The day democracy and freedom of the press died at Wirral Council: 28th October 2014 (part 2)

The day democracy and freedom of the press died at Wirral Council: 28th October 2014 (part 2)

The day democracy and freedom of the press died at Wirral Council: 28th October 2014 (part 2)

                                      

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at a public meeting earlier this year L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at a public meeting earlier this year L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

There’s been a lot of readers of yesterday’s blog post titled The day democracy and freedom of the press died at Wirral Council: 28th October 2014.

There was one A4 page handed out to those present at the meeting which was about the Youth Voice Conference 2014. Obviously it would have been interesting to have on video politicians, officers and a young person’s response to these issues raised at the Youth Voice Conference, but considering the politically sensitive nature of some of these issues one can fully understand why there was an effort before the meeting began not to have it filmed, audio taped or photographed.

As one section of it mentions the media, I had better declare an interest in this as a member of the media. As well as politics I also write about video games, so I’d better declare that too. Below is the text of the 1 A4 page handout circulated to the committee, councillors, officers and others present at the public meeting.

Copies of what is below were handed out during the meeting itself by Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children’s Services), as the Youth and Play Service Advisory Committee, unlike many other public meetings of politicians at Wirral Council doesn’t have Wirral Council officers from Legal and Member Services assigned to it to deal with such matters. It’s “served” by officers from Wirral Council’s Children and Young People’s Department (or whatever it’s called these days) instead who take a different view on some matters to that of Legal and Member Services.

===================================================================================================================

Youth Voice Conference 2014

HOT SEAT PANEL QUESTIONS & ISSUES RAISED BY YOUNG PEOPLE

Understanding Autism

  • If you cut resources how will young people on the autistic spectrum be supported in education and employment as currently only 1 in 6 people with autism end up in full-time employment?
  • How can we all work together on the Wirral to have a better understanding of Autism, allowing us to help and support our peers who are on the autistic spectrum?

Dealing with homophobia

  • More help and support is needed on understanding homophobia.
  • More adverts in schools about organisations that can help LGBT young people are needed.
  • A young peoples training group needs to be established to deliver training is schools and other organisations.
  • Accessible and gender neutral toilets are needed in schools and youth units.
  • How do we deal with hate crimes committed by young people?
  • More LGBT safe spaces are needed.

Media literacy

Proposal

  • Wirral Borough Council only uses real people or images in any of their adverts or publications and should promote natural beauty.

Other questions –

  • What regulations exist to address the sexualisation of young people and the impact/pressure resulting in eating disorders?
  • Why are there no limits on the amount of photoshop imaging that is used in the media?

Dealing with loss and Change

  • How will young people with emotional health and well-being issues receive support following the proposed cuts to services?

Social Isolation – caused by social media and Gaming

  • How do the police moderate social media and the propaganda targeted at young people?
    Does Public Health have a strategy regarding social media and the negative effects it has on young people’s health and well-being?

===================================================================================================================

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

4 week consultation on closure of Lyndale School starts: does Wirral Council really know how many pupils are there?

4 week consultation on closure of Lyndale School starts: does Wirral Council really know how many pupils are there?

4 week consultation on closure of Lyndale School starts: does Wirral Council really know how many pupils are there?

                                                                  

Councillor Phil Gilchrist explains his amendment on the minority report on Lyndale School to councillors, officers and the public 2nd October 2014 Council Chamber, Wallasey Town Hall (c) John Brace
Councillor Phil Gilchrist explains his amendment on the minority report on Lyndale School to councillors, officers and the public 20th October 2014 Council Chamber, Wallasey Town Hall (c) John Brace

Following the Council meeting on the 20th October 2014 when Labour councillors voted to go ahead to the next stage on closure of Lyndale School, Wirral Council started on the 22nd October 2014 its four-week consultation on closure which finishes on 19th November 2014. After this consultation is finished, the results of this consultation will be reported back to Wirral Council’s Cabinet.

Proposal to cease to maintain the Lyndale School

Complete Proposal

You can also ask for copies of the proposals by calling 0151 606 2020 during office hours or writing to:

Julia Hassall
Director of Children’s Services
Hamilton Building
Conway Street
Birkenhead
CH41 4FD

The above files I’ve linked to are the new files in this current consultation.

You can respond to the consultation in one of two ways, either by email to specialreview@wirral.gov.uk or by mail to:

Julia Hassall
Director of Children’s Services
Hamilton Building
Conway Street
Birkenhead
CH41 4FD

I am unsure at this stage which Cabinet meeting the outcome of this four-week consultation on the closure of Lyndale School will go to. At the time of writing the following Cabinet meetings are scheduled for after the end of the consultation:

27th November 2014 | Special Meeting, Cabinet | Committee Room 1 – Wallasey Town Hall | starting at 6.15pm
9th December 2014 | Cabinet | Committee Room 1 – Wallasey Town Hall | starting at 6.15pm

Personally as the 27th November is a special meeting and occurs exactly one week and a day after the consultation ends, I would guess that this will be the public meeting at which the outcome of the second consultation and a further decision will be made. As agendas and reports have to be published at least a week before holding a Cabinet meeting, 27th November 2014 would be the earliest date it could be held.

However if this matter is called in after the Cabinet decision after the consultation and there are more delays in the process taking it past February 2015, it would make setting the 2015-16 Schools Budget problematic.

The reason is that if a final decision on closure is not made before February 2015, a contingency of funding Lyndale School from the proposed date of closure (January 1st 2016) to the end of that financial year (March 2016) would have to be added to the schools budget for 2015-16 of ~£140,000.

There are legal limits on when the 2015-16 Schools Budget has to be decided by and as there were delays earlier this year, I can see the next stages moving as fast as is humanly possible at Wirral Council (which when you do things as fast as you possibly can inevitably leads to mistakes).

However I would like to point out that the current consultation has at least one contradictory fact in Surjit Tour’s letter to me of the 30th September 2014 (although Mr. Tour obviously has to rely on what he’s told and take it at face value as I seriously doubt (although I could of course be wrong) that Mr. Tour visited Lyndale School and started asking children how old they are). I’ll explain what I mean (with references):

Here is the 13 page response from Mr. Tour. In it he states:

“8. Background

8.1 Lyndale School is a special school providing specialist educational provision for primary aged pupils, the majority of whom have Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”). There are 21 pupils currently on the roll, nine of whom will be transitioning to secondary school by the end of the 2015/16 academic year. The declining number of students admitted to Lyndale over recent years has drawn into question The Lyndale’s financial viability for the future.”

When I read Surjit Tour’s reply a few weeks ago, I thought it a bit odd that out of the eight year groups at Lyndale School, that almost half the school (nine out of twenty-one) would be in the final year and therefore leave to secondary school in September 2015 and not be affected by the proposals to close it. It seemed unusual at the time.

Mr. Tour repeatedly states throughout his letter that I have not provided evidence of my facts. However the evidence that proves him wrong on this was in fact published by Wirral Council on the 22nd October 2014 as part of the current consultation. Here is the table published as part of the Complete Proposal. The table is Pupil admissions and numbers.

F1 F2 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Total
October
2014

Boys
Girls

3

2
1

1

0
1

3

1
2

2

2
0

3

3
0

1

1
0

6

2
4

2

1
1

21

12
9

December
2015

Boys
Girls

0



3

2
1

1

0
1

3

1
2

2

2
0

3

3
0

1

1
0

6

2
4

19

11
8

Number in each year group in December 2015 assumes that all current pupils remain on roll, that no new children are admitted to F1 (Nursery) in September 2015, and that no further children join or leave other year groups from October 2014 onwards.

As you can see from the table above there are two children (one boy and one girl) in year 6 at Lyndale School who will start at a secondary school in September 2015, not nine as claimed by Surjit Tour in his letter.

This then has an effect on other numbers used in his letter.

According to Surjit Tour 21-9 = 12 (twelve pupils left in September 2015)
According to Julia Hassall 21-2 = 19 (nineteen pupils left in September 2015)

So who do I trust to give the correct figure for pupils at the Lyndale School? The Head of Legal and Member Services (Surjit Tour) or the Director of Children’s Services (Julia Hassall)? They can’t both be right, can they?

On the balance of probabilities because:

a) Julia Hassall actually works in the area of Wirral Council with responsibility for schools
b) that it seems highly unlikely that nine of the twenty-one pupils at Lyndale School (spanning eight year groups) would be in the last year group

I’m veering towards believing Ms Hassall (although I never really relish taking sides when two people in Wirral Council’s senior management team are giving out contradictory information).

There is also the point that someone could have misread the table above and used the total number of girls presently at the school (nine) instead of the number of pupils in year six (two) and given that information to Surjit Tour to use in his letter.

Isn’t it weird though that when Wirral Council makes a mistake like this, it always coincides with their world view of a “small school” (in this case seven pupils less than it actually is)?

If Wirral Council can’t get basic facts such as how many pupils of what age are at Lyndale School right, is it any wonder that there are problems of trust between those associated with Lyndale School and Wirral Council?

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

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

                                                                                      

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

I wrote yesterday about “Is Lyndale School under threat just so Wirral Council can provide a further £2 million to a company that already has plenty?” , so I thought today I’d write a little more on the topic.

Last year, Wirral Council wanted to introduce a banding system for the extra costs at special schools. However at the last-minute they withdraw their application to the Secretary of State to do this.

Despite the fact it actually couldn’t be implemented in 2013-14, the policy was agreed by a close 8:7 vote at a call in meeting back in February 2014, so if it gets implemented next year for band 5 children at Wirral Schools the top up element for band 5 children is capped at £16,000 (this is in addition to the £10,000 each school receives per a child).

If however a child with special needs based on the Wirral is at a school outside Wirral or at an independent special school (such as West Kirby Residential School) on the Wirral this £16,000 upper limit at least by my reading of the policy doesn’t apply.

When questioned at the Coordinating Committee meeting on October 2nd 2014 and asked to explain this unfairness, David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) explained that because independent schools are run as a business, Wirral Council pay more to independent schools because such businesses are run to make a profit.

I used to go to an independent school, called St. Anselm’s College. Between the ages of 12 and 14 the school complained bitterly at people like myself whose places were funded by Wirral Council because we were all told many times that the school got (if memory serves me correct nearly 20 years later so I may be a little rusty on the figure) £100 per a term less than this was actually costing them and this meant in effect they had to cross subsidise the education of people like myself by putting fees up. Across about 35 pupils, this was a deficit of about £10,000 a year at 1992 prices.

The school felt (or maybe influential parents on the board of governors felt) it was unfair to expect the well off parents to subsidise the education of other students and they chose to opt out of the local system becoming grant maintained in the mid 1990s (as grant maintained schools no longer exist it is now called an academy).

In other words even when I was actually a child in the Wirral education system (and too young to vote), I was being made aware of how angry (and let’s face it political) schools got at Wirral Council’s funding formula a whole two decades ago! This may sound awful to write like this but to a lot of large schools, each child at the school meant £x,xxx a year, which meant management trying to balance the books each year veered towards seeing children as a source of income and forgot that people prefer to be treated as people and not a line on a balance sheet. Each year children got old enough to leave, so there was the usual advertising in the local newspapers and open evenings each year to try and persuade parents to pick that particular school for their children.

That is the mistake that I sadly feel politicians and upper management at Wirral Council have made. It is very easy to just see Lyndale School as a line on a balance sheet and that there’s an underspend in the budget for closing schools and try and spend that budget. The debate has sadly got too much about money and dare I write the unthinkable “nobody really understands the full complexities of education funding anyway”?

It’s harder to look at the social fabric of what makes up a school, not just the staff and children at it but its place in the community. To give one example of this there’s the history of a school and the fond place in the hearts of people who no longer have children there but did at one stage. These are not factors that can never truly be measured by accountants at Wirral Council. Unlike other consultations, the consultation responses made to the Lyndale School closure weren’t published by Wirral Council, although you can read them as an exclusive on this blog.

In the recent past there was a move to close Ridgeway High School (a secondary school) here in Birkenhead. Ridgeway was the controversial political issue back then (I even remember speaking on TV about it), there was a large petition of thousands against closure handed in to Wirral Council and a call in meeting held in the Council Chamber which a lot of people associated with the school attended. It was controversial, but in the end in 2009 the Labour/Lib Dem Cabinet did a U-turn and Rock Ferry closed instead. The rest as they say is history.

Back then Cllr Phil Davies was the Cabinet Member for Education and was quoted as saying this about that U-turn in the Liverpool Echo, he said that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Ridgeway that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”

In the interests of balance I will point out the same article has a quote from Cllr Stuart Kelly saying he is “delighted” and this quote from Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Ridgeway created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”

Now, five years later when somebody else is Cabinet Member for Education (Cllr Tony Smith) and Cllr Phil Davies is Leader of the Council where have those fine principles of pragmatism that Cllr Phil Davies displayed back in 2009 gone? Where is the politician’s desire to actually represent the views of thousands of people that signed a petition against closure of Lyndale? Try replacing Ridgeway in those quotes with Lyndale and you will get the following two quotes (the kind of words I’m sure plenty of people wish Cllr Phil Davies would actually say):

Cllr Phil Davies that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Lyndale that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”

and Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Lyndale created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”

Certainly if those words were said today (and for the sake of everyone involved in this let’s hope something similar is said in the near future!), Cllr Jeff Green’s position would seem to be entirely consistent over time if you compare Ridgeway in 2009 to now. Ridgeway of course is and was back then a much larger school that Lyndale is, so therefore had the clout back then and political influence to make sure it was never closed.

Why does the Cllr Phil Davies of 2014 over Lyndale not display the same sense of pragmatism he showed over Ridgeway in 2009? What’s happened in the last five years? I know U-turns are embarrassing for politicians to make, but he should take a really long, hard look at one of his predecessors as Leader of the Council Cllr Steve Foulkes who refused to U-turn on library closures until the Minister launched a public inquiry and learn the lesson that that it can be disastrous for the Labour Group’s reputation to rely on the “professional” advice of Wirral Council officers and listen to those Wirral Council officers more than the views of many Wirral residents. Aren’t politicians supposed to be there to represent the public in the political process?

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

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

                                                   

Knowsley Council filming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 19th September 2014
Knowsley Council filming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 19th September 2014

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 1) agenda items 1-8

At the time of writing Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee will be meeting tonight (22nd September 2014 starting at 6pm in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall) and as well as the emotive issue of car parking (you can read the report of officers and report of the seven councillors who looked into it on Wirral Council’s website, item ten is a verbal update on scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

I was present at the meeting on Friday morning of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority which both myself and Knowsley Council filmed. For a bit of background Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council’s population is half the size of Wirral and all of its 63 councillors since 2012 are from the Labour Party.

Thanks in part to a retweet by the Liverpool Local Enterprise Partnership of a tweet on Knowsley Council’s Twitter account (with ~7,000 followers) and Councillor Phil Davies mentioning it during the meeting itself, Knowsley’s video footage of the meeting uploaded at about 4pm that day has had 129 views. This compares to a total of 21 views of our footage (which is in two parts of the same meeting but unlike Knowsley’s in higher quality HD).

Going briefly into the history of filming at Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meetings, I made a request to film the first meeting held on April 1st 2014 (the request was refused by Knowsley’s Chief Executive Sheena Ramsey as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution puts this decision in the hand of an officer, specifically the Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council). After that meeting, the Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson then went and briefed the Liverpool Echo about how upset he was at not being picked at Chair instead of Wirral Council’s Leader Cllr Phil Davies.

Possibly as a result of this, the next meeting (when they had to pick a Chair again as it was the Annual General Meeting), on the 13th June 2014 the meeting was broadcast live on the internet in HD by Knowsley Council as a Google Hangout. In the interest of transparency at this point I will point out at this point that I receive a small amount from Google in advertising on Youtube videos I’ve filmed. Once again my request to film this meeting was again refused (somewhat strangely considering that Knowsley Council filmed the meeting and broadcast it live).

On August 6th 2014, as regulars readers of this blog will know, the law changed on the issue. A week later a report of Knowsley Council’s Chief Executive proposed a policy on filming which was agreed to by their Leader Ron Round. This decision was made by their Leader as a delegated decision. However the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is a separate body to Knowsley Council.

Obviously they couldn’t stop me filming the meeting last Friday. However a Knowsley Council officer before the meeting referred to the part (still in Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s constitution) that allows their Chief Executive to refuse requests to film. However if they actually did so now it would be unlawful and therefore the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution should be changed to prevent confusion. I did suggest a change, but the response back from the officer concerned was that they won’t recommend to politicians a change the Liverpool City Region Authority’s constitution which is partly why a Scrutiny Panel for the Combined Authority is needed as a check and balance! The Knowsley Council officer I talked to before the meeting did tell me that a policy on filming (although never formally agreed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) had been agreed “that morning” and surprise, surprise is the same as Knowsley Council’s policy on the matter.

Even Liverpool City Council have amended their constitution and agreed a new policy on filming of their public meetings last week at a meeting of all their councillors on the 17th September, following a meeting of their Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September which was attended and filmed by myself.

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 2) agenda items 8-16 (Scrutiny Panel item starts at 1m 55s in this clip)

However back to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, there has been criticism of it by some councillors as it is a “one party state” as it comprises the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside (plus the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership) and all the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside are all from the Labour Party.

What was agreed on Friday morning by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (the report can be read here was creating a scrutiny panel and appointments of councillors to this scrutiny panel have already been made by the Merseyside councils. The first meeting of the Scrutiny Panel is planned for the 19th October, although there will be a training session before that for councillors on it on the 26th September. I presume it will run along similar lines to the Merseytravel Committee (which is since April part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority).

There will be fourteen councillors on the Scrutiny Panel for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Two are nominated from each council on Merseyside, with two extra places to represent opposition parties (one of these two opposition places being Councillor John Hale from Wirral Council to represent the Conservatives and the other, Councillor Haydn Preece from Sefton to represent the Liberal Democrats). The two Labour representatives from Wirral Council are Councillor Anita Leech (Labour) and Councillor Mike Sullivan (Labour).

I’m sure councillors will hear something similar in the verbal update given at tonight’s meeting about scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

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

Bins, Biffa, page 59, Wirral Council, “Confidential Information” and what you’re not supposed to know (yet)

Bins, Biffa, page 59, Wirral Council, “Confidential Information” and what you’re not supposed to know (yet)

Bins, Biffa, page 59, Wirral Council, “Confidential Information” and what you’re not supposed to know (yet)

                                               

I was reading through the Biffa contract (who get paid ~£12 million a year for collecting bins and other things) and this interesting snippet about Freedom of Information and Data Protection caught my eye on page 59. I haven’t made any FOI requests for the yearly CO2 emissions of bin lorries but this is how such a request would be dealt with if someone were to do so. This is probably only of interest to those who work in this area such as the media, FOI practitioners and of limited interest to the public, so apologies if I’m getting boring! Contractor in the contract refers to Biffa Waste Services Limited. At 4.61.2.3 I couldn’t help but laugh at the bit about time for compliance for FOI requests considering Wirral Council’s track record and my recent decision notice from ICO on that matter.

The “absolute discretion” bit in 4.61.3 is very interesting as quite often local councils refuse to release information about companies and contracts on commercial sensitivity grounds saying well we’d like to give you this information but company X won’t let us.

Last Thursday (11th September 2014) Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to ask Kevin Adderley to enter into negotiations with Biffa over extending this ~£12 million/year contract from 2020 to 2027 without putting it out to tender. However an extra clause was added over value for money. Mr. Adderley was asked to report back to a future Cabinet meeting on the outcome of negotiations.

However the contract does state that if Wirral Council wish to extend the contract from 2020 to 2027 they don’t have to tell Biffa this until on or before 21st August 2019. So why the big rush other than to pander to Biffa’s commercial interests and damage Wirral Council’s?

Well from what was said at the Cabinet meeting Biffa Waste Services Limited have offered Wirral Council “incentives” on the current contract (which runs to 2020) if Wirral Council agree to a seven-year contract extension and don’t put it out to competitive tender when it expires in 2020.

Extending the contract by seven years is effectively making a decision that will tie the hands of future administrations (of whatever party or parties) at Wirral Council. However I’m sure (if officers are doing their job properly) that what I’ve just written is the kind of details that were in the exempt appendices for last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting. The Labour politicians on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided that the public aren’t really supposed to know about it (which is why the press and public got chucked out of the public meeting before those appendices were decided despite the public interest test arguably being in favour of such stuff being in the public domain).

Another factor to consider is that from November 2014 Wirral Council will be under a legal duty to publish such contracts (we here have a copy of the very long contract as part of the 2013/14 audit but it would probably take me about a day of work just to publish a fraction of it as it is very, very, very long) and from November 2014 invoices. Hence I’m sure Biffa are keen to have it extended by seven years, before people like the Rt Hon Frank Field MP start referring to them again (see the last Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting for that) and anyone kicks up more of a fuss! Oh dear, have I let an awful lot of cats out of the bag yet again?

======================================================================================================================

4.61 Freedom of Information and Data Protection

4.61.1 The Contractor acknowledges that the Council is subject to the requirements of the FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations and shall assist and cooperate with the Council (at the Contractor’s expense) to enable the Council to comply with Information disclosure requirements.

4.61.2 The Contractor shall and shall procure that its sub-contractors shall:

4.61.2.1 Transfer a Request for Information to the Council as soon as practicable after receipt and in any event within two Working Days of receiving a Request for Information;

4.61.2.2 Provide the Council with a copy of all Information in its possession or power in the form that the Council requires within five Working Days (or such other period as the Council may specify) of the Council requesting that Information; and

4.61.2.3 Provide all necessary assistance as reasonably requested by the Council to enable the Council to respond to a Request for Information within the time for compliance set out in section 10 of the FOIA or Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations.

4.61.3 The Council shall be responsible for determining at its absolute discretion whether:-

4.61.3.1 The Information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations;

4.61.3.2 The Information is to be disclosed in response to a Request for Information, and

4.61.3.3 In no event shall the Contractor respond directly to a Request for Information unless expressly authorised to do so by the Council.

4.61.4 The Contractor acknowledge that the Council may, acting in accordance with the FOIA, or the Environmental Information Regulations disclose Information:-

4.61.4.1 Without consulting with the Contractor, or

4.61.4.2 Following consultation with the Contractor and having taken its views into account.

4.61.5 The Contractor acknowledges that any lists or schedules provided by it outlining Confidential Information are of indicative value only and that the Council may nevertheless be obliged to disclose Confidential Information in accordance with Clause 4.60.2.1.6.3.

4.61.6 The Contractor shall ensure that all information produced in the course of the Contract relating to the Contract is retained for disclosure and shall permit the Council to inspect such records as requested from time to time.

======================================================================================================================

Biffa Waste Services Limited contract Wirral Council page 59
Biffa Waste Services Limited contract Wirral Council page 59
Biffa Waste Services Limited contract Wirral Council page 25
Biffa Waste Services Limited contract Wirral Council page 25

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