Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report 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 … Continue reading “Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report”
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.
What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?
There is a form of direct accountability during the audit of local councils when for a short period each year local government electors can inspect information about that financial year such as invoices and contracts.
Here is a legal reference to that right (Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15) which has been a direct form of democratic accountability that in one form or another has been around since Victorian times.
It’s tied in to rights of local government electors to ask questions of the external auditor (which for Wirral Council is Grant Thornton), to make objections to the accounts, to request public interest reports. After all how can you do all that without seeing the information in the first place?
It’s a form of direct democratic accountability.
Unlike making a freedom of information request (time limit of 18.5 hours) there is strictly very little legal limits on what can be requested (well apart from on the insular peninsula at Wirral Council where they have a habit of deliberately shifting the goalposts and coming up with bizarre interpretations of legislation to suit themselves). Last year I made requests under this audit legislation to Wirral Council, Liverpool City Council, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, Merseytravel and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.
The Liverpool City Council request was connected to an earlier FOI request and there’s been a recent decision notice issued in that matter on the 1st February 2016 which hasn’t been published yet by ICO.
Ironically ICO seemed to have met a stumbling block with Liverpool City Council on that one as they asked me for the information that I’d been refused under FOI (happy to oblige). This implies Liverpool City Council weren’t being entirely cooperative with ICO.
I’ve been sent a paper copy of the decision notice through the post, but it’s not published on ICO’s website yet. The reference is FS50591795. It’s a mercifully short eight pages and requires both Liverpool City Council to issue a fresh response with 35 days of 1st February 2016 (or appeal to the Tribunal) and states that Liverpool City Council breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If anybody wants me to I can scan a copy in and publish it here.
Basically LCC’s arguments are that I’m being unfair to barristers by requesting invoices they’ve submitted to LCC. Because as we all know, the purpose of a self proclaimed "socialist" Council like Liverpool City Council is to stick up for downtrodden, oppressed groups on the margins of society like barristers!
Cllr Paul Brant (left) speaking at a recent public meeting of Liverpool City Council (11th November 2015)
Let’s take the example of one barrister (pictured above on the left), a barrister I might point out who is not the subject of the invoices I requested, but who is in addition to being a barrister, a Labour Liverpool City Council councillor called Cllr Paul Brant. He resigned as a councillor in 2013 (although has since been re-elected) after receiving a police caution for possession of a class A drug. He was also the subject of a The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service disciplinary tribunal.
Below are the details.
Defendant Paul Brant (Lincoln’s Inn)
Type of hearing 3 Person Disciplinary Tribunal
Panel members Mr William Rhodri Davies QC (Chair)
Ms Pamela Mansell
Mr Mark West
Paul Brant engaged in conduct which was discreditable to a barrister contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) of the Code of Conduct in that on a day between the 1st January 2013 and the 21st September 2013 he committed the criminal offence of being in possession of a controlled drug of class A contrary to The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for which offence on the 20th September 2013 he receive a simple caution."
It would be a conflict of interest for Cllr Paul Brant to do work for Liverpool City Council but according to his Chamber’s website he has been instructed to represent Wirral Council in the past (yes Wirral Leaks I can get trees into a story too!):
“Jayne Spencer v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2008); LTL 1/10/2008 (Highway liability claim, tree root in Port Sunlight conservation area causing personal injury – whether breach of duty. Mr Brant appeared successfully at first instance and on appeal).”
This is an aside but I do remember one year during the audit, Wirral Council weren’t happy with me requesting the invoices for their legal invoices for these sorts of liability claims. “
However there should be some transparency as to who Liverpool City Council are paying! All Liverpool City Council councillors are responsible for budget matters including Cllr Paul Brant.
To give the example of Paul Brant above, it shows he works at Oriel Chambers and was subject to a disciplinary tribunal in September 2014 (the outcome of which is detailed above).
One of my other arguments to the regulator was that Liverpool City Council is under a legal obligation to publish the names of its suppliers for invoices over £500. In fact the guidance they’re required by law to follow specifically states that being self-employed (which is their argument surrounding barristers) doesn’t mean they can keep the suppliers’ name out of the public domain (but Liverpool City Council do).
However the above legislation (surrounding rights of inspection, objection etc) during the audit was scrapped by the government. You can’t use it any more to do this after the 2014/15 financial year.
Instead for 2015/16 financial year onwards it’s been completely watered down.
Previously (apart from information about its own staff) local councils during the audit had to get permission from their external auditor if they wanted to withhold from inspection in the category of "personal information" (which was very narrowly defined). This was a safeguard to prevent public bodies abusing their powers.
Bear in mind however that each time the public body contacts their external auditor it increases what they’re charged.
However this check and balance on misuses of power in local government was repealed (scrapped) by the last Coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem).
Oh but there’s more!
There’s a rather infamous recent case (well infamous in those familiar with "citizen audit") where a local government elector called Shlomo Dowen requested (during this period each year during the audit) a waste management contract between Nottinghamshire County Council and Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd.
The case reference is [2009] EWHC 2382 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 797, [2010] Env LR 12. Anyway interestingly at that stage a High Court Judge said Mr. Shlomo Dowen should be allowed to inspect and receive a copy of the contract (despite Veolia bringing a judicial review about it).
However Veolia weren’t happy at all by this (in fact if you read through the judgements in both cases you’ll find that even if Mr. Dowen was given the contract they wanted restrictions on him sharing it with other people) and brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] PTSR 185, [2010] UKHRR 1317, [2011] Eu LR 172). Veolia claimed that allowing Mr. Dowen to inspect/receive a copy of the contract would infringe that companies’ human rights.
I quote from part of that judgement, “I am not entirely convinced that English common law has always regarded the preservation of confidential information as a fundamental human right”.
Rix LJ, Etherton LJ, Jackson LJ upheld the appeal however.
The irony of all that was that Shlomo Dowen already had access to the information as Veolia’s lawyers did not seek a stay following the earlier judgment.
Interestingly withholding information on grounds of commercial confidentiality, this is a quote from the legislation,
“(5) Information is protected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality if—
(a) its disclosure would prejudice commercial confidentiality, and
(b) there is no overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure.”
is subject to a public interest test.
However there are other changes on the horizon too. Previously the inspection period was 15 days (3 weeks assuming there are no holidays).
When that inspection period was published in a public notice in at least one newspaper in the area and on the public body’s website.
I only have until the end of the 2015/16 local government financial year to get up to speed on these changes as being the Editor here I’ll have to schedule time for responding to the public notices, arranging appointments to inspect, as well as spare capacity for dealing with the moaning of the public sector (example moan last year being, it’s been 7/8 years since someone did this!).
As Wirral Council was somewhat uncooperative last year over the size of my request (only responding to the 10% of it they didn’t deem to be particularly sensitive), I will be having internal discussions here on avenues that can be explored to either embarrass Wirral Council into legal compliance (by censure (not to say that always works) or take more formal action.
Weirdly some of the politician’s expenses that they refused me under the audit legislation and Cllr Adrian Jones refused to make an appointment for me to see, they released in response to a later FOI request.
Which just goes to show that if you ask for the same information three times from Wirral Council (audit rights, a politician, then FOI), you might finally get it! Obviously by the third time, it starts to get embarrassing and seems like they have something to hide. I really don’t like having to ask three times when once should be enough though!
Anyway what was going to be only a short article about local government, barristers, ICO, FOI and audit is now rather on the long side so I’ll draw this to a close and give you an opportunity to comment.
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 decides to freeze Mersey Tunnels cash tolls for 2016/17 at 2015/16 levels, reduce Fast Tag tolls in 2016/17, not charge tolls on Christmas Day 2016 and no tolls for emergency vehicles
Councillors on the Merseytravel Committee met on Thursday afternoon to decide on a recommendation on Mersey Tunnel tolls for 2016/17. Their recommendation was accepted at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority that met the following day on Friday morning.
You can view video of the Merseytravel Committee meeting on Youtube below (starting at agenda item 6 (Mersey Tunnel tolls).
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.
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.
The decision made was that cash tolls would be kept the same for 2016/17 as they were in 2015/16. The cash toll levels decided for 2016/17 are shown below.
Vehicle Class
2016/17 Cash toll
1
£1.70
2
£3.40
3
£5.10
4
£6.80
The price for Fast Tag tolls was reduced for 2016/17. Below is a table of 2016/17 Fast Tag tolls compared to 2015/16.
Vehicle Class
2016/17 Fast Tag toll
2015/16 Fast Tag toll
1
£1.20
£1.40
2
£2.40
£2.80
3
£3.60
£4.20
4
£4.80
£5.60
There were also other changes agreed for 2016/17. Tunnel tolls will be waived for all classes of traffic between 10 pm on Christmas Eve (24th December 2016) to 6 am on Boxing Day (26th December 2016). All designated emergency vehicles will no longer have to pay tolls in 2016/17.
These were the votes on the Mersey Tunnel tolls decision at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting.
FOR THE PROPOSAL (4)
Mayor Joe Anderson (Liverpool City Council) FOR
Cllr Phil Davies (Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council) FOR
Cllr Andy Moorhead (Knowsley Council) FOR
Cllr John Fairclough (Sefton Council) deputy for Cllr Ian Maher (Sefton Council) FOR
ABSTENTION (1)
Cllr Rob Polhill (Halton) ABSTAIN
Reacting to the decision, John McGoldrick representing the Mersey Tunnels Users Association stated that “the [Liverpool City Region Combined] Authority would still be making a massive profit from the Tunnels and that most users of the Tunnels would not be seeing the reductions in tolls promised last year.”;
During the meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Cllr Phil Davies (pictured below) said,
Cllr Phil Davies speaking about Mersey Tunnel tolls for 2016 17 at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting on the 5th February 2016
“Yeah, I’d just like to say a few things about this. I welcome the recommendations of Merseytravel yesterday and the recommendations in this report.
Errm, I think I just need to record the fact that I’ve been involved in the errm the Task Group that’s been looking at this so, this issue errm, but I clearly wanted to, to hear what the outcome of the meeting is today was and I do endorse the approach.
I mean from each err, errm, we did make a commitment in the devolution deal that we gain control of the finances of the Mersey, Mersey Tunnels, errm and certainly you know, wearing my Wirral hat, I think this is definitely a big move forward, errm.
You know, the id.., the fact that the errm the cash toll has been frozen for a further year is great news but even more importantly the Fast Tag, which is effectively a local discount, is being reduced by 20p. So that would mean that errm, there’ll be a 50%, 50p discount per a journey, using the Fast Tag which if you’re travelling, if you’re travelling each day, it could be a saving of £5 a week.
So I think this is err, you know if I can use the expression, I think this is the kind of devolution dividend deal if you like, the deal that was signed with government, I think it will help local people who use the Fast Tag and local businesses. Errm and I really think this is a good demonstration of the value we’re getting already from the devolution deal but finally Chair I’d like to say I’m hoping in future err years we can go even further.
I think we need to do err more work, err more, I know there are more discussions errm err going on with government about us gaining even greater control over the finances of the Tunnels. Certainly from a personal point of view, I’d like to see us continue to drive down the costs of the err tunnel tolls for residents particularly local users, but I do welcome the recommendations in the report. Thanks Chair.”
Just for clarity, the discount for Fast Tag users (compared to cash tolls) for 2016/17 is not 50% as stated by Cllr Phil Davies. It’s (to the nearest percent) 29% for class 1, 29% for class 2, 29% for class 3 and 29% for class 4.
Would you like to see what 19 pages of invoices paid by Merseytravel looks like for Smartcare, project management, police community support officer costs, the Stop Hate Line service, temporary closure of a bus interchange, bus subsidy, a temporary traffic regulation order, EPI sign licence, scanning and flexible hours annual hours consultancy?
Below is an index page for month one and some of the invoices I requested to inspect at Merseytravel last year (financial year 2014/15) during the period each year when citizens can inspect matters such as invoices. The legal right to do this is outlined in s.15 Audit Commission Act. Each invoice is connected to a payment made by Merseytravel (or to give it its formal name the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive).
The thumbnails below are invoices for payments to ECEBS Ltd (£1,500), Weston-Projects Limited (£4,504.92), British Transport Police (£13,698.87), Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside (£39,213.72), Stop Hate UK (£3,500), Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (£650), Your Travel Borough Wide Ltd (£3,538.46), Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (£903), Trapeze Group (UK) Limited (£6,100), Service Point UK Ltd (£3,500) and Crown Computing Limited (£1,000 + £1,125.40 + £1,500). All figures are exclusive of VAT.
These invoices relate to the first 13 lines on the index page.
Due to small text size on some of the invoices, it means that the text on some of the thumbnails will be difficult to read or not readable. However the thumbnail images of the invoice below are each linked to a high-resolution image. If you want to view at the original resolution just click on the image.
The invoice from Wirral Council is for £903 for "COSTS IN RESPECT OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER. WOODSIDE BUS STATION, BIRKENHEAD. ORDER NUMBER 88003977. REF: JESSICA".
JESSICA is an acronym which stands for Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas. Merseytravel run Woodside Bus Station which is outside Woodside Ferry Terminal.
Merseytravel 2014 2015 audit Month 1 index page ECEBS Ltd to MERSEYRAIL ELECTRICS 2002 thumbnail
Invoices
Month 1
Name
ECEBS LTD
WESTON-PROJECTS LIMITED
BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR MERSEYSIDE
STOP HATE UK
SEFTON M B C
YOUR TRAVEL BOROUGH WIDE LTD
WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL
TRAPEZE GROUP (UK) LTD
SERVICE POINT UK LTD
CROWN COMPUTING LIMITED
CROWN COMPUTING LIMITED
CROWN COMPUTING LIMITED
LOCAL SOLUTIONS
FOURPOINT MAPPING
OPTEVIA LIMITED
OPTEVIA LIMITED
BIKERIGHT
BIKERIGHT
FOURPOINT MAPPING
FOURPOINT MAPPING
OEFICEXPRESS
TRUEFORM ENGINEERING LTD
KENYON FRASER
KENYON FRASER
NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE LTD
MOTT MACDONALD LTD
MOTT MACDONALD LTD
OFFICEXPRESS
APPIUS INTERNATIONAL LTD
ARTOPIA
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL
VOCUS UK LTD
MOTT MACDONALD LTD
SEFTON M B C
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL
FACELIFT (GB) LTD
FACELIFT (GB) LTD
QA LTD
QA LTD
QA LTD
COUNSELLING SOLUTIONS NORTHWEST
WEIGHTMANS LLP
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL
ALLAN PILCH & CO
DAVIES WALLIS FOYSTER
XEROX UK LTD
HAYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
HAYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
HAYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
HAYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS
RSTCS LTD
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL
NEXUS
DLA PIPER UK LLP
MERSEYRAIL ELECTRICS 2002 LTD
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee 26th January 2016
Below is an email I’ve just written about what happened today. I look forward to reading your comments on it. If I had faith in the whistleblowing procedures at Merseytravel I would not see the need to publish it, however these remarks do not inspire me with confidence. I realise I tend to get a bit verbose
“Ian Warwick (KPMG)” <ian.warwick@kpmg.co.uk>,
“Richard Tyler (KPMG)” <Richard.tyler@kpmg.co.uk>,
“Karen Christie (Knowsley press office)” <Karen.Chritie@knowsley.gov.uk>,
“Liam Robinson (Chair, Merseytravel)” <liam.robinson@liverpool.gov.uk>,
“Cllr Steve Foulkes (Merseytravel)” <stevefoulkes@wirral.gov.uk>,
“Cllr Jerry Williams (Merseytravel)” <jerrywilliams@wirral.gov.uk>,
“Cllr Ron Abbey (Merseytravel)” <ronabbey@wirral.gov.uk>,
“Cllr Les Rowlands (Merseytravel)” <lesrowlands@wirral.gov.uk>
Subject: protected disclosure (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)ED 18th February 2016: Although I originally thought I fell within the definition of worker in this legislation it seems I do not.
Dear all,
I am making this protected disclosure to Merseytravel, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and KPMG.
Basically I am blowing the whistle and as I have little confidence in these matters being taken seriously by the public sector or addressed in a satisfactory manner I am also taking the step of publishing these concerns.
Obviously there are other routes I can go down other than this, but I hope this will resolve matters.
From this part onwards I will number the sections for ease of reference in replies to this communication.
1. Introduction
I am a member of the press called Mr. John Brace. Part of my job is covering public meetings of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. For clarity I am both a member of the broadcast media (as I film such meetings) and new media as I write online about these meetings. I write online at http://johnbrace.com/ , which last month (December 2015) had an audience of around 3,345 readers. I publish the video I record on the Youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/level80 which in December 2015 was viewed for a total of ~87 hours.
2. Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014
On the 6th August 2014 a piece of legislation called the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 came into effect. These can be read at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2095/contents/made and I will briefly summarise some of the main changes it made relevant to this protected disclosure:
a) it changed the existing legislation to place a positive duty on certain public bodies that now had to allow filming at their public meetings (regulation 4(5)),
b) it changed the existing legislation to make it clear that such recordings of public meetings could be published (explicitly mentioning the internet) (regulation 4(5)),
and
c) Please note in order to allay any confusion in what I am about to quote, I will point out that s.100J of the Local Government Act 1972 (which defines various terms used in Part VA means that “principal council” includes a combined authority.
This is a quote from regulation 4(5) which modifies the Local Government Act 1972.
“A person attending a meeting of a principal council in England for the purpose of reporting on the meeting must, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for doing so.”
3. 26th January 2016 On the morning of the 26th January 2016 I attended the Merseytravel Offices which are at No 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP. For the purposes of brevity I will refer to this location as Merseytravel HQ.
This was to attend and report on a public meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee which was scheduled to start at 10.30am. I was there with my wife and colleague Leonora Brace.
There was also at least one other member of the public present during the meeting called Ian Warwick, who works for the external auditors KPMG to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
4. What happened
We arrived at the ground floor of Merseytravel at approximately 10 am.
The meeting was to be held on the first floor of Merseytravel HQ (in a room called the Authority Room).
We were told by the receptionist (I have a recording of this conversation on tape which can be supplied) that we would not be permitted to go through the barrier to this meeting (which started at 10.30am), until 10.45am.
Obviously had we taken her assertion at face value (and it causes a certain degree of work place stress to have to continually fact check what a public sector employee states to us) this would have been a breach of our rights to attend the public meeting and report on the public meeting.
There have been times in the past at Merseytravel HQ when we have arrived in plenty of time before a meeting has been to start.
However to give an example of what happened once, we had been kept waiting and not permitted to go to the room where the meeting is held until well after the meeting had started (by the time we were allowed to attend it was from memory had started thirty minutes before). It then causes us embarrassment to arrive late to a meeting when we had indeed on that occasion arrived in plenty of time. It made it impossible then for example to report on agenda items that had already happened.
Public meetings start at different times. For example these are the start times of public meetings held at Merseytravel HQ this month (I include the cancelled Combined Authority meeting scheduled for the 22nd January 2016 too):
There are other public meetings held in Merseytravel HQ too such as the Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (also known as the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority) which start at 1.00pm.
Invariably due to the confusion caused by the receptionist stating that we wouldn’t be able to go into the meeting until 10.45, I had to double-check the time of the meeting using the guest wi-fi.
I found out that the meeting was supposed to start at 10.30am. The receptionist was therefore wrong in her assertion that we should not be allowed in until 10.45am.
I also took the opportunity to read the Combined Authority’s policy on filming.
The Monitoring Officer for the Combined Authority is Angela Sanderson. She does not work for Merseytravel, but for St Helens Borough Council.
The agreed filming policy for the Combined Authority meetings (which presumably covers meetings of its Audit Committee) is based on that originally adopted by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council. It was agreed on the 22nd September 2014.
In that policy the phone number of 0151 443 3536 (the press office of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council) is given for enquiries.
However Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council have (as far as I know) no part in the public meeting of the Liverpool City Combined Authority Audit Committee of the 26th January 2016.
The papers for the meeting are published on Merseytravel’s website, see http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.net/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=336&MId=1343 and the minutes are taken by a Merseytravel employee.
Here is a transcript of part of my conversation I had with the receptionist (who seems a textbook example of the doctrine of “superior orders”) to the extent below:
John Brace: This is the filming policy they use here, it’s the Knowsley Council one they use because they’re the ones that administer the Combined Authority and it says,
“Anyone wishing to do so is asked to inform them in advance to ensure any necessary arrangements can be made.”
So does that mean you need to ring the press office here or Knowsley?
Denise (who has a phone on her desk) (Merseytravel employee): No, they’ve given me instructions not to let any members of the public in there.
John Brace: No what I’m saying is your filming policy …
Denise (who has a phone on her desk) (Merseytravel employee): up until 15 minutes before until someone else is in that room.
John Brace: Sorry this is something different. Your filming policy says you request to be informed in advance of the meeting, so that’s what I’m doing.
Denise (who has a phone on her desk) (Merseytravel employee): Yeah, yeah.
John Brace: So what I’m saying is, it says media enquiries to be conducted to the Communications Team, does that mean
Denise (who has a phone on her desk) (Merseytravel employee): There you go, there’s Louise.
5. The conversation with Louise Outram
Before the public meeting started, myself and Leonora Brace had a conversation with Louise Outram (who as far as I know is the Monitoring Officer for Merseytravel) about these matters.
I will point out at this stage that this is not the first conversation I have had with Louise Outram about these issues.
Louise Outram: OK, Mr & Mrs Brace, can I take over here please?
Louise Outram: What’s the problem this morning?
John Brace: Well, the filming policy does say you require advance notice, so I was just asking whether that goes, because the policy was Knowsley’s policy so I’m not sure whether that phone number is Knowsley’s press office or your press office?
Louise Outram: Err, that looks like Knowsley’s number.
John Brace: Ahh, OK.
Louise Outram: Well I think it’s been accepted that you will film. We don’t have a problem with that. We can’t gain access to the building until there’s a committee officer within that room.
Leonora Brace: Yeah, but surely we can go upstairs and sit outside?
Louise Outram: No, you can’t. It’s a public, this is the public area and the meeting is a public meeting and we will afford you the reasonable facility to film.
Fifteen minutes before the meeting gives you sufficient time to set up your camera and at fifteen minutes before the meeting there’ll be a democratic services officer in that room.
We cannot allow the public unrestricted access to this building. We’ve got private tenants and public offices.
John Brace: Well we’ve seen plenty of members of the public go through when we’ve just been here in this short period for instance there’s one of your auditors from KPMG that doesn’t actually work for Merseytravel has gone through. You know other people have gone through into what you term as a non-public area. So,
Louise Outram: They, those officers have a legitimate meeting in this building. You have a right to the public meeting. The public meeting doesn’t start until 10.30, it’s only 10 o’clock now.
John Brace: You said 10.30, is that
Louise Outram: Yes.
John Brace: correct? I’ll just check on that, because I thought the time was different on the website, Louise Outram and Leonora Brace: No, it’s 10.30.
John Brace: If you look here I’ll just show you, oh yes it says 10.30. Sorry I’m thinking of another one that starts at 11.15,
Louise Outram: They’re all different times unfortunately, so it is important to check the time.
(a number of people speak at once)
Louise Outram: Yes, as soon as a Committee Officer, a Democratic Services Officer is in that room, they’ll advise Denise and Denise will allow you access up to that room to set up your camera, in the place that you normally set it up.
John Brace: The only other thing is that Leonora was saying is she’s a ********. The problem with sitting here opening and closing a lot it does get quite cold and draughty down here.
Louise Outram: Well I’m afraid we can’t do anything about that. The door has to open and close. I mean all I would suggest is that you arrive at 10.15 or fifteen minutes before whatever meeting time is scheduled and in doing that you will then be afforded the facility to come through.
John Brace: Well today for instance, as you know there’s bad weather and disruption to the transport network so it’s only advisable to leave a bit of extra time.
Louise Outram: Well I can’t allow you into the room until there’s a democratic services officer. Denise will advise you when that is. So if you’d like to sit, you’re more than welcome to sit here.
If you’d like to walk around the block, you’re more than welcome to do, but they’ll allow you in fifteen minutes before the meeting starts. OK, alright? I’ll notify Democratic Services that you’re filming again today. We do generally take it as read that you are afforded facilities to do that, so, we’ll, that’s not a problem, ok?
John Brace: Well another question I want to ask is, it states err “reasonable facilities” in the regulations, but it doesn’t actually state what they are so, is there some kind of understanding between us as to what they are or what?
Louise Outram: You come in, you are there are seats available, you generally set your tripod up,you generally move it around as in the camera around, so
John Brace: Sorry receipts?
Louise Outram: There are seats available for the public and you generally.
John Brace: Sorry I thought you said receipts.
Louise Outram: No,
(laughter)
John Brace: It’s the echoes in here isn’t it?
Louise Outram: No, you generally sit yourself in a particular position which affords you a good view of the, I mean I’ve seen your films, you know it affords you a good view of the Chamber and people are reminded to use their microphones, so we do try and ensure you get a good video of the meeting.
So I think we afford you reasonable if not very good facilities!
(laughter)
Louise Outram: The legislation unfortunately doesn’t describe anything formal but, and it doesn’t give any guidance as well, so I would say we (unclear)
I think so, I think you’re getting yourself a good spec.
Leonora Brace: It’s nearly ten past now!
Louise Outram: Well the Democratic Services officer will notify Denise and she’ll allow you access through.
John Brace: But it’s not Denise’s decision?
Louise Outram: She’s acting on instructions from ourselves.
John Brace: Oh I was trying to explain to Leonora, that she was getting instructions from above, it’s not her decision to make.
Louise Outram: It’s not Denise! (laughter)
John Brace: Does that help at all or not?
Leonora Brace: No.
6. Conclusion
There are many issues this raises.
For example the public sector equality duty (which was ironically raised by Cllr Pam Thomas at the meeting we were at). .
For example the area Louise Outram insists we wait in has no access to water or toilets.
This discriminates against two people with protected characteristics as Merseytravel is fully aware why we would require greater access to these than others.
To give one example, the pollution found in Liverpool City Centre, where Merseytravel HQ is based makes me thirsty because I’m an asthmatic.
Merseytravel is fully aware of the disability I have and the nature and extent of those disabilites as a District Judge at Birkenhead County Court found in the past that Merseytravel had discriminated against me three times (but accepted Merseytravel’s defence that on each occasion it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim).
One could regard denying me access to water in such circumstances as degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
Are we expected to bring our own water to such meetings?
Article 2 deals with freedom of movement which is again restricted.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way this is incompatible with a Convention Right (s. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998).
Merseytravel states that it prides itself on good industrial relations with its workforce. We both work in Merseytravel HQ, yet not for Merseytravel. Yet Merseytravel management unilaterally imposed this new policy upon us without formally consulting us first.
I hope I will receive a satisfactory response to the issues raised. Not just for my benefit, but for that of Leonora, other members of the media who attend public meetings at Merseytravel HQ and indeed the wider public who may wish to do so.
Long drawn out legal cases are neither beneficial to either Merseytravel or myself, adverse press criticism is about the only tool I have to bring about change.
Merseytravel is part of the public sector and should be able to resolve this issues well before they get to this stage.
I would hope that after having read the above that matters will change.
However realising how difficult cultural attitudes are to change in an organisation, I am not hopeful of a quick resolution to these matters.
I can be contacted in the following ways:
Address: Jenmaleo, 134 Boundary Road, Birkenhead, CH43 7PH
Email: john@johnbrace.com
Tel: 0151 512 2500 (but please not that due to the nature of my work you are highly likely to just get the answering machine)
P.S. Last year I heard Mayor Anderson (now Chair of the Combined Authority) state at a public meeting how hurt he was when decisions affecting his employment with Chesterfield School were made without prior consultation and about his political beliefs as a trade unionist.
If Merseytravel have behaved in the way I describe above (which I have the tape to prove), then management is not acting in accordance with the political belief of the Chair of the Combined Authority who is answerable to the public for its functioning.
I would also like it confirmed (as three senior managers at Merseytravel, Stephanie Donaldson, Liz Carridge and Louise Outram) were involved in trying to persuade me to alter the article here:
