What did the public ask the 4 MPs on the House of Commons Transport Committee in Liverpool yesterday?

What did the public ask the 4 MPs on the House of Commons Transport Committee in Liverpool yesterday?

What did the public ask the 4 MPs on the House of Commons Transport Committee in Liverpool yesterday?

                                    

Transport Committee (House of Commons) Question and Answer Session Right Lilian Greenwood MP (Chair, Nottingham South) left Daniel Zeichner MP (Cambridge), Mann Island, Liverpool 14th January 2019
Transport Committee (House of Commons) Question and Answer Session Right Lilian Greenwood MP (Chair, Nottingham South) left Daniel Zeichner MP (Cambridge), Mann Island, Liverpool 14th January 2019

The House of Commons Transport Committee visited Liverpool yesterday to hear a formal evidence session from witnesses from Merseytravel, Arriva and Stagecoach. Unfortunately their link video recording link didn’t work and their session is only at the time of publication available in audio which can be listened to here. Although I was present for part of that, I’m not permitted to film it although it was interesting to see how scrutiny by Members of Parliament is different to scrutiny by councillors.

However I did film the later public question and answer session which was well attended by the public and raised a whole range of very interesting transport issues.
Continue reading “What did the public ask the 4 MPs on the House of Commons Transport Committee in Liverpool yesterday?”

Wirral Council’s councillors decided on backdated pay rises for 4 councillors costing an extra £34,226 a year!

Wirral Council’s councillors decided on backdated pay rises for 4 councillors costing an extra £34,226 a year!

Wirral Council’s councillors decided on backdated pay rises for 4 councillors costing an extra £34,226 a year!

                                          

Councillor Steve Foulkes (centre) 16th October 2017 voting to give himself a backdated £10,108 pay rise
Councillor Steve Foulkes (centre) 16th October 2017 voting to give himself a backdated £10,108 pay rise

Wirral Council councillors on Monday evening voted to give four councillors a backdated pay rise costing Wirral Council an extra £34,226 a year.

Councillors from Wirral Council (Councillors Abbey, Foulkes, Rowlands and Jerry Williams) on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee (formerly called the Merseytravel Committee) will now receive a backdated basic allowance for their work on the Transport Committee annually of £5,675 each.

On top of the basic allowance of £5,675 (backdated to May) three councillors received extra amounts too. Cllr Les Rowlands received an extra £2,660 as Opposition Spokesperson, Cllr Steve Foulkes an extra £4,433 as Lead Member for Finance and Organisational Development and Cllr Ron Abbey an extra £4,433 as Lead Member for Bus.

A report of the Independent Panel on Member’s Allowances stated that prior to May “the allowances paid to the four Wirral Members were paid by the Council and reimbursed by Merseytravel” but went on to explain that after May 2017 Merseytravel would no longer do this and it would become a decision for individual councils.

Despite a legal requirement to publish the total amounts Wirral Council pays to individual councillors as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of a year it appears from this page on Wirral Council’s website that it has not yet done so for the 2016-17 year.

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.

Council (Wirral Council) 16th October 2017 Agenda item 11C Members Allowance Scheme

Earlier in the same public meeting, councillors heard from UNISON trade union representative Paddy Cleary who supported a Notice of Motion that called for the “immediate end of public sector pay restraint”.

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

3 video clips of councillors and Community Patrol outside the Wirral count for the Claughton byelection and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election

3 video clips of councillors and Community Patrol outside the Wirral count for the Claughton byelection and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election

3 video clips of councillors and Community Patrol outside the Wirral count for the Claughton byelection and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election

                            

Councillor Stuart Kelly (Counting Agent - Claughton) 5th May 2017 outside Wirral Tennis and Sports Centre
Councillor Stuart Kelly (Counting Agent – Claughton) 5th May 2017 outside Wirral Tennis and Sports Centre

Below are three edited videos of what you could term what I was allowed to report outside the count from a public footpath at the Wirral Tennis and Sports Centre following the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election and Claughton byelection.

I had originally planned to film the result and speeches from inside the count, but the Chief Executives of Wirral Council and Liverpool City Council decided my presence and that of Leonora would not be welcomed.

There were a variety of interviews I recorded, people weren’t just going to the local election count but also for the other use of Wirral Tennis and Sports Centre as a leisure centre.

However these are the earlier clips which I’ll list in chronological order.

First, Wirral’s Community Patrol (whose used to do dog fouling and litter enforcement which have been outsourced by Wirral Council to Kingdom under a contract Wirral Council have kept mainly secret.

Below is video of my brief one and a half minute interaction with the Community Patrol, where I compare their uniforms to the more Terry Pratchett name inspired Liverpool City Watch. However thankfully we can both laugh about the whole situation!

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.

Wirral Council’s Community Patrol – Wirral Tennis and Sports Centre 5th May 2017

Next is Wirral Council’s Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Communications Cllr Matthew Patrick (a Labour councillor for Upton ward) who doesn’t seem as keen to talk as Wirral Council’s Community Patrol.

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 Matthew Patrick (Upton and Cabinet Member – Community Engagement and Communications)

Cllr Stuart Kelly (a Liberal Democrat councillor for Oxton ward) and Counting Agent for their candidate in Claughton ward didn’t leave as quickly as Cllr Matthew Patrick. We talked for a few minutes about both the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election and the Claughton byelection.

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 Stuart Kelly (Oxton and Counting Agent – Claughton byelection) 5th May 2017

Hopefully over the next few days I’ll publish the conversations with other councillors such as Cllr Phil Davies, Cllr George Davies and a few others!

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

Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

Is the public receiving value for money for the £2.5 million spent on the Mayoral election?

                                  

This tale is a rather tangled web involving Liverpool City Council’s involvement in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election, the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office. It’s an update to Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?

Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015

You would think that asking the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above) for a copy of the candidates’ nomination papers would be a simple matter.

After all shouldn’t it be I ask, they are sent? It ran smooth enough with the nomination papers for candidates in the Claughton byelection and we can then publish them.

Instead this ends up being a tangled web of corporate governance involving Liverpool City Council, the Electoral Commission, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Considering there is a general election on the way might it be an idea to have some clarity on these issues?

Liverpool City Council’s response is that I am not allowed to inspect based on Electoral Commission guidance which refers to a candidate’s right to inspect and object.

The Electoral Commission agrees with me that the Electoral Administration Act 2006 applies (but only if there is other secondary legislation that applies), specifically s.42, s.43 and s.44 but state that the legislation I am requesting a copy of the nomination papers under Sch.3, Pt 2, para 11 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 doesn’t apply to elections of combined authority mayors because rule 2 in their view doesn’t cover combined authority mayoral elections.

I am then referred back to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017.

The problem is the guidance that the Electoral Commission issued and their current guidance relies on the original version of the Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 from 2006.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017, Schedule 4, paragraph 3 amended Rule 2 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.

The Cabinet Office was approached for their response. The Cabinet Office Press Office emailed us and stated that the Cabinet Office cannot comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral Election because Parliament has been dissolved and we are in the pre-election period before a general election. I thank the Cabinet Office for taking the time to reply.

So of course when I wrote about this, (published at 9:52 on the 3rd May 2017) within 37 minutes of publishing Wirral Council contact me and refuse my press accreditation for the Claughton byelection, general election and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayoral election.

Then shortly after the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Returning Officer refused a similar request to attend the count too.

Local government officials are paid large amounts extra on their salary be paid to do a job. The overall amount paid for by the taxpayer for running this election (which is paid for by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) is from memory £2.5 million (although this report agreed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority states that’s £2 million for staff and £0.5 million on the candidates booklet sent to each household (although the candidates in it had to pay towards its costs too).

I admit the above is a minor point but if it symptomatic of what is going on then shouldn’t some of these fees either be claimed back or not paid at all?

At the Employment Tribunal of Alison Mountney we heard that Surjit Tour and Kate Robinson provided assurance (and were both paid extra) that the election was being run as it should. For this they were paid extra money (a four-figure sum extra each).

I’ve no idea who provides the assurance in a Combined Authority Mayoral election to the Combined Authority Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald or the Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson.

All I will say is that pieces like this wouldn’t be possible to write if you’d approved our attendance at the count as we wouldn’t have the time to write them! So thank you!

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

Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?

Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?

Why has Liverpool City Council blocked my request to view the nomination papers of the 8 candidates wanting to be Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Mayor?

Ballot Box
Ballot Box by NAS of the Noun Project provided under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States (CC BY 3.0 US) licence Original has been resized and converted to a .jpg file

This is a story about secrecy, however it also shows what I have to deal with every day of my working life.

There is not supposed to be secrecy surrounding elections. Why? It’s supposed to be open and transparent so that if anyone tries to game the system it can be spotted.

Elections attract not just domestic interest but international interest.

Part of my role is to monitor what goes on and write about it.

This places me at odds with Liverpool City Council and the Electoral Commission (who have yet to respond at the time of writing this), but that’s why there is independence of the press.

My own view is either a drafting error was made by a civil servant in the legislation for Metro Mayors or the Electoral Commission overlooked something when writing their guidance.

The way the legislation went through parliament as regulations, it couldn’t be amended.

However even Wirral Council is trying to somewhat gag me with a “the dignity of Election proceedings must not be compromised” clause if I want to attend the count on Friday.

Just to be crystal clear, Wirral Council was far as I can tell is running elections as efficiently as they can following the embarrassing revelations surrounding the Employment Tribunal earlier this year, the “technical” offences that the CPS agree happened in the past (but decline to prosecute), well all these factors have meant Wirral Council have learnt from past mistakes and are doing their best.

My criticism is not of the way the elections are being run. This isn’t about the dignity of elections. It’s a more fundamental point about legislation being written in such a way that you don’t end up in this situation.

It’s led to two somewhat contradictory pieces of legislation about inspection and copies of nomination papers.

The two pieces of legislation according to at least the Electoral Commission interpretation contradict each other.

So it wasn’t drafted properly (probably due to the pressures Brexit has put the civil service under).

I am going to explain the two pieces of legislation that apply to Mayoral elections such as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority election.

Firstly, this is the piece of legislation that provides a right of access to nomination papers, it applies to the Metro Mayoral election. Just for information, rule 2(1) means that Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, a bank holiday or a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning are disregarded as days.



The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Schedule 3, Part 2, paragraph 1 states:

Inspection of nomination papers and consents to nomination

11. During ordinary office hours on any day, other than a day specified in rule 2(1), after the latest time for delivery of nomination papers and before the date of the poll, any person may inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, nomination papers and consents to nomination.


Clear enough? What happens if someone tries to block this? The Electoral Administration Act 2006, Pt 6, s.42 and s.43 make blocking access to inspection of election documents a crime. But the person’s supervisor who failed to take appropriate steps can get into trouble too.



“ (1) The relevant officer must—

(a) make relevant election documents available for inspection by members of the public;

(b) supply, on request, copies of or extracts from such description of relevant election documents as is prescribed by regulations.”


So, having made a request to Liverpool City Council’s Returning Officer Ged Fitzgerald, which was then forwarded to Stephen Barker, why is this request being blocked???

Well Liverpool City Council’s answer, relying on Electoral Commission guidance (which is only one interpretation of the law) is that the The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 applies. That guidance is based on SI 2017/66, Schedule 1, Part 3, paragraph 11 which is below.



Place for delivery of nomination papers and right to attend nomination

11.—(1) The combined area returning officer must fix the place in the area of the combined authority at which nomination papers are to be delivered to that officer, and must attend there during the time for their delivery and for the making of objections to them.

(2) Except for the purpose of delivering a nomination paper or of assisting the combined authority returning officer, no other person is entitled to attend the proceedings during the time for delivery of nomination papers or for making objections to them unless that person is—

(a) a person standing nominated as a candidate, or

(b) the election agent, proposer or seconder of such a person, or

(c) a person who is entitled to attend by virtue of section 6A or 6B of the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000 Act(1).

(3) Where a candidate is the candidate’s own election agent, the candidate may name one other person and that person is entitled to attend in place of the election agent.

(4) Where a person stands nominated by more than one nomination paper, only the persons subscribing as proposer and seconder—

(a) to such one of those papers as the candidate may select, or

(b) in default of such a selection, to that one of those papers which is first delivered,
are entitled to attend as the person’s proposer and seconder.

(5) The right to attend conferred by this rule includes the right—
(a) to inspect, and
(b) to object to the validity of,
any nomination paper.

(6) Paragraph (5) does not apply to a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(c).

(7) One other person chosen by each candidate is entitled to be present at the delivery of the candidate’s nomination, and may afterwards (so long as the candidate stands nominated) attend the proceedings referred to in paragraph (2) but without the right referred to in paragraph (5).


As you can see, it’s legislation about who can object to a nomination, who can be there when the nomination papers are submitted and so on.

In theory the two pieces of legislation are compatible, that is one right for the candidates to inspect and object, another for any person to inspect and receive copies of the nomination papers.

However Liverpool City Council states that because the Electoral Commission guidance (which I quote from below) which seems to have conveniently forgotten a right to inspect for any person states this, that therefore their view is that I don’t have any right to inspect or receive copies of the nomination papers.

Which of course is similar to the attitude expressed by Liverpool City Council when I tried to film a public meeting. Their view was that it doesn’t matter what the law is, Liverpool City Council can do what it likes! Last year I was the complainant in ICO decision notice FS50591795. Liverpool City Council had thirty-five days to comply with it, or 28 days to appeal it. Liverpool City Council did neither! Not complying is deemed contempt of court. So yes, I’ve experienced problems with Liverpool City Council.

However there are mayoral elections elsewhere in the country too.

So below is a quote from the Electoral Commission guidance (which I disagree with and it wouldn’t be the first time that the Electoral Commission have had to admit that their guidance was incorrect).

Somewhat ironically the guidance is titled Access to documentation after a local government election in England and Wales when the election result won’t be declared till Friday!

Just to be abundantly clear, the junior official Stephen Barker at Liverpool City Council is probably only doing what he thinks is right. It’s Ged Fitzgerald (the Returning Officer) that is ultimately personally responsible for how the Mayoral election is run.


Combined authority mayoral election

Nomination papers at a combined authority mayoral election can only be inspected by certain people and only until the deadline for making objections to the nomination papers as set out in Chapter 3 of our guidance for Combined Authority Returning Officers: Delivery of key processes.

Nomination papers cannot be inspected by anybody else at any time. Nomination papers may only be viewed and supplied to those who have a legal power to obtain documents. This may be a police officer using any powers they may have to take documents into their custody, or a court order.”


So what do people reading think? Please leave a comment. If I’ve made an error or have it wrong, I’d be happy to apologise!

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