Category: Liverpool

What connects “persons interested”, Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

What connects “persons interested”, Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

What connects "persons interested", Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

                                                           

As regular readers of this blog will know, I exercised my Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(1) right to inspect invoices and contracts at Merseytravel (now part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (who go by the public name of Merseyside Recycling & Waste Authority) and Wirral Council for the 2014/15 financial year.

This ties in with a right under Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(2) as a local government elector can then ask the auditor questions.

It’s well established that "persons interested" in Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(1) means local government electors for the public body concerned.

The problem however came with my request to Liverpool City Council, as I’m not a local government elector in the Liverpool City Council area. Case law has determined that “interested person” (a term sadly not defined in the legislation itself) is a wider group than just local government electors.

R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 is an interesting case that as far as I know isn’t available online so I looked it up in the university law library. I’ll refer to R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 [24], [25], [39], [49] and [50] as it goes into the legislative history of who is considered an “interested person”.

"The authorities

24. The concept of “persons interested” has received very little consideration by the courts. In Marginson v Tildsley (1963) 67 JP 226 the appellant was a member of the Fleetwood urban authority for 20 years before he became bankrupt and was disqualified from the council. He sought the right to inspect the accounts under the Public Health Act 1875. He preferred an information against the clerk of the council alleging that the clerk had wrongly refused him access to the accounts. The justices dismissed the information but their decision was overturned on appeal. Lord Alvertstone CJ held that he was a person interested because although no longer a member of the council, the possibility that his estate could be liable for any surcharge rendered him a person interested.

25. In the later case of R v Bedwellty Urban District Council, Ex p Price [1934] 1 KB 333 the court held that a person interested was entitled to inspect the accounts by an agent, who in that case was his accountant. It was argued that the accountant was a person interested in his own right, but the point did not have to be determined and Avory J expressly left it open.

39. He also referred me to a passage in Jones, Local Government Audit Law, 2nd ed (1985), ch 8. The last edition of this valuable book was sadly in 1985. But in a discussion on the meaning of the concept of a “person interested”, the author expressed the view that the right was attached to any person who had a financial interest in the accounts, as well as somebody with a legal interest, such as a local government elector who has the legal right of objection.

49. I think it is somewhat artificial to say that non-domestic ratepayers do not contribute to the local authority’s budget. Although their contributions are channelled through, and will be subject to, redistribution by central government – the income will be received indirectly by the authority as a grant from central government – nevertheless I think this gives them a sufficient interest in inspecting the accounts and satisfying themselves as far as they can that they are in order. In my view, this is reinforced by the fact that they had the right for their representatives to be consulted on expenditure decisions.

50. I consider that these factors together give them a real and close interest in the council’s activities sufficient to confer these rights upon them. I would, moreover, be reluctant to think that this right, which undoubtedly existed until the Local Government Finance Act 1988, had been removed as a consequence of the restructuring of local government finances in that year. It follows that in my view the claimant is a "person interested" within the section."

 

So from the above I can gather that the concept of "interested person" means:

  • local government electors (which for Liverpool City Council at the last election I estimate at around ~320,000 local government electors)
  • former politicians of that public body (although as I think the ability to surcharge councillors has been repealed this may not apply in most circumstances)
  • those assisting local government electors such as accountants
  • as the R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 case above established a company or business based in the area covered by the public body that pays business rates (or by its more formal term of non-domestic rates)

However according to Liverpool City Council my request was refused because as far as they see it, I don’t fall into one of the above categories.

I do however have a legal interest in 22 of the invoices I requested as I made a FOI request for them on the 14th May 2015. Liverpool City Council refused to supply a copy of the invoices and also refused at internal review. I exercised my right under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.50 to complain to the regulator (the Information Commissioner’s Office about this) on the 31st July 2015 and a decision by ICO is awaited.

Some ICO decision notices take a much wider view as to the definition of “interested person”. This decision notice (FS50582149) at part of paragraph 62 states (ACA 1998 refers to the Audit Commission Act 1998):

"As stated in paragraphs 24 and 25 above, the ACA 1998 provides a right of access to inspect accounting information for their local authority to any local government elector and ‘any persons interested’. Although the term ‘interested person’ is not defined within the ACA 1998, the Audit Commission suggest the term must refer to an individual who has a legal or financial interest in the accounts which would include local government electors, non-domestic rate payers and those with a financial or contractual relationship with the Council or those in receipt of services from the Council."
 

Keen followers of local government will know that the Audit Commission doesn’t exist any more, however if the Liverpool City Council shared the view of the now defunct Audit Commission that an "interested person" as was someone "in receipt of services from the Council" then I certainly fall into that category!

I regularly walk on Liverpool’s roads (maintained by Liverpool City Council), have made at least one Freedom of Information Act request to Liverpool City Council and have filmed public meetings of Liverpool City Council starting with this one of the Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September 2014 last year (there have been a number I’ve filmed since the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 forced Liverpool City Council to remove the anti-filming public meetings section in their constitution).

However, this is going off the point a little and the next point will sound like an arcane legal point. I can’t request permission from a High Court Judge for judicial review of Liverpool City Council’s decision to refuse inspection/copies of the invoices under the audit legislation that relate to the FOI request. Why is that? That’s because it would be refused due to the existing right of appeal to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office).

I would guess that if permission for judicial review was applied for, a High Court Judge would refuse permission to the part of the request to Liverpool City Council under the audit legislation that relates to the 22 invoices that pertain to the earlier FOI request on those grounds. This is because part 5 of the Pre-Application Protocol for Judicial Review makes it clear that "Judicial review should only be used where no adequate alternative remedy, such as a right of appeal, is available."

It is far better to establish the principle of whether the invoices are able to requested through FOI requests through an ICO decision notice. However before Liverpool City Council did a U-turn and realised I wasn’t a local government elector I did get copies of 7 invoices for its legal costs (the first of which is at the end of this article).

There will be a delay getting editorial approval with the other six as Liverpool City Council have done an extremely bad job at redacting some of the information. One of the invoices relates to a Family Court matter that it probably be unlawful for me to publish in its present form as the names of the parents and a child are clearly visible. Those more well versed in data protection law could perhaps leave a well-informed comment on why giving out such detail to a member of the public ain’t a good idea.

As usual the thumbnails are linked to higher resolution images for each page.

I would make an educated guess that the invoice below relates to a decision of Liverpool City Council’s Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee on the 30th July 2014 to revoke the licence for Kenny Food & Wine at 237 Kensington, Liverpool 7.

There’s a right of appeal of decisions of such committees (a Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee is composed of councillors and meets in public) to the local magistrate court. The premises licence holder’s name is Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam (which is published in the report to that committee).

The Liverpool City Council solicitor this invoice went to is Mr. P Merriman. He’s the licensing, gaming and betting solicitor at Liverpool City Council.

Mr David Hercock of Six Pump Court is a barrister. The invoice is for £2,400 (£2000 + VAT).

Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 1 of 2 thumbnail
Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 1 of 2 thumbnail
Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 2 of 2 thumbnail
Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 2 of 2 thumbnail

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

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

                                                           

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 video above of the Special Meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority of the 2nd September will finish uploading by about 16:30 on the 2/9/15. Once processed it should be available for viewing but is not available at the time this blog post was published.

Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail

At a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, councillors, the Mayor of Liverpool and co-opted members agreed a revised set of recommendations. The revised recommendations appeared only minutes before the meeting started.

The revised recommendations approve a request to the Conservative government to devolve powers to the city region as part of a devolution deal.

Here are the original recommendations (with the crossed out parts deleted by the revised recommendations):

It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-

(a) comments upon, and endorses the devolution themes that will form the basis of the Liverpool City Region’s input to the Comprehensive Spending Review on the 4 September 2015 (NB: this detail will form the basis of a follow-on report for members’ consideration); and

(b) notes that the devolution process will remain an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Authority, for members’ consideration."

Here are the revised recommendations agreed today:

1.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is recommended to:

  1. Approve the initial scope of the proposals as outlined in the supplementary report and the presentation made to the Combined Authority as the Liverpool City Region’s formal submission to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, subject to a delegation to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Chair of the Combined Authority and the Lead Officer: Economic Development to make any drafting amendments to the final document;
  2. Continue negotiations with Government over the Autumn period in advance of the publication of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review to secure a bespoke devolution ‘deal’ for Liverpool City Region which will:
  1. Drive economic growth and increase productivity;
  2. Reduce costs and improve outcomes across the whole of the public sector;
    and
  3. Improve social outcomes and better health and wellbeing for local residents.
  1. Note that any actual agreement with Government would require the approval of constituent Councils with appropriate consultation put in place;
  2. Note that devolution negotiations are an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Combined Authority, for Member’s consideration and approval; and
  3. Note that any Agreement will only be signed by both the Constituent Councils and Government when both parties are fully satisfied with the final details of the Devolution Deal.

So what are the proposals that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are asking the government for?

The proposals are in this supplementary report and include the points below (plus other asks):

  • Abolishing Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Abolishing the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Asking for a legislation change so that any surplus Mersey Tunnel tolls can be used for economic development
  • “the repayment of historic Mersey Tunnels debts by government”
  • Development Corporation Status for the Liverpool City Region
  • Creation of a Land Commission
  • “Designation of catapult Centres in the City Region for Manufacturing Technology Centre focused on marine and renewable energy and a Centre of Excellence for Infectious Diseases”
  • “A Free Trade Zone designation for the Liverpool Wirral Port system that includes provision for Global Zone-to-Zone Transfers, No Duty on Value Added and Enhanced Customs Warehousing”
  • “We want government to give us a long-term Special Rail Grant (SRG) to help
    secure a new fleet of Merseyrail trains.”
  • “the development of a generation system of regional significance, for example, an offshore tidal lagoon”
  • Also requested are “asks” under the headings of “cultural partnership and creative dock”, “community safety, enforcement, licensing and regulatory services”, “education”, “children’s services” and “health, wellbeing and social care”

Certainly the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is asking for many changes from the government, which if agreed in principle will be subject to consultation.

Here are what some of the people on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority had to say at today’s public meeting that agreed the proposals:

Mayor Joe Anderson (Mayor of Liverpool, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) said, "There will be opportunities, there also will be more negotiations of more substance with businesses, with other political parties, with other interested groups like health, the voluntary sector, the trade unions and others to engage and involve themselves in the process."

Cllr Phil Davies (Chair, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) asked, "In the near future presumably we’ll be drawing up a consultation programme if you like as the negotiations roll out?"

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

49 pages of secret expenses on fruit cake, stays at the Hilton, first class travel & taxis for councillors

49 pages of secret expenses on fruit cake, stays at the Hilton, first class travel & taxis for councillors

49 pages of secret expenses on fruit cake, stays at the Hilton, first class travel & taxis for councillors

                                                

At the end of this piece are 49 pages of invoices paid directly by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. If a councillor pays for a meal or a taxi fare but claims the money back, it’s included in the annual totals for each councillor. You can view the table of annual totals for each councillor that was on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority website.

The pages of expenses below that cover stays in hotels, train fares and meals (which would usually be in the travel and subsistence or overnight categories of expenditure of that table) aren’t included. Below is what Regulation 15(3) of the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 states what should be included. Recipient refers to a recipient of a payment under the allowances scheme.

15. Records of Allowances
….
(3) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of a year to which the scheme relates, an authority shall make arrangements for the publication within the authority’s area of the total sum paid by it in the year under the scheme to each recipient in respect of each of the following—

(a) basic allowance;
(b) special responsibility allowance;
(c) dependants’ carers’ allowance;
(d) travelling and subsistence allowance; and
(e) co-optees’ allowance.

 

The blog post Which Wirral councillor claimed £50 on taxis to and from a public meeting? includes a letter explaining why Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority doesn’t do this.

In that letter Janet Henshaw (Monitoring Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) writing on behalf of the Wirral councillors wrote:

“It was not possible to show travel & event bookings made directly by MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] (as opposed to members paying and then claiming back their allowances) due to the fact that this Authority uses an electronic software system to make each booking at the cheapest possible price for both members and officers. We were invoiced monthly in the last year for both Officers and Members without differentiation. Thus it would have been a wholly unreasonable use of scare resources to break this down each month between the two groups and then each and every individual.”
 

CFO on one of the receipts refers to the Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens. DCFO refers to the Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan. As some of the names of the councillors below will be unfamiliar to readers I include a key below. The key has the name of the councillor, political party, which local authority they represent (or represented as Cllr Ted Grannell and Cllr Tony Newman are no longer on the Fire Authority) and whether they hold the position of Chair or Vice-Chair on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

Cllr Dave Hanratty, Labour, Liverpool, Chair
Cllr Linda Maloney, Labour, St Helens, Vice-Chair
Cllr Leslie T Byrom, Labour, Sefton, Vice-Chair
Cllr Ted Grannell (down on invoice as Ted Grenell), Labour, Knowsley
Cllr Tony Newman, Labour, Knowsley
Cllr Steve Niblock, Labour, Wirral

Continue reading “49 pages of secret expenses on fruit cake, stays at the Hilton, first class travel & taxis for councillors”

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.

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 "golden goodbye" for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

                                                            

Mayor Joe Anderson responds on the issue of green spaces in Liverpool 8th April 2015
Mayor Joe Anderson (Chair of the Appointments Panel), Liverpool City Council 8th April 2015

For those with long memories going back to 2012, you will remember a number of Wirral Council’s chief officers were suspended, but left Wirral Council with large payouts. One example (of many) was Bill Norman (the former Monitoring Officer/Head of Law, HR and Asset Management) leaving at a cost of £151,416.

Those with even longer memories will remember that two senior managers in Wirral Council’s Social Services department left the employment of Wirral Council the day before the Anna Klonowski Associates report was published at a cost of £109,496.45 for the Head of Support Services (Finance Department) and Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing (Department of Adult Social Services) at a cost of £111,042.95 .

There was a certain degree of public anger that in the case of these last two councillors were not directly involved in the decision. Outrage at the amount involved led to a change to Wirral Council’s constitution, so councillors did decide whether to agree to a compromise contract in Bill Norman’s case. This also led to changes at the national level.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP wrote to all leaders of local councils in England in February 2013, you can read read his letter here which contained the following on what should happen with regards to large severance payments.

  • Full Council should also be given the opportunity to vote on severance payments over £100,000. Many believe that pay-offs to senior local government staff are excessive and too frequent. The Localism Act brings out into the open the approach taken to severance across the sector. There is a clear case for going further and ensuring that, as well as approving their authority’s policy on severance, Members are able to consider each time it is proposed to spend local taxpayers’ money on a large pay-off.

    This follows on from my announcement in November 2012 where I said that I intend to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. I am currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

Accompanying Eric Pickles’ letter was guidance, which section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 stated that “A relevant authority in England must, in performing its functions under section 38 or 39, have regard to any guidance issued or approved by the Secretary of State.” Sections 38 and 39 of the Localism Act 2011 relate to pay policy statements.

At Liverpool City Council’s Budget meeting of the 5th March 2014, the pay policy for 2014/15 was agreed. The bit about large severance payments is phrased in an interesting way:

6.6(ii) Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on severance payment puts forward a case for offering full Council the opportunity to vote on severance packages above a certain threshold and that is placed at £100k. Full Council delegates this function to the Council’s Appointments Panel. Council does so, on the basis that such delegation facilitates compliance with Data Protection legislation in respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned without prejudicing transparency as that is achieved by the City Council ensuring compliance with Access to Information Rules, Legislation and all accounting requirements placed upon the Authority.

    In other words instead of following the guidance and giving all councillors a vote at Liverpool City Council on severance payments over £100,000 and the requirement in section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 to have regard to the guidance when drawing up their pay policy statement, Liverpool City Council decided just to do things differently.

    Buried on page 82 of Liverpool City Council’s statement of accounts for 2014/15 it shows a payment of £110,000 was made for “compensation for loss of employment” to Liverpool City Council’s Director of Public Health who left on the 6th April 2014.

    So did the Appointments Panel at Liverpool City Council decide on this? The meeting of the Appointments Panel of Monday 24th February 2014 (the one directly before to the Director of Public Health leaving in April 2014) curiously has no agenda and no minutes published on Liverpool City Council’s website.

    The supplementary guidance issued in 2013 had this to state on the subject of large severance payments.

    Severance payments

    11. There has been a great deal of public scrutiny of the level of severance payments awarded to senior local government staff and rightly so. Authorities should ensure that they manage their workforces in a way that best delivers best value for money for local taxpayers and sets the right example on restraint. This includes any payments offered to staff leaving the authority.

    12. Authorities are already required to publish their policies on severance for chief officers 5 and their policy on discretionary compensation for relevant staff in the event of redundancy. 6 In addition, other regulations provide for disclosure of remuneration of senior employees including details of severance payments within authorities’ annual statement of accounts. 7

    13. Taken together, these measures enable greater scrutiny of the money spent by authorities on severance. However, given continuing public concern about the level and frequency of such payments, there is a case for going further to ensure that decisions to spend local taxpayers’ money on large pay-offs are subject to appropriate levels of accountability. Authorities should, therefore, offer full council (or a meeting of members in the case of fire authorities) the opportunity to vote before large severance packages beyond a particular threshold are approved for staff leaving the organisation. As with salaries on appointment, the Secretary of State considers that £100,000 is the right level for that threshold to be set.

    14. In presenting information to full council, authorities should set out clearly the components of relevant severance packages. These components may include salary paid in lieu, redundancy compensation, pension entitlements, holiday pay and any bonuses, fees or allowances paid.

    15. This follows on from the Secretary of State’s announcement 8 that he intends to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. We are currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

    So according to the guidance, should all of Liverpool City Council councillors had a vote on the £110,000 payment to the former Director of Public Health along with a published breakdown as to how this £110,000 figure was arrived at?

    Why is the agenda (and minutes if it met) of the public meeting of Liverpool City Council’s Appointments Panel immediately prior the Director of Public Health not available?

    Why state in the pay policy about “respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned” when there is legislation requiring such payments to senior officers to be included in the statement of accounts anyway (see Regulation 7(3)(iv) of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011)?

    Doesn’t this all seem to show that when the Coalition government tried to improve transparency and accountability in this area that Liverpool City Council just blatantly decide to carry on what it was doing before regardless of what the new guidance stated?

    Does anyone know if following consultation with the Local Government Association and others whether regulations about this area came into force (if so what are they called) or was guidance considered sufficient?

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