Martins (389 Upton Road) ask for an alcohol licence;the @MerseyPolice Sgt insists video of a public meeting is erased
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee (Wirral Council) (Wallasey Town Hall, Committee Room 3) 8th May 2014 Martins, 389 Upton Road, Noctorum (Martin McColl Limited) Councillor Mike Sullivan (Labour), Councillor Steve Niblock (Chair, Labour), Councillor Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Martins (389 Upton Road) ask for an alcohol licence; the Merseyside Police Sergeant insists video of a public meeting is erased
Sometimes public meetings take such a bizarre turn, I couldn’t do justice to what happened at them without providing a transcript. However you first need to know a little about this “public meeting”. As detailed in the published report a application for a licence (from Martin McColl Limited) to sell alcohol at a newsagents at Martins, 389 Upton Road, Noctorum (which is in Claughton ward although it is across the road from Bidston & St James ward and very near Upton ward) had been received by Wirral Council. Martins don’t currently sell alcohol and the shop is run as a newsagents/grocery store.
The application was to sell alcohol from 6am to 11pm (seven days a week) for consumption off the premises. There had been a representation from a local business and a petition signed by ninety-four people against the application being granted. Both the petition and representation related to existing problems with youths in the area of the newsagents.
Merseyside Police were also objecting to the application on the basis of a current problem with antisocial behaviour in the area of the newsagents and the likelihood that this would increase if the licence was granted. Another ground of objection from Merseyside Police was that they didn’t feel that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated how crime and disorder would be prevented at the premises in the future should the licence be granted.
Unusually a representation had also been received from Wirral Council’s Environmental Health department which related to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.
The meeting was supposed to start at 2pm, although it didn’t. The councillors and council officers were in the room at 2pm, but they seem to insist on having a long talk with each other before the meeting officially starts. For some peculiar reason (which is different to all other public meetings held at Wallasey Town Hall) they insist everybody comes in at once and won’t even allow you in the room five minutes a few minutes before the meeting starts (which is necessary to set up a tripod and turn a camera on in time for the meeting to start). I’ve asked a Wirral Council officer why, they just state because of the regulations. There’s nothing in the regulations that states everyone has to go into a public meeting at once, in fact the regulations just state the hearing has to be held in public (subject to Regulation 14(2)).
Anyway after what was a long time of waiting of about fifteen minutes everyone was asked to come in (which takes a few minutes in itself as there was me, Leonora, two petitioners, Sgt Barrigan (Merseyside Police), the applicant’s representative, the “area manager” and a Wirral Council officer working in Environmental Health). The meeting started and here is a transcript. Officially the first two items are appointment of Chair and declarations of interest.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
I’m Councillor Steve Niblock and I’m the Chair of the Subcommittee this afternoon as are my councillor colleagues who will be determining the application. Could I first ask that all mobile phones are switched off or turned to silent please? Thank you and also before we open it’s not the planned fire drill so if the alarm does go off go out of those doors, turn right immediately and assemble in the car park over the road, ok?
There is an issue that has been raised a number of times within the Council with regards to filming of committee meetings and therefore I need to ask all those present if they consent to being filmed and if not errm, the reasons where they do not wish to be filmed and then it’s up to the Committee to make a decision with regards to that particular recommendation.
So, the issue being round if we could introduce ourselves, and then we could deal with that ..
MARGARET O’DONNELL
Chair, sorry to interrupt, just I think the film is running now, so that might defeat the purpose.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, is it possible to pause that film?
JOHN BRACE
OK.
END OF TRANSCRIPT OF PART ONE
The applicant’s representative raised an objection to the meeting being filmed and said he was at the meeting with the Area Manager. He said he had not been told about the filming issue before the meeting and had not received instructions on this from his client.
Sergeant Barrigan of Merseyside Police said he had no objections to the meeting being filmed. The Wirral Council officer from environmental health said he had no objections to being filmed. The petitioners said they had no objection to being filmed.
The Chair asked Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public to leave whilst the councillors received advice from their legal adviser on the filming issue.
=======================================================================================================
Everyone waited outside in the corridor. Margaret O’Donnell came out and spoke with the applicant’s representative out of earshot. After talking with Margaret O’Donnell the applicant’s representative talked with Sergeant Barrigan about police officers wearing cameras. Sergeant Barrigan said in the corridor that he didn’t wear a camera or body armour as both pieces of kit would slow him down if he was chasing after a suspect and put him at a disadvantage.
Eventually after a long period of time Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public were invited back in to Committee Room 3.
=======================================================================================================
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
Once the errm the Committee has decided whether or not to make this meeting in camera.
EITHER APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE OR AREA MANAGER
There are two issues that cause me concern in relation to the errm, to the errm, to the errm, filming, not knowing what would happen to the film afterwards. Personally there is a matter which is referred to in two of the representations, more than one, errm, which is, errm, in two of the representations, which is currently I think it’s a matter before the courts in relation to those two issues affecting business. I’m not sure what questions you want to ask, in relation to that, but it’s not a matter that I have confidence on. Others the potential for prejudice if widely reported it could prejudice of that matter.
The second errm, is that, one, arising from that I have assumed that on were there any questions regarding security at this, these particular premises err as a result of that other issue which we believe err will address some of the concerns that were expressed, hopefully all those concerns that were expressed by Environmental Health and again that going into the public domain it would potentially defeat the the the security element so on that basis you will adjudicate the matter based on our concern that that could leak into the wider public domain. So for those two reasons around, I would prefer not to do it. Obviously it’s a determination for the Committee to decide on the regulations on what would be the overall regulation that would cover the matter. I would prefer that the matter wasn’t recorded and reported externally.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, Sergeant Barrigan, do you have any other objections or a view errm with regard to this matter being an exempt item?
SERGEANT BARRIGAN (Merseyside Police)
I think the point Mr Grant makes in relation to the potential sub judice issue is valid, although it’s not a prosecution errm that is being conducted by Merseyside Police. Errm, the other issue in relation to security I think is more valid. The enforcement action that is being conducted by Environmental Health resulted out from some issues in relation to security that is not subject to the representations and some proposals from Mr. Grant and his guys and I don’t think it’s appropriate that that information goes into the public domain because it could muck things up in the future errm and on reflection taking that into consideration I would request that the Committee hold it in camera.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK?
Mr ???? (Environmental Health)
We’ve established that.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, that’s closed, now there there’s no one else objecting? I’m going to ask for another adjournment now.
Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public left to the corridor leaving the three councillors with some Wirral Council officers. After a long wait, people were invited back in (for the third time!).
=======================================================================================================
When everyone returned, the Chair Councillor Steve Niblock said that they had heard representations from the applicant and Merseyside Police and were excluding the public (see regulation 14(2) from the rest of the subcommittee meeting due to court proceedings.
For the purposes of this decision (see regulation 14(3) Sergeant Barrigan, the petitioners, the applicant’s representative and the area manager are all classed as “members of the public” and should have left. However they didn’t. Leonora and I proceeded to the door only to find my way blocked by Sergeant Barrigan insisting that before I left (since the redesign of Wallasey Town Hall Committee Room 3 has only one way in and out) that I delete the video footage on my camera of the public meeting! I deleted the second clip but refused to delete the first. Sergeant Barrigan wouldn’t let us leave until he got the ok from Councillor Steve Niblock that this was alright! I wonder if after we left Sergeant Barrigan (as is recommended) made a note of this conversation (conducted loud enough that everyone in the room could hear) in his notebook and if so what he put in these notes! A transcript of the second deleted video clip is above. This is a letter from 2010 Andrew Trotter, Chief Constable of the ACPO Advisory Group. I will quote from the relevant parts:
“There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer’s) guidance is as follows:
There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.
If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.”
I know this ACPO guidance was agreed at a national level, but does anybody know of any locally agreed policy of Merseyside Police that applies to the situation of being instructed by a police officer to delete video footage from a camera without a court order? Should I keep a copy of Andrew Trotter’s letter on me for future meetings and will politicians just use the reason of excluding the public from a public meeting to circumvent the regulations in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (which will have the force of law at some point in the next few weeks) which place a legal requirement on local councils to permit filming at their public meetings?
I am reminded of rule 1 of the National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct which states “A journalist:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
Andrew Roberts talks at the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 about school crossing patrol funding
The Chair of the Wirral Schools Forum Richard Longster said that there were a couple of matters arising, the first being school crossing patrols.
Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager – School Funding and Resources) said, “The delivery of the saving of the school crossing patrols savings option was withdrawn at Council but the rest is part of the budget for 2014-15.”
However this was what was in the Schools Budget report when it was agreed at Budget Council on the 25th February 2014:
“There are a number of budget savings options for 2014-15 arising from working in partnership with schools. These have been progressed in discussions with schools and as part of this budget as follows:
…
– School Crossing Patrols £415,000
This option has been discussed with Headteacher groups with a view to it being funded by schools from their delegated budgets. The crossings would continue to be managed and staffed by Streetscene, but schools individually would meet the costs of the service.”
Cabinet believes the safety of children is paramount. In December Cabinet agreed to ask schools to take over the funding of school crossing patrols. Given the concerns expressed by a minority of schools, officers are instructed to continue discussions with schools with a guarantee that no funding is removed where agreement cannot be reached.”
So I wonder why an officer now states the savings option for school crossing patrols has been “withdrawn”?
So what happened behind the scenes over school crossing patrols to force such a U-turn? Did the headteachers refuse to fund it from their school’s budgets? Did Wirral Council’s legal department change their advice? Or did something else happen?
The Chair referred to the other matter arising relating to the minimum funding guarantee application to the Education Funding Agency to be exempt from the minimum funding guarantee.
Andrew Roberts replied, “OK, this is just to update the application for the LEA’s exemption was withdrawn to the EFA after the meeting on the 27th.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
For example this quote from that report refers to the budget that goes towards special schools such as Lyndale School (which Wirral Council is currently consulting on the closure of):
“2.12 Special Education Needs Transition Reserve £0.3m under spend The 2013-14 budget is £8.3m, of which £8.0m has been committed, including the costs to fund the High Needs MFG in 2014-15 of £330,000.” and there are other underspends in the special educational needs budget too, a half a million pounds underspend on special educational needs statementing costs for schools and early years (detailed at 2.13), a £400,000 underspend in support for special educational needs (detailed at 2.15) and a £200,000 underspend on the independent special schools budget. In total this comes to an underspend of £1.4 million across the special educational needs budget, when Wirral Council are consulting on closing Lyndale School (according to their consultation document) over a predicted shortfall of £12,313 last year and £19,000 this year.
Part of the reason for the predicted shortfall of £12,313 is because when the 2013-14 schools budget was agreed (first by the Wirral Schools Forum, then by Cabinet, then by Council) a high needs contingency in the special schools budget was set of £880,000, which as the report states there is a £300,000 underspend of this reserve it was set too high. If this reserve had instead been set a little more realistically and let’s just say for sake of argument the £300,000 divided equally between the eleven special schools on the Wirral, each school would’ve received an extra £27,272 which would’ve meant that there was no deficit at Lyndale School last year and that the deficit this year would be extremely small (~£4,000).
Despite these large underspends in the special educational needs budget of £1.4 million, overspends and underspends elsewhere in the education budget and a contribution of £600,000 to reserves reduces the total underspend to £384,000.
You may well ask what reserve is £600,000 needed for that had been previously allocated for special educational needs? This report on School Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Costs explains the need for a £600,000 reserve. Thirteen years ago a private finance agreement was agreed to by Wirral Council for the rebuild/refurbishment of one primary and eight secondary schools on the Wirral. Variations to the agreement were then agreed for the construction of two City Learning Centres. This PFI contract was originally for 25 years, but then extended for a further two years in 2004.
Wirral Council pay amounts to Wirral School Services Limited for the PFI costs according to the contract signed. The annual cost this year will be £11 million, which is offset by a government grant of £5.5 million a year. The PFI schools pay their share of the PFI facilities management support services costs which comes to £3 million a year. However this still leaves £2.5 million.
Officers are proposing that £600,000 of the underspend (money that was originally allocated for special educational needs) should be put towards PFI costs. The rest will be have to be found from permanent savings in the Schools Budget.
So who was Cabinet Member for Children’s Services when the PFI agreement was agreed in 2004, that may result in money that was agreed for the education of children with special educational needs being diverted into the profits of a private company? The Cabinet Member for Childrens Services from 2000 to 2009 was Councillor Phil Davies, the current Leader of Wirral Council.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 “confidential” report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Aretha Franklin – Respect [1967]
Cheshire West and Chester invoice for £1800 for investigating a standards complaint (you can click on the thumbnail for a more high resolution version)
EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 "confidential" report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful
It was a long time ago (19th March) when I first made a Freedom of Information Act request for the external investigation report (and the invoice) for the standards complaint that Councillor Steve Foulkes had made about Councillor Chris Blakeley. Not surprisingly with such a politically sensitive request, my Freedom of Information request was ignored, so on the 17th April I requested an internal review.
On the 24th April Wirral Council supplied the report itself, an appendix and the invoice from Chester West and Chester Council (for £1,800) for the investigation. On the same day this was released, solicitors that work in Wirral Council’s legal department and the officers that take the minutes at public meetings had a meeting in Committee Room 1, the subject of which was “values and culture change”. The fact that only two lines are redacted in the investigation report and Wirral Council hasn’t claimed an Freedom of Information Act exemption applies to the report and appendix A is one example of how the culture has changed at Wirral Council.
Due to the redaction of two lines on page nine, the seventeen page report is an image, therefore it can’t be spidered properly by search engines. Therefore I’ll be including the seventeen page report below this so it can be properly spidered. The report itself explains who Councillor Blakeley and Councillor Foulkes are so I won’t repeat what is in the report itself. It does however give an interesting insight into Wirral’s politics. Appendix A to the report can be downloaded from this blog. I’ve used a series of equals signs to show where individual pages start and end in the report.
Where legislation or individual cases are referred to I have tried to provide a link where possible in case you want to find out more about the legislation or judgements referred to. If you wish to read the original report as a pdf file you can. The two witness statements referred to in the report as Appendix B (the witness statement of Councillor Foulkes) and Appendix C (the witness statement of Councillor Blakeley) haven’t been supplied in response to the Freedom of Information Act request, but I’ve requested an internal review regarding these. In the report below I have not corrected any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors but left these as they appear in the report.
Report of an investigation by Trudie Odaka acting as investigating officer, appointed by Surjit Tour Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council into allegations concerning Councillor Chris Blakeley.
This report is submitted to the Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council, Surjit Tour.
FINAL REPORT
10th March 2014
1 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
======================================================================================================= CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. The relevant legislation and protocols
3. The Evidence Gathered
4. Nomination for the Office of Mayor
5. The Allegations by the Complainant
6. Account by Councillor Foulkes
7. The Liverpool Echo article dated 13th May 2013
8. Response from Councillor Blakeley
9. Summary of the material facts
10.Case Law
11.Reasoning as to whether there has been a failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct
12.Finding
Appendix A – Schedule of Documents
Appendix B – Statement of Councillor Foulkes
Appendix C – Statement of Councillor Blakeley
2 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
Executive Summary
1.1 I have been asked to conduct an investigation in respect of a complaint made by Councillor Steve Foulkes regarding the conduct of Councillor Chris Blakeley.
1.2 The Allegation
An allegation has been made by Councillor Steve Foulkes that Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council by failing to treat him with respect. The allegation made by Councillor Foulkes is that in an article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13th May 2013, when referring to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination as for Deputy Mayor, Councillor Blakeley indicated that he would be voting against the nomination. The complaint contains the quote "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality. Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him".
1.3 I have investigated whether Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with paragraphs 1.1of the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.
Investigation Outcome
1.4 I have investigated Councillor Blakeley’s conduct and in so doing I have considered the article published in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013 which was appended to the complaint. I have taken into account the article as a whole, in order to set the context of any quotes or information contained within it. Whilst concentrating principally on this Liverpool Echo article; I have also considered other articles relating to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination for deputy mayor, articles that appeared in the local press and on the internet. This has enabled me to better understand the background to the complaint, the context of the statement made by Councillor Blakeley and this has allowed me to review the comments made by other members of Wirral Borough Council; members that are not the subject of this complaint but who nonetheless commented publically about the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of Deputy Mayor.
3 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
1.5 I have considered the quotes attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley and I have investigated – whether the quotes were made by him and if made; the context.
1.6 I have considered the comments contained within the complaint and I have interviewed both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley to listen to their account of events. Through interviewing each member separately; I have paid particular attention to what each of them has said and taken into account how the comments were perceived by them including the intention of the subject member Councillor Blakeley. I have also taken into account the public forum in which the comments were made; being publication of the comments within a newspaper.
1.7 Whilst concentrating the investigation upon the Liverpool Echo article and the conduct of Councillor Blakeley; in reaching a conclusion, I have taken into account the political context at the time by reviewing the press and other public forums where the nomination was mentioned, although the information found is relevant for setting context (as it revealed that others made comments about the nomination) I have not repeated what I have found within this report as it does not relate to the exact detail of this complaint. Copies are contained in the list of documents at appendix A.
1.8 I have investigated whether or not the conduct complained of was directed at Councillor Foulkes as an individual or his personal characteristics.
1.9 I conclude that when quoted in the Liverpool Echo article on 13th May 2013, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity as a councillor of Wirral Borough Council.
1.10 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that, the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley made in response to a nomination by the council’s cabinet for the position of deputy mayor; the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor namely the proposed next incumbent for the position of deputy mayor. In making the statements Councillor Blakeley appears to have been seeking to explain the reason why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor; against the Wirral Council’s established tradition of members not challenging nominations made for the positions of mayor and deputy mayor. Councillor Blakeley is quoted as saying "Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year?" Taking into account all the material facts, I do not find that the quotes
4 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse/attack directed at the Complainant Councillor Foulkes.
1.11 In reaching my conclusion, I have taken into account the fact that Wirral Borough Council being a public body is under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; this includes the consideration of possible breaches of the Member’s Code of Conduct. Article 10 is a European Convention Right that gives protection to the right of freedom of expression, a right which the courts have strongly upheld in cases involving the expression of political opinion, and as such, Councillor Blakeley’s comments to the Liverpool Echo are protected by Article 10.
1.12 I find that there has been no failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct.
2. The Relevant Legislation, Code and Protocols
The Code of Conduct
2.1 Wirral Borough Council adopted a Code of Conduct with effect from 1st July 2012 in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.
2.2 The Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct imposes a general obligation on all its councillors, that when acting in their role as a member of the council they will treat others with respect.
2.3 Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct
Paragraph 1.1 of the Code states –
(1) when acting in your role as a Member of the Council;
1.1 DO treat others with respect
Relevant legislation
2.4 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
5 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
society, in the interests of…the protection of the reputation or rights of others."
2.5 Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 identifies the rights under the European Convention of Human Rights which have effect for the purposes of that Act. They include Articles 6 and 10 of the ECHR.
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act provides that so far as it is possible to do so subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights.
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. (In light of this provision I have taken into account the provisions of the ECHR when conducting this investigation).
(2) Disapplies the section in certain very limited circumstances concerning primary legislation. (This does not apply to the present case)
3. The Evidence Gathered
3.1 I have interviewed –
The Complainant Councillor Steve Foulkes
The subject member Councillor Chris Blakeley
3.2 I have spoken to Surjit Tour, the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
3.3 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.
3.4 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Member’s Code of Conduct protocol.
3.5 I have obtained copies of other articles within the press relating to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor found as a result of a speculative search of the internet. Copies of these are contained within Appendix A
4 Nomination for the Office of Mayor
4.1 Both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley have explained the process for mayor making to me. My understanding is that in essence nominations to
6 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
the offices of mayor and deputy mayor are made by the Wirral Council Cabinet. All three parties take a rotational turn to put forward their nomination for the role. In 2013 the rotational turn belonged to the Labour Group. I am told by Councillor Foulkes that the selection of the Labour Group nomination is based upon seniority due to length of service.
4.2 In accordance with custom and practice the role of deputy mayor is normally followed a year later by the holder’s nomination to the position of mayor. My understanding is that the naming of a mayor and deputy mayor is not normally controversial in Wirral.
4.3 The nomination to the mayoralty and deputy mayoralty is traditionally unopposed by any of the parties as the position is considered apolitical.
5 The Allegations by the Complainant
5.1 The complaint stems from a statement which appeared in the a Liverpool Echo article dated 13th May 2013 and a quote attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley, words taken from the article of :
"I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."
"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."
5.2 Within his complaint Councillor Foulkes explains "I have a proud record of public service over 22 years. During that time I have never been found guilty of being unfit to hold public office. By questioning by fitness to hold the offices of Council Leader, Deputy Mayor and Mayor, Cllr Blakeley is in clear breach of one of the key elements of the Members Protocol, i.e. ‘failing to treat people with respect."
6 Account by Councillor Foulkes
6.1 Councillor Foulkes is an elected Councillor of Wirral Borough Council and following his nomination to the office, he became the Deputy Mayor of Wirral Borough Council.
7 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
6.2 Councillor Foulkes made the complaint on 17th May 2013 following the article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013.
6.3 Councillor Foulkes has complained about the comments attributed to Councillor Blakeley within the Liverpool Echo explaining that he took exception to the word ‘unfit’ saying "The use of the word ‘unfit’ implies things, gives connotations that there is criminality involved with your character or malpractice. For this to be true ‘he’ would need evidence. That is what is required to say a holder of a drinks licence or a taxi licence is unfit – you need to explain what makes a person ‘unfit’."
6.4 When interviewed Councillor Foulkes differentiated the comments made by Councillor Blakeley from the other comments contained within the article "The first comment that I found mildly offensive was the comment ‘divisive’ I did not take action about this." "… people are allowed poetic licence even though it was not a great comment; people say many things in political tit for tat. I did not take action over this."
6.5 Councillor Foulkes explained the effect of the quotes on:
him as an individual, "The statements made have had an effect on me as an individual. First it made life difficult for me" "People who read it associated it with criminality or malpractice. I was very concerned that this was what people were thinking of me." "I have to survive in the real world. I have a career. If people associate my name with being ‘unfit’ or ‘divisive’ it will discourage people from taking the role of politician if that sort of language continues"
him as a politician, "Understanding the local people, I knew the phase ‘unfit’ could be interpreted in a whole host of ways. It took me aback that Councillor Blakeley though he knew something that would show me as unfit. Leaders of Council’s are accountable. This is right and correct. This however was an attack on my character."
his family and friends "it has clearly created tension for my friends and family" "I received comments from friends and people that I met "what’s he got on you to call you ‘unfit’?" As I said, normally the use of the word ‘unfit is connected to criminality e.g. in the context of licensing. What have I done? I have never done
8 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
anything. If Councillor Blakeley thought that I was unfit on those grounds then he should have made it clearer.”
6.6 Councillor Foulkes explained why he took exception to the quotes attributed to Councillor Blakeley "I would never say that I don’t have respect for someone. I feel that by saying this Councillor Blakeley has gone beyond the normal attacks that occur." "Where Councillor Blakeley says I was unfit it shows a lack of respect this is made worse when his comments are then emblazoned in the press."
6.7 Quoting directly from Councillor Foulkes’ statement he said "Lots of others called for my resignation, others spoke in support. It doesn’t mean that someone who has been the Leader cannot be Mayor. I have done the job as Leader to the best of my ability. I have made mistakes but I do not think that I have done anything to warrant me being called ‘unfit’. This is personalised attack on my character not based on anything I might have done or anything that he believes that I have done."
"At this point in time there is not a blemish on my character. I would say that as a politician I have made mistakes. I made decisions with the best interests of Wirral and the Council I never knowingly did anything that would breach decent behaviour or any Code of Conduct."
7 The Liverpool Echo Article dated 13th May 2013
7.1 The Article which is the subject of this complaint appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13th May 2013 under the title "Rivals in row over choice of Deputy Mayor" by Liam Murphy.
7.2 The article is introduced with the editorial "A long-standing tradition of not making mayoralty a political issue looks set to be shattered in Wirral tonight"
7.3 The editorial continues "Former council leader, Labour’s Steve Foulkes, is being put forward as deputy mayor; but a leading Tory has said he will vote against him Cllr Foulkes and other members of the Conservative party are expected to join him or abstain."
7.4 The article sets out the context of the mayor making process explaining "the three parties in Wirral council take turns nominating a councillor to the
9 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
======================================================================================================= mayoralty seen as a non-political role which raises thousands of pounds for chosen charities."
7.5 Within the article Tory Leader Councillor Jeff Green has a quote attributed to him, ‘he was surprised by the decision to nominate such a "divisive figure"’
7.6 The editorial commentary introduces Councillor Blakeley’s quote with "ahead of night’s meeting to nominate the new mayor and his deputy, Tory chief whip Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would be voting against Cllr Foulkes"
7.7 Councillor Blakeley is then quoted as having said "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."
"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."
7.8 The article ends with a commentary from the complainant Councillor Foulkes "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves" . "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."
8 Response from Councillor Blakeley
8.1 During my interview with Councillor Blakeley he explained that he felt the complaint was a tit for tat complaint made by the complainant.
8.2 Councillor Blakeley was and is unhappy with the process followed in the handling of this complaint.
8.3 When interviewed Councillor Blakeley described the council as "factionalised politically".
8.4 In relation to the quotes attributed to him, Councillor Blakeley did not remember the exact words used however he did not dispute the words quoted "When I saw the article I was not shocked by what it said. But I
10 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
can’t say if what they printed was correct because I can’t recall word for word what was actually said".
8.5 Councillor Blakeley explained "I am extremely proud that I voted against Councillor Foulkes as Deputy Mayor along with my colleagues who also voted against and those in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Group who also did not support Cllr Foulkes nomination by abstaining."
8.6 When referring to the mayor making process Councillor Blakeley explained "The traditional view is that the Mayor Making is a non-political event. No vote is taken on either role and it is all done with niceties and everyone is pleasant".
8.7 With reference to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor Councillor Blakeley explained "The selection of Councillor Foulkes made it a political event. When Labour nominated Councillor Foulkes, the Labour Group knew what they were doing, sticking two fingers up to the Council and to the people of Wirral. As explained by Councillor Jeff Green’s comment "he was surprised by the decision to nominate such ‘a divisive figure’." If you knew and understood the history of politics in Wirral you would understand that".
8.8 In relation to the use of the wording ‘unfit’ Councillor Blakeley explained "Councillor Foulkes was voted out as Leader of the Council in 2011 because of a vote of no confidence. I voted against Councillor Foulkes when he was leader. I vote against him because we all believed he was no longer fit to lead this Council. We need a majority of Councillors to carry a vote of no confidence, clearly that majority was achieved. It wasn’t my words that he wasn’t ‘fit’ it was the Council motion".
8.9 Councillor Blakeley explained the context of his statements "Wirral Borough Council is a ‘bear put’ of a political arena. Since Councillor Davies took over as Leader of the Council there have been calls for him to resign. If the shoe was on the other foot; I am sure that he would be calling for the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Leader to resign. Calling on Leaders to resign is not unusual in Wirral, regardless of which political party it is, that is the confrontational nature of politics that exists in Wirral".
8.10 Councillor Blakeley went on to explain "Wirral Council is exceptionally political." "..I am sure that both he and I and others have said far
11 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
worse in the Council Chamber than is printed on that newspaper page".
8.11 In conclusion Councillor Blakeley said "Looking at the seven principles in public life that are in the Schedule to the Members Code of Conduct, I have been honest in what I have said. I have been accountable about what I have said".
9 Summary of the material facts
9.1 The comments published in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013 complained about are attributed to Councillor Blakeley.
9.2 The article and all the quotes contained within it including those attributed to the Councillor Blakeley "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him." all relate to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor.
9.3 It is clear that the comments are connected to the intended departure from a long established tradition of nominations relating to the mayoralty being apolitical "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves". "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."
9.4 The nomination of councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor led to comments being made publicly about the nomination from a number of Wirral Borough Councillors.
9.5 I note that in relation to the ‘unfit’ comment Councillor Foulkes explained to his employer "that is was just political stuff" I also note that Councillor Foulkes’ response to the comments contained within the article is also quoted (paragraph 7.8 above refers).
10 Case Law
In coming to a conclusion over whether or not there has been a breach of the Wirral Code of Conduct, I have taken into account case law concerning the freedom of expression, in particular political expression and the application of the article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression) to complaints under the Code of Conduct. Including the most recent high court cases of R (Dennehy) v London Borough of Ealing [2013]
12 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
"The recognition of the importance of expression in the political sphere and the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of politicians acting in their public capacity than they are in the case of private individuals… This recognition involves both a higher level of protection ("enhanced protection") for statements in the political sphere and the expectation that if the subjects of such statements are politicians acting in their public capacity, they lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds and are expected to possess a thicker skin and greater tolerance than ordinary members of the public … Although the protection of Article 10(2) extends to politicians, the Strasbourg Court has stated that where a politician seeks to rely on it, "the requirements have to be weighed in relation to the open discussion of political issues".
10.2 In Sanders v Steven Kingston Wilkie J considered the relationship between Article 10 and paragraph 2(b) of the then Code of Conduct. The provision equates to paragraphs 1.1 of the Wirral Council’s new Code with which this investigation is concerned. In paragraph 69 of his judgement, Wilkie J reviewed a number of authorities. In my view the paragraphs taken from the judgement are relevant to this investigation as they relate to the freedom of expression and political expression in particular.
10.3 In Lingens v Austria Wilkie J noted [at para.69] that the following was said:
"In this connection the court has to recall that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information or ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to
13 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
those that offend shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no democratic society. More generally freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society which prevails throughout the convention… In such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues."
10.4 From R v Central Independent Television plc (1994) Fam 192 Wilkie J set out the following passage from the speech of Lord Justice Hoffman:
"Publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which "right thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins."
"Members of Councils are politicians and their actions as such are often political actions. An obvious example is when they are speaking in Council meetings where robust political debate may reflect lack of respect for political opponents or may result in views being expressed which many might regard as offensive. It cannot be the case, in my judgement, that the sole source of obligation in that context is the code of conduct unmediated by consideration of Article 10."
"The burden is on [the Adjudication Panel for England] to justify interference with freedom of speech. However offensive and undeserving of protection the appellant’s outburst may have appeared to some, it is important that any individual knows that he can say what he likes, provided it is not unlawful, unless there are clear and satisfactory reasons within the terms of Article 10(2) to render him liable to sanctions.”
14 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
11 Reasoning as to whether there has been failure to comply with the Code of Conduct
11.1 Two matters fall for determination on the basis of the facts as found:
Whether when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2014, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his role as a member of the Council and
Whether Councillor Blakeley’s conduct was such that he failed to treat others with respect.
Failure to Treat Others with Respect
11.2 Failure to treat others with respect will occur when unfair, unreasonable or demeaning behaviour is directed by one person against another. The circumstances in which the behaviour occurred are relevant in assessing whether the behaviour is disrespectful. The circumstances include the place where the behaviour occurred, who observed the behaviour, the behaviour itself and its proportionality to the circumstances, the character and relationship of the people involved and the behaviour of anyone who prompted the alleged disrespect.
11.3 It is recognised that in politics rival groupings are common and, within this context it is expected that each will campaign for their ideas, and they may also seek to discredit the policies and actions of their opponents. It is very clear from case law that ideas and policies can be robustly criticised, but individuals should not be subject to unreasonable or excessive personal attack, it is also clear from case law that the right to freedom of expression is a crucially important right that can only be interfered with where there are convincing and compelling reasons within article 10(2) to justify that interference "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins" (paragraph 10.4 above refers).
11.4 Councillor Blakeley does not deny making the quotes contained in the Liverpool Echo article.
11.5 There is agreement by the complainant and the subject member that the quotes contained within the article were as a direct response to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor.
11.6 I find that the quotes in the article related to a matter within Councillor Blakeley’s legitimate concern as a councillor. I consider that the right of Councillor Blakeley as a democratically elected member of a public authority to free speech is engaged. I find that in making the statements he was
15 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
seeking to explain why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality." This appears to have been said by way of explanation against the accepted Wirral tradition that when such nominations are made by a party for the position of deputy mayor, the nominations are accepted without opposition from any of the other parties’ members "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him.".
11.7 Personal Attack or Malice
In relation to the article, I have also considered whether or not there was a personal attack against Councillor Foulkes contained within the quotes made. I have concentrated in particular on the use of the wording ‘unfit’ and taking into account Councillor Foulkes’ views when he said "I believe Councillor Blakeley used the words ‘unfit’ for effect. Perhaps politicians think in a different way." I have also taken into account Councillor Foulkes’ own account of the use of the wording "’unfit’ in his explanation to his employer "I explained to them that it was just political stuff.
11.8 I have taken into account that the complainant is directly referred to and is singled out as the subject of the article however I have balanced this with the fact that the article and the comments contained within it relate to a nomination to the very public position of deputy mayor. I have taken the view that in being nominated and agreeing to be put out for nomination the complainant accepted that fellow elected members may or may not approve of the nomination and as a result may voice their support or opposition to the proposed nomination publically using the various media forums available to them. This by the nature of the political arena in which it is set was a direct possibility despite the fact that within Wirral, tradition tended to show that nominations for mayoralty positions are dealt with unopposed.
11.9 The quotes appear to be an explanation of the voting direction Councillor Blakeley intended to take. I am not satisfied that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo amount to any more than political commentary following a group nomination to the position of deputy mayor.
11.10 I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice /anger, or personal abuse directed at the complainant Councillor Foulkes.
16 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
11.11 On the basis that the quotes in the article constituted the legitimate expression of a political view by Councillor Blakeley which is afforded the highest level of protection under article 10 and the fact that the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor; I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.
12 Finding
Official Capacity
12.1 I find that Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13th May 2013, he spoke in his capacity as a councillor about the nomination for the office of deputy mayor and he spoke of his intention to vote at the mayor making council meeting.
Failure to Treat Others with Respect
12.2 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Foulkes to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley; quotes relating to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor. I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse directed at the Complainant.
Code of Conduct
12.3 My finding is that there has been no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct of Wirral Borough Council.
Trudie Odaka
Investigator
10th March 2014
17 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Who are the 83 candidates in the 2014 election for 8 Members of the European Parliament for North West England?
Who are the 83 candidates in the 2014 election for 8 Members of the European Parliament for North West England?
My polling card for the 2014 election for Members of the European Parliament (North West Region)
The voting system at the European elections is different to the local elections. In the European elections eleven political parties (An Independence from Europe, British National Party, Conservative Party, English Democrats, Green Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, No2EU, Pirate Party UK, Socialist Equality Party and UK Independence Party (UKIP)) have each nominated a list of candidates. Each political party has put forward a list of eight candidates apart from the Pirate Party UK which has only put forward three.
People vote for a political party and once the polls close the total votes for each party are added up. The party with the highest number of votes is given the first Member of the European Parliament seat. You can read an explanation of how the voting system decides on who gets the other seven seats here. The voting system is a proportional representation system. This means the seats for Members of the European Parliament depend on what each party’s share of the vote is.
The list of candidates and their home addresses can be downloaded from this blog. The table below is of each political party and the candidates that party is putting forward in the European elections. If a political party wins a seat (or more than one seat) in the election then the first candidate for that political party is given the first seat, second the second etc. Some political parties also have descriptions on the ballot paper. Any descriptions used are included in the table below the name of the political party.
Political Party & Description
Party List of Candidates
An Independence from Europe
Helen Bashford
Gill Kearney
Pauline Penny
Kay Bashford
Faye Raw
Lorna Markovitch
Jennie Ransome
Jill Stockdale
British National Party
Re-elect Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin
Dawn Charlton
Clive Jefferson
Eddy O’Sullivan
Simon Darby
Kay Pollitt
Derek Adams
David O’Loughlin
Conservative Party
For real change in Europe
Jacqueline Foster
Sajjad Karim
Kevin Beaty
Deborah Dunleavy
Joseph Barker-Willis
Daniel Hamilton
Chris Whiteside
James Walsh
English Democrats
Putting England First!
Stephen Morris
Paul Rimmer
Derek Bullock
Paul Whitelegg
Steven McEllenborough
Laurence Depares
Valerie Morris
Anthony Backhouse
Green Party
Peter Andrew Cranie
Gina Dowding
Laura Bannister
Jillian Barbara Perry
John Anthony Knight
Ulrike Zeshan
Lewis Coyne
Jake Laurence Welsh
Labour Party
Theresa Griffin
Afzal Khan
Julie Ward
Wajid Khan
Angeliki Stogia
Steve Carter
Pascale Lamb
Nick Parnell
Liberal Democrats
Chris Davies
Helen Foster-Grime
Jo Crotty
Qassim Afzal
Jane Brophy
Sue McGuire
Gordon Lishman
Neil Christian
NO2EU
Yes to Workers’ Rights
Roger Bannister
George Waterhouse
Jacqueline Grunsell
John Metcalfe
George Tapp
Mark Rowe
James Healy
Kevin Morrison
Pirate Party UK
The Pirate Party UK
Maria Aretoulaki
George Walkden
Jack Allnutt
Socialist Equality Party
Join the fight for social equality!
Chris Marsden
Julie Hyland
Robert Skelton
Lucy Warren
Mark Dowson
Ajitha Gunaratne
Danny Dickinson
Joe Heffer
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Paul Andrew Nuttall
Louise Bours
Steven Marcus Woolfe
Shneur Zalman Odze
Lee William Slaughter
Simon John Noble
Peter Johnston Harper
John Brian Stanyer
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
