What are the 21 paragraphs of reasons why Wirral Council opposes release of the Hoylake Golf Resort contract?

What are the 21 paragraphs of reasons why Wirral Council opposes release of the Hoylake Golf Resort contract?

What are the 21 paragraphs of reasons why Wirral Council opposes release of the Hoylake Golf Resort contract?

                                       

ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) logo
ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) logo

I’ll declare at the start an interest as the person who made the information request the below is about.

This is an update to two earlier blog posts, the first headlined ICO require Wirral Council to release 94 page draft agreement with Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited about Hoylake Golf Resort and the second being Wirral Council asks judiciary to intervene to keep 94 page report on Hoylake Golf Resort secret!

Below are Wirral Council’s grounds of appeal. On the first page it lists Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council as the Claimant, when they are in fact the Appellant.

The case number is EA/2017/0191 in the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber. I’ve linked certain words and phrases below such as to legislation or the decision notice. I will point out that there are parts of it I do not agree with.
Continue reading “What are the 21 paragraphs of reasons why Wirral Council opposes release of the Hoylake Golf Resort contract?”

What was the First-tier Tribunal decision (EA/2016/0033) on whether Wirral Council should have withheld some of the minutes of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting held on the 29th March 2013 in response to a Freedom of Information request?

What was the First-tier Tribunal decision (EA/2016/0033) on whether Wirral Council should have withheld some of the minutes of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting held on the 29th March 2013 in response to a Freedom of Information request?

What was the First-tier Tribunal decision (EA/2016/0033) on whether Wirral Council should have withheld some of the minutes of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting held on the 29th March 2013 in response to a Freedom of Information request?

                            

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA#47;2016#47;0033)
Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor, Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA⁄2016⁄0033 held as a whole day hearing on the 23rd June 2016)

I will start by making a declaration of interest as I was the Appellant in this case heard in June 2016 over in Liverpool.

I finally received a copy of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the case involving Wirral Council (EA/2016/0033).

Part of it is dated the 14th July 2016, but for some reason it’s taken nearly two months to send out (presumably because of the summer holidays).

I’ve linked from the decision to the original ICO decision notice FS50596346 published on ICO’s website as it makes more sense in reading both the decision in the First-tier Tribunal case and the ICO decision notice that it’s an appeal from at the same time. I’ve also linked to the edited version of the minutes released by Wirral Council around 3 years after the FOI request was first made (these minutes have been previously published on this blog).

I’ve included in this version the extra line, “On the subject of Acre Lane, David Armstrong is leading an assets review, which includes identifying a new location for the services currently provided at Acre Lane.” which was disclosed during the hearing itself and was part of the redacted part of the minutes.

At the time of writing this decision is not yet published on the First-tier Tribunal’s website but should be in the near future. There may be some minor formatting changes between the version below and the printed version (due to the differences between HTML and the printed page) although the text remains the same.

Missing from the version below is the Royal Coat of Arms on the first page (which I don’t have permission to reproduce).

The below decision (and reasons for it) were received from the First-tier Tribunal by email as I was an Appellant in the case. The other parties were the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (First Respondent) and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2nd Respondent).


ON APPEAL FROM:
The Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice No:
FS50596346

Dated: 25th. January, 2016

Appeal No. EA/2016/0033

Appellant:                 John Michael Brace (“JMB”)
First Respondent:     The Information Commissioner (“the ICO”)
Second Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“WMBC”)

Before

David Farrer Q.C.

Judge

and

Michael Hake
and
Malcolm Clarke

Tribunal Members

Date of Decision: 7th. Sept, 2016

The appellant appeared in person
The ICO did not attend but made written submissions
Robin Hopkins appeared on behalf of WMBC

Subject matter:

FOIA S. 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)

Whether the public interest in withholding the requested information outweighed the public interest in its disclosure.

DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

All parties having agreed that the exemption is engaged, the Tribunal finds that the public interest in withholding such of the requested information as remained in dispute at the hearing outweighs the public interest in its disclosure.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 14th. day of July, 2016
David Farrer Q.C.
Judge [Signed on original]

Relevant Statutory Provisions

FOIA  S.36(1) This section applies to –
 
 
. . . . . .
 
(b) information which is held by (a local authority)
 
 
(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act –
 
. . . . . .
 
(b) Would, or would be likely to, inhibit
 
(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or
(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation . . . . .
 

Abbreviations

In addition to those indicated above, the following abbreviations are used in this ruling –

The DN           The Decision Notice of the ICO.

The EIR          The Environmental Information Regulations 2004

The JCC          The Headteachers and Teachers Joint Consultative Committee.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Background

  1. WMBC is a Metropolitan Borough Council responsible for the education provided by a large number of primary and secondary schools. Like many other local authorities, it is permanently involved in inevitably controversial debates and decisions on educational issues, which arouse the concerns of elected members, teachers and head teachers, parents and the wider general public.
  2. Elected members exercise the extensive powers conferred on public authorities such as WMBC in the field of local education. Public consultation with the different interest groups identified in §1 is, however, essential to the successful functioning of any education authority. For that purpose, WMBC holds a Schools Forum at which the views of all those groups can be aired publicly. It also convenes, once per school term, the JCC, at which elected members discuss with representatives of head teachers’ and teachers’, trades unions matters of current concern. WMBC officers attend. The JCC sits in private and its minutes are circulated only to JCC members.
  3. The request

  4. JMB is a local resident and elector with a keen interest in the governance and the efficient running of WMBC which he pursues using the Hash tag “Scarlet Pimpernel”. On 29th. March, 2013 he issued a request to WMBC for the minutes of previous meetings of twenty – six panels and committees, including “15. Headteachers and Teachers JCC”. It was refused, first by reference to FOIA s.12 (cost of compliance exceeding appropriate limit) and later s.14 (vexatious requests), varied to EIR 12(4)(b).
  5. The ICO’s decision, dated 8th. September, 2014, so far as material to this appeal, was that these exemptions or exceptions could not be relied on and that WMBC must either provide the requested information or issue a response which did not rely on the rejected grounds for refusal.
  6. As regards items 15, 18, 19 and 26, WMBC again refused in a response dated 3rd. September, 2015, citing, as to 15, 18 and 19, the exemption enacted in s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). The qualified person whose opinion was obtained was Mr. Surjit Tour, WMBC’s principal legal officer and Monitoring Officer, who was consulted as to 15, 18 and 19 on a number of occasions during August and September, 2014 and whose opinion is dated 31st. October, 2014. The details of that process are immaterial, since JMB now accepts that s.36(2)(b) is engaged.
  7. Section 36 provides a qualified exemption, so that, where it is engaged, the question to be determined is whether the public interest in withholding the information is shown to be greater than the public interest in disclosure.
  8. The DN

  9. Item 26 was disclosed during the ICO’s investigation. He ordered disclosure of items 18 and 19. Disagreements as to the redaction of names on those documents were very sensibly resolved before the hearing of this appeal. As to item 15, the minutes of a JCC meeting on 13th. February, 2013, the ICO upheld WMBC’s reliance on s.36(2)(b) and ruled that the public interest favoured maintaining that exemption. JMB appealed to the Tribunal.
  10. The Appeal

  11. Whilst WMBC’s assessment of these requests may have been initially flawed, Mr. Tour conducted a review of the public interest resulting in disclosure to JMB, on 19th. May, 2016, of an edited version of the relevant JCC minutes of the meeting on 28th. February, 2013, which was just a month before the request. Those minutes were still in draft form at the date of the request. There was no evidence that their final substance differed from the draft in any material respect. Such disclosure was made without prejudice to the contention that a correct view of the balance of public interests had been taken. Disclosure went further at the hearing when the subject matter of the excised portions of the minutes was revealed.
  12. The welcome result of these developments is that the scope of this appeal was greatly narrowed. The Tribunal is concerned with the public interest in withholding or disclosing identified passages from a single set of minutes, whilst having regard to the broader issue whether there are general arguments of principle for either course.
  13. The evidence

  14. Mr. Tour and Mr. Andrew Roberts, a senior financial officer and representative of the Children and Young Persons Department on the JCC gave evidence on behalf of WMBC.
  15. Mr. Tour stated that WMBC’s principal concern was the inhibition of full and frank discussion in the JCC (s.36(2)(b)(ii)). The topics discussed were generally major contentious strategic educational issues on which members of the JCC, approaching them from very different positions, held strong diverging views. It was essential that all concerned, whether elected members or union representatives, should be assured of confidentiality. They participated with that expectation. The principal function of the JCC was to inform WMBC of current concerns among teachers and within their unions. It valued the blunt candour of many contributions, which was not replicated in the Schools Forum, where all participants knew that their words would or might be reported. The disputed extracts from the minutes in question contained robust and candid expressions of opinion, which might not emerge from a meeting known to be on the public record. Council members also expressed vigorous political opinions in the JCC.
  16. As to the modification of WMBC’s position on the minutes, Mr. Tour explained that, a further detailed examination of the minutes, over a period of time, enabled him to take a more liberal view of the public interest in withholding material. The passage of eighteen months was also a factor. However, the withheld passages contained emphatic expressions of opinion which deserved the maintenance of confidentiality.
  17. Mr. Roberts spoke from regular experience of JCC meetings. There was a shared understanding of confidentiality. The main input was generally from trades union representatives. He confirmed the circulation of the minutes, which did not go to Cabinet. He could not say whether they were circulated within the unions. He stated that they were not marked “confidential”.
  18. The topics in recent years have included such controversial issues as the Academy programme, teacher retention, funding of schools and teachers’ pay.
  19. JMB’s case

  20. The public interest in disclosure was plain. The promotion of high standards in maintained schools and decisions as to their conversion into academies were issues of fundamental importance to the community. Transparency was always a vital interest in the conduct of public affairs but nowhere more so than in education, one of the key functions of a local authority.
  21. Any representative of a teaching union should be accountable to his/her members for opinions expressed or demands made at the JCC, the meeting place for teachers and local administrators of education. Likewise, council members should be answerable to their constituents for what they said in this kind of forum. There was no justification for off – the – record exchanges on critical issues between teachers’ representatives and elected members or senior management paid by WMBC.
  22. The absence of any confidentiality marking on the minutes was significant.
  23. Other local authorities, said JMB, published such exchanges, which were evidence of good industrial relations.
  24. The public interest in confidentiality for these meetings was correspondingly slight or non – existent. If union members or councillors were really concerned at the prospect of disclosure of their contributions at the JCC, it was odd that no attempt had been made to adduce direct evidence from them. If there was, indeed, an expectation of confidentiality, it was unjustified and should be removed.
  25. There was no sound reason for members of the JCC to flinch from candour if they knew their words might be recorded in a published document.
  26. The case for WMBC

  27. Confidentiality is essential if the JCC is to function properly. Its value lies in the outspoken expression of views on important and sensitive topics, whether by teachers/ representatives or by elected members. The feedback to local and national government as to teachers’ concerns and sentiment, on an unattributable basis, is of considerable importance.
  28. The requested information may grow less sensitive with the passage of time – witness the revision of WMBC’s position on disclosure. The timing of this request was significant, however. It was made immediately after the relevant meeting and before the requested minutes had even been approved. The “safe space” argument is compelling in this case.
  29. The Reasons for our decision

  30. As indicated above, the sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is the balance of public interests, applying the test cited in §6 as related to this appeal in §9.
  31. It is accepted that the exemption provided by s.36(2)(b) is engaged. Having regard to all the evidence, we conclude that its engagement is dependent on (ii), we conclude that its engagement is dependent on      “the inhibition of the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation”
       because, as indicated in §27, we do not think that the JCC is an advisory body.
  32. The public has an obvious interest in knowing how decisions are reached or what advice is given on matters affecting every stage of education, whatever the age of the student. An important issue in this appeal is, therefore, the purpose of the JCC.
  33. It is not a forum for general public debate on educational issues. That function is performed by the aptly named Schools Forum, where the expression of opinions receives appropriate publicity. We were told and we accept that contributions from teachers and councillors tend to be more cautious than in the JCC.
  34. More importantly, the JCC is not an advisory still less a decision – making body. Its function is to permit blunt and fearless exchanges of view, often controversial and sometimes unpredictable. Such exchanges may enable council officers present to warn Cabinet, or possibly the Department of Education, of tensions and strong feelings on important questions such as the role of Academies or the morale of the local teaching profession and to do so without reference to the particular contribution of a member of the JCC. To consult is not to seek advice. The WMBC witnesses stressed the importance to a local education authority of this channel of communication. The Tribunal agrees with their assessment.
  35. JMB argued that any expression of opinion by an elected member of an authority should be accessible to the electorate and that a similar principle applies to the relationship between a trades union representative and those whose interests he/she serves. That may be a reasonable proposition where the member or representative is participating in a decision or in the tendering of formal advice or recommendations intended to influence directly a specific decision. We find that different considerations apply to a consultative committee, whose function is to promote a debate without constraints.
  36. The absence of direct evidence from JCC members as to the expectation of confidentiality is a significant but not a decisive omission. We infer from the evidence of Mr. Roberts and Mr. Tour and from our own experience that such an expectation exists. It is a feature of many bodies in which potentially conflicting interests are convened for the purpose of clarifying their differences and identifying any common ground.
  37. The absence of confidentiality markings would be relevant to questions of the public interest if, but only if, it demonstrated that WMBC’s own practice was inconsistent with its claim that there was a strong public interest in the confidentiality of JCC proceedings. We are inclined to view this rather as an administrative oversight than a reflection of the true expectations of JCC members.
  38. The restricted circulation of minutes is consistent with confidentiality. Plainly, WMBC cannot control their disclosure by a member to fellow teachers but that does not indicate that it has no concerns over publicity.
  39. These are considerations which apply to JCC minutes generally and the Tribunal acknowledges that it must have particular regard to the specific information withheld from the set of minutes with which it is concerned.
  40. We have already observed that the request was made at a time when the minutes were still in unapproved draft form. Although WMBC did not appear to attach much weight to this fact, draft minutes are generally more sensitive than the final approved version. However, this is not a decisive factor in our decision.
  41. One redaction relates to the personal data of a WMBC employee. It is accepted that such data are properly withheld for reasons unrelated to s.36(2).
  42. The other redactions involve firm expressions of opinion and closely related responses on academies, advanced skills teachers, and teachers’ pay and two short references to future changes which would require consultation. In the Tribunal’s opinion, adopting the approach already discussed, they are properly withheld. We do not consider that a Closed Annex is required to deal with them further.
  43. Conclusion

  44. In summary, the Tribunal recognizes the particular importance of transparency in the process of policy – making, locally as much as nationally, in such a vital service as education.
  45. However, we do not regard the function of the JCC as a part of that process, save in the very indirect sense already indicated.
  46. On the other hand, we see a real public value in unconstrained consultation designed to get to the core concerns of teachers, parents and elected members. We accept that the price to be paid for such an airing of opinion is confidentiality.
  47. We acknowledge some public interest in disclosure of the discussions of even a consultative committee but judge that they are clearly outweighed by the interest in maintaining the function of such as the JCC. Absent confidentiality, we conclude that the JCC would either disappear or be reduced to a largely worthless role.
  48. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
  49. Our decision is unanimous.

David Farrer Q.C.
Tribunal Judge,
7th September, 2016



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

Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?

Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?

Why am I angry at Wirral Council for allegedly breaking more laws to cover up a 3 year investigation and subsequent decision by three councillors as to why Councillor Steve Foulkes broke the Code of Conduct and should apologise for leaking information about Councillor Jeff Green to the press?

                                        

Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens

17/8/16 Amended to correct name of Phil Goodman to Peter Goodman.

Firstly, I’m cross with Wirral Council.

What is it this time you may wonder?

Well I have a long list of grievances, but not being a Wirral Council employee no formal route (ok I could bring some of these up with my trade union) to take these to a grievance hearing, nor the time or inclination at this stage to get the judiciary involved.

I’m cross at being denied (along with my wife) to be present at what I perceive to be (in part) to be a public meeting of the Standards Panel on the 28th June 2016 in Committee Room 2 at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED starting at 6.00pm.

I’m cross at being shouted at by junior public facing employees of Wirral Council who I will gladly name here from what I remember as Shirley Hudspeth (Legal and Member Services) and Peter Goodman (whatever the facilities management side of Wirral Council is called as frankly I’ve lost track of restructures? Is it infrastructure, asset management something like that?) with their view that it was a private meeting, but I’m not cross at them in a major way because I’m more cross at what I presume are their senior manager/s or senior manager/s from another department at Wirral Council who told both of them to say this to me (even though it isn’t true) as it seems a senior manager/s at Wirral Council would stoop that low as to instruct junior employees to do what they (senior manager/s) should have the guts to do face to face themselves.

I’m cross at Wirral Council for its website not working as I write this at democracy.wirral.gov.uk so I can’t include links or refer to the details. But yeah, whoever’s job it is to fix it may be on holiday.

I’m cross at a senior manager (Joe Blott) and his external legal adviser (whose name I can’t recall without checking Wirral Council’s website that isn’t working). Yes the external legal advisor is the guy in this photo as I wasn’t allowed to be at or film him at the public bit of the Standards Panel meeting (and just as an aside this law allows me to film such public meetings even if I’m not physically in the room, which I suppose next time if I’m not allowed actually in the room for a public meeting I’ll have to do the filming either through the meeting room door or from the car park outside!)

However in Joe Blott’s defence I don’t think he understood why the legal advice he got was flawed and had the external legal advisor pointed out why it was flawed he’d have had to have criticised his client (Wirral Council) which is a big no-no if he ever wants further work from Wirral Council in the future.

I’m not cross with Surjit Tour who seems to have a conflict of interest. But if he does have one, Joe Blott is supposed to deal with it!!!

I am cross with the fact that 5 clear working days notice of the date, time, agenda and reports (if not recommended to be heard in closed session) for the Standards Panel meeting on the 28th June 2016 was not given by the 20th June 2016, but instead yesterday the 3rd of August 2016.

I’m cross that a complaint about a councillor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) as to what happened in July 2013 has taken Wirral Council around three years to resolve.

I’m cross that Patricia Thynne in her report refers to myself as having filmed a Youtube video referred to when I didn’t film it and it was indeed someone else! I’m also cross with myself that relying on Patricia Thynne’s report I then left a comment on the Wirral Leaks blog only to be embarrassed into being told it is a mistake in her report.

I’ve recently learned that Cllr Gilchrist was the Chair of the Standards Panel, I’m cross that I wasn’t allowed to go to the public bit of the Standards Panel meeting where this was decided on the 28th June 2016 to find this out and had to wait around a month to know whether it was Cllr Chris Blakeley or Cllr Phil Gilchrist.

I’m cross that in messing up what’s detailed above Wirral Council is relying on a legal power that was repealed years ago.

I’m cross that for reasons of internal capacity here I didn’t take things further over what happened to us at the meeting on the 28th June 2016 whether by letter or subsequent legal action against Wirral Council.

However, moving to the complaint itself, yes I was there in the public gallery in July 2013 in the adjournment while it happened. Yes Cllr Steve Foulkes came in and spoke with Liam Murphy (referred to as Person C). Yes, I was too far away (at the other end of the public gallery to hear what they were saying). Yes I remember Mr Nigel Hobro coming in to the public gallery at this point and wanting to speak with Liam Murphy but getting the brush off.

Yes, my opinion (not that it matters really) is that I think it is fair that Cllr Foulkes should apologise.

However, isn’t it ironic that as Cllr Foulkes previously made a complaint about Cllr Chris Blakeley talking to the Liverpool Echo about whether Cllr Foulkes should be made Mayor (a complaint that Cllr Chris Blakeley was cleared of as you can read about here) that Cllr Chris Blakeley should then be on the Standards Panel to decide about a complaint about Cllr Foulkes leaking information to a Liverpool Echo journalist? Or is that just karma?

Yes Person C in the report is Liam Murphy. Yes I feel sorry for him, yes it is a breach of journalistic ethics to reveal the source of information, but by the sounds of it he (Liam Murphy) was being used by Cllr Foulkes anyway for political gain.

As to the payoff to Emma Degg, her initial silence (prompted in part it seems by the payment of public money), followed by what I presume was a guilty conscience, well at least she finally did the right thing!

As to the allegation that witnesses “colluded” to bring down Cllr Foulkes, well Patricia Thynne feels this is not credible. I will comment however that unless you are in disguise, nobody knows what you look like or in an echo chamber, it’s frankly foolish in the extreme to bring up anything confidential (whether in conversation or by passing it to them) with a journalist when you have people watching you do it, in a public place, in a public building, in the adjournment to a high-profile public meeting.

However Cllr Foulkes’ explanation is he was under a lot of pressure.

Tip for people reading this, if you want in the future to leak something to me, there’s the post (probably the most secure method), email or telephone (if you want the intelligence agencies to read/listen to it in transit) or other ways of sending it to me online.

Yes you can talk to me or hand me things in person, but there are always people watching!

I did ask Cllr Steve Foulkes in person at the end of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on the evening of Thursday 28th July 2016 to comment on the complaint. He refused to comment directly on the matter (I presume following Mr. Tour’s advice to councillors to keep their mouth shut) and referred me to Wirral Council instead.

So yes, I’m still cross and Wirral Council is finally well dealing with what should’ve been done properly the first time!!!

By first time, I don’t just mean the original complaint (that this morphed into), but what happened at the Standards Panel meeting too.

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

Why am I objecting to Wirral Council’s draft statement of accounts for the 2015/16 financial year?

Why am I objecting to Wirral Council’s draft statement of accounts for the 2015/16 financial year?

Why am I objecting to Wirral Council’s draft statement of accounts for the 2015/16 financial year?

                                       

Tom Sault (Acting Section 151 Officer) Wirral Council at the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 13th June 2016
Tom Sault (Acting Section 151 Officer) Wirral Council at the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 13th June 2016

Below is a copy of the public notice that Wirral Council has published on its website here about the period from 1st July 2016 to the 11st August 2016 when “interested persons” (which includes local government electors in the Wirral area, organisations that pay business rates in the Wirral area and those representing local government electors in the Wirral area) can inspect (amongst other things) invoices and contracts relating to the 2015/16 financial year.
Continue reading “Why am I objecting to Wirral Council’s draft statement of accounts for the 2015/16 financial year?”

What did Surjit Tour answer to questions about a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing (EA/2016/0033) (continued)?

What did Surjit Tour answer to questions about a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing (EA/2016/0033) (continued)?

What did Surjit Tour answer to questions about a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing (EA/2016/0033) (continued)?

                                                       

At the outset I will make four declarations of interests.

1) I am the Appellant in this case (EA/2016/0033).
2) My wife was my McKenzie Friend in case EA/2016/0033.
3) I made the original Freedom of Information request on the 29th March 2013.
4) I am referred to by name (Mr. Brace) in paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the witness statement of Andrew Roberts.


Hearing: EA/2016/0033
Court/Room: Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor
Address: 35 Vernon St, Liverpool, Merseyside L2 2BX
Date/time: 16th June 2016 10:15 am

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (General Regulatory Chamber)
First-tier Tribunal Judge Mr. David Farrer QC
First-tier Tribunal Member Mr. Michael Hake
First-tier Tribunal Member Dr. Malcolm Clarke

Appellant: Mr John Brace
First Respondent: ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office)
Second Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council


The below is an incomplete record written up from my handwritten notes made at the hearing. The below does not cover some of the sections when I am speaking due to the difficulties in taking notes as doing that you end up facing the paper you’re writing on.



Continues from What did Andrew Roberts answer to questions about the Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing (EA/2016/0033) (continued)?

Surjit Tour’s 11 A4 page witness statement can be read here.


Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016

Continue reading “What did Surjit Tour answer to questions about a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) hearing (EA/2016/0033) (continued)?”