Wirral Council’s Standards Committee agrees recommendation on changes to notices of motion procedural rules
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.
Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting held on the 23rd November 2015
One of the changes agreed by councillors at last night’s meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee was a change to the protocol for dealing with referred notices of motion. Referred notices of motion are notices of motion that have been sent by Wirral Council’s Mayor to one of Wirral Council’s committees to debate instead of being debated at a Council meeting.
The changes to time limits on speeches for the proposer (5 minutes) and right of reply (3 minutes) were to bring the time limits in line with new time limits proposed for Council meetings.
However an extra category of speaker has been added. This is described in the new rules as "any other person" and they will have three minutes to speak. "Any other person" is described as "at the discretion of the Chairperson, other persons with expertise on the subject of the Motion may be invited to attend the meeting at which it is to be considered"
These new rules won’t apply to next week’s high-profile Notice of Motion Proposal for a fire station on green belt land in Saughall Massie to be discussed by councillors on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee at a public meeting starting at 6.00pm on the 2nd December 2015 in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall. This is because the recommendation by the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (if agreed by Council on the 14th December) won’t come into effect until the 15th December 2015. At a previous meeting of the Regeneration and Environment Committee councillors wanted to ask questions of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service officers about why they wanted to build a new fire station in Saughall Massie.
However parts 15, 18, 19 and 26 of the request were refused by Wirral Council again.
All those four parts of the request have been withheld because Wirral Council decides that section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) is engaged. The minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group (part 26) have an additional reason for refusal because of section 40 (personal information).
I of course plan to appeal this latest refusal to ICO again (which probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone). Essentially however the problem I face to do with this request (which may be familiar to those who make FOI requests and have more experience than I do).
Public body decides on a reason to refuse a FOI request initially and at internal review (this stage could take up to 60 days). ICO disagree with the reason and issue a decision notice requiring the public body not to use that reason for refusing that request and to either provide the information or another reason.
So the public body comes up with another reason. That reason is challenged at internal review (again adding another 60 days). That reason is then appealed to ICO who disagree with the reason and ICO issue another decision notice.
The public body picks another reason to refuse the request and eventually it becomes a merry-go-round. The public body clearly really doesn’t want to give up the information, yet ICO is giving the public body a loophole each time a decision notice is issued by giving them a chance to pick another reason.
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
The Information Commissioner’s Office (which I will refer to as ICO) have issued a decision notice about a Freedom of Information Act request made by Nigel Hobro to Wirral Council. The unique number for this decision notice is FS50559883. It’s not yet on ICO’s website but should be in the near future. ED: Updated 04/09/2015 I looked on ICO’s website and it has been published since this article was written and decision notice FS50559883 can be viewed on ICO’s website.
The Freedom of Information Act request is for an “incomplete internal audit investigation report” and was originally made on the 20th August 2014.
The reasons given by both Surjit Tour and Eric Robinson for not supplying the information requested (both times an apology was given for taking too long to reach a decision) were two-fold:
section 36(2)(c) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council that applying section 36(2)(c) was reasonable but disagreed with the public interest test element.
ICO requires Wirral Council to take the action below within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice dated the 24th August 2015. This is assuming that Wirral Council do not appeal the decision:
"Disclose the withheld information with redactions made under section 40(2) for the names of individuals within the report"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Council U-turns on refusal of FOI request for values and culture presentation
Wirral Council U-turns on refusal of FOI request for values and culture presentation
Over a year ago (3rd July 2014) I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council using the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website for an email (and an attached Powerpoint presentation to the email) sent by Surjit Tour on Thursday 24th April 2014 with the subject of L&MS – Values and Culture Presentation. L&MS stands for Legal and Member Services (Member meaning councillor in local government jargon).
On the last day of July (31st July 2014) I got a reply. Mr Tour had considered the FOI request and refused it. His response referred to section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information 2000. For those familiar with this part of the Freedom of Information Act this is one of the parts that is subject to a public interest test.
Mr. Tour (who made the first decision on this request) claimed in refusing the request that releasing his email (and attachment) would:
(b) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views;
or (c) otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
Further detail was given about why this request was refused “The information requested was used as an integral part of a management meeting where a corporative initiative was openly discussed and debated” and “The Council has held/is holding a series of management meetings where there must be a safe space to share corporate initiatives and openly discuss and debate any issues arising in these meetings. It is also my reasonable opinion that if the requested information were to be disclosed, it would likely have a “chilling effect” that would inhibit the free and frank discussion and debate on matters of importance to the Council and its workforce. Any disclosure is likely to undermine the ability of officers to express themselves in a frank and open manner.”
It was further claimed that “disclosure would restrict the free and frank exchanges of views”, “disclosure would stifle debate at such meetings and could lead to poorer decision making” and “disclosure would have a potential detrimental effect on future management meetings” although “transparency in disclosure of the content of the management meeting” was given as a factor in favour of disclosure. Also stated in the response was “I consider it is crucial that officers are able to engage in discussion and exchange views in an open and frank manner.”
At the time I got this response I didn’t request an internal review. I’d requested internal reviews before when Mr. Tour had claimed section 36 applied to the information requested. You can see an example of a request here for minutes of the Standards Working Group meeting of the 17th December 2013 where Mr. Tour refuses it based on section 36 and at internal review the former Chief Executive of Wirral Council Graham Burgess agrees with Mr. Tour.
At the time I probably thought it pointless to request an internal review as I thought the Chief Executive would just agree with Mr. Tour.
The new Chief Executive Eric Robinson on the 21st April 2015 agreed with Mr. Tour.
His responses were as follows, first to my point about whether it was a conflict of interest for Mr. Tour to decide on whether to release his own email:
“I do not agree that Mr. Tour would have been conflicted when he gave careful consideration to and applied the Section 36 exemption.”
In response to the point that the email and attachment was sent before the meeting, didn’t detail what was debated at the meeting therefore how could it “stifle debate at such meetings”?
“The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council. Officers who took part in this management meeting and those who will be present at further meetings, must be afforded a safe space in which they can openly discuss and debate these corporate initiatives.”
Finally responding to my point “well surely if Wirral Council is “open and transparent” then being “open and transparent” here about a very important aspect of the organisation (values and culture) would demonstrate to the public that Wirral Council has changed?” he replied:
“The Council is committed to openness and transparency and communicates this to the public in many ways. As well as the consultation exercises the Council has been involved in with members of the public; we also publish information and communications via our web pages.”
He included various links to the Council’s website to the Corporate Plan, a page on the Transparency Code and a page on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 & the Data Protection 1998.
Finally he stated:
“To summarise, as the Reviewing Officer, I have carefully considered the original response provided by the Monitoring Officer and my reasonable opinion is that I fully concur with his initial response. I am of the opinion that the exemption contained within Section 36 of The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been correctly and appropriately applied. As the Reviewing Officer, I believe I have considered all relevant and material factors and issues.”
and
“After taking all factors into account, it is my reasonable and considered opinion that the reasons and rationale provided by Mr. Tour are valid and robust in nature. I do not consider I need to add anything more in this regard and I am satisfied that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure.”
So on the 19th May 2015 I appealed this decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office. On the 11th August 2015 Wirral Council supplied the attached Powerpoint presentation but stated that the email had since been deleted.
Shortly after I received an email from the Information Commissioner’s Office stating that the case was now closed, although I have emailed them this morning asking them to clear up that the Chief Executive at internal review stated “The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council.” which would suggest more than one attachment to the email, yet only one attachment was supplied.
Ironically (considering what I’ve just written above) slide 10 on integrity states
“We communicate & are open and honest in what we do.”
However that point aside, the slides are about “organisational vision”, “values” and “culture”.
Slide 7 states that Wirral Council’s vision is:
“Wirral should be a place where the vulnerable are safe and protected, where employers want to invest and local businesses thrive and an excellent quality of life is within the reach of everyone who lives here.”
Slide 9 introduces Wirral Council’s values which are:
“integrity, efficiency, confidence and ambition”.
Slides 10 to 13 define each of these values.
“Integrity
We treat everyone with respect
We are accountable and take responsibility for our actions & decisions
We communicate & are open and honest in what we do
Efficiency
We seek innovative & creative solutions
We work effectively together to make the most of our resources
We proactively look for ways to improve
Confidence
We fully use the skills, talents & assets of our partners, communities and organisation
We take decisions and deliver
We learn from & share knowledge and expertise with others
Ambition
We deliver with energy and pace
We are risk aware, not risk averse
We have pride in our place and our people striving to be the best we can for Wirral”
The last slide refers to “support & change agents to be allocated”. If anyone would like to explain to me what a “support & change agent” is please leave a comment!
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 residents endure 11 years of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour from “hell” before Wirral Council took legal action to try to have a tenant evicted?
Why did residents endure 11 years of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour from “hell” before Wirral Council took legal action to try to have a tenant evicted?
3 pages of those invoices were for the professional fees of Mr Paul Burns of Exchange Chambers instructed by a solicitor working at Wirral Council called Ali Bayatti.
The case involved a landlord as the Claimant (Leasowe Community Homes) and a person called Danielle New as the defendant. Those details were blacked out on the pages of invoices supplied by Wirral Council, even though s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18 doesn’t allow Wirral Council to black out such details.
The Claimant (Leasowe Community Homes Ltd) had rented 81 Grant Road, Leasowe, Wirral, CH62 2RU to the tenant Danielle New for £88.44/week (which was paid by housing benefit) from the 29th April 2002.
Wirral Council were acting as the solicitors for Leasowe Community Homes Ltd. Wirral Council’s Ali Bayatti then instructed Mr Paul Burns of Exchange Chambers to deal with some of the matters in the case.
The case basically had two elements. One part was to ask the court’s for a possession order to evict Danielle New, the other part was in relation to anti-social behaviour.
There are a dozen court orders in this matter (and references to some more that I don’t have). However this case starts on the 12th August 2013 when a “Claim form for possession of property” (N5) was filed with the Birkenhead County Court (see below).
With the N5 Claim form was also attached the 4 page “Particulars of claim for possession (rented residential premises)” (form N119 see below).
Also attached was ten pages titled “Additional Particulars of Claim” (see below). These pages detail the reasons behind the case and make for interesting reading (although for the sensitive readers I will point out they contain bad language and accusations of racism)!
Danielle New contested the allegations and there are many court orders from both Birkenhead County Court and Liverpool County Court in this matter (see below). The matter didn’t go to trial. Reference is made on one of the court orders to “a detailed assessment of the defendant’s publicly funded costs”, so presumably the defendant’s legal costs were paid for through legal aid. Court orders below are in reverse chronological order.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.