What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?

What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?

What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)

I will start by declaring an interest as I was the Appellant in case EA/2016/0033. I am also married to my McKenzie Friend in this matter Mrs Leonora Brace.

Court | Room: Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX

Oral Hearing
On: 16th June 2016
Time: 10.15am

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Case Ref: EA/2016/0033

Parties
Mr | John Brace (Appellant)
ICO (First Respondent)
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Second Respondent)

Before:
Mr. David Farrer QC Tribunal Judge
Mr. Michael Hake Tribunal Member
Dr Malcolm Clarke Tribunal Member

Clerk: Clare Adams

Continue reading “What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?”

Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?

ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

A bit like the experience I had recently of waiting ages for a bus in Liverpool recently, only for four buses back to back to turn up, the Information Commissioner’s Office have in the last fortnight issued two decision notices involving FOI requests to Wirral Council.

There is a small delay in decision notices being published on ICO’s website, but the first (FS50576394) involving a request I made that was considered under the Environmental Information Regulations can be viewed here. I previously wrote about Wirral Council’s U-turn about disclosing information in response to this request back in May.

The decision notice states “As the information was disclosed outside the 20 working day timescale the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached the requirements of regulation 5(2). ”

I made the request on the 26th January 2015. Wirral Council ignored my request, so on the 24th February 2015 I requested an internal review. Wirral Council responded to the internal review on the 23rd March 2015 stating it had the information but was withholding it based on a regulation 12(5)(e) exemption.

For those who don’t know what a regulation 12(5)(e) exemption is it’s:

“(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect

(e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;”

I appealed this to the Information Commissioner’s Office on the 25th March 2015 and on the 11th May 2015 Wirral Council did a U-turn stating (you can view the exchanges between myself and Wirral Council on the whatdotheyknow website):

“Following your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council has decided to reverse its position, having previously relied on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do not consider that releasing the information would now adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party. The address of the property, which you have requested is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead. I have copied this response to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

As mentioned in my opening sentence, I’m also aware of a decision notice involving a Freedom of Information request that’s been issued recently that hasn’t yet been published on ICO’s website.

This decision notice (FS50568736) (which is not about a FOI request I’ve made) relates to the lack of response by Wirral Council to this FOI request made by Paul Cardin here.

This decision notice states:

“2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request.

3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

The Council should inform the complainant whether the requested information is held. If the information is held it should provide it to the complainant or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.

4. The public authority 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 (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

and

“9. On receipt of the complaint the Commissioner contacted the Council to remind it of its duty to respond to requests for information within 20 working days and to ask that it respond to the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the Commissioner received a response.”

as well as

“11. The complainant made his request for information to the Council on 6 May 2014 but has failed to receive a response. The Council has clearly exceeded the 20 working day limit very significantly and therefore the Commissioner has found that the Council breached section 10(1) in its handling of the request.”

Certainly the common theme running through the two decision notices is Wirral Council exceeding the time limits in the legislation on responding to requests.

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

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office

Last year, during the 2013/14 audit I requested various information on various payments Wirral Council has made to legal firms. One of these was an invoice for £700 for conveyancing done by DLA Piper UK LLP (a copy of which is below).

Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance £700 7th August 2013

As you can see above it’s for a BACS payment (although the payments over £500 list this as a CHAPS payment) for £700, split into £200 for a contribution towards sewers (although the rest of what the £200 is for can’t be made out due to bad handwriting) and £500 to do with the purchase of the freehold title.

If you look at the image above you’ll find the address of the property is blacked out. Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 allow Wirral Council to redact information if it relates to a member of their staff (or payments or other benefits made to their staff connected with their employment) or to withhold personal information if the external auditor agrees to it.

However their auditor has confirmed that there were no such requests. Wirral Council also rely on the decision in Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 in blacking out information that falls into the meaning of “commercial confidentiality”.

So going back to the PR1 form above I wanted to know what the address that this £700 for conveyancing spent by Wirral Council was, so back on the 26th January 2015 I asked using the Freedom of Information Act for the address.

By the 24th February 2015, having received no reply to my request of the 26th January 2015 within the 20 days Wirral Council have to respond to FOI requests, I requested an internal review because of the lack of response.

On the 23rd March 2015, a Rosemary Lyon who is a solicitor working at Wirral Council replied to my request for an internal review. She regarded the request as one that fell within the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, so considered it as a representation under regulation 11.

She then went on to refuse the request using an exception in Regulation 12(5)(e) which states:

“the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;”

The reasons she gave for refusing the request were:

“in that a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. I have had regard to the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, “Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information (regulation 12 (5) (e) Version 1.2. I consider that the following applies to the requested information in the context of the other information included in the payment requisition fund:-

The information is commercial or industrial in nature
Confidentiality is provided by law
The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest
The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure.

I consider that the information relates to the commercial activity of a third party. I also consider that confidentiality is provided by law in that it is imposed on the Council as a public authority by the common law of confidence and contractual obligation. I consider that the confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest. The First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) confirmed in Elmbridge Borough Council v. Information Commissioner and Gladedale Group Ltd (EA/2010/0106, 4 January 2011) that to satisfy this element of the test, disclosure of the confidential information would have to adversely affect a legitimate economic interest of the person the confidentiality is designed to protect. I consider that disclosure of the requested information would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of the third party and also that of the Council.

This exception is subject to the public interest test.

Public interest factors in favour of disclosure

Promotion of transparency and accountability of public authorities

Public interest factors in maintaining the exception

Disclosure would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party and interfere with commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations
Disclosure of the requested information would also affect the bargaining position of the Council with third parties.

I consider that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I am therefore refusing your request for information on the basis that the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the EIR applies.”

On the 25th March 2015 I appealed Wirral Council’s refusal to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Today Wirral Council reversed their position and stated:

Now I know the address is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead, I know what this payment for conveyancing is for. The properties in this road as far as I remember had been demolished by the date that this payment to DLA Piper UK LLP for conveyancing happened in August 2013.

In August 2013, Keepmoat were granted planning permission for 125 new houses here and have since built them and sold them on. In fact 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead doesn’t exist any more, it’s either part of the public open space at the back of the Laird Street Baptist Church or an off-street car parking space for one of the new properties.

So what was the “legitimate interest of a third party” that Wirral Council claimed it was protecting by not supplying the address? How on earth does giving this address interfere with Wirral Council’s “commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations”?

Unlike the Freedom of Information legislation, regulation 12(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 state:

A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.

Wirral Council invoice DLA Piper UK LLP conveyance 7th August 2013 address added

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

2009 Public Inquiry into Wirral Council’s library closures including Bill Norman’s email and Sue Charteris letter

Reading through the Wirral Council’s response to critical reports 2010-2013 there is one report not included because it was published about a month before the cutoff date of 2010, it’s the report written by Sue Charteris following the public inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State into Wirral’s library closure program held at the Floral Pavilion which describes Wirral’s failure in these terms “The Public Inquiry into Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (MBC) Library Service has found the Council’s decision to restructure its Library Service to be in breach of its statutory duties under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to provide ‘comprehensive and efficient public Library Services for all persons desirous to make use thereof'”

The text of Bill Norman’s email to councillors who received a copy of the draft report, before the final report was published is below along with a link to the letter from Sue Charteris (marked private and confidential).

From: Norman, Bill D.
Sent: 13 October 2009 18:03
To: Councillors
Cc: Chief Officers; Lester, Jim L.; Degg, Emma J.; Lyon, Rosemary A.; MacLaverty, Paula K.; Pennington, Abigail; Watts, Margaret
Subject: Extraordinary Council – 12 October 2009

Dear Councillor

Following last night’s Extraordinary Council meeting, please find attached a copy of the letter dated 27 July 2009 from Sue Charteris to me. The letter enclosed two copies of the draft Report prepared by Ms Charteris following the two day Wirral Libraries Public Inquiry.

The 27 July letter makes it clear that the draft Report was provided to me on the basis of a specific obligation of confidentiality. Because Sue Charteris was appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the Libraries Inquiry, her requirements as to confidentiality are the requirements of the Secretary of State and are legally enforceable. This has the effect of making the draft Report ‘confidential information’ for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Confidential information is different to ‘exempt information’. With exempt information, Members may resolve to exclude the press and public from meetings; but it is a matter for their discretion. (In addition, Part 5A of the 1972 Act provides for all Members generally to have an entitlement to receive exempt reports.) Confidential information is different: the Council must comply with the terms upon which the information is provided. Section 100A(2) of the 1972 Act expressly makes clear that nothing in Part 5A authorises or requires the disclosure of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidentiality.

In line with the terms of the obligation of confidentiality in the 27 July letter, I have only circulated the draft Report to those Members within the Cabinet and those officers from whom I needed comments prior to responding to Sue Charteris. That response by me to Sue Charteris is also covered by the same obligation of confidentiality. The obligation of confidentiality remains in place and no Member or officer should publicly discuss the contents of the draft Report prior to the Secretary of State’s decision being published.

As was pointed out last night, the 27 July letter does not list the names of who may see the draft report. As the recipient of the letter, that judgement fell to me and I accept personal responsibility for my decision in that regard (this was not a matter on which I took any external legal advice). However, I wish to emphasise that my decision was absolutely not intended to be a reflection as to any individual Member’s ability to respect confidences.

I was asked last night to list those persons to whom I have shown a copy of the draft Report. Although I do not believe that there is any legal obligation on me to disclose this information, equally I understand the exceptional level of interest in this matter. I have therefore decided to provide that information.

In order to enable me to respond to Sue Charteris on the contents of her draft report (which was a combination of factual corrections, clarifications and legal arguments) copies of the draft report were provided to the following persons:

Steve Maddox, Chief Executive
Jim Wilkie, Deputy Chief Executive
Alan Stennard, Director of Regeneration
Ian Coleman, Director of Finance
Howard Cooper, Director of Children and Young People
Jim Lester, Head of Cultural Services
Emma Degg, Head of Tourism and Marketing
Rosemary Lyon, Interim Head of Legal and Member Services
Councillor Steve Foulkes, Leader of the Council
Councillor Simon Holbrook, Deputy Leader of the Council
Councillor Phil Davies
Councillor Gill Gardiner
Councillor Bob Moon

Under the Public Libraries (Inquiry Procedure) Rules 1992, the Final report by Sue Charteris will either be published with the Secretary of State’s Decision letter, or will be available on request by any person who appeared at the Inquiry and asked to be notified of the Decision (which I believe will include a number of Councillors who spoke at the Inquiry). Given that the Final report will become public knowledge, in my view there cannot be any ‘public interest’ justification for disclosing the contents of the Report prior to the Secretary of State’s Decision. In the light of this, any Councillor who breaches the obligation of confidentiality would also be likely to be in breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

If any Member wishes to have more information of the legal framework for my decision, or on the Public Libraries (Inquiry Procedure) Rules, please let me know.

I have no objection to this email being shared with the press or public. However, the attached letter was written by Sue Charteris and I ask that you seek her permission before disclosing it to anyone else.

Regards

Bill

Bill Norman
Director of Law, HR and Asset Management
Wirral Council

Tel: 0151 691 8497
billnorman@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website www.wirral.gov.uk
Please save paper and print out only what is necessary

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

Wirral Public Library Inquiry_0001.pdf

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

Share this:

Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?

Share this:

Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office

Share this:

2009 Public Inquiry into Wirral Council’s library closures including Bill Norman’s email and Sue Charteris letter

Share this: