These don’t include taxi journeys where councillors have paid for the taxi themselves and then claimed back the cost.
Sadly, due to a lot of missing pages (curiously always the ones with councillors’ names on them), plus a number of pages scanned at such low quality making them very difficult to read, I’ve requested an internal review.
There was an £85 taxi journey listed on page 5. By the price list published on my blog here it comes to a taxi journey of around 67 and a half miles.
Sadly the second page of the invoice that invoice from May 2015 that would state who undertook this unusually long journey is not supplied. The invoice itself is of such low quality it’s hard to read how far this journey was. However if you’re going on a journey that far why not take the train instead?
In fact if the journey was by a councillor then Wirral Council’s constitution states (members means councillors):
“8. Travel and Subsistence
Travel Costs
8.1 Travel costs incurred by members in performing “approved duties” as specified in Schedule 2 to this Scheme shall be reimbursed at the prevailing public transport rates, provided that the use of taxis or members’ private motor vehicles may be permitted where public transport is either not available, or the journey by public transport would be likely to result in unreasonable delay.”
Sadly as Wirral Council didn’t respond properly to this FOI request it’s impossible to tell whether a councillor took this journey or not!
However over the 6 months of invoices where names were supplied, here are how many taxi journeys were undertaken by each councillor at the taxpayers’ expense. For shared journeys I’ve counted it as one journey for each councillor sharing the taxi:
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (38) Cllr Steve Niblock (23) Cllr Bill Davies (13) Cllr Irene Williams (5) Cllr Pat Williams (2) Cllr Kathy Hodson (1) Cllr Denise Roberts (1) Cllr Phil Davies (1)
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why did Wirral Council’s Cabinet recommend closure of Girtrell Court despite a protest against closure and opposition from the trade unions?
There was a protest outside Wallasey Town Hall before Wirral Council’s Cabinet meeting on Monday morning. One of the decisions at that Cabinet meeting was to recommend to a meeting of all councillors (which will be on the 3rd March 2016) a budget for Wirral Council for 2016-17. The protest was about a proposal to recommend to close Girtrell Court. Pictures of the protest are below (each photo should link to a higher resolution image).
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall against closure of Girtrell Court 22nd February 2016 photo 1 of 5 thumbnail
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.
Why are people objecting to the Hoylake Golf Resort plans?
Cllr Phil Davies at a recent Cabinet meeting
Regular readers of this blog will know that this blog has covered Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s efforts to find land for a new fire station first in the centre of Greasby and now on the outskirts of Saughall Massie. However, a much larger threat to Wirral’s greenbelt has received little media attention so far.
The plans for a Hoylake Golf Resort cover an area of 357 acres in the greenbelt. Wirral Council own about 189 acres which they lease to farmers. Hoylake Municipal Golf Course occupies a further 106 acres (which is also owned by Wirral Council). The remaining ~63 acres are owned by private landowners. These landowners have signed agreements with Wirral Council to sell their land if planning permission is granted for the Hoylake Golf Resort.
However the Open Championship came to Wirral in 2014 and went with no announcement. Instead a year later in 2015 Wirral Council announced that the Nicklaus Joint Venture Group had been awarded preferred developer status.
Commenting on the plans for a Hoylake Golf Resort local councillor Gerry Ellis stated, “As a concept, it’s a wonderful project that could bring much employment to the area and provide excellent new facilities for residents and visitors to enjoy. However, I see many problems ahead which are likely to slow down or even derail the development. Many objectors are already raising their concerns about loss of Green Belt, disturbances to wildlife, potential flooding problems and lots of other issues.
I’m keeping an open mind on it and waiting with interest to see the planning application and other detailed proposals of the developers which are due to be revealed within the next few months.”
I think it is better to provide a chronology at this stage as to how this part of the request went (references are to this part of the request).
29th March 2013 FOI request made. 29th April 2013 Internal review requested due to lack of reply. 30th April 2013 Internal review sent by Wirral Council. Request refused on cost grounds (section 12), but offer made to send minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group. 30th April 2013 Clarification over meaning of request sent/internal review as response on 30th April 2013 was first response. 30th July 2013 Internal review changes reason from cost grounds (section 12) to vexatious or repeated request (section 14). 14th August 2013 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office. 19th June 2014 Wirral Council amends reason for refusal from vexatious or repeated request (section 14) to cost grounds (section 12). 8th September 2014 ICO issue decision notice FS50509081. Decision notice overturns cost grounds (section 12) reason, finds Wirral Council failed to provide advice and assistance (section 16) and hasn’t responded to request within 20 days (section 10(1)). Wirral Council given 35 days to provide information or different reason. 4th November 2014 FOI request for minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group refused on section 40 (personal data) grounds. 12th November 2014 Internal review of 4th November 2014 decision requested. 30th April 2015 After ICO intervention Wirral Council replies. Wirral Council refuses internal review on section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) grounds. Unknown date Decision appealed to ICO. 29th July 2015 ICO issued second decision notice (FS50569254). Decision notice overturns section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) reason for all of request except adoption/fostering panel part. Finds Wirral Council have breached section 10 (again). 3rd September 2015 Wirral Council respond to decision notice FS50569254. Minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group now refused on section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (personal data). 7th September 2015 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). 11th January 2016 Wirral Council supply minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group held on 19th April 2011.
Wouldn’t it have just been easier (as they made the offer to send the minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group in April 2013) to supply these minutes then? How much officer time was wasted in refusing six pages of minutes on a committee that 7 councillors sat on and at least 5 senior managers (although one wasn’t present for the meeting).
Three of the 7 councillors present are no longer councillors and at least three of the senior managers have either gone into early retirement or left Wirral Council.
There are 4 parts in the six pages of minutes where names have been blacked out. Did it really take 2 years, 9 months and nearly a fortnight to do this?
What was the point in spending over 2 years and 9 months refusing this request? The minutes they’ve supplied refer to a further meeting on the 20th July 2011 so although this is welcome, they may not be the right ones! I requested the minutes of the meeting immediately before my request on the 29th March 2013. Is the implication that the incoming minority Labour administration in 2011 scrapped the Safeguarding Reference Group (which was re-established on the 15th December 2014)? I’m not sure!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
