What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?

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 … Continue reading “What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?”

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)
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

Finding and sentence Reprimand.

Section of the code 301(a)(i)/901.7

Status Final
Date Friday 12 September 2014

This Tribunal was held in Private.

Here is a link to the outcome of the Paul Brant disciplinary hearing from which I quote,

"Details of Offence

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.

One of my arguments rejected by ICO was that there are laws regulating who can give legal advice. You can check whether a barrister has a current practising certificate here.

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).

The page on his Chambers’ website states he is "in a senior position in a large local authority" (meaning Liverpool City Council).

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.

This was a check and balance introduced by the last Labour government.

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.

However the above is why an extra category of "commercial confidentiality" has now been added to s. 26(5) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

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.

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015

                                                                    

I will start off by declaring an interest as I have a close relative paid a pension by the Merseyside Pension Fund (which Wirral Council administers). My second declaration of interest is that in the section 6. Notes Action Points or Discussion Points, the reason for the extraordinary meeting of the Pensions Committee held on the 28th September 2015 was to resolve my objection to the 2014/15 accounts.

These are leaked minutes as only the first page comprising a list of those present, apologies and declarations of interest was published by Wirral Council as an appendix to this report considered by the Pensions Committee at its meeting on the 16th October 2015.

The other ten pages of the minutes of the Investment Monitoring Working Party meeting the Pension Committee decided it was not in the public interest to publish.

Below are the minutes of Wirral Council’s Investment Monitoring Working Party meeting held on the 17th September 2015.


Minutes of Investment Monitoring Working Party,

17th September 2015

In attendance:











(Chair) Councillor Paul Doughty (WBC)Peter Wallach (Head of MPF)
Councillor Geoffrey Watt (WBC)Joe Blott (Strategic Director Transformation and Resources)
Councillor Cherry Povall (WBC)Leyland Otter (Senior Investment Manager)
Councillor Pat Cleary (WBC)Greg Campbell (Investment Manager)
Councillor Adrian Jones (WBC)Susannah Friar (Property Manager)
Councillor Brian Kenny (WBC)Adil Manzoor (Tax Accountant)
John Raisin (Chair of Pension Board)Noel Mills
Donna Ridland (Pension Board)Rohann Worrall (Independent Advisor)
Louise-Paul Hill (Aon Hewitt)
Emma Jones (PA to Head of Pension Fund)

Apologies were received from:

Councillor Ann McLachlan (WBC)Councillor Paulette Lappin

Declarations of Interest

Councillor Paul Doughty declared an interest due to a relation being a beneficiary of Merseyside Pension Fund.

Councillor Geoffrey Watt declared an interest due to a relation being a beneficiary of Merseyside Pension Fund.

Introduction

1. Minutes of the meetings held on 16 April 2015.

Cllr Paul Doughty (PD) opened the meeting. There were no amendments to the minutes.

Action points

None.

2. External Manager Presentations part 1

2.1 Nomura

The Nomura Portfolio Review was presented by Masaaki Tezuka (MT) the Chief Portfolio Manager (Japan) and Andrew Whitaker (AW) Head of Relations (UK). AW introduced the themes of the presentation and MT gave the performance overview and answered questions from the panel.

A discussion ensued with regard to the investment performance and the market review of the year to June 2015. The profits among Japanese manufacturers were debated and it was expressed that it is concealing the weakness in exports. MT stated that exports have been reduced but this is expected to pick up. The competitiveness against the Asian markets was quite strong due to the exchange rate of the yen. It was further discussed that the Japanese market is lagging behind the US and European market.

Action points

None.

3. External Manager Presentations part 2

3.1 JP Morgan – European Equities

Patrick Vermulean (PV), Paul Shutes (PS) and Monique Stephens presented their European equities review and reported on performance and current portfolio positioning. PV explained that Paul Shutes is replacing Nick Wilcox and will assume the responsibility for the client management of the mandate.

A discussion ensued with regard to Ryanair and their outlook for the future. It was explained that Ryanair have changed their focus toward the customer and are addressing their business and website to improve the overall service to create a better business model akin to Easyjet.

PV discussed how they endeavour to ‘take the noise out of the market’ by monitoring earnings consensus and broker analysis; looking at normal distribution to find stocks between two extremes. PV asserted that they have good contacts with management and use a consensus to take companies out of the equation. However, when companies are all moving in the same direction the signal can be weak.

Action points

None.

4. Quarterly Review

4.1 Management Executive

PJW presented the Quarterly Review which covered themes such as the collapsing values of Chinese equities, sovereign bond markets and global monetary policy. PJW asserted that Greece was the dominant theme overall.

PJW reported on a number of issues including global government bond markets and the performance of risk assets. The value of the fund and the funding position was looked at and the performance of the Fund over the quarter and over 1 and 3 years. The asset allocation and MTAA including the MTAA panel meeting on 16 June 2015 were also reported on.

A discussion ensued with regard to the formulation of the benchmark and the strategy of the asset allocation. It was stated that the benchmark is reviewed on an annual basis and the Independent Advisors also offer guidance on this process.

Action points

None.

4.2 Market Commentary

Noel Mills (NM) gave a market commentary and reported on the market background which has been affected by the decline of the global equity market post the second quarter. This is largely a result of the Chinese equity bubble bursting and the renewed possibility of a Greek default which could see a postponement of the US economy moving to higher interest rates. The volatility of the markets continues and US monetary policy is set to tighten.

Action points

None.

4.3 Aon Hewitt Update

Louis-Paul Hill (LH) presented the Strategic Monitoring Report of Aon Hewitt to members. Within his report he gave a funding level update which looked at how the estimated funding level has progressed since the 2010 valuation. The risk analysis, asset allocation, investment outlook and ideas and current research were also reported on.

An extract from that report follows below:

Funding Level Update

Introduction

The following section sets out an estimate of how the funding level has
progressed over the period from 31 March 2010 to 30 June 2015. lt also provides an attribution analysis of the changes in the funding level.

Mercer, the Fund’s actuary, has provided information regarding the Fund’s liabilities. The estimated funding level has been updated to account for the finalised valuation results from 31 March 2013.

Funding Level Progression (4.2 Market Commentary)
Funding Level Progression (4.2 Market Commentary)

Notes:

Please note the funding level update and attribution analysis below do not constitute actuarial advice. They are instead our best estimate of how the funding level has evolved and the driving factors behind this. Further, we are not positioned to, nor do we, offer any comments on the appropriateness of the assumptions provided by the actuary.
 
The funding level fell between the actuarial valuation at 31 March 2010 and the actuarial valuation at 31 March 2013. Since the valuation at 31 March 2013, the funding level improved over the following 12 months to 85%, however the funding level deteriorated during the second half of 2014.

Using "like for like" assumptions (based on the assumptions from 31 March 2013) the funding level at 30 June 2015 remains broadly unchanged over the quarter at 77%.


Asset and Liability progression

The chart below separates the estimated movement in the funding level from the 2010 and 2013 valuation dates into: the estimated liability value movements and the asset value movements.

The liabilities increased in value significantly between 31 March 2011 and 31 December 2012, mainly due to falling gilt yields. For a year following the 31 March 2013 valuation, the present value of calculated liabilities reduced, when the prospect of tapering (a reduction of quantitative easing) caused gilt yields to rise. However, in the second half of 2014 this reversed, as gilt yields moved dramatically lower due to the falling oil price and uncertainty in Europe, resulting in the present value of liabilities rising above 31 March 2013 valuation levels.

While asset performance has been strong, the movement in the value of the liabilities has resulted in a volatile funding level.

The Fund’s assets reduced by c. 2.1% over the quarter, with all asset classes generating a negative return, with the exception of Property.

Gilt yields moved higher over the quarter, reducing the discounted present value of liabilities, as the sharp move up in German bond yields and mixed US economic data impacted the gilt market.

The changes in gilt yields since the last valuation and over the quarter are shown on the charts overleaf.

Progression of assets and liabilities
Progression of assets and liabilities
UK Fixed Income Yield Curve
UK Fixed Income Yield Curve
UK Index Linked Yield Curve
UK Index Linked Yield Curve

Reasons behind the change in funding level



The chart overleaf decomposes the change in the funding level over the quarter across the various contributing factors. The contributing factors are:

Outperformance over benchmark — Approximate impact of any outperformance (underperformance) relative to the assets’ benchmark return.

Benchmark asset return – Approximate impact of the strategic benchmark return over period.

Interest on liabilities – Given that liabilities are due to be paid at fixed points in the future, as we move closer to the time of payment, these liabilities are discounted for one quarter less thus increasing their value (all other market conditions equal). The Fund must achieve this return to keep the funding level unchanged (everything else being equal).

Change in market conditions – Change in discount rate in this period due to changes in gilt yields and inflation expectations.

Scheme experience/other — What has happened in reality to the Fund compared to what was assumed in the valuation over the period. For example, expected inflation versus realised inflation.

Benefit outgo – Assumed benefits (pensions) paid during period.

Contributions paid – Total contributions paid (either taken from the Schedule of Contributions or using actual contributions paid) during period.

Future service cost — Cost to Fund of providing benefits accrued over period.


Funding level attribution (quarter)

Funding Level Analysis - Q2 2015
Funding Level Analysis – Q2 2015
The main points to note are:

The overall effect of the strategic benchmark asset return was a negative impact on the funding level of 1.8%.

Outperformance by managers versus their benchmarks increased the funding level by 0.2%.

Interest accrued by rolling the liabilities forward over the quarter has reduced the funding level by 0.3%.

The majority of the liabilities are real (or index linked) in nature and therefore changes in the real yield will have a large effect. The result of a continued fall in yields over the quarter is shown by a 2.3% increase in the funding level. This is called the "change in market conditions".

Contributions paid resulted in an improvement of 0.3% in the funding level. Benefit payments and future service costs reduced the funding level over the period by a further 0.1% and 0.5% respectively.

Funding level attribution (since 2013 valuation)

Funding Level Analysis - since 31 March 2013 valuation
Funding Level Analysis – since 31 March 2013 valuation
The main points to note are:

The Fund’s assets and investment managers have performed strongly since the valuation.

Interest accrued by rolling the liabilities forward has reduced the funding level although the major negative impact on funding level has come from changes in the market conditions (falling gilt yields).

Contributions paid resulted in a large improvement including the lump sum paid in Q2 2014 with benefit payments and future service costs reducing the funding level.


Action points

None.

4.4 Valuation and Performance Summary including Monitoring Report

LO reported on the monitoring reported quarter 2 and noted there were some minor differences in figures produced due to reconciliation issues.

The valuation of the fund as at 30 June 2015 stood at £6.6bn and ahead of its benchmark by 0.19% returning -2.07% against the benchmark of -2.26%. The performance of the mandates was looked at to 30 June 2015. The performance of the majority of external managers has been good but M&G Recovery and M&G EM Equity continue to lag and are being monitored by the Fund.

Amundi and Legal & General Active Fixed Income continue to be on Watch status.

Action points

None.

5. Internal Presentations

The Responsible Investment report was tabled.

Action points

None.

6. Notes Action Points or Discussion Points

It was agreed that Councillor Paul Doughty, Councillor Treena Johnson, Councillor Pat Cleary and Councillor John Fulham would make up the Task & Finish Group to review the status of ethical investments and to coordinate a public message. EJ to arrange a suitable date.

An extraordinary meeting of Pensions Committee has been arranged for the 28 September 2015 to gain approval of the Annual Report.

Action points

None.

6.1 Noting items

Task & Finish Group to meet.

Extraordinary meeting of Pensions Committee 28 September 2015.

6.2 Action points

EJ to arrange suitable date of Task & Finish Group.

6.3 Summary of Recommendations

None.

6.4 Discussion Points (including any other business)

None.

5.1 Action Points

None.

Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 8 October 2015 at 10.00 am, 6th floor, Cunard Building.

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

Is this what an “open and transparent” Council looks like?

Is this what an “open and transparent” Council looks like?

                                                  

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.

Public Question Time 14th December 2015 where I ask a question to Councillor Adrian Jones

In his answer Cllr Adrian Jones states that Wirral Council is being “open and transparent”.

I provide below four pages from what Wirral Council supplied when I requested the Highway Services Contract that Wirral Council have with Bam Nuttall on which millions of pounds are spent each year.

These first two pages (according to the preceding page) are to do with the NRSWA Team (whatever that stands for). This team is described as “a separate team of 4 inspectors monitoring utility works and repeat defects. This team could integrate with the highway teams

As usual the thumbnails link to higher resolution versions of the same image.

Bam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 1 of 2 thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 1 of 2 thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 2 of 2 thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 2 of 2 thumbnail

Next is an email detailing some last minutes changes to the contract. The unnamed author of this email receives this blog’s first ever Sir Humphrey Appleby award for the sentence “Please find attached a revised copy of P112 of Volume 1, which now includes the omitted Tender Amendment relating to the uplift on rates for Coastal Defence Work in tidal conditions, and an additional page for Volume 3 Method of Measurement to be inserted in the Preamble, which compiles the clarifications issued during the tender period in connection with Price List Bandings into a coherent single document.

Bam Nuttall contract email thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract email thumbnail

Finally, even the author of the Scottish Power Energy Network’s guide to connecting street lights to the mains electricity gets the black box treatment.

Bam Nuttall contract SP Energy Networks Connection Registration and Management thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract SP Energy Networks Connection Registration and Management thumbnail

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

Isle of Man company cancels plans for ICT College in Birkenhead

Isle of Man company cancels plans for ICT College in Birkenhead

                                                     

Wirral Council (15th December 2015) Cllr Adrian Jones announced plans that have now been cancelled for an ICT College in Birkenhead last month
Wirral Council (15th December 2015) Cllr Adrian Jones announced plans that have now been cancelled for an ICT College in Birkenhead last month

The Isle of Man Today website (which is the website for the three Manx newspapers such as the Isle of Man Courier) reported yesterday that the International Centre for Technology Ltd has "pulled the plug" on a plan to re-use the Conway Building and Hamilton Building (both in Birkenhead).

The Conway Building and the Hamilton Building are both owned by Wirral Council. Manx Education Foundation who had been behind the plans had a minority shareholding in the International Centre for Technology Ltd. However the International Centre for Technology Ltd have since bought out Manx Education Foundation’s shareholding which means the plan for a creative industry training college in Birkenhead will now not happen.

ICT Ltd are instead concentrating on developing a property on the Isle of Man called the Nunnery that they bought from the Tynwald (Isle of Man government) for £5 million that they hope to open later this year.

The now shelved plans for the Conway Building and Hamilton Building were previously reported on this blog and by the Liverpool Echo. News of the plans were first revealed in a report by Cllr Adrian Jones (Cabinet Member for Resources: Finance, Assets and Technology) to councillors last month.

It looks like Wirral Council will have to re-think what they will do with the Conway Building and the Hamilton Building in Birkenhead.

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

How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between &#1a63;1.33 and £6.40/mile)?

How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between £1.33 and £6.40/mile)?

How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between £1.33 and £6.40/mile)?

Last year I published the £multi-million contract Wirral Council has called the Passenger Transport Contract which covers transport for children with special educational needs/disability, children in care and vulnerable adults (to places like school and day centres) (Lot 1), ad hoc journeys for these categories of people (Lot 2), the "Maxi Taxi" scheme (taxis for people to work) (Lot 3) and of course that most interesting category of all taxis for councillors (Lot 4).

From the answer Cllr Adrian Jones gave recently (this blog post details the aspects of the request that relate to an underspend on the modern equivalent of the Poor Laws), I think it is fair to summarise that his answer states that providing me with a 44 A4 page contract about a £multi-million contract such as this, is a great drain on Wirral Council’s resources (bear in mind this is an organisation that has a revenue budget of hundreds of millions of pounds a year plus a capital budget of a similar size). Just the annual invoices to their external auditors Grant Thornton comes to a six-figure sum! Personally I’d prefer Wirral Council to routinely publish such information (but they don’t). Maybe if all such contracts that Wirral Council has for millions of pounds were published the public would know what they were getting for their money?

He pointed out at a public meeting to me last month that it takes a long time to black out " personal information" on such contracts. Out of those 44 pages I published, as only one telephone number is blacked out on page 39, I am truly glad that Wirral Council is saving the public from knowing the phone number of a local taxi company (that I’m pretty sure will be in the phone book anyway!)

It’s a contract estimated at £4.1 million (no that’s not all on taxis for councillors).

Of course, as regular readers of this blog will know, despite the information on councillors’ expenses being open to inspection at "all reasonable times" actually getting information out of Wirral Council on councillors’ expenses is a bit like a dentist asking a patient do they want their teeth out!? I asked (again) and the answer from Cllr Adrian Jones was that I should be "patient".

I gather that "all reasonable times" by Wirral Council’s interpretation of the legislation is at some point between to be poetic "when hell freezes over" or the councillor (or former councillor) to whom the expenses relate is dead.

From a public relations perspective I would say that the drip, drip, drip of information on councillors’ expenses at Wirral Council and repeated attempts to block information is probably far more embarrassing (to all councillors including the ones that don’t claim any expenses) than actually releasing the information in the first place! Has their new PR adviser heard of the Streisand Effect! This FOI request (which will be the third time of asking for this information so I must have a lot of patience) is one I hope will be answered. However dear reader I presume this request will be either refused or ignored (despite the Court of Appeal judgement [2015] EWCA Civ 388, [2015] 1 WLR 2879, [2015] WLR 2, [2015] WLR(D) 194 referred to being extremely clear that such information has to be released). As there is for want of a better term "political resistance" at Wirral Council to the release of expenses information, I am beginning to think an ICO decision notice (which will take an answer to this FOI request past the May 2016 elections) may be what it takes. Who knows? Please leave a comment if you know more than me.

However moving on to oversight and scrutiny. I have conducted some oversight and scrutiny on my original publication of the contract and realised that there was a schedule containing rates that I didn’t include when I published the original contract. That table can be found below. This table is how much that Wirral Council is charged by Eye Cab Limited for taxis for councillors.

Here is an easy read version of Councillors Pricing Schedule LOT 4.

You can see the original below (linked to a more high-resolution version). Personally I feel this web version and the PDF file I’ve created above are far easier to read (especially for those with visual issues like myself it can be zoomed in without loss of resolution). However don’t get me started on Wirral Council’s track record towards people with disabilities. I hate to think how much I’d be moaned at if I asked for large print versions of documents and how much of a drain I’d be regarded on resources then!

Councillors Pricing Schedule LOT 4

Item

 Description
 1 Mile = 1609.344 Metres


Distance


Quoted
Mile Cost

Quoted
Total
Journey
Cost

1

 First 805 metres (half mile)

First mile

£3.20

£3.80

£3.80

2

 Remaining 805 metres

£0.60

3

 Additional mile @1609 metres

1-5
miles

£1.40

£9.40

4

 Additional mile @1609 metres

5-10
miles

£1.40

£16.40

5

 Additional mile @1609 metres

10-15
miles

£1.30

£22.00

6

 Additional mile @1609 metres

15-20
miles

£1.20

£26.60

7

 Waiting time (if applicable)

Per Minute Cost

£0.20

  Additional Information or Charges:
  All vehicles are Hackney Carriages 5/7 seat vehicles and have been quoted accordingly, any tolls will be charged extra at the appropriate return rate.

Passenger Transport Contract Councillors Pricing Schedule Lot 4 thumbnail
Passenger Transport Contract Councillors Pricing Schedule Lot 4

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