Which Liverpool City Council councillors recommended themselves a 1% pay rise?
Which Liverpool City Council councillors recommended themselves a 1% pay rise?
Constitutional Issues Committee (Liverpool City Council) 9th May 2017 left Chris Walsh right Cllr Alan Dean
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.
Now the local elections are over (although thanks to the government nationally there’s also a general election), I was present yesterday afternoon for a public meeting of Liverpool City Council’s Constitutional Issues Committee.
During the election campaigns for councillors and Metro Mayor, I’m sure many people told political parties and politicians of the “big issues” that people wanted sorted out.
So councillors have listened, and in one of the first recommendations after the local elections have recommended to award themselves a pay rise.
Interestingly based on comments made by those at the meeting at Liverpool City Council at least one councillor stated she was deterred from claiming expenses because they’re worried the Liverpool Echo would criticise them for doing so.
Moving swiftly back to Liverpool City Council councillors though. The report from the Independent Panel was a late report dated the day before the meeting, so Chris Walsh was busy handing out copies to councillors in the minutes before the meeting started.
The report encourages councillors to claim legitimate expenses, although a number of councillors pointed out that Merseytravel already provide them with free travel on public transport. Taxis had been mentioned earlier in the meeting, but in the context of criticism about Wirral registered taxis coming over to Liverpool.
So what are Liverpool’s politicians paid at the moment? Well the Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson is paid a base amount of £79,500, councillors each receive a base amount of £10,077.
Councillors also receive IT equipment (along with access to Council systems), car park passes, “Group Office Member support” (which means staff), printing, stationery, postage costs and surgery costs (up to a maximum of £330 a year).
There is a childcare allowance (only for children up to thirteen) and dependant carer’s allowance. If councillors are representing Liverpool City Council on outside bodies they’re not allowed to “double claim” from that body and Liverpool City Council.
Travel and subsistence claims can also be made, including international travel. There are a range of special responsibility allowances (which are in addition to the base amount) ranging from Deputy Mayor (£28,620) to Whip of Main Opposition Group (if that group has over 20% of the councillors) of £4,209.
Councillors on outside bodies, just to give one example Cllr Dave Hanratty as Chair of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority receives an extra ~£27k.
So back to what councillors said at the public meeting.
Firstly, the Labour Chair Cllr Alan Dean said Liverpool City councillors should be paid more because of what other councillors on Merseyside are paid.
Cllr Richard Kemp (Leader of the Liberal Democrat councillors on Liverpool City Council) said they would not oppose the pay rise.
On the subject of expenses, a councillor then said that she did not want to be mocked on the front page of the Liverpool Echo for claiming expenses.
Councillor Richard Kemp stated that he couldn’t afford the £140-£150 train fare when he went to London so claimed it on expenses, but that Liverpool City Council paid at a discounted rate due to his senior citizens card.
The Chair Cllr Alan Dean stated that politicians shouldn’t be carrying out their functions at a financial loss or gain. He referred to his public transport pass that Merseytravel issue him with. Cllr Richard Kemp confirmed he has a Merseytravel pass too.
The recommendation for a pay rise will be formally agreed at a future public meeting of all 90 Liverpool City Council councillors and the elected Mayor at Liverpool Town Hall.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
You would think that asking the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above) for a copy of the candidates’ nomination papers would be a simple matter.
After all shouldn’t it be I ask, they are sent? It ran smooth enough with the nomination papers for candidates in the Claughton byelection and we can then publish them.
Instead this ends up being a tangled web of corporate governance involving Liverpool City Council, the Electoral Commission, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Considering there is a general election on the way might it be an idea to have some clarity on these issues?
Liverpool City Council’s response is that I am not allowed to inspect based on Electoral Commission guidance which refers to a candidate’s right to inspect and object.
The Electoral Commission agrees with me that the Electoral Administration Act 2006 applies (but only if there is other secondary legislation that applies), specifically s.42, s.43 and s.44 but state that the legislation I am requesting a copy of the nomination papers under Sch.3, Pt 2, para 11 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 doesn’t apply to elections of combined authority mayors because rule 2 in their view doesn’t cover combined authority mayoral elections.
The Cabinet Office was approached for their response. The Cabinet Office Press Office emailed us and stated that the Cabinet Office cannot comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral Election because Parliament has been dissolved and we are in the pre-election period before a general election. I thank the Cabinet Office for taking the time to reply.
I admit the above is a minor point but if it symptomatic of what is going on then shouldn’t some of these fees either be claimed back or not paid at all?
At the Employment Tribunal of Alison Mountney we heard that Surjit Tour and Kate Robinson provided assurance (and were both paid extra) that the election was being run as it should. For this they were paid extra money (a four-figure sum extra each).
I’ve no idea who provides the assurance in a Combined Authority Mayoral election to the Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald or the Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson.
All I will say is that pieces like this wouldn’t be possible to write if you’d approved our attendance at the count as we wouldn’t have the time to write them! So thank you!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
I do not have permission from either the Family Court nor the Court of Protection to publish the names of parties involved in these cases with Liverpool City Council. So those names I have blurred in green.
Yet, in what will not surprise anyone Liverpool City Council’s redactions of these documents during a public inspection meant the names of parents, children and parties was revealed to me. Their staff even let me take away copies.
Before publication I have covered some of these up in green.
Liverpool City Council’s Chief Executive in his capacity as Combined Authority Returning Officer states that we are not a media organisation.
Whereas Liverpool City Council may wish to live in a world where they can control the media, there is a point where it can backfire. The press is independent.
Maybe ICO will slap them on the wrist and tell them to improve.
Or maybe this sort of matter is taken seriously?
I don’t know, but tomorrow voters in Wavertree will get to vote whether they want more of the same or a change.
Is the way Liverpool City Council treats the personal information of vulnerable adults and children replicated in their attitude towards how they treat them? With a lack of care?
Liverpool City Council invoice 1Liverpool City Council invoice 2Liverpool City Council invoice 3 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 4 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 5 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 6 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 7
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?
Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?
This is a story about secrecy, however it also shows what I have to deal with every day of my working life.
There is not supposed to be secrecy surrounding elections. Why? It’s supposed to be open and transparent so that if anyone tries to game the system it can be spotted.
Elections attract not just domestic interest but international interest.
Part of my role is to monitor what goes on and write about it.
This places me at odds with Liverpool City Council and the Electoral Commission (who have yet to respond at the time of writing this), but that’s why there is independence of the press.
My own view is either a drafting error was made by a civil servant in the legislation for Metro Mayors or the Electoral Commission overlooked something when writing their guidance.
The way the legislation went through parliament as regulations, it couldn’t be amended.
However even Wirral Council is trying to somewhat gag me with a “the dignity of Election proceedings must not be compromised” clause if I want to attend the count on Friday.
Just to be crystal clear, Wirral Council was far as I can tell is running elections as efficiently as they can following the embarrassing revelations surrounding the Employment Tribunal earlier this year, the “technical” offences that the CPS agree happened in the past (but decline to prosecute), well all these factors have meant Wirral Council have learnt from past mistakes and are doing their best.
My criticism is not of the way the elections are being run. This isn’t about the dignity of elections. It’s a more fundamental point about legislation being written in such a way that you don’t end up in this situation.
It’s led to two somewhat contradictory pieces of legislation about inspection and copies of nomination papers.
The two pieces of legislation according to at least the Electoral Commission interpretation contradict each other.
So it wasn’t drafted properly (probably due to the pressures Brexit has put the civil service under).
I am going to explain the two pieces of legislation that apply to Mayoral elections such as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority election.
Firstly, this is the piece of legislation that provides a right of access to nomination papers, it applies to the Metro Mayoral election. Just for information, rule 2(1) means that Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, a bank holiday or a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning are disregarded as days.
The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Schedule 3, Part 2, paragraph 1 states:
Inspection of nomination papers and consents to nomination
11. During ordinary office hours on any day, other than a day specified in rule 2(1), after the latest time for delivery of nomination papers and before the date of the poll, any person may inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, nomination papers and consents to nomination.
Clear enough? What happens if someone tries to block this? The Electoral Administration Act 2006, Pt 6, s.42 and s.43 make blocking access to inspection of election documents a crime. But the person’s supervisor who failed to take appropriate steps can get into trouble too.
“ (1) The relevant officer must—
(a) make relevant election documents available for inspection by members of the public;
(b) supply, on request, copies of or extracts from such description of relevant election documents as is prescribed by regulations.”
So, having made a request to Liverpool City Council’s Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald, which was then forwarded to Stephen Barker, why is this request being blocked???
Well Liverpool City Council’s answer, relying on Electoral Commission guidance (which is only one interpretation of the law) is that the The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 applies. That guidance is based on SI 2017/66, Schedule 1, Part 3, paragraph 11 which is below.
Place for delivery of nomination papers and right to attend nomination
11.—(1) The combined area returning officer must fix the place in the area of the combined authority at which nomination papers are to be delivered to that officer, and must attend there during the time for their delivery and for the making of objections to them.
(2) Except for the purpose of delivering a nomination paper or of assisting the combined authority returning officer, no other person is entitled to attend the proceedings during the time for delivery of nomination papers or for making objections to them unless that person is—
(a) a person standing nominated as a candidate, or
(b) the election agent, proposer or seconder of such a person, or
(c) a person who is entitled to attend by virtue of section 6A or 6B of the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000 Act(1).
(3) Where a candidate is the candidate’s own election agent, the candidate may name one other person and that person is entitled to attend in place of the election agent.
(4) Where a person stands nominated by more than one nomination paper, only the persons subscribing as proposer and seconder—
(a) to such one of those papers as the candidate may select, or
(b) in default of such a selection, to that one of those papers which is first delivered,
are entitled to attend as the person’s proposer and seconder.
(5) The right to attend conferred by this rule includes the right—
(a) to inspect, and
(b) to object to the validity of,
any nomination paper.
(6) Paragraph (5) does not apply to a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(c).
(7) One other person chosen by each candidate is entitled to be present at the delivery of the candidate’s nomination, and may afterwards (so long as the candidate stands nominated) attend the proceedings referred to in paragraph (2) but without the right referred to in paragraph (5).
As you can see, it’s legislation about who can object to a nomination, who can be there when the nomination papers are submitted and so on.
In theory the two pieces of legislation are compatible, that is one right for the candidates to inspect and object, another for any person to inspect and receive copies of the nomination papers.
However Liverpool City Council states that because the Electoral Commission guidance (which I quote from below) which seems to have conveniently forgotten a right to inspect for any person states this, that therefore their view is that I don’t have any right to inspect or receive copies of the nomination papers.
Which of course is similar to the attitude expressed by Liverpool City Council when I tried to film a public meeting. Their view was that it doesn’t matter what the law is, Liverpool City Council can do what it likes! Last year I was the complainant in ICO decision notice FS50591795. Liverpool City Council had thirty-five days to comply with it, or 28 days to appeal it. Liverpool City Council did neither! Not complying is deemed contempt of court. So yes, I’ve experienced problems with Liverpool City Council.
However there are mayoral elections elsewhere in the country too.
So below is a quote from the Electoral Commission guidance (which I disagree with and it wouldn’t be the first time that the Electoral Commission have had to admit that their guidance was incorrect).
Somewhat ironically the guidance is titled Access to documentation after a local government election in England and Wales when the election result won’t be declared till Friday!
Just to be abundantly clear, the junior official Stephen Barker at Liverpool City Council is probably only doing what he thinks is right. It’s Ged Fitzgerald (the Returning Officer) that is ultimately personally responsible for how the Mayoral election is run.
Nomination papers cannot be inspected by anybody else at any time. Nomination papers may only be viewed and supplied to those who have a legal power to obtain documents. This may be a police officer using any powers they may have to take documents into their custody, or a court order.”
So what do people reading think? Please leave a comment. If I’ve made an error or have it wrong, I’d be happy to apologise!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What new right does the Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 give to journalists?
What new right does the Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 give to journalists?
Six Pump Court invoice £2400 Liverpool City Council David Hercock thumbnail | Above is a £2,400 invoice to Liverpool City Council from David Hercock of Six Pump Court for a brief on an appeal involving Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam of Kenny Food and Wine. This invoice went to P (which stands for Paul) Merriman. The matter was an appeal of a decision made by councillors. Clicking on the thumbnail will load an easier to read version.
Despite the fact there is a byelection of a councillor for Claughton (as well as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor) on Thursday another election (the snap general election) has led to this blog post I am writing.
When a general election is called, some legislation goes through the wash-up and gets passed in the last few days of a Parliament before MPs cease to be MPs (just for information Parliament dissolves on the 3rd May 2017).
There are a number that received Royal Asset recently that effect local government, such as the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017, Bus Services Act 2017, Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, Children and Social Work Act 2017 and Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017.
Since Victorian times there has been a period each year when the public can inspect and make copies of accounting records relating to the previous financial year. Copies can be made by the person doing the inspection (or more usually requested from the public body concerned).
These are connected to rights of local government electors to make objections about whether money is lawfully spent and related matters.
The legislation since Victorian times has given this right to “persons interested” which has been interpreted over the years by the courts as applying to those registered to vote for the area concerned, bodies that pay business rates in that area and those who are representatives of those two classes (such as an accountant acting on behalf of a local government elector).
This means for example I that didn’t previously have a legal right to ask to look at the financial records for Liverpool City Council. In fact back then I asked to do so, you can find some of those invoices here, but when I rather stupidly told them I didn’t live in Liverpool, it all got a bit (and I paraphrase) “these are local council financial records for local people – there’s nothing for wools like you to see here” and they politely told me the rest of my request was refused.
Liverpool City Council for example in this 17-18 financial year have agreed to spend:
Revenue (net base budget): £399.6 million
Capital: £131.6 million
“journalist” is defined as any person who produces for publication journalistic material (whether paid to do so or otherwise).
So it covers those who do for a living such as myself, unpaid bloggers and a wide variety of other people too.
The Act received Royal Assent on the 27th April 2017, so 27th April 2017 plus 2 months means it’ll come into force (although please correct me if I’m a day or two out) 29th June 2017. It applies only to public bodies based in England or Wales.
There are three classes of public bodies (Category 1, Category 2 and Category 2 with exempt status).
Category 1 are those with a yearly expenditure or income of over £6.5 million a year, or smaller bodies that have decided to have a full audit.
Category 2 are the ones with a spend or income of less than £6.5 million a year.
Category 2 with exempt status have to be bodies with income or expenditure of less than £25,000 a year, are not less than 3 years old and with no concerns raised by the auditors (or courts) in the preceding financial year.
When the 30 day period starts and ends is a decision to be made by the public body, but cover specific dates*:-
Category 1 – the first ten working days in June following the end of the financial year Category 2 – the first ten working days in July following the end of the financial year
So this means for journalists, the new legal right (which will come into force near the end of June) will only cover part of the inspection period this year.
Example
30 working day period runs from 1.6.17 to 12.7.17
“persons interested” from 1.6.17 to 12.7.17 “journalists” from 29.6.17 to 12.7.17
It effectively compresses the inspection period for journalists to a fortnight for Category 1 authorities (although it is to be noted the old inspection period used to be only four weeks).
The chief financial officer for category 1 and category 2 authorities are required by law to publish a public notice on their website alerting the public to this 30 working day inspection period before it starts.
Last year, locally both Merseytravel and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority failed to achieve this somewhat basic step within the required timescales.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
