Tag: Liverpool City Council

What are 10 invoices paid by Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority totalling £4,758,470.23 for?

What are 10 invoices paid by Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority totalling £4,758,470.23 for?

What are 10 invoices paid by Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority totalling £4,758,470.23 for?

                                

Below are ten A4 images of invoices I requested during the 2015-16 audit of Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (that goes by the name of Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority).

They are in order from Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd, Veolia ES Merseyside & Halton Limited, FCC Recycling (UK) Limited, Wirral Council, JLT Speciality Limited and Liverpool City Council.

Some are for payments made to do with contracts, the one with Wirral Council is to do with a loan (MRDF stands for Merseyside Residual Debt Fund which MWDA’s share of the former Merseyside County Council’s debts), insurance and business rates to Liverpool City Council for the Gilmoss Waste Transfer Station in Stonebridge Lane.

Amounts for these invoices are for £2,136,797.83, £1,253,141.93, £650,990.21, £472,906.96, £182,600, £37,741.30 and £24,892 (total £4,758,470.23).

However, a good proportion of that ~£4.8 million is VAT as well as a small amount of insurance premium tax. Interestingly one of the invoices shows they are already processing kitchen waste in February 2015, which is part of a 6 week Wirral Council consultation on introducing kitchen waste collections to the Wirral as well as changes to the green bin collections.

I will point however that the costs of dealing with waste on these invoices is at the county level of Merseyside (possibly with Halton added too). Wirral Council’s share will be a fraction of what the total costs are).

Matters involving the current consultation by Wirral Council on food waste and changes to the green bin collection were recently the subject of a call in public meeting (26th July 2016) when opposition councillors requested that the Cabinet decision be reviewed. You can watch footage from that meeting below which discusses the proposed changes to the green bin collections and proposed new food waste collection.

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.

Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 26th July 2016 Call in of Cabinet decision on consultation on green bins and food waste

0 Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd £2136797.83 Landfill Services Contract Page 1 of 1 February 2015
0 Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd £2136797.83 Landfill Services Contract Page 1 of 1 February 2015
1 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £1253141 93 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 1 of 2 March 2015
1 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £1253141 93 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 1 of 2 March 2015
2 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £1253141.93 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 2 of 2 March 2015
2 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £1253141.93 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 2 of 2 March 2015
3 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £6509901.21 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 1 of 2 February 2015 min
3 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £6509901.21 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 1 of 2 February 2015 min
4 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £6509901.21 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 2 of 2 February 2015
4 Veolia ES Merseyside and Halton Limited £6509901.21 Waste Management and Recycling Contract Page 2 of 2 February 2015
5 FCC Recycling (UK) Limited £472906.96 Interim Waste Services Management Agreement Page 1 of 1 February 2015
5 FCC Recycling (UK) Limited £472906.96 Interim Waste Services Management Agreement Page 1 of 1 February 2015
6 Wirral Council £182600 MRDF 2nd instalment 14 15 Page 1 of 1
6 Wirral Council £182600 MRDF 2nd instalment 14 15 Page 1 of 1
7 JLT Speciality Limited £37741.30 Comined Liability Insurance Page 1 of 1
7 JLT Speciality Limited £37741.30 Comined Liability Insurance Page 1 of 1
8 Liverpool City Council £248965 non domestic rates Gilmoss Waste Transfer Station Page 1 of 2
8 Liverpool City Council £248965 non domestic rates Gilmoss Waste Transfer Station Page 1 of 2
9 Liverpool City Council £248965 non domestic rates Gilmoss Waste Transfer Station Page 2 of 2
9 Liverpool City Council £248965 non domestic rates Gilmoss Waste Transfer Station Page 2 of 2

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

Labour councillors reject Green Party proposal to reduce Mayor of Liverpool’s Allowance by £89,000 over a 4 year period

Labour councillors reject Green Party proposal to reduce Mayor of Liverpool’s Allowance by £89,000 over a 4 year period

                                        

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.

Video of Liverpool City Council’s Annual Meeting held on the 25th May 2016 at Liverpool Town Hall (Part 2 of 2) Agenda items 4 to 17 | Agenda item 11 (Scheme of Members Allowances) 2016/17 starts at 6 minutes 33 seconds

At the second meeting of Liverpool City Council after the May elections, councillors (and the Mayor of Liverpool) met to decide on how much they’d be paid for the 2016/17 year.

The report from the Independent Remuneration Panel also included the Members Allowances Scheme for 2015/16 for reference. There was also a separate report to be considered affecting councillors (and the elected Mayor) on the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel.

The report made the following recommendations (which I am summarising below):

1) That the allowances for councillors should all be increased by 1% effective from the 25th May 2016,

2) That no changes be made to the Special Responsibility Allowances and that this be the same in 2016/17 as it was in 2015/16 and

3) That the report from the Independent Remuneration Panel about councillors (and the elected Mayor of Liverpool) on the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel be noted.

This is a transcript of what was said during that agenda item.

Continue reading “Labour councillors reject Green Party proposal to reduce Mayor of Liverpool’s Allowance by £89,000 over a 4 year period”

Liverpool City Council awards Freedom of the City posthumously to the 96 killed at Hillsborough

Liverpool City Council awards Freedom of the City posthumously to the 96 killed at Hillsborough

                                          

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.

Cllr Richard Kemp speaking about the subject of Hillsborough at an Extraordinary meeting of Liverpool City Council on the 25th May 2016
Cllr Richard Kemp speaking about the subject of Hillsborough at an Extraordinary meeting of Liverpool City Council on the 25th May 2016

Above is video of the special meeting of Liverpool City Council held on the 25th May 2016 where Freedom of the City was awarded posthumously to the 96 people who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. The reason for awarding them Freedom of the City was described as, “To recognise the place of the 96 Hillsborough victims in the history of the City of Liverpool, who went to a football match, but never returned.”

Liverpool City Council also awarded Freedom of the City to four others involved with the campaigning to see justice and/or support to the families of the 96 unlawfully killed. These people were Kenny Dalglish MBE, Marina Dalglish MBE, The Right Reverend Bishop James Jones and Professor Phil Scraton.

Each of the names of the ninety-six who died were read out individually at the meeting and politicians also gave speeches about the issue of Hillsborough and the reason behind the awards.

The BBC were also present at the meeting and the award of Freedom of the City to these people was mentioned in the evening regional TV news bulletin North West tonight.

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

Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report

Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report

                                           

Mayor Joe Anderson speaking at a meeting of Liverpool City Council (8th April 2015)
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking at a meeting of Liverpool City Council

Edited 20th April 2016 by John Brace to add in missing closing parenthesis.

The author of this piece is the Appellant in two cases before the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). These are John Michael Brace v Information Commissioner & Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (EA/2016/0033) and John Brace v Information Commissioner & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (EA/2016/0054).

Liverpool City Council have taken the step of appealing to the First Tier-Tribunal (Information Rights) a decision notice of the regulator ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office). The decision notice required Liverpool City Council to provide the draft report in response to a request. However due to the appeal, the outcome of the appeal will determine whether Liverpool City Council have to release the draft report.

The case is listed as case number EA/2016/0084. The decision notice issued on the 8th March 2016 (FER0601794 (which can be viewed on ICO’s website)) is about an Environmental Information Regulations request for a draft Mott McDonald report to Liverpool City Council about Liverpool’s bus lanes. The title of the report is Liverpool Transport Corridors & Bus Lane Suspension.

Had the decision not been appealed, Liverpool City Council would’ve had to release the draft report before polling day (5th May 2016) in the combined elections for local councillor, Mayor of Liverpool and Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.

Liverpool City Council disagree that the draft report should be released on an alleged claim of commercial confidentiality and an alleged claim of adverse impact on those who supplied information to Mott McDonald. The Information Commissioner’s view is that Liverpool City Council have failed to show that these exceptions are engaged.

The final report can be read on Liverpool City Council’s website.

The suspension of various bus lanes in Liverpool has been unpopular with at least one major bus company who stated at a public meeting that it has affected the punctuality of buses on the affected routes. The representative of the bus company also called for the bus lane suspensions to be reversed.

The decision by the Labour administration on Liverpool City Council to proceed with the suspension of the bus lanes was opposed by the Green Party opposition on Liverpool City Council.

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

Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?

Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?

                                                     

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

A long time ago I made a FOI request to Liverpool City Council that resulted in ICO decision notice FS50591795 dated the 1st February 2016.

As it states in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that decision notice:

“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

  • Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

However 35 calendar days after the decision notice was yesterday and no “fresh response” has been issued.

You can see from yourself on the whatdotheyknow.com website that the last response received from Liverpool City Council was in June 2015.

So below is my response to Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer about the lack of compliance with this decision notice.

To: "McLoughlin, Janette" <Jeanette.McLoughlin@liverpool.gov.uk>

Dear Janette McLoughlin,

I write to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer for Liverpool City Council.

A copy of ICO decision notice FS50591795 issued on the 1st February 2016 is attached to this email for reference. Please note that this is an enforcement notice, see s.52 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The enforcement notice states in paragraphs 3 and 4,

“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

No fresh response has been issued within 35 calendar days of the decision notice.

Liverpool City Council has failed to comply with the decision notice, which is a breach of s.54(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please could this matter be rectified as soon as possible.

As you are Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer, I am also requesting that you write a report to the executive of Liverpool City Council (see s.5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) as Liverpool City Council’s lack of response would appear to constitute a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A report would be useful so that lessons were learnt and there isn’t a repeat of this in the future.

I will also be contacting the regulator (the Information Commissioner’s Office) today about this matter.

Yours sincerely,
—
John Brace

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