 40) as a further reason.

On the 27th April 2017 ICO issued a decision notice (FS50649341). The decision notice required some of the information requested to be released to Martin Morton within 35 calendar days as ICO disagreed with Wirral Council and felt there were parts of the report to which neither section 36 nor section 40 applied.

Wirral Council released that information yesterday which comprise paragraphs 1-8 of the report (although part of paragraph 4 is redacted) and paragraph 76. I’ve put in a line break between different pages and in the conversion from print to HTML there may be some minor formatting changes.

I include what has been released below yesterday as it is rather short. A series of XXXX represents the redacted bit. I’ve made two additions. The first is that I’ve linked the words “precise terms of reference” in paragraph 4 to the terms of reference as the report makes more sense when read together with the terms of reference. The second is that I’ve made it clearer that paragraphs 5-75 haven’t been released of the report.



Report


A. INTRODUCTION

  1. This review arises from events which formed part of a dismal decade for Wirral Borough Council (“Wirral”) culminating in a remarkable joint statement from the Leader of the Council and the then Chief Executive (CE) which have accepted a number of failings and recognised the need to improve Wirral’s corporate governance, culture and workforce policies.

  2. Part of the statement concerned the Highways and Engineering Services procurement exercise (“HESPE”). This work was put out to tender; there were bids from the private sector and an in house bid from the Wirral “DLO”. It is convenient to state here some important dates concerning HESPE.







    Dec 2007 Announcement in the Official EU Journal.
    13 March 2008 Qualifying bidders chosen
    2 July 2008 Bidders invited to tender according to a Bill of Quantities.
    4 Sept 2008
    (later extended to
    5 Sept 2008)
    Tender return date.
    16 Oct 2008 Contract formally awarded to COLAS.


  3. The DLO bid was therefore unsuccessful. This meant that the DLO staff would transfer to COLAS from April 2009.



  4. In November 2008 some employees of the DLO made a disclosure on the advice of their Trade Union to Wirral’s CE. I will refer to them collectively as “the Whistleblowers”. They had all worked for Wirral for many years. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I have been asked to review the treatment of the Whistleblowers. It is not necessary to recite precise terms of reference.

  5. I have interviewed the Whistleblowers and other witnesses and have read a large number of documents provided by Wirral. I thank Wirral staff for the co-operation which I have received. I will not deal with all the evidence because I want to make my report as short and as readable as I can. If required, I can expand on or explore any individual issue.

  6. I have of course used hindsight. That is in the very nature of a review. There is nothing wrong with this provided I do not use it to criticise people or actions unfairly.

    B. WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE DONE FOR WIRRAL


  7. It took Wirral about four months to respond to the Whistleblowers. They were dissatisfied and went to the Audit Commission. The Commission took the


    unusual step of issuing a public report identifying serious weakness in Wirral’s arrangements for:-

    (a) Declaration of Interests.
    (b) Internal Audit
    (c) Reporting to Elected Members
    (d) Dealing with Whistleblowers
    (e) Evaluating Tenders

  8. As a result Wirral has altered and improved its procedures in these important areas of work. It seems clear that the weaknesses would not have been exposed, nor would the improvements have come about, if the Whistleblowers had not had the courage to speak out. I am not aware that Wirral has acknowledged publicly or privately the contribution which the Whistleblowers thus made to our community.

    (Paragraphs 5-75 are redacted).

    L. CONCLUSION



  1. The Whistleblowers have not received sufficient credit for exposing poor practice within Wirral. The “informal” nature of the first investigation resulted


    in them having to work under great stress for several months. While they were still Wirral employees, their names were disclosed to their new employer as being in some way untrustworthy. Their health and their jobs were adversely affected over an extended period.

    Nicholas Warren 6th October 2015.


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

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other