Category: Lib Dems

REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

REVEALED: Minutes of the "secret" public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

                                                  

A long time ago, in a county far,
far away….

It is a period of strife.
The rebel Conservative
and Lib Dem parties,
have won their first General
Election victory against
the Labour government.

During the battle, rebel
parties managed to steal secret
plans to the Labour government’s
ultimate weapon, private finance
initiatives, a financial device
with enough power to
cause mass privatisation.

Pursued by no one,
John Brace races home aboard a train,
with the secret plans that show
the Merseyside people which Labour
councillors signed up to this.

A long time ago there was a public meeting of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. This meeting took place on Tuesday 21st September 2010. However you won’t find this meeting on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website and even the minutes of this meeting are on the instructions of councillors are to be kept a big secret.

So for the first time, in an exclusive for this blog here are partial minutes of that meeting when councillors agreed to a massive PFI contract for many of Merseyside’s fire stations (Belle Vale, Birkenhead, Bootle & Netherton, Formby, Kirkdale, Newton Le Willows & Southport). Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would pay the PFI contractor not just for rebuilding these fire stations, but for running these fire stations for many years after. The payments to the contractors made by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority increase each year under a formula linked to the rise in the Retail Price Index. The contracts that councillors agreed to at the meeting below make up the first three boxes on the left of the photo below.

The three boxes on the left comprise the PFI fire stations contract
The three boxes on the left comprise the PFI fire stations contract

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972

MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

SPECIAL MEETING

21st September 2010

PRESENT: Councillors Tony Newman (Chair), Jimmy Mahon, Dave Hanratty, Sharon Sullivan, Les Byrom, Colin Strickland, Robbie Ayres, Barbara Murray, Ted Grannell, Denise Roberts, Linda Maloney, Lesley Rennie, Gerry Ellis, Martyn Barber, Steve Niblock and Eddie Clein.

Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Jimmy Kendrick and Andrew Blackburn Independent Member Keith Pickup

1. Preliminary Matters

The Authority considered if there were any declarations of interest, matters of urgency or items that may require the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.

(a) The following declarations of interest were made in relation to items of business on the agenda:

  • Councillors Linda Maloney and Robbie Ayres declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off, as they both sit on St Helens Council Planning Committee.

    Councillor Mahon also declared an interest to this item as he sits on Sefton Council’s Planning Committee.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(c) the following items of business required the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information:

  • Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off.
    This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Authority, held on 24th June 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed accordingly by the Chair.

3. PFI Project Presentation

It was requested by the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer that Mr Skarratts – Fire Brigades Union representative be permitted to stay for the presentation and discussion of this item.

The Assistant Chief Executive and Treasurer and Mr. Schofield – PFI Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation to the Authority explaining the history of the Project from conception to the current day.

During the presentation Members were asked if they had a preference when building work was to commence as the building trade closes down for two weeks over the Christmas period.

Resolved that:

(a) Members had no preference when the building work was to commence as it would seem pointless to start work mid December then to close it down again.

(b) Noted that Balfour Beatty had confirmed they would do their utmost to drive the work forward to catch up and meet the deadline.

4. PFI Project Final Sign Off
(CFO/138/10)

This Minute is EXEMPT under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Members considered Report CFO/138/10 of the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer concerning the Final Sign Off of the North West Fire & Rescue Services Private Finance Initiative Project.

Resolved that:

(a) The Final Business Case be noted and endorsed, and its submission to CLG be approved;

(b) Arrangements for the North West Fire & Rescue Services PFI Project be approved on the basis of the financial terms and general principles contained within the report;

(c) The execution of the following documents (collectively known as “the Agreements”) be authorised:

  • The Project Agreement and its Schedules, being the principal agreement to be entered into between the Authority, Cumbria County Council and Lancashire Combined Fire Authorities (“the Authorities”) and Balfour Beatty Fire and Rescue NW Limited (“Project Co.”);
  • The Direct Agreement, being the agreement entered into between the Authorities, Nord LB and Dexia (“the Funders”) and Project Co. (“the Direct Agreement”);
  • The Collateral Agreements to be entered into between the parties set out below:

    – The Authorities, Mansell Construction Services and Project Co.;

    – The Authorities, Border Construction and Project Co.;

    – The Authorities, Balfour Beatty Workplace and Project Co.;

    – The Authorities, Blue Sky Architects and Project Co.;

    – The Authorities, and any other principal building sub-contractors or relevant members of the professional team; and

    – Any other Collateral Agreements required under the terms of the Project Agreement.

  • The Independent Certifier Deed of Appointment to be entered into between the Authorities, Project Co., the Funders and Gleeds;
  • The Co-operation Agreement being the agreement being entered into between (1) the Authority, (2) Cumbria County Council, and (3) Lancashire Combined Fire Authority in relation to the relationship between the Authorities for the duration of the Project (“the Co-operation Agreement”); and
  • Any other agreements, certificates, acknowledgements, waivers, notices, letters or other documents incidental to the documents listed above or otherwise necessary or desirable in connection with the Project.

(d) The Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins), or in his absence, the Director of Finance (Ian Cummins), be authorised to certify that the following contracts are intra vires in accordance with the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997:

  • the Project Agreement and its Schedules; and
  • the Direct Agreement

(e) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Office (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagan) or the Assistant Chief Fire Office (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) be authorised to execute the Agreements under seal on behalf of the Authority and agree that their execution of the Agreements should conclusively demonstrate approval by the Authority of the Agreements in their final form;

(f) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagen) or the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) (“the Relevant Officers”) as appropriate be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the agreements, in consultation with Dickinson Dees LLP, the Authority’s legal advisers in relation to this Project; and in consultation with the Chairman of the Authority, or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of the Authority;

(g) the Authority will indemnify any of the Relevant Officers in respect of any claims and costs relating to the contract arragements, provided that the Relevant Officer has acted reasonably and within the ordinary course of their duties.

(h) the Authority request the PFI Project Team to monitor the use of local economy and report back.

(i) Members placed their appreciation on record to the PFI Project Team for seeing the project through for the Authority.

(j) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer placed his thanks on behalf of Officers to the Authority for supporting the PFI Project.

(k) noted that Kensington Fire Station was now complete; and

(l) requested information regarding Toxteth Community Hubs to be circulated to Members.

3. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 30th December 2010.

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

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

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

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

                                          

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

4 (School Appeals Panel)

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

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

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

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

8 (Adoption / Fostering Panels)

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

10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board)

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

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

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

15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC)

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

18 (Members’ Training Steering Group)

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

19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group)

To review IT equipment provision for members.

26 (Safeguarding Reference Group)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s another quote:

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

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

and another

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

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

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

Why did Merseytravel spend £2,775 on a "Parliamentary Reception"?

Why did Merseytravel spend £2,775 on a “Parliamentary Reception”?

Why did Merseytravel spend £2,775 on a “Parliamentary Reception”?

                                                 

Below is an invoice from the House of Commons to Merseytravel for £2,775.

Merseytravel invoice House of Commons £2775 7th May 2014
Merseytravel invoice House of Commons £2775 7th May 2014

Sadly the invoice doesn’t state a lot other than Ms Louise Ellman MP was the sponsoring MP. To find out what the room booking was for is better explained in an invoice from Bircham Dyson Bell (see below).

Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £2298.95 30th June 2014 Page 1 of 2
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £2298.95 30th June 2014 Page 1 of 2
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £2298.95 30th June 2014 Page 2 of 2
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £2298.95 30th June 2014 Page 2 of 2

As you can see from the pages of the invoice above Bircham Dyson Bell charged Merseytravel £425.50 + VAT to attend a parliamentary reception on the 25th June 2014 plus £327.99 + VAT in travel expenses.

I’ll leave it to readers to comment on whether they think Merseytravel being charging £55.50 + VAT by Bircham Dyson Bell to write an email is reasonable in these times of public sector cutbacks.

Next is a “strictly private and confidential” matter. In fact so strictly private and confidential the invoice for £1,867.80 from Weightmans below only specifies that it is for “Matter number 44 Re professional services”.

Merseytravel invoice Weightmans £1867.80 27th June 2014 Page 1 of 2
Merseytravel invoice Weightmans £1867.80 27th June 2014 Page 1 of 2

But as anyone me, I like demystifying such matters, so let me let Weightmans explain what this invoice is really about.

Merseytravel invoice Weightmans £1867.80 27th June 2014 Page 2 of 2
Merseytravel invoice Weightmans £1867.80 27th June 2014 Page 2 of 2

In case you can’t read the above I’ll quote the pertinent bit here.

“Strictly private and confidential
Employment advice

Please find enclosed a bill of costs for work carried out by myself and Simon Goacher in relation to issues surrounding the Chief Executive and Director contracts.

I have not put any detail of the work on the bill or identified what it is for reasons of confidentiality. However, there is a breakdown of the work done so far on this matter attached for your attention.

I assume that matters are currently progressing satisfactorily but if you do require any further advice when the drafting is completed then please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Simon Goacher.

Thank you for your kind instructions in this matter, it is always good to work with you.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely

Bernadette Worthington
Partner
For and on behalf of Weightmans LLP”

Going back to the original theme of political engagement is an invoice below from Kenyon Fraser for £29,160. This is for work on Merseytravel’s campaign to have a high-speed rail connection to Liverpool.

Merseytravel invoice Kenyon Fraser £29160 28th July 2014
Merseytravel invoice Kenyon Fraser £29160 28th July 2014

Continuing on lobbying but this time at party political conferences is an invoice for £11,429.96 for “PTEG Political engagement at Party Conferences and events each PTE see attached”.

Merseytravel invoice Nexus £11429.96 12th March 2015 Political engagement at party conferences
Merseytravel invoice Nexus £11429.96 12th March 2015 Political engagement at party conferences

Finally, here is an invoice for £811.20 from Key Travel for train tickets for travel from Liverpool Lime Street to London Euston. So what’s so unusual about that? Well the passengers are just listed as UNISON and it’s Merseytravel that have paid the invoice (I hope the costs were charged back to UNISON)!

Merseytravel invoice Key Travel £811.20 train fares London to Liverpool
Merseytravel invoice Key Travel £811.20 train fares London to Liverpool

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

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

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

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

                                                            

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3

Above are three photos of Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton taken on the 29th June 2015. Over the busier summer holidays this car park will be full.

Future Council Wirral logo
Future Council Wirral logo

As part of the Future Council consultation last year Wirral Council consulted the public on £2.5 million of budget cuts. In the end only £2.4 million of cuts were agreed because of savings that resulted from the extended Biffa contract.

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

Last year as part of that budget consultation, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on the 4th November 2014 where councillors discussed the budget option for charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park.

You can watch that discussion in the Youtube video below which should start at the point about the Fort Perch Rock car park.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

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

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

At that meeting Cllr Jerry Williams (Wirral Council’s Heritage Champion and a Labour councillor) tried to move a recommendation that the budget option of charging at Fort Perch Rock car park be removed from the budget options. However the solicitor advising the Committee said that it couldn’t be removed, so instead it was watered down to a recommendation to Cabinet that the budget option wasn’t adopted. The recommendation was seconded by Cllr Robert Gregson (also a Labour councillor representing New Brighton ward). This is what the recommendation stated:

“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”

                                                            
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Anita Leech (Labour), Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour), Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour), Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour), Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative), Cllr John Hale (Conservative), Cllr Jerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) voted in favour of the recommendation.

Two councillors voted against that recommendation (Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem) and Cllr Mike Sullivan (Chair, Labour)).

On the 9th December 2014 Cabinet (which is ten Labour councillors including one for New Brighton Cllr Pat Hackett) met. They didn’t agree with the recommendation from the Policy and Performance Committee and instead voted to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton. The minutes of that meeting state “We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.” .

This Cabinet budget proposal then formed the Cabinet’s proposal for Labour’s budget to the 2015/16 budget meeting of all councillors held on the 24th February 2015.

All the Labour councillors on the 24th February 2015 present at that meeting (including those who had three months earlier voted for a recommendation to Cabinet not to start charging for parking at Fort Perch Rock) voted for the Labour budget apart from Cllr Steve Foulkes (who was Mayor and Mayor’s traditionally abstain from votes on party political matters). You can see which way each councillor voted on the Labour’s budget here.

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

Earlier this year Wirral Council had a formal consultation on introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park. You can see the public notice (which has more detail as to how much they could charge for parking) for that consultation below. That consultation ended on the 3rd July 2015.

Fort Perch Rock car park public notice
Fort Perch Rock car park public notice

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

So what happens next? In September there will be a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider objections people have made to introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.

The Chair of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel is Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative). Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) are the rest of the panel. This panel meets during the day and if any of the three councillors can’t make it to the meeting they can send a deputy in their place.

When the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in September, it will make a recommendation on whether to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park to the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee meet in public on the 15th September 2015 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee can alter any recommendation they receive from the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee then make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation Cllr Stuart Whittingham who then makes a formal decision on the matter which is published on Wirral Council’s website.

Such a large petition also grants the petition organiser for five minutes to explain their petition at a meeting of all councillors, which then triggers a debate of a maximum of fifteen minutes. However as the next meeting of Council is on the 12th October 2015 (probably after all this will be decided) this is a moot point.

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

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

Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious?

Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious?

Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious?

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

Wirral Council have over the years discussed the issue of Freedom of Information at many public meetings. I wanted to write about my experience of one request where it took 2 years and 3 and a half months for Wirral Council to release some of the information I requested.

Way back on the 29th March 2013 I made a FOI request to Wirral Council for minutes of various panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties that councillors are on.

I asked merely for the minutes of the meeting held before making the request. One of these (numbered 5 on my list) was the minutes of the Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE).

This is what happened next.

20 working days went past and Wirral Council didn’t respond to the request, so on the 29th April 2013 I requested an internal review of Wirral Council’s lack of response.

On the 30th April 2013 Wirral Council replied refusing the request based on section 12 and claimed it would take longer than the 18.5 hours allowed to respond to the request.

I clarified what appeared to be a misunderstanding in the way I had phrased the original request and requested an internal review of this decision disputing that it would take over the 18.5 hour limit.

The internal review came back on the 30th July 2013, it changed the decision from refusing this part of the request on cost grounds (section 12) to refusing it on section 14 grounds (vexatious or repeated requests).

On the 14th August 2013 I appealed this decision to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

On the 19th June 2014 Wirral Council amended its response. It still refused this part of the request but now decided to amend its reason for withholding the information. It was no longer withheld relying on section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) but back to section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The parts of the request that could be described as environmental information were refused using Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as being “manifestly unreasonable”. This is the EIR equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act’s vexatious exemption.

On the 8th September 2014 the Information Commissioner’s Office issued a decision notice for this request (FS50509081).

The 9 page decision notice said that Wirral Council had breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 by not responding to this request within the first 20 working days of making it.

In addition to this it had breached s.16(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and regulation 9(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which require Wirral Council to provide advice and assistance to those making requests.

Finally the decision notice required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response to this request within 35 calendar days of the 8th September 2014 that did not rely upon the exemption in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (cost grounds) or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (that the environmental part of the request was “manifestly unreasonable”.

On the 4th November 2014 Wirral Council released redacted minutes of the Special Advisory Committee on Religious Education’s meeting of the 7th February 2013. Apart from the councillors on the committee anybody else on the committee had their name replaced by “name redacted”.

The minutes now looked like this:

Name redacted was proposed by Councillor Clements and seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.

Name redacted nominated Name redacted for the post of Vice Chair and this was seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.

Their response stated why the names had been removed, relying on a section 40 exemption for personal information.

I consider that part of the requested information is exempt information under Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in that the Complainant is asking for information which is personal data, in respect of which he is not the data subject. I consider that the disclosure of the requested information would contravene the second data protection principle that personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. Certain individuals named in the Minutes dated 7 February 2013 (not including Councillors) would have a legitimate expectation that their personal data would not be further processed in a manner incompatible with the specified and lawful purposes of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education. I consider that the Complainant’s request for information can be met by giving him a redacted copy of the minutes dated 7 February 2013, which redacts the names of certain individuals and these are attached.

On the 12th November 2014 I requested an internal review of this (also challenging other information they had withheld). This is what I stated about this part of the request:

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

This relates to the minutes of the meeting held on 7th February 2013.

By statute this meeting meets in public. Another part of statute allows me to request the names and personal addresses of those on the committee. Other local authorities routinely publish the minutes of these SACRE public meetings. They do not redact the information you have.

My internal review on the redactions is then on the basis that:

a) the minutes relate to a meeting held in public
b) because of the above there is no legitimate expectation of privacy

You state “would have a legitimate expectation that their personal data would not be further processed in a manner incompatible with the specified and lawful purposes of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education.”

I will give more detail as to the lawful purposes of the SACRE referred to in relation to meeting minutes.

Regulation 7 of The Religious Education (Meetings of Local Conferences and Councils) Regulations 1994

“7. (1) After a meeting the following documents shall be available for inspection by members of the public at the offices of the authority until the expiration of six years beginning with the date of the meeting, namely,—

(a) a copy of the agenda for the meeting;
(b) a copy of so much of any report for the meeting as relates to any item during which the meeting was open to members of the public; and
(c) a copy of so much of the minutes of the meeting as relates to any such item.”

The minutes of the meeting have been held in the last 6 years. Therefore I have an existing right of inspection to a copy of the minutes in unredacted form. Therefore the names of people in the minutes cannot have the private and personal nature that you ascribe to this information.

Secondly in addition to the names, the Group (ranging from A to C) of the individuals present has also been removed. Unless there’s only one representative from that group, merely the group letter
cannot be used to identify an individual.

Therefore I am asking for an internal review based of the information that has been withheld not being provided.”

No response was received in response to the internal review request, so I complained to ICO again.

On the 30th April 2015 (nearly 6 months after the internal review request that are supposed to take a maximum of 40 days) Wirral Council responded.

They stated it would take 32 hours to do a proper internal review, so just classed the request for an internal review as “vexatious” (see section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000).

Understandably I complained to ICO again.

Today (over 8 months since the last internal review request that they claimed was “vexatious”) Wirral Council got back in touch.

They now want to “amend their response”. Apparently the bit about the SACRE meeting minutes was not vexatious. They no longer seek to rely on the exemption contained in section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The minutes of the SACRE meeting of the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education held on the 7th February 2013 were provided including names.

So for a request made on the 29th March 2013, the information was finally given out on the 17th July 2015 whereas FOI requests are required to be answered within 20 working days.

However, this change of heart of Wirral Council wasn’t just about the part of the request for a meeting of the Special Advisory Council on Religious Education. Their response to the part of the request for minutes of a meeting of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee was modified as follows:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Part 21

Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee

I enclose an extract from an email provided to the Information Management Team which was as follows:-

“There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”

This is the reason that the council responded to your original request that it did not hold any information

I asked a councillor on Twitter about whether the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee existed prior to 2014.

Two councillors were kind enough to reply to my question. Cllr Chris Carubia stated “From the discussions today I know it has been in existence for over 5 years at least”.

Cllr Pat Williams replied, “Yes I was a proud member for a number of years.”

I include copies of the tweets below.

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

Personally I believe the two Lib Dem councillors (one of whom was on the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee) rather than Wirral Council’s officially stated position and I think I should draw to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office how their view differs from what Wirral Council states.

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