Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
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
Below this is a copy of the multi page legal advice written by Surjit Tour on the 11th July 2014 and distribute to all 62 councillors present at the Council meeting on 14th July 2014 on the Lyndale School motion.
This was provided (rather surprisingly to me as it must mark a change from the past towards more openness and transparency) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request of mine made on the 14th August 2014.
In view of the Notice of Motion relating to The Lyndale School being debated at Council on 14 July 2014, I have set out below some advice for your consideration in relation to the issues of ‘Pre-determination’, ‘Pre-disposition’ and ‘Bias’ given the significance and high profile nature of this particular subject matter.
This Note is intended as guidance only and provided to help you in your consideration of these issues in the context of The Lyndale School Notice of Motion arising at Council on 14 July and thereafter.
Pre-determination and Pre-disposition
Pre-determination is defined as:
“occurring when a Member has fixed views on a matter and retains a closed mind when it comes to making a determination”.
Pre-disposition is defined as:
“a Member being open to the possibility that, however unlikely, they will hear argument during the debate about the issue that will change their mind about how they intend to vote. As long as they are willing to keep an open mind about the issue they are entitled to take part in any vote on it”.
First – the behaviour complained of has to be relevant to the issue.
Second – the situation has to be one where a notional fair-minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, would consider that there is a real risk that the decision maker has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument.
In summary, there are no restrictions on a Member holding a provisional view on an issue (pre-disposition) but there is a problem if he/she acts with a closed mind on a subject (pre-determination).
The pre-disposition can be strong and can be publicly voiced. It might be in favour of or against a particular point. The expressing of an intention to vote in a particular way before a meeting (pre-determination) is not the same as when a Member makes it clear he/she is willing to listen to views of all sides before deciding on how to vote (pre-disposition).
Pre-disposition in decision making is fine.
Whereas, decisions made by Members later judged to have pre-determined views have been quashed by way of judicial review.
Bias
Bias is defined as:
‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents impartial consideration of a question; prejudice’.
‘…the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.’
It is therefore important that each Member considers his/her stance from the position of a ‘reasonable onlooker’ and decides whether there would be or could be the appearance of bias.
Only you can say whether you are biased or not.
Localism Act 2012
Section 25 of the Localism Act states that a Member should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because he/she has previously said/or acted in a way that may have directly or indirectly indicated the view he/she may take in relation to a matter.
Section 25 does not attempt to change case law in respect of pre-determination and bias, but it has attempted to clarify it.
The section applies if there is an issue about the validity of a decision, as a result of an “allegation of bias or pre-determination”, or “otherwise” and it is relevant to that issue whether the decision maker, or any of the decision makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision. Thus it is drafted so as to catch as many cases as possible in which an allegation of pre-determination might be made which might affect the validity of a decision.
Section 25 catches allegations of actual, and apparent, pre-determination (however tenuous).
The provision is also widely phrased in another sense. It applies to views not just about the subject matter of the decision in question, but to anything a Member has done which might show, directly, or indirectly, what view he/she takes, or would take, or might take, about any matter which is relevant to the decision.
The explanatory notes to the Localism Act 2011 in relation to section 25 state that ‘Predetermination occurs where someone has a closed mind, with the effect that they are unable to apply their judgement fully and properly to an issue requiring a decision.
Section 25 is set out on pages 4 and 5 below for your reference.
5. Summary
In summary, Members are asked to consider the above advice when considering all items of Council business requiring Members to make a decision; however particularly so in relation to the Notice of Motion re: The Lyndale School.
Members are aware that no firm/final decision has been taken by the Administration in relation to The Lyndale School and therefore the Council’s Executive decision making arrangements have yet to be administered and concluded. These arrangements also include options that are still relevant to non-executive Members and accordingly you are advised to consider the implications/impact of pre-determination, pre-disposition and bias on the decision making arrangements relevant to this subject matter.
If you have any queries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
11 July 2014
LOCALISM ACT 2011
Section 25
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) as a result of an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise, there is an issue about the validity of a decision of a relevant authority, and
(b) it is relevant to that issue whether the decision-maker, or any of the decision-makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision.
(2) A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because—
(a) the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter, and
(b) the matter was relevant to the decision.
(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a decision-maker only if that decision-maker—
(a) is a member (whether elected or not) of the relevant authority, or
(b) is a co-opted member of that authority.
(4) In this section—
“co-opted member”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—
(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority, and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided a any meeting of the committee or sub-committee;
“decision”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a decision made in discharging functions of the authority, functions of the authority’s executive, functions of a committee of the authority or functions of an officer of the authority (including decisions made in the discharge of any of those functions otherwise than by the person to whom the function was originally given);
“elected mayor” has the meaning given by section 9H or 39 of the Local Government Act 2000;
“member”—
(a) in relation to the Greater London Authority, means the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member, and
(b) in relation to a county council, district council, county borough council or London borough council, includes an elected mayor of the council;
“relevant authority” means—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a county borough council,
(d) a London borough council,
(e) the Common Council of the City of London,
(f) the Greater London Authority,
(g) a National Park authority,
(h) the Broads Authority,
(i) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(j) a parish council, or
(k) a community 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:
A letter to Wirral Council about the 29 ways they allegedly got the Lyndale School decision wrong
A letter to Wirral Council about the 29 ways they allegedly got the Lyndale School decision wrong
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
Below is a copy of a letter emailed to Wirral Council’s Surjit Tour, the nine councillors on the Cabinet that took the “decision” and Julia Hassall.
Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
Wirral Council
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
Wallasey Town Hall,
Brighton Street,
Wallasey,
Merseyside,
CH44 8ED,
England
8th September 2014
By email
Surjit Tour surjittour@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Phil Davies phildavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Tony Smith tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk
Julia Hassall juliahassall@wirral.gov.uk
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
Proposed claim for judicial review
1. TO
SURJIT TOUR
Legal and Member Services
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
Wallasey Town Hall,
Brighton Street,
Wallasey,
Merseyside,
CH44 8ED,
England
2. The claimant
MR JOHN BRACE
Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
CH43 7PH
3. Reference details
Amended Cabinet recommendation of 4th September 2014 with respect to Lyndale School (agenda items 4&5)
4. The details of the matter being challenged
What is being challenged is the decision of Wirral Council’s Cabinet on the evening of the 4th September 2014 to make the amended recommendation which is copied below. More specifically the details of the matter being challenged are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 and 2.1 of the recommendation.
“CABINET – 4TH SEPTEMBER 2014
THE LYNDALE SCHOOL
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School.
1.2 Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, is it recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
Elleray Park Special School
Stanley Special School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
1.3 That the Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of the Lyndale School are completed by the 31st October.
2.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Having looked at all the options, and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is our opinion that, while we recognise the special place that The Lyndale School has in the affection of parents and children, the continued operation and maintenance of a school of this size will not meet the future educational needs of the children, nor is a financially viable option, especially when there are good alternative options available.
The Council has a responsibility to ensure for the sustainable future provision of education for the pupils of The Lyndale School. In addition, we have to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population.
This has been a difficult decision to make, and we would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the families and the children affected, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.”
5
The issue
Brief summary of facts:
Wirral Council’s Cabinet made a key decision on the evening of 4th September 2014 at a public meeting to proceed to a second round of consultation on the closure of the Lyndale School. The recommendation agreed by nine councillors is outlined above.
Why it is contended to be wrong:
It is contended to be wrong because:
(a) The notice requirements before the meeting were not met.
The actions specified to be taken in advance of the Cabinet meeting in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 specifically Regulations 9-11 weren’t met. More specifically the document specified in Regulation 9 wasn’t published 28 days before the meeting or the notice in Regulation 10(3)(b) or the notice in Regulation 11(2)(b).
Regulation 9(1) makes it quite clear that if these requirements are not met that “that decision must not be made)
(b) The key decision was made by the wrong people.
In addition to the Cabinet between four and nine other people should’ve been included in the decision. Specifically these are:
between 2-5 parent governor representatives,
a representative of the Catholic diocese and
a representative of the Anglican diocese
These people should have all had voting/speaking rights and been invited to take part in the Cabinet meeting.
Normally Cabinet would not be required to have such representatives on it as it has oversight by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee and Coordinating Committee.
However as a representative of the Anglican diocese has not yet been appointed to the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee or the Coordinating Committee due to this lack of oversight the Cabinet was required to have them take part in the decision making on this matter.
This legal requirement is outlined in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 c.31/ s.499 of the Education Act 1996 c.56 and the underlying regulations such as Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Committee System) (England) Regulations 2012 and regulation 5 of The Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999 and other underlying regulations.
(c) Human Rights issues
Wirral Council have to make decisions that are compatible with the Convention Rights (s.6(1) Human Rights Act 1998 c.42). Specifically these concerns are about Protocol 1 (Article 2), article 2, article 3, article 11 and article 14.
The concerns are briefly outlined below:
Protocol 1 (Article 2) “right to education” as closure of the school would interfere with the parent’s right to “ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions”
Article 2 “right to life” as closure of the school would possibly cause the death of one or more of its current pupils
Article 3 “prohibition of torture” as closure of the school would be “degrading treatment or punishment” of the parents and pupils
Article 11 “freedom of assembly and association” as closure of the school would interfere with the rights of the pupils, staff and parents to associate with each other and none of the requirements in 11(2) are known to be met
Article 14 “prohibition of discrimination” as:
(a) the school is for severely disabled children therefore closing (whilst not making known closures elsewhere) could be classed as discrimination
(b) the political views of the parents are that the school should not close which has been widely expressed in the media prior to the meeting in opposition to the stated views of the Labour administration at Wirral Council
(c) many of the severely disabled children at the school were born that way
(d) Equality Act 2010 c.15 considerations
Section 13 – the Lyndale pupils (person B) have a protected characteristic (disability). They would be treated less favourably if the school closed as less money would be spent on their education. Furthermore many of the approximately thirty staff have protected characteristics (who will be out of a job if the school closes)
Section 15 – this relates to discrimination arising from disability. The pupils at the school are disabled. Wirral Council would have to show that the treatment is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” which has not yet been demonstrated
Section 19 – this relates to indirect discrimination of the parents and family members of the Lyndale pupils
Section 26 – “harrasment”, the closure plans have resulted in a violation of dignity of those with protected characteristics and have intimidated staff, parents and pupils at the school. One example of this would be that the headteacher has left.
Section 27 – the parents have threatened legal action which is a protected act
Section 85 – these plans force the Lyndale School to breach s.85(2)(f) as it subjects pupils and their parents to detriment
Section 86 – this relates to victimisation of the pupils for the conduct of their parents. The parents have petitioned, campaigned and lobbied against closure. The siblings and parents of the children at the Lyndale School are being penalised for this
Section 112 – the way Wirral Council behaved (for example making a false public statement that if the school was closed that staff would be redeployed during the consultation) is aiding contraventions of the Equality Act 2010
Section 149 – “public sector equality duty” Due regard to 149(a), (b) and (c) by Wirral Council has not been given. The same goes for the duties under 149(5)(a) and 149(5)(b). These relate to the proteted characterists of pupils, staff and parents at the school.
Section 150 – “public authorities and public functions” – the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Council is a “district council” in England as defined in Schedule 19, therefore 150(3), 150(4) and 150(5) apply to it.
Section 158 – “positive action: general” the pupils of Lyndale school have needs that are different from the needs of person that are not disabled. Those that have PMLD (which is a protected characteristic) are a disproportinately low proportion of the school population. The Lyndale pupils are at this school because it’s a special school that caters for the needs of disabled pupils with PMLD. Therefore they will suffer a disadvantage if the school closes. The level of education they receive will change if the school closes and it is alleged that this new provision will not meet their needs.
Section 19 – Wirral Council provides the service of education to the disabled pupils at the Lyndale School. If the school is closed the current (and potential future) disabled pupils would find it “impossible” or “unreasonably difficult” to use the school. Although Wirral Council is a “local education authority in England” and therefore a “relevant body” as defined in s.19(6), it remains to be seen whether education & transport are services that fall under s.19(5)(a) or not.
Section 21 – The adjustment required would be to fund the running costs of the Lyndale School, whilst it is appreciated that Wirral Council is a “local education authority in England” and therefore a “relevant body”, this duty of providers of services to make adjustments could/could not apply to Wirral Council
Section 21B – Wirral Council is a “public authority” and is discriminating against disabled people in carrying out its functions.
Section 21D – Wirral Council is failing in its general duties to:
(1)(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful
(1)(b) the need to eliminate harrassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities
(1)(c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons
(1)(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons
(1)(e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons
(1)(f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life
Section 28A – “Discrimination against disabled pupils and prospective pupils” This relations to 28A(2) and 28A(1)(a) as Wirral Council is “the local education authority” defined in Schedule 4A. Wirral Council is proposing altering its admission arrangements which discriminate against the current disabled pupils at the Lyndale School. Closure would result in the current pupils being excluded permanently.
Section 28B – Lyndale pupils are being treated less favourably because of reasons realted to their disability/ies. It is unreasonable to assume that Wirral Council does not know they are disabled as it is a special school
Section 28C – “disabled pupils not to be substantially disadvantaged” The Lyndale pupils are being put at a substansial disadvantage compared to persons who are not disabled with regards to the admission arrangemnts.
Section 28F – There has been a failure of the duty of the education authority not to discriminate, it is unknown at this stage what prescribed function this relates to (if any).
Section 49A – In carrying out its functions, Wirral Council is not having due regard to
(1)(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful
(1)(b) the need to eliminate harrassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities
(1)(c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons
(1)(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons
(1)(e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons
(1)(f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life
Section 2 – This section inserted 21B in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (see arguments above for s.21B of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005)
Section 3 – This section inserted 49A in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (see arguments above for s.49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005)
(g) statutory guidance
Statutory guidance has been issued which includes the application of a test to such proposals known as the “SEN Improvement Test” to such decisions. Wirral Council claims that its plans for closure meet the SEN Improvement Test. The Claimant disagrees that the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test have been met to the preferred option (which is closure of the Lyndale School). This is because:
(i) it would not lead to improved access to education and associated services
(ii) it would not lead to improved access to specialist staff
(iii) it would not lead to improved access to suitable accommodation
(iv) it would not lead to an improved supply of suitable places
(v) there seems little clarity that the host schools mentioned in the decision (Elleray Park and Stanley School) are willing to receive pupils with communication and interaction needs
(vi) there is confusion as to how the proposals will be funded and the planned staffing arrangements that will be put in place
(Set out the date and details of the decision, or act or omission being challenged, a brief summary of the facts and why it is contented to be wrong)
6
The details of the action that the defendant is expected to take are:
(a) to make a written undertaking not implement the decision as an interim measure until a new Cabinet meeting happens,
(b) hold a further meeting of the Cabinet to make a decision that complies with:
(i) the notice requirements for the meeting (SI 2012/2089 Regulations 9-11) and
(ii) the other legal issues addressed in this letter
(c) to carry out a review of the matters raised in this letter and inform the Claimant of the outcome of that review
(d) to inform the Claimant if the decision is implemented and if so from what date
(e) to respond to this letter before the proposed reply date in section 12
(f) meet with Mr. John Brace before the proposed reply date so that these issues can be explored in depth in the hope that litigation can be avoided.
7
The details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim
N/A
8
The details of any interested parties
Cllr Phil Davies phildavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Tony Smith tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk
Julia Hassall juliahassall@wirral.gov.uk
9
The details of any information sought
Details of information sought:
(a) a request for a fuller explanation of the reasons for the decision being challenged beyond those that form a part of the recommendation at 2.1
(b) statistical information on staff at the Lyndale School with reference to all protected characteristics
(c) statistical information on Wirral Council’s workforce with reference to all protected characteristics
(d) statistical information on current pupils at the Lyndale School with reference to all protected characteristics
(e) three year projected financial information about the Lyndale School projected budgets supplied to Wirral Council by the Lyndale School governors including total projected expenditure, total projected costs and total projected income
(f) earlier drafts of report titled “Report detailing the outcome of the consultation on the closure of the Lyndale School”
(g) earlier drafts of the report at Appendix 1 titled “The Independent Consultant’s Report”
10
The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary
(a) The consultation responses. These are considered necessary as they are referred to in 1.1 and 1.2 of the decision. Although I have already published some, I am unsure whether it is a complete set of consultation responses.
(b) Those documents outlined in section (9) specifically (e) to (g) (financial information and earlier drafts of reports)
(h) details of consultation with staff and relevant trade unions
(i) details of consultation with the governing body at Lyndale School
(j) Principal Educational Psychologist’s report
(k) detail as to how Wirral Council think the preferred option of closure meets the “SEN Improvement Test”
11
The address for reply and service of court documents
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
12
Proposed reply date
24th September 2014
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?
Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?
Treasury Building (Wirral Council), Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, 19th August 2014 (you can click on the photo for a more high-resolution version)
Yesterday on a sunny afternoon, I went to the Wirral Council building pictured above known as the Treasury Building to inspect various Wirral Council invoices. I was exercising an obscure right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18. This right means that for a few weeks each year, as an “interested person” you can inspect the accounts for the previous financial year that in the process of being audited by Grant Thornton. You can also inspect all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts that relate to these accounting records and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents. This year (for Wirral Council) that period ran from 21st July to the 15th August, so sadly if you’re thinking of exercising this right you’ll now have to wait till next year to do so!
However I had put in my request during that brief time period for five areas I was interested in. I’ve briefly describe what those four areas were, the first was invoices from SCC PLC (which is a large IT company), the second and third batches were invoices for legal matters (solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses, court fees etc), the fourth were some general invoices and the fifth were various contracts (two of which were the Schools PFI contract and the Birkenhead Market lease).
The contracts aren’t ready yet, but the invoices were available for inspection yesterday and I also exercised my s.15(1)(b) right to copies. Just the copies of invoices comes to hundreds of pages of documents (which may take me a while to scan in). Some pages are more heavily redacted than others. However this blog post is going to concentrate on just one which is document 117 in one of the two legal bundles. The document (in the form I received it from Wirral Council) is below (you can click on the photo for a more readable version).
11KBW Invoice for appeal of an ICO decision notice (October 2013) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (£1872) redacted
A bit of context is probably needed about this invoice first. 11KBW is a London-based chamber of barristers that specialise in employment, public and commercial law. You can find out more about them on their website. This particular invoice for £1,872 (including VAT) was for “perusing and considering papers, advising by email, telephone and writing and drafting grounds of appeal to an ICO decision notice”. Whereas the first bit of that is understandable, if you don’t know what an ICO decision notice is then I’d better explain.
If a person makes a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council, then is not happy with the response, requests an internal review, then they’re not happy with the internal review they can appeal the decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office (known as ICO). The ICO prefer to deal with things informally, but if they can’t they will issue a “decision notice”. A decision notice is an independent view of ICO’s one way or the other on the FOI request and as to whether the body to whom it has been made has complied with the Freedom of Information legislation and sometimes also the Environmental Information Regulations.
Unless the body to whom the FOI request is made or the person making the request appeals the decision notice within 28 days, the body to whom the FOI request is made has to comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days. Sometimes ICO agree with the body the FOI request is made to so no further action is required. Other times the decision notice compels the body (unless they appeal) to disclose the information. If the public body doesn’t comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days then ICO can tell the High Court about this failure and it would be dealt with as a “contempt of court” issue.
Helpfully (unlike a lot of other court matters), ICO have a search function on their website for decision notices. As the invoice is for drafting grounds of an appeal (which has to happen within 28 days of the notice) a search for decision notices from the 27th September 2013 to the 25th October 2013 brings up three decision notices FS50496446, FS50491264 and FS50474741.
The first of those three (FS50496446) states in the summary “As the council has now provided a response, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.” so it’s not that one. The last sentence of the summary on FS50474741 states “This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal” (which is a little out of date as by now the tribunal has already reached its decision on that matter). Therefore this invoice is (by process of elimination) about the eight page decision notice FS50474741.
When the AKA report was published, the issue made the regional TV news (you can view a video clip of that below this paragraph) and a no confidence vote which removed both Cllr Steve Foulkes as Leader of the Council and the minority Labour administration. The Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived (~3 month) Conservative/Lib Dem one in the February of 2012. The whole matter was a very sensitive (and somewhat embarrassing) period in Wirral Council’s history (even more than the public inquiry into library closures was) and it’s probably somewhat understandable as to why Wirral Council didn’t want information as to what happened “behind the scenes” being released into the public domain. As far as I remember (and it was some years ago so I hope my memory is correct on this point), Wirral Council was paying DLA Piper to give legal advice to itself and AKA Limited. This was in relation to the inquiry of AKA Ltd started by Cllr Jeff Green into Martin Morton’s whistleblowing concerns (in the brief period when as a Conservative councillor he was Leader of the Council).
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
However, in addition to the details of the decision notice, other information has been blacked out. The part at the top right where it states “professional fees of”, I think relates to a junior barrister called Mr Robin Hopkins who is also on Twitter. The reason behind this is that at the bottom of the invoice it states “PLEASE MAKE CHEQUES PAYABLE TO Mr Robin Hopkins” and his name also appears as the organisation name on the list of invoices Wirral Council publish of over £500 for October. On Wirral Council’s systems although a small number of invoices from barristers chambers come under the name of the barrister’s chambers, most appear using the barrister’s name as the organisation.
As to the name of the Wirral Council officer that the pro forma invoice is addressed to, it would seem most likely that this is Surjit Tour. Not only does his short name fit what is blacked out, but he’s also the Head of Service for this service area within Wirral Council. I don’t know whether he’d actually be the solicitor at Wirral Council giving instructions to the barrister on this issue (as there are over a dozen solicitors employed at Wirral Council). I’ve no idea whose signature it is on this invoice and there are three other places on the invoice where officers’ initials or names have also been blacked out.
The invoice (partly revealed) with my educated guesses in green as to what’s behind the redactions is below. However it begs the question, why did Wirral Council redact this information and what have they got to hide? Or is it just a case of they’d prefer the press and public to forget about the entire Martin Morton/AKA issues which were compared to “Watergate” by Cllr Stuart Kelly? If they’d chosen not to appeal this decision wouldn’t that meant a saving of £1,872 that Wirral Council could have instead spent on education or social services? I thought that a Labour councillor (was it Cllr Phil Davies?) stated that the current Labour administration was “open and transparent”? Only as recently as June of this year wasn’t the Cabinet Member Cllr Ann McLachlan stating “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”? So do Wirral Council see the people making FOI requests as the problem rather than their own cultural attitudes towards openness and transparency?
Partially unredacted invoice relating to an appeal to ICO Decision Notice FS50474741 (Robin Hopkins of 11KBW) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for £1872 (invoice 117)
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea
Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Dawn Tolcher (Constituency Manager, Birkenhead)
The second update is around two proposals around improving communication. The first one is the promotion of Wirral Well, that’s been …rated now, it’s been drafted as to what tools we can use. We’re looking at a segmented approach with that as to how we deal with the different members of the community.
You communicate with a sixteen year old girl in a different way to a forty year old man and how we develop that. I was just exploring how we could use the empty shops in Birkenhead to help improve the visual presence of the area, but using them to do some on the streets consultation linked with residents. That’s being developed. The second proposal in terms of publication, Surjit’s going to provide an update on that.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Would you?
Surjit Tour
Yes, thank you Chair. In so far as the..
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
If you can’t hear at any one time, we will pass the mic back. You know what to do with that don’t you?
Surjit Tour
In so far as that particular item, this particular item is concerned, there is an issue that we do need to explore with regards to the publicity code to ensure that the proposed publication that this committee has considered, would like to consider doesn’t then interfere with the Council’s broader publications.
There are some areas of discussion that need to be had in terms of the interpretation of both the code and the publication itself at this point in time. The suggestion is that Cabinet considers those and that particular issue further with a view towards a significant finding.
As to the issue with regards to the code and whether or not the publicity code will provide or prevent this committee utilising the publication and using the publication because of the broader ramifications and indeed the implications to the Council of that.
Councillor George Davies
Can I ask a question? I just wanted to make a short comment on that one. Can I just ask the question? Following on from that Surjit and I understood and if I’ve got it wrong I apologise.
I understand that when we actually looked at this, we were talking about and we were convinced that Birkenhead because of its poor publicity, ie that the Wirral Globe, the News doesn’t get anywhere near the publicity that local party people do get.
Birkenhead wanted to be a non-political body’s newsletter being sent out to tell the people of Birkenhead exactly what this constituency is trying to do and trying to achieve. We’re not talking, we’re not saying that that had to be anything to do with Wirral West, Wirral South or Wallasey and this is purely and simply our own initiative to make sure that people there understand how we spend their money.
Surjit Tour
Yes I know but unfortunately the code itself makes specific reference to newsletters and newsheets being issued and the issue really whether or not what’s been proposed whether that then emulates commercial newspapers in style or content. Now that’s a debatable and indeed arguable point and that requires further examination and it is really on that point again clarification on that particular point, which is the central to the issue which we need to address.
And to a degree I understand the rationale of the publication and what its purpose is and it’s not intended to be commercial in that sense, but I think it would be wise just to take stock and ensure that we don’t run into difficulties in the event that we do launch this particular publication and then the organisation as a whole is constrained because of the provisions of the publicity code itself.
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Phil?
Cllr Phil Davies
Yeah I’m a little bit concerned that just because Eric Pickles has issued a Code of Practice that we kind of delay on this and I think the code of, the summary of what the code says about you know lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate et cetera errm I think that’s clear. I think I don’t see why we need to delay, the next Cabinet meeting isn’t until September. By the time you know a further report’s gone back, it’s going to be well into the autumn.
I would have thought, my personal view is that we agreed this was badly needed a long time ago. I think that we should get on with it and you know we need to run it past you as the guardian of the Council’s constitution to check that it ticks all of Eric Pickles’ boxes but I just think a further delay back to Cabinet, it’s going to be halfway through the year before we produce anything. So I, unless there’s any overwhelming reason why, I’d be firmly in favour of getting on with it and just obviously checking before we publish anything if you’re ok with it and it meets with the code of practice.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting
Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
On Monday evening the issue of the future of Lyndale School was debated by Wirral Council councillor for about forty-five minutes. I’m going to try and sum up what was said and decided in a short blog post so inevitably I will be leaving some things out.
The notice of motion by the Conservatives and Labour’s amendment to it is already covered here. The response from the Lyndale parents is here, in addition to that there were a further ninety or so responses to the consultation.
Cllr Paul Hayes (proposing the motion to keep the school open) started by referring to the consultation response by Lyndale parents and the passion and “strength of feeling” he’d observed at a recent consultation meeting (which you can listen to in full). He said he hoped all councillors had received a copy of the consultation response.
The Mayor Cllr Steve Foulkes said that some councillors had received it on the day of the meeting and that he didn’t believe they could be expected to read it in full as they hadn’t had time to digest it.
Cllr Paul Hayes continued by referring to an earlier consultation on Kingsway Primary School and the similarities between the two. He was critical of an officer chairing the Lyndale School closure consultation meeting and said that as well as the majority of people feeling that the officer wasn’t neutral, he also described him as “rude and dismissive”. He described the consultation process as “farcical”.
Cllr Stuart Kelly asked whether Labour’s amendment should be ruled out of order as it was negating the original motion. Labour’s motion deleted all paragraphs in the original motion bar one line. He said surely the same effect could be achieved by voting against the motion?
The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said he would allow a legal opinion, but it had been a difficult decision on his part to allow the notice of motion on Lyndale School to be debated. From his point of view he felt that Cllr Stuart Kelly “didn’t have a leg to stand on” with regards to the [Labour] amendment being ruled out of order.
Surjit Tour said that the notice of motion referred it to the Cabinet as the final decision rested with te Cabinet. The amendment also did exactly the same in referring it to a special meeting in September. Therefore in his view the amendment was lawful.
The Mayor said that points of order was not the way he wanted to open the debate and asked the mover of the amendment to speak.
Cllr Phil Davies said that it had been agreed some time ago that they need to have a special Cabinet meeting and that there had been a very detailed consultation exercise, the results of which they had not yet seen. In his view the consultation responses were a “hugely important piece of evidence” which the Cabinet needed to consider before taking a view. To take the clear view expressed in the Conservative notice of motion before the special Cabinet meeting was “premature” as they would be making the decision now in advance of the special meeting. He was also very concerned that if the notice of motion was agreed then they would fall foul of predetermination. He thought it was a shame that Cllr Hayes had said that officers were not neutral.
He continued by referring to his time as Cabinet Member and again referred to the claim that officers were not neutral. Cllr Davies said that the amendment asked that they take no action on the motion tonight but refer it. Again he said that he was worried if they agreed the motion it would have predetermined the outcome before the Cabinet had considered the evidence, but there was no question that Lyndale School provided a “unique and caring environment”. He had visited the school but it was essential he had an open mind and considered all the evidence. He worried that if they made a decision tonight then they would be completely ignoring important evidence that they had not yet seen.
Cllr Andrew Hodson referred to his daughter who had learning difficulties, despite being in her 30s she had a mental age of nine. He considered himself lucky that she had her full health, but that the children at Lyndale had complicated health needs. Although his daughter lived in an establishment she still had her independence in fact [Cllr] George [Davies] had been at the opening.
He referred to the Corporate Plan about protecting vulnerable people and how Lyndale School was an essential service that met people’s complex needs. The staff at Lyndale were geared up to making sure that while receiving an education the children were safe and well cared for. He was perplexed by the decision as the Council would not benefit financially from the closure of Lyndale School so why do it? He finished by making a plea to keep the school open.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist said that the Childrens and Young People Department had told him they had received ninety response and that he had had time to read the documents. He knew that members of the Council had been concerned about the future especially [former] Councillor Tom Harney. He referred to the document received at the weekend and referred to the reference in it to a working party.
Cllr Gilchrist referred to the space that children using wheelchairs need, children with epilepsy, those require oxygen and those who required time consuming feeding. He had attended two of the consultation meetings and concurred with Cllr Paul Hayes’ description. He referred again to the parents’ response to the consultation quoting from it and that it may be September by the time the issue was resolved. He said that the high needs budget for 2013/14 was £31.7 million.
After being given extra time, he referred to the strain on families, the SEN Improvement Test and said that if they wished, councillors on the Cabinet could choose not to vote on this notice of motion (and amendment). The notice of motion was about Council’s view.
Councillor Dave Mitchell said that the way the process worked was that councillors who stood were indicating that they wished to speak in the debate and that if no Labour councillors stood up then councillors who wished to speak should still be allowed to address the Council. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he had no objections.
The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said that if that was an early test, that he would decide what goes on, who was asked and which councillor would make a contribution.
Councillor Dave Mitchell said that he’d pick up on the point made by Cllr Paul Hayes at the start. He too had been surprised at the way the presentation had been presented by officers to the parents and that the parents knew what was required and that the parents were the ones who should be listened to. Cllr Mitchell recommended that councillors read every page of the parent’s response to the consultation and absorb every part as it “rips to shreds” the proposal [to close the school] and deals with the real issue which was the children.
Cllr Mitchell continued by saying that it had nothing to do with the schools formula funding as it was all there set by the government and had never been taken away. This was not the case with education funding and the way the funding was divvied out was decided by Cabinet. One of the problems that concerned him with the consultation itself was the way parents had asked questions to officers and had no responses till the last day of the consultation.
Cllr Pat Williams objected to the Mayor refusing to let her speak. She said she was being deprived of her democratic right and that she’d been elected by the people of Oxton to speak.
The Mayor [Cllr Steve Foulkes] changed his mind and agreed to let her speak after all.
Cllr Pat Williams said that during the consultation period it was made abundantly clear that the appropriate place was to let the children remain at Lyndale School. She referred to the petition against closure of nearly 11,000 signatures which demonstrated how much Lyndale School was valued as a unique asset. She like other councillors referred to the parents response to the consultation and wanted the profound and complex needs of the children fairly reflected in the funding.
She had visited the school and was always most impressed by the caring an dedication of the staff and when she was Mayor had had the pleasure of formally opening the sensory garden. The consultation had ended and it was overwhelming apparent that Lyndale School should stay. She asked councillors to take note and resolve that Lyndale was to remain open.
Councillor Pat Cleary (the new Green Party councillor) said that he wanted to make a brief point. He said that Lyndale School doesn’t have to be closed and he appreciated the sincere feelings. He was disappointed as he didn’t understand the Labour councillors not engaging.
One issue he wanted to raise was that 18 months ago there had been a letter from the Leader of the Council during the What Really Matters consultation about whether local elections should only be held once every four years. It had been said that the reason the proposal was being brought forward was that early analysis of the consultation results had shown 91% supporting this change. In that instance a recommendation had been brought forward before the consultation was finished, he wanted to know why the current situation was any different?
Cllr Tony Smith said that he agreed that the uncertainty about Lyndale School must be resolved and had been an ongoing concern for a number of years. The consultation had been undertaken, but reducing numbers of children on the school roll, changes in funding arrangements and questions about the future viability of the school were the reasons behind the consultation. He stressed that the consultation was not about the quality of the education.
He continued by saying that any decision about future provision would be informed by individual needs and make sure people’s requirements were fully met. The government required the [SEN Improvement] test to be undertaken to show that the proposal was as good as or better than the children’s current provision. He said that they would make sure they had an up to date understanding of each child’s needs.
They had undertaken a consultation and there was oversight from the [Wirral] Schools Forum. The original decision had been called in and it was made clear then at the outset that the process should be open and transparent over the twelve week consultation.
Prior to the consultation starting, there had been a meeting with parent governors of Lyndale and throughout the consultation six public meetings. Eighty-five people from the community had turned up to these, with some attending more than one. Wirral Council had commissioned an independent person to consider each of the published options and any new options and consider the application of the government’s [SEN Improvement] test. All councillors had also been invited on an escorted bus tour which included Lyndale School. Twenty-two councillors had taken part in these visits on the 16th/17th June. He made the assurance that all information relevant to the consultation would be made publicly available prior to the Cabinet meeting to inform the decision making when the Cabinet would be taking all factors into account such as the needs and welfare of each individual child.
Cllr Jeff Green (seconder to the Conservative motion) reminded people that when Cllr Tony Smith spoke that closure is a preferred option. He reminded people why it was called in and referred to the speeches of Cllrs Hayes, Gilchrist, Mitchell and others (as well as congratulating Cllr Cleary on his maiden speech). He said a maiden speech was normally held in silence but the response from Labour councillors was because he’d beaten them in an election.
Cllr Green said that Lyndale was unique and incredibly special and that that needed to be safeguarded.
