Election Result (Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, 2016): Labour hold (Jane Kennedy) Name of candidate Description Votes % Jane Elizabeth KENNEDY Labour Party 186,661 61.76% Elected David Robert BURGESS-JOYCE Conservative Party 54,000 17.87% Not elected Christopher David Vincenzo CARUBIA Liberal Democrats 34,625 11.46% Not elected John Bernard Cowan COYNE Green Party 26,967 8.92% Not elected There were 11,754 rejected ballot papers. If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be … Continue reading “Election Result (Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, 2016): Labour hold (Jane Kennedy)”
Election Result (Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, 2016): Labour hold (Jane Kennedy)
Name of candidate
Description
Votes
%
Jane Elizabeth KENNEDY
Labour Party
186,661
61.76%
Elected
David Robert BURGESS-JOYCE
Conservative Party
54,000
17.87%
Not elected
Christopher David Vincenzo CARUBIA
Liberal Democrats
34,625
11.46%
Not elected
John Bernard Cowan COYNE
Green Party
26,967
8.92%
Not elected
There were 11,754 rejected ballot papers.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking at a meeting of Liverpool City Council
Edited 20th April 2016 by John Brace to add in missing closing parenthesis.
The author of this piece is the Appellant in two cases before the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). These are John Michael Brace v Information Commissioner & Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (EA/2016/0033) and John Brace v Information Commissioner & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (EA/2016/0054).
Liverpool City Council have taken the step of appealing to the First Tier-Tribunal (Information Rights) a decision notice of the regulator ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office). The decision notice required Liverpool City Council to provide the draft report in response to a request. However due to the appeal, the outcome of the appeal will determine whether Liverpool City Council have to release the draft report.
The case is listed as case number EA/2016/0084. The decision notice issued on the 8th March 2016 (FER0601794 (which can be viewed on ICO’s website)) is about an Environmental Information Regulations request for a draft Mott McDonald report to Liverpool City Council about Liverpool’s bus lanes. The title of the report is Liverpool Transport Corridors & Bus Lane Suspension.
Had the decision not been appealed, Liverpool City Council would’ve had to release the draft report before polling day (5th May 2016) in the combined elections for local councillor, Mayor of Liverpool and Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.
Liverpool City Council disagree that the draft report should be released on an alleged claim of commercial confidentiality and an alleged claim of adverse impact on those who supplied information to Mott McDonald. The Information Commissioner’s view is that Liverpool City Council have failed to show that these exceptions are engaged.
The suspension of various bus lanes in Liverpool has been unpopular with at least one major bus company who stated at a public meeting that it has affected the punctuality of buses on the affected routes. The representative of the bus company also called for the bus lane suspensions to be reversed.
The decision by the Labour administration on Liverpool City Council to proceed with the suspension of the bus lanes was opposed by the Green Party opposition on Liverpool City Council.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
It wasn’t the bit about gagging orders, or how a councillor was asked to resort to making a Freedom of Information request that I got cross about, but this part.
“Interestingly I have tried to involve the local media in this story. I didn’t get the tiniest response from them. It is part of the role of the ‘fourth estate’ to publicly shine a light on the doings and affairs of those in power. This seems to be lamentably missing in Greater Liverpool these days.”
I will point out at this stage that Cllr Richard Kemp hasn’t contacted me or as far as I know anyone to do with this blog! Of course politicians complaining about the press coverage (or in this case lack of press coverage) is nothing new.
Returning to a story on this blog earlier this week Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?, the response from Liverpool City Council as to why the decision notice hasn’t been complied with has been the somewhat disappointing, “I acknowledge receipt of your e mail [sic] and I am now making enquiries as to the points made”
So, if Liverpool City Council want to do the local government equivalent of sulk because ICO didn’t agree with them and then go and ignore the enforcement notice, well I don’t want their bad habits on freedom of information to be picked up by Wirral Council do I?
Except you know, being the sort of person that believes in the public being informed I might not be withholding as much information as Liverpool City Council would. Please note these documents were not received through the freedom of information process (which seems to be utterly broken at Liverpool City Council).
Let’s start with a £3,000 invoice for the services of the rather scary looking Simon Burrows of Kings Chambers in a case in the Administrative Court (case reference number CO/932/2014 Karl Downey -v- Liverpool City Council). So therefore it was a judicial review. This invoice went to a Mr. Brendan McGrath who is a solicitor employed by Liverpool City Council.
Quite what the case was all about I really don’t know, but the scary looking guy invoiced Liverpool City Council £3,000 for a "Brief on Hearing" which was £2,500 + VAT. You can click on the thumbnail below for an easier to read version.
Kings Chamber invoice £3000 Liverpool City Council Simon Burrows thumbnail
Judicial reviews of Liverpool City Council decisions are hardly a big secret are they?
Let’s move onto something that led to one of the budget savings (if I remember my Liverpool City Council budget for 2016-17 correctly).
This is a £978 payment (although as a previous payment has been made in the same matter the total is £4,206) for “In the Matter of Advice regarding the refund of charges made by Liverpool for mental health aftercare services provided pursuant to s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”
The invoice went to Duncan Dooley-Robinson and Jeanette McLoughlin (who is Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer). As above you can click on the thumbnail for an easier to read version.
Exchange Chambers invoice £978 Liverpool City Council Neil Cadwallader thumbnail
This invoice went to P (which stands for Paul) Merriman. Clicking on the thumbnail will load an easier to read version.
Six Pump Court invoice £2400 Liverpool City Council David Hercock thumbnail
Well that’s three out of the twenty-two invoices. Hopefully the release of this information will prompt Liverpool City Council into complying with the ICO decision notice!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
A long time ago I made a FOI request to Liverpool City Council that resulted in ICO decision notice FS50591795 dated the 1st February 2016.
As it states in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that decision notice:
“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.
4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”
However 35 calendar days after the decision notice was yesterday and no “fresh response” has been issued.
So below is my response to Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer about the lack of compliance with this decision notice.
To: "McLoughlin, Janette" <Jeanette.McLoughlin@liverpool.gov.uk>
Dear Janette McLoughlin,
I write to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer for Liverpool City Council.
A copy of ICO decision notice FS50591795 issued on the 1st February 2016 is attached to this email for reference. Please note that this is an enforcement notice, see s.52 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The enforcement notice states in paragraphs 3 and 4,
“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.
4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”
No fresh response has been issued within 35 calendar days of the decision notice.
Please could this matter be rectified as soon as possible.
As you are Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer, I am also requesting that you write a report to the executive of Liverpool City Council (see s.5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) as Liverpool City Council’s lack of response would appear to constitute a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
A report would be useful so that lessons were learnt and there isn’t a repeat of this in the future.
I will also be contacting the regulator (the Information Commissioner’s Office) today about this matter.
Yours sincerely,
—
John Brace
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What was Mayor Anderson and Cllr Roz Gladden’s response to a campaign to save the Liveability service?
Protest before Liverpool City Council meeting about Liveability
Above are three women protesting in the rain before the Liverpool City Council budget meeting last week.
As the slogans are hard to read on the resized photos they are (from left to right), “LIVEABILITY for old, lame, sick, obese, lonely, confused. Don’t cut us off”, “It’s false economy to cut Liveability” and “LIVEABILITY helps us to help ourselves and saves money”.
Before the meeting I’d not heard of Liveability, but according to Liverpool City Council’s website it’s “a nurse led service that promotes the health and independence of people aged 50 and over”.
There were plenty of people apart from the three in the photo above that turned up to express their support for it.
Liverpool City Council meetings have a public question time/petitions/statements slot which was used by a campaigner against closure of the Liveability service. Second to speak during this slot was a Sue Carmichael. You can watch what Sue said below.
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.
Liverpool City Council Budget meeting 2nd March 2016 (public question time/statement/petition item)
Sue Carmichael (pictured below on the right) said, “Lord Mayor, Mayor Anderson, elected members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the newly formed Liveability Action Group.
Sue Carmichael addresses a meeting of Liverpool City Council about the Liveability service
We have a petition with over 550 signatures which I’ll hand over now.
We very much welcome the great achievements for a city under your leadership and we also understand the impact of nationally imposed cutbacks on the city’s finances.
Our action group was formed last Thursday and over two hundred attended. We are all deeply shocked by the summary destruction of this award-winning NHS-led, nurse-led service and there’s no consultation about options. It was all done completely by stealth from our point of view.
We believe it’s an ill-considered decision halfway through Liverpool’s decade of health and wellbeing.
The Liveability service is fifteen years old and it’s for the physical and mental health and well-being of people over fifty, but most are in their sixties to nineties. Only about ten per cent are in their fifties.
The 1,500 registered members, there are 500 users each week with 24 brilliant volunteers who help. There are about twenty different sessions including a chair based one and ones for those with dementia and their carers. Plans were already in place to roll the scheme out elsewhere because we know how important it is.
Most users have acute or chronic conditions or mobility issues, or like myself have had major surgery of chemotherapy and Liveability has been part of our recovery.
Many live alone or are housebound carers. The twenty-four volunteers are critical to the service’s success. They are welcoming, they support the staff, they make drinks in the cafe and arrange social events and trips. There is a 50+ charity which also fund raises alongside.
Liveability is much more than exercise. It’s an informal village hub, where we meet different people on different days thereby extending our social contact as well as getting physically healthy. The social aspect is crucial.
It’s won many awards deservedly, been on national TV and even been visited by the Department of Health.
The proposed annihilation will be a cruel blow. Many say Liveability is a lifeline for them.
We’ve just heard earlier on today, there is a surprise announcement that there will be a new 50+ exercise program being city-wide, that is most welcome.
But this instant replacement cannot reinvent Liveability, the nurse led service, mainly for those in their sixties to nineties. It’s a unique city health and well-being asset. We must save it!
The fifteen years worth of staff, volunteer and user experience is available to build on. Liveability certainly ain’t broke so don’t fix it by killing it off.
Mayor Anderson, please abandon this hasty and cruel decision done in such a surprisingly underhand way without consultation. Liveability’s experience and success is there to use. Let’s jointly find an intelligent way to do this.
Keep Liveability and roll it out across the city, it’s really magic. Thank you.”
In response to what Sue Carmichael said there was applause.
A heckler shouted, “Shame on you!”
The Lord Mayor of Liverpool Cllr Concepcion said, “Mayor Anderson, would you like to respond?”
Mayor Anderson responds to concerns about the Liveability service Liverpool City Council 2nd March 2016
Mayor Anderson replied, “Lord Mayor, I just want to make one comment and then if it’s ok for you, I’ll just hand over to the Cabinet Member who can explain what we’re doing and why the decision has been made but we’re more than happy, I’ve been to the Liveability scheme and I’m more than happy to meet with people that are using the scheme to explain why we’re doing and what we’re doing. We’ve lost a huge amount of funding and this … fit for purpose and ready to replace the existing one, but as I said, I’ll let Cllr Gladden explain a little bit more.”
Councillor Roz Gladden (Cabinet Member for Adult and Children’s Social Care and Health) responds to concerns about the Liveability service at the Liverpool City Council meeting on the 2nd March 2016
Cllr Roz Gladden (Cabinet Member for Adult & Children’s Social Care & Health) responded by saying, “Can I first of all thank you for the amazing campaign that you’ve brought together in such a small amount of time?
You know one of the sadnesses of being the Cabinet Member for Social Care is watching over a six-year period cuts happen to the service and very few people have actually complained about it, so I honour the fact that you care so much about your service that you’ve come out to campaign for it. So thank you for doing that.
Lot’s of people think that public health do nice wooly things like making sure you eat salad, not put sugar in and don’t eat cake and things like that but I think these cuts have proved, cuts to public health have proved that actually they do really important services such as the Liveability services, such as looking after people who are homeless, the rough sleepers and those with drug addiction problems and naturally as an Authority we have to take care of those who are most vulnerable. That’s not to say that you aren’t of course, but we’ve had £2.9 million of council cuts within this financial year and next year we’ve got a further cut of £7 million just to the public health budget. They are government cuts, they are not imposed by us, they are cuts directly to the public health service.
And what we’ve decided to do, what we have done is we’ve been looking for some time now as a physical activity strategy that will be announced later this year, but we are running this, three centres across the city.
I don’t know where you’ve been looking to roll this out across the city. I visited Liveability three years ago. I’ve been trying to negotiate, my officers have to try and get the Liveability model because we value it rolled out across the city. That’s not happened and I can’t, I don’t want a service that just operates in Austin Rawlinson, I want to see it where people in the north of the city and the centre of the city can benefit from it too because I think it’s really important.
So that’s what we’re going to do and we’re going to ask you how you think we can do that for the rest of the city? This won’t be excluding you, we will include your knowledge and your experience in how this services works really expertly in how we can do it. So I welcome you, I welcome on board this. We will come along to you, I will meet with you next week and we’ll carry on from there. So thank you so much for coming along tonight, I really do appreciate it, 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.