EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 “confidential” report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful

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.

Aretha Franklin – Respect [1967]

Cheshire West and Chester invoice for £1800 for investigating a standards complaint (you can click on the thumbnail for a more high resolution version)

EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 "confidential" report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful

It was a long time ago (19th March) when I first made a Freedom of Information Act request for the external investigation report (and the invoice) for the standards complaint that Councillor Steve Foulkes had made about Councillor Chris Blakeley. Not surprisingly with such a politically sensitive request, my Freedom of Information request was ignored, so on the 17th April I requested an internal review.

On the 24th April Wirral Council supplied the report itself, an appendix and the invoice from Chester West and Chester Council (for £1,800) for the investigation. On the same day this was released, solicitors that work in Wirral Council’s legal department and the officers that take the minutes at public meetings had a meeting in Committee Room 1, the subject of which was “values and culture change”. The fact that only two lines are redacted in the investigation report and Wirral Council hasn’t claimed an Freedom of Information Act exemption applies to the report and appendix A is one example of how the culture has changed at Wirral Council.

Due to the redaction of two lines on page nine, the seventeen page report is an image, therefore it can’t be spidered properly by search engines. Therefore I’ll be including the seventeen page report below this so it can be properly spidered. The report itself explains who Councillor Blakeley and Councillor Foulkes are so I won’t repeat what is in the report itself. It does however give an interesting insight into Wirral’s politics. Appendix A to the report can be downloaded from this blog. I’ve used a series of equals signs to show where individual pages start and end in the report.

Where legislation or individual cases are referred to I have tried to provide a link where possible in case you want to find out more about the legislation or judgements referred to. If you wish to read the original report as a pdf file you can. The two witness statements referred to in the report as Appendix B (the witness statement of Councillor Foulkes) and Appendix C (the witness statement of Councillor Blakeley) haven’t been supplied in response to the Freedom of Information Act request, but I’ve requested an internal review regarding these. In the report below I have not corrected any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors but left these as they appear in the report.

=======================================================================================================
CONFIDENTIAL

Report of an investigation by Trudie Odaka acting as investigating officer, appointed by Surjit Tour Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council into allegations concerning Councillor Chris Blakeley.

This report is submitted to the Monitoring Officer for Wirral Borough Council, Surjit Tour.

FINAL REPORT

10^th March 2014

1 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary
2. The relevant legislation and protocols
3. The Evidence Gathered
4. Nomination for the Office of Mayor
5. The Allegations by the Complainant
6. Account by Councillor Foulkes
7. The Liverpool Echo article dated 13^th May 2013
8. Response from Councillor Blakeley
9. Summary of the material facts
10.Case Law
11.Reasoning as to whether there has been a failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct
12.Finding

Appendix A – Schedule of Documents

Appendix B – Statement of Councillor Foulkes

Appendix C – Statement of Councillor Blakeley

2 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

Executive Summary

1.1 I have been asked to conduct an investigation in respect of a complaint made by Councillor Steve Foulkes regarding the conduct of Councillor Chris Blakeley.

1.2 The Allegation

An allegation has been made by Councillor Steve Foulkes that Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council by failing to treat him with respect. The allegation made by Councillor Foulkes is that in an article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13^th May 2013, when referring to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination as for Deputy Mayor, Councillor Blakeley indicated that he would be voting against the nomination. The complaint contains the quote "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality. Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him".

1.3 I have investigated whether Councillor Chris Blakeley failed to comply with paragraphs 1.1of the Members’ Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.

Investigation Outcome

1.4 I have investigated Councillor Blakeley’s conduct and in so doing I have considered the article published in the Liverpool Echo on 13^th May 2013 which was appended to the complaint. I have taken into account the article as a whole, in order to set the context of any quotes or information contained within it. Whilst concentrating principally on this Liverpool Echo article; I have also considered other articles relating to Councillor Foulkes’ nomination for deputy mayor, articles that appeared in the local press and on the internet. This has enabled me to better understand the background to the complaint, the context of the statement made by Councillor Blakeley and this has allowed me to review the comments made by other members of Wirral Borough Council; members that are not the subject of this complaint but who nonetheless commented publically about the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of Deputy Mayor.

3 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
1.5 I have considered the quotes attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley and I have investigated – whether the quotes were made by him and if made; the context.

1.6 I have considered the comments contained within the complaint and I have interviewed both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley to listen to their account of events. Through interviewing each member separately; I have paid particular attention to what each of them has said and taken into account how the comments were perceived by them including the intention of the subject member Councillor Blakeley. I have also taken into account the public forum in which the comments were made; being publication of the comments within a newspaper.

1.7 Whilst concentrating the investigation upon the Liverpool Echo article and the conduct of Councillor Blakeley; in reaching a conclusion, I have taken into account the political context at the time by reviewing the press and other public forums where the nomination was mentioned, although the information found is relevant for setting context (as it revealed that others made comments about the nomination) I have not repeated what I have found within this report as it does not relate to the exact detail of this complaint. Copies are contained in the list of documents at appendix A.

1.8 I have investigated whether or not the conduct complained of was directed at Councillor Foulkes as an individual or his personal characteristics.

1.9 I conclude that when quoted in the Liverpool Echo article on 13^th May 2013, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity as a councillor of Wirral Borough Council.

1.10 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that, the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley made in response to a nomination by the council’s cabinet for the position of deputy mayor; the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor namely the proposed next incumbent for the position of deputy mayor. In making the statements Councillor Blakeley appears to have been seeking to explain the reason why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor; against the Wirral Council’s established tradition of members not challenging nominations made for the positions of mayor and deputy mayor. Councillor Blakeley is quoted as saying "Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year?" Taking into account all the material facts, I do not find that the quotes

4 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse/attack directed at the Complainant Councillor Foulkes.

1.11 In reaching my conclusion, I have taken into account the fact that Wirral Borough Council being a public body is under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; this includes the consideration of possible breaches of the Member’s Code of Conduct. Article 10 is a European Convention Right that gives protection to the right of freedom of expression, a right which the courts have strongly upheld in cases involving the expression of political opinion, and as such, Councillor Blakeley’s comments to the Liverpool Echo are protected by Article 10.

1.12 I find that there has been no failure to comply with the Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct.

2. The Relevant Legislation, Code and Protocols

The Code of Conduct

2.1 Wirral Borough Council adopted a Code of Conduct with effect from 1st July 2012 in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.

2.2 The Wirral Borough Council Code of Conduct imposes a general obligation on all its councillors, that when acting in their role as a member of the council they will treat others with respect.

2.3 Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct

Paragraph 1.1 of the Code states –

(1) when acting in your role as a Member of the Council;
1.1 DO treat others with respect

Relevant legislation

2.4 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic

5 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

society, in the interests of…the protection of the reputation or rights of others."

2.5 Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 identifies the rights under the European Convention of Human Rights which have effect for the purposes of that Act. They include Articles 6 and 10 of the ECHR.

Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act provides that so far as it is possible to do so subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights.

2.6 Section 6 of the 1998 Act provides as follows:

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. (In light of this provision I have taken into account the provisions of the ECHR when conducting this investigation).

(2) Disapplies the section in certain very limited circumstances concerning primary legislation. (This does not apply to the present case)

3. The Evidence Gathered

3.1 I have interviewed –

The Complainant Councillor Steve Foulkes
The subject member Councillor Chris Blakeley

3.2 I have spoken to Surjit Tour, the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

3.3 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.

3.4 I have been given a copy of Wirral Council’s Member’s Code of Conduct protocol.

3.5 I have obtained copies of other articles within the press relating to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor found as a result of a speculative search of the internet. Copies of these are contained within Appendix A

4 Nomination for the Office of Mayor

4.1 Both Councillor Foulkes and Councillor Blakeley have explained the process for mayor making to me. My understanding is that in essence nominations to

6 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

the offices of mayor and deputy mayor are made by the Wirral Council Cabinet. All three parties take a rotational turn to put forward their nomination for the role. In 2013 the rotational turn belonged to the Labour Group. I am told by Councillor Foulkes that the selection of the Labour Group nomination is based upon seniority due to length of service.

4.2 In accordance with custom and practice the role of deputy mayor is normally followed a year later by the holder’s nomination to the position of mayor. My understanding is that the naming of a mayor and deputy mayor is not normally controversial in Wirral.

4.3 The nomination to the mayoralty and deputy mayoralty is traditionally unopposed by any of the parties as the position is considered apolitical.

5 The Allegations by the Complainant

5.1 The complaint stems from a statement which appeared in the a Liverpool Echo article dated 13^th May 2013 and a quote attributed to the subject member Councillor Blakeley, words taken from the article of :

"I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."

"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."

5.2 Within his complaint Councillor Foulkes explains "I have a proud record of public service over 22 years. During that time I have never been found guilty of being unfit to hold public office. By questioning by fitness to hold the offices of Council Leader, Deputy Mayor and Mayor, Cllr Blakeley is in clear breach of one of the key elements of the Members Protocol, i.e. ‘failing to treat people with respect."

6 Account by Councillor Foulkes

6.1 Councillor Foulkes is an elected Councillor of Wirral Borough Council and following his nomination to the office, he became the Deputy Mayor of Wirral Borough Council.

7 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

6.2 Councillor Foulkes made the complaint on 17^th May 2013 following the article that appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 13^th May 2013.

6.3 Councillor Foulkes has complained about the comments attributed to Councillor Blakeley within the Liverpool Echo explaining that he took exception to the word ‘unfit’ saying "The use of the word ‘unfit’ implies things, gives connotations that there is criminality involved with your character or malpractice. For this to be true ‘he’ would need evidence. That is what is required to say a holder of a drinks licence or a taxi licence is unfit – you need to explain what makes a person ‘unfit’."

6.4 When interviewed Councillor Foulkes differentiated the comments made by Councillor Blakeley from the other comments contained within the article "The first comment that I found mildly offensive was the comment ‘divisive’ I did not take action about this." "… people are allowed poetic licence even though it was not a great comment; people say many things in political tit for tat. I did not take action over this."

6.5 Councillor Foulkes explained the effect of the quotes on:

him as an individual, "The statements made have had an effect on me as an individual. First it made life difficult for me" "People who read it associated it with criminality or malpractice. I was very concerned that this was what people were thinking of me." "I have to survive in the real world. I have a career. If people associate my name with being ‘unfit’ or ‘divisive’ it will discourage people from taking the role of politician if that sort of language continues"
him as a politician, "Understanding the local people, I knew the phase ‘unfit’ could be interpreted in a whole host of ways. It took me aback that Councillor Blakeley though he knew something that would show me as unfit. Leaders of Council’s are accountable. This is right and correct. This however was an attack on my character."
his family and friends "it has clearly created tension for my friends and family" "I received comments from friends and people that I met "what’s he got on you to call you ‘unfit’?" As I said, normally the use of the word ‘unfit is connected to criminality e.g. in the context of licensing. What have I done? I have never done

8 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

anything. If Councillor Blakeley thought that I was unfit on those grounds then he should have made it clearer.”

6.6 Councillor Foulkes explained why he took exception to the quotes attributed to Councillor Blakeley "I would never say that I don’t have respect for someone. I feel that by saying this Councillor Blakeley has gone beyond the normal attacks that occur." "Where Councillor Blakeley says I was unfit it shows a lack of respect this is made worse when his comments are then emblazoned in the press."

6.7 Quoting directly from Councillor Foulkes’ statement he said "Lots of others called for my resignation, others spoke in support. It doesn’t mean that someone who has been the Leader cannot be Mayor. I have done the job as Leader to the best of my ability. I have made mistakes but I do not think that I have done anything to warrant me being called ‘unfit’. This is personalised attack on my character not based on anything I might have done or anything that he believes that I have done."

"At this point in time there is not a blemish on my character. I would say that as a politician I have made mistakes. I made decisions with the best interests of Wirral and the Council I never knowingly did anything that would breach decent behaviour or any Code of Conduct."

7 The Liverpool Echo Article dated 13^th May 2013

7.1 The Article which is the subject of this complaint appeared in the Liverpool Echo on Monday 13^th May 2013 under the title "Rivals in row over choice of Deputy Mayor" by Liam Murphy.

7.2 The article is introduced with the editorial "A long-standing tradition of not making mayoralty a political issue looks set to be shattered in Wirral tonight"

7.3 The editorial continues "Former council leader, Labour’s Steve Foulkes, is being put forward as deputy mayor; but a leading Tory has said he will vote against him Cllr Foulkes and other members of the Conservative party are expected to join him or abstain."

7.4 The article sets out the context of the mayor making process explaining "the three parties in Wirral council take turns nominating a councillor to the

9 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================
mayoralty seen as a non-political role which raises thousands of pounds for chosen charities."

7.5 Within the article Tory Leader Councillor Jeff Green has a quote attributed to him, ‘he was surprised by the decision to nominate such a "divisive figure"’

7.6 The editorial commentary introduces Councillor Blakeley’s quote with "ahead of night’s meeting to nominate the new mayor and his deputy, Tory chief whip Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would be voting against Cllr Foulkes"

7.7 Councillor Blakeley is then quoted as having said "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality."

"Having sat on the benches opposite calling for his resignation because he was not fit to lead the council, how can I now say that he is fit to be the deputy mayor this year and the mayor next year? I would be a total hypocrite. I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him."

7.8 The article ends with a commentary from the complainant Councillor Foulkes "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves" . "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."

8 Response from Councillor Blakeley

8.1 During my interview with Councillor Blakeley he explained that he felt the complaint was a tit for tat complaint made by the complainant.

8.2 Councillor Blakeley was and is unhappy with the process followed in the handling of this complaint.

8.3 When interviewed Councillor Blakeley described the council as "factionalised politically".

8.4 In relation to the quotes attributed to him, Councillor Blakeley did not remember the exact words used however he did not dispute the words quoted "When I saw the article I was not shocked by what it said. But I

10 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

can’t say if what they printed was correct because I can’t recall word for word what was actually said".

8.5 Councillor Blakeley explained "I am extremely proud that I voted against Councillor Foulkes as Deputy Mayor along with my colleagues who also voted against and those in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Group who also did not support Cllr Foulkes nomination by abstaining."

8.6 When referring to the mayor making process Councillor Blakeley explained "The traditional view is that the Mayor Making is a non-political event. No vote is taken on either role and it is all done with niceties and everyone is pleasant".

8.7 With reference to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor Councillor Blakeley explained "The selection of Councillor Foulkes made it a political event. When Labour nominated Councillor Foulkes, the Labour Group knew what they were doing, sticking two fingers up to the Council and to the people of Wirral. As explained by Councillor Jeff Green’s comment "he was surprised by the decision to nominate such ‘a divisive figure’." If you knew and understood the history of politics in Wirral you would understand that".

8.8 In relation to the use of the wording ‘unfit’ Councillor Blakeley explained "Councillor Foulkes was voted out as Leader of the Council in 2011 because of a vote of no confidence. I voted against Councillor Foulkes when he was leader. I vote against him because we all believed he was no longer fit to lead this Council. We need a majority of Councillors to carry a vote of no confidence, clearly that majority was achieved. It wasn’t my words that he wasn’t ‘fit’ it was the Council motion".

8.9 Councillor Blakeley explained the context of his statements "Wirral Borough Council is a ‘bear put’ of a political arena. Since Councillor Davies took over as Leader of the Council there have been calls for him to resign. If the shoe was on the other foot; I am sure that he would be calling for the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Leader to resign. Calling on Leaders to resign is not unusual in Wirral, regardless of which political party it is, that is the confrontational nature of politics that exists in Wirral".

8.10 Councillor Blakeley went on to explain "Wirral Council is exceptionally political." "..I am sure that both he and I and others have said far

11 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

worse in the Council Chamber than is printed on that newspaper page".

8.11 In conclusion Councillor Blakeley said "Looking at the seven principles in public life that are in the Schedule to the Members Code of Conduct, I have been honest in what I have said. I have been accountable about what I have said".

9 Summary of the material facts

9.1 The comments published in the Liverpool Echo on 13^th May 2013 complained about are attributed to Councillor Blakeley.

9.2 The article and all the quotes contained within it including those attributed to the Councillor Blakeley "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him." all relate to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for deputy mayor.

9.3 It is clear that the comments are connected to the intended departure from a long established tradition of nominations relating to the mayoralty being apolitical "I think the reality is that the conservatives are becoming increasingly desperate to gain some attention for themselves". "If they have chosen to show what is considered bad manners, politicising the mayoralty, it says more about them than anyone else."

9.4 The nomination of councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor led to comments being made publicly about the nomination from a number of Wirral Borough Councillors.

9.5 I note that in relation to the ‘unfit’ comment Councillor Foulkes explained to his employer "that is was just political stuff" I also note that Councillor Foulkes’ response to the comments contained within the article is also quoted (paragraph 7.8 above refers).

10 Case Law

In coming to a conclusion over whether or not there has been a breach of the Wirral Code of Conduct, I have taken into account case law concerning the freedom of expression, in particular political expression and the application of the article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression) to complaints under the Code of Conduct. Including the most recent high court cases of R (Dennehy) v London Borough of Ealing [2013]

12 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

EWHC 4102 and R(Calver) v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin) (03 May 2012). Other cases considered and taken into account include

Lingens v Austria (1996) 8 EHRR 103
Sanders v Steve Kingston [2005] EWHC 1145 Admin
R v Central Independent Television plc (1994) Fam 192
Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin)
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127

10.1 In R(Calver) v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Beatson J stated:

"The recognition of the importance of expression in the political sphere and the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of politicians acting in their public capacity than they are in the case of private individuals… This recognition involves both a higher level of protection ("enhanced protection") for statements in the political sphere and the expectation that if the subjects of such statements are politicians acting in their public capacity, they lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their words and deeds and are expected to possess a thicker skin and greater tolerance than ordinary members of the public … Although the protection of Article 10(2) extends to politicians, the Strasbourg Court has stated that where a politician seeks to rely on it, "the requirements have to be weighed in relation to the open discussion of political issues".

10.2 In Sanders v Steven Kingston Wilkie J considered the relationship between Article 10 and paragraph 2(b) of the then Code of Conduct. The provision equates to paragraphs 1.1 of the Wirral Council’s new Code with which this investigation is concerned. In paragraph 69 of his judgement, Wilkie J reviewed a number of authorities. In my view the paragraphs taken from the judgement are relevant to this investigation as they relate to the freedom of expression and political expression in particular.

10.3 In Lingens v Austria Wilkie J noted [at para.69] that the following was said:

"In this connection the court has to recall that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information or ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to

13 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

those that offend shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no democratic society. More generally freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society which prevails throughout the convention… In such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues."

10.4 From R v Central Independent Television plc (1994) Fam 192 Wilkie J set out the following passage from the speech of Lord Justice Hoffman:

"Publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which "right thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins."

10.5 From Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 Mr Justice Willkie quoted the judgement of Lord Nichols:

"Members of Councils are politicians and their actions as such are often political actions. An obvious example is when they are speaking in Council meetings where robust political debate may reflect lack of respect for political opponents or may result in views being expressed which many might regard as offensive. It cannot be the case, in my judgement, that the sole source of obligation in that context is the code of conduct unmediated by consideration of Article 10."

10.6 Collins J in Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) [at para.39]:

"The burden is on [the Adjudication Panel for England] to justify interference with freedom of speech. However offensive and undeserving of protection the appellant’s outburst may have appeared to some, it is important that any individual knows that he can say what he likes, provided it is not unlawful, unless there are clear and satisfactory reasons within the terms of Article 10(2) to render him liable to sanctions.”

14 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

11 Reasoning as to whether there has been failure to comply with the Code of Conduct

11.1 Two matters fall for determination on the basis of the facts as found:

Whether when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13^th May 2014, Councillor Blakeley was acting in his role as a member of the Council and

Whether Councillor Blakeley’s conduct was such that he failed to treat others with respect.

Failure to Treat Others with Respect

11.2 Failure to treat others with respect will occur when unfair, unreasonable or demeaning behaviour is directed by one person against another. The circumstances in which the behaviour occurred are relevant in assessing whether the behaviour is disrespectful. The circumstances include the place where the behaviour occurred, who observed the behaviour, the behaviour itself and its proportionality to the circumstances, the character and relationship of the people involved and the behaviour of anyone who prompted the alleged disrespect.

11.3 It is recognised that in politics rival groupings are common and, within this context it is expected that each will campaign for their ideas, and they may also seek to discredit the policies and actions of their opponents. It is very clear from case law that ideas and policies can be robustly criticised, but individuals should not be subject to unreasonable or excessive personal attack, it is also clear from case law that the right to freedom of expression is a crucially important right that can only be interfered with where there are convincing and compelling reasons within article 10(2) to justify that interference "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins" (paragraph 10.4 above refers).

11.4 Councillor Blakeley does not deny making the quotes contained in the Liverpool Echo article.

11.5 There is agreement by the complainant and the subject member that the quotes contained within the article were as a direct response to the nomination of Councillor Foulkes for the position of deputy mayor.

11.6 I find that the quotes in the article related to a matter within Councillor Blakeley’s legitimate concern as a councillor. I consider that the right of Councillor Blakeley as a democratically elected member of a public authority to free speech is engaged. I find that in making the statements he was

15 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

seeking to explain why he would be voting against the nomination of Councillor Foulkes as deputy mayor "I truly believe that for labour to nominate such a controversial character as Steve Foulkes threatens the position of mayor and the need for impartiality." This appears to have been said by way of explanation against the accepted Wirral tradition that when such nominations are made by a party for the position of deputy mayor, the nominations are accepted without opposition from any of the other parties’ members "I fully respect the mayoralty; however I have no respect for Cllr Foulkes and that is why I will be voting against him.".

11.7 Personal Attack or Malice

In relation to the article, I have also considered whether or not there was a personal attack against Councillor Foulkes contained within the quotes made. I have concentrated in particular on the use of the wording ‘unfit’ and taking into account Councillor Foulkes’ views when he said "I believe Councillor Blakeley used the words ‘unfit’ for effect. Perhaps politicians think in a different way." I have also taken into account Councillor Foulkes’ own account of the use of the wording "’unfit’ in his explanation to his employer "I explained to them that it was just political stuff.

11.8 I have taken into account that the complainant is directly referred to and is singled out as the subject of the article however I have balanced this with the fact that the article and the comments contained within it relate to a nomination to the very public position of deputy mayor. I have taken the view that in being nominated and agreeing to be put out for nomination the complainant accepted that fellow elected members may or may not approve of the nomination and as a result may voice their support or opposition to the proposed nomination publically using the various media forums available to them. This by the nature of the political arena in which it is set was a direct possibility despite the fact that within Wirral, tradition tended to show that nominations for mayoralty positions are dealt with unopposed.

11.9 The quotes appear to be an explanation of the voting direction Councillor Blakeley intended to take. I am not satisfied that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo amount to any more than political commentary following a group nomination to the position of deputy mayor.

11.10 I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice /anger, or personal abuse directed at the complainant Councillor Foulkes.

16 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

11.11 On the basis that the quotes in the article constituted the legitimate expression of a political view by Councillor Blakeley which is afforded the highest level of protection under article 10 and the fact that the quotes related to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor; I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Blakeley to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council.

12 Finding

Official Capacity

12.1 I find that Councillor Blakeley was acting in his official capacity when quoted in the Liverpool Echo on 13^th May 2013, he spoke in his capacity as a councillor about the nomination for the office of deputy mayor and he spoke of his intention to vote at the mayor making council meeting.

Failure to Treat Others with Respect

12.2 I conclude that there has been no failure by Councillor Foulkes to comply with paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Wirral Borough Council in that the quotes in the Liverpool Echo article constituted the legitimate expression of Councillor Blakeley; quotes relating to a matter within his legitimate concern as a councillor. I do not find that the quotes were expressions of personal malice/anger or personal abuse directed at the Complainant.

Code of Conduct

12.3 My finding is that there has been no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct of Wirral Borough Council.

Trudie Odaka
Investigator
10^th March 2014

17 | Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed
=======================================================================================================

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

How much evidence does there have to be of wrongdoing at Wirral Council before an apology is given?

In late May of 2011 Simon Holbrook wrote an email to Councillor Pat Williams (in her capacity as Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Chair) and Councillor Alan Brighouse (in his capacity as Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Secretary) to their Wirral Council email addresses. What that email said (despite having a court order for the email to be produced to me from Deputy District Judge Ireland granted in the Birkenhead County Court the next year) is unknown to me as it was never shared with me.

What I do know was that based on the contents of this email (that was never shared with me), Councillor Pat Williams and former Councillor Ann Bridson proposed and seconded my suspension from the Liberal Democrats at a meeting of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Constituency Executive based on its contents in early June 2011. The next day (4th June 2011) I made a subject access request exercising a right I have under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for “a copy of the complaint made against me by Simon Holbrook”.

The constitution of the Liberal Democrats stated (and still does) state

“7.9 When the grounds cited in the charge are those specified under Article 2.6 (a), (b) or (d), the Disciplinary Procedure may proceed as follows:

(iii) The original complaint, the charge, copies of any written statements obtained and details of the Disciplinary Meeting shall be provided to the person being complained against and to all members of the Disciplinary Meeting not later than four weeks before the date of that meeting. ”

and

7.3 “If the procedure is not completed within that time, then the suspension shall automatically cease unless an extension of time is granted by the English Appeals Panel in accordance with its procedures. The person being complained against shall be notified of the suspension and the reasons for it.”

When it came to the disciplinary meeting fourteen weeks later in early September 2011, the original complaint had not been shared with me within the ten week time limit. The forty day limit to respond to my subject access request had passed. I’d written a further letter giving an extra fourteen days to share with me the original complaint otherwise I would sue, that too had passed.

By the date of the disciplinary meeting I was in the frankly ridiculous situation of having been suspended based on a complaint that had never been shared with me (and which I’d sued both the local party and the party nationally to get a copy of) and basically stated that because of this abuse of process the constitution said that because this mandatory requirement of the constitution hadn’t been followed that the suspension had therefore automatically expired and the disciplinary panel therefore didn’t have the power to reach a decision.

The disciplinary meeting made up of Roy Wood (who later stood against me as the candidate in Bidston & St. James the next year), Anna Blumenthal (the Birkenhead Liberal Democrat President at the time since deceased), Allan Brame, Cllr Mark Clayton and some member from Ellesmere Port I forget the name of didn’t see it that way and decided to punish me by deciding that I wouldn’t be allowed to be a Lib Dem candidate in any public election or hold office within the party for five years. This decision could then be appealed within a month to the English Appeals Panel (which I did).

However the English Appeals Panel told me they couldn’t accept the appeal as I didn’t have the original complaint made against me!

The next year in April 2012 (after an unsuccessful attempt in October 2012 by the Liberal Democrats to switch the two defendants in the case to a former Chief Executive of theirs called Chris Fox) there was a hearing in the Birkenhead County Court in front of Deputy District Judge Ireland. One of the two defendants was Councillor Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Roy Wood also turned up to help him. There was nobody appearing for the other defendant which was Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats (that defendant was the Lib Dem headquarters down in London who had also ignored the subject access request).

Deputy District Judge Ireland agreed with me that s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that Councillor Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats had failed to comply with my subject access request made the previous year in contravention of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. She granted me a court order ordering the two defendants to comply with the request.

On May 25th 2012, after mentioning to Councillor Alan Brighouse at the local election count on the evening of May 3rd or early morning of May 4th Councillor Alan Brighouse wrote me a letter. A copy of his letter is below with a scan of the original handwritten letter.

31 Grosvenor Road

Oxton

May 25, 2012

Dear John,
Attached is a hard copy of Simon’s initial complaint against you.
As I told you at the election count, I was hoping to find the original e-mail to which it was attached.
I think you are aware that, subsequent to sending the complaint to Pat and myself, Simon modified it, leaving the two items that were eventually considered by the panel.

kind regards,
Alan

Letter from Alan Brighouse to John Brace dated 25 May 2012

So what was Simon Holbrook’s original complaint? My comments are in italics and I link to the relevant documents mentioned.

Appendix – Case against John Brace

1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

This allegation was withdrawn by him in advance of the disciplinary panel meeting.

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton had been treated, despite the fact that these are two totally separate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation with respect to the independent investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board of England.

My email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 is rather long, however the three sentences referred to here are “Morale in the party is extremely low, the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the local party are currently (according to the Wirral Globe) under investigation on standards grounds following a decision by Wirral Council’s Independent Assessment Panel to refer the matter to Standards for England regarding their roles in the Social Services “special charging policy” and how Martin Morton was treated. This independent report (by now read by councillors but currently exempt) will be published within 2-5 months and will lead to a public discussion of their roles in this saga. Both are likely to be candidates in 2012 and the full reasons how and why they did things will have to be made clear to the public and party in the spirit of openness and accountability if we are to move on.

That email was sent to nine people, seven of whom were councillors. The Wirral Globe article referred to was Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry. The Chair of the local party at that time was Cllr Pat Williams and the Vice-Chair former Cllr Ann Bridson. The independent report I was referring to was the Anna Klonowski Associates report published in January 2012. My estimate of it being published between July and October of 2012 was a little optimistic. The key to the individuals mentioned in the Anna Klonowski Associates report shows that “Councillor 1” is Councillor Pat Williams. The decision to commission Anna Klonowski Associates Limited to write her report into “an independent review of the Council’s response to the concerns raised by Mr Martin Morton under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), in relation to the application of a Special Charging Policy for Adult Social Care service users at Supported Living Units in Wirral between 1997 and 2006” was made solely by Councillor Jeff Green (the leader of the Conservative Group) when he was Leader of the Council in July 2010.

Simon Holbrook probably thought I was referring in my email to the heavily redacted Martin Smith report (of the North West Employers’ Organisation into “Mr Morton’s allegations of bullying, harassment and abuse of power by Council Officers”.

2. Disclosure of Confidential Information

John Brace did disclose on the Wirral Globe website blog, discussions that took place within the Birkenhead Executive Committee. Meetings of the Birkenhead Executive Lib Dems are internal party matters and therefore as such confidential to members of the Liberal Democrats and not for general publication.

These disclosures resulted in a senior Councillor from outside Birkenhead (Phil Gilchrist) being sufficiently concerned to raise the matter with the Constituency Chair (Cllr Williams).

The comments were made on this Wirral Globe article on the Wirral Globe website “Jubilant Labour leader invites Lib Dems to unite”, my comments were comments 5 (which it seems nobody had a problem with), comment 16 (referred to above), comment 17 (which nobody had a problem with), comment 22 (which nobody seemed to have a problem with) and comment 24 (which nobody had a problem with).

This was what Councillor Phil Gilchrist (before I was suspended) put in an email dated 19th May 2011 sent at 6:47 from philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk to myself Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Alan Brighouse, Alan Brame, Cllr Kelly, former Cllr Bridson, Roy Wood, Cllr Tom Harney and Cllr Dave Mitchell about it

“Dear John
Thank you for the detailed comments and background.
I had seen the matters referred to on the Globe website during my trawls for information, following the ‘initiative’ announced by Cllr Foulkes.
I mentioned my concerns to Pat as Chair of Birkenhead. It is not my place to comment on internal arrangements in Birkenhead.
My concern is and was that the detailed information supplied to The Globe covered ‘internal workings’ that were being made public. .
I have no information on the matters you referred to, just a desire that we avoid sending out information which has the potential to be used or misused by others.
I do see that you have mentioned taking on board the points raised .
I am grateful that you appreciate that comments can have an impact on the rest of work.
Phil Gilchrist

This was the only allegation upheld by the disciplinary panel. The disciplinary panel met on 6th September 2011 and in a report sent to me on 28th September 2011 said what is below on the matter.

Sanctions
“The panel felt that revocation of membership was too harsh a penalty for a single transgression on a little read “blog”, although it was made clear that Mr. Brace should not publish anything on behalf of the party in future unless properly authorised.

Under English Party Membership Rules 7.10(ii) – that John Brace be barred from any elected office in the party for a period of five years.

Under English Party Membership Rules 7.10(iii) – that John Brace be barred from seeking any elected public office for the party for a period of five years.

This was the unanimous view of the panel.

The Panel expressed their concern about the organisation of Wirral’s selection procedures and felt that the problems should be addressed and resolved.”

In summary then, the disciplinary panel report found that I had been right that candidate selection hadn’t been done according to the party’s constitution and therefore agreed with my version of events but chose to punish me for making it public.

3. Making False Allegations in Public

The matters disclosed in point 2 above questioned the eligibility of Simon Holbrook to have stood as the Lib Dem Candidate in Prenton at the recent local elections. John Brace also questioned the appropriate of Cllr Ann Bridson signing Simon Holbrook’s nomination papers. The allegation is that there was a denial of the democratic process to Birkenhead Party members.

The same blog also contains a statement insulting to all Wirral Lib Dem Councillors which said that when Simon Holbrook says “do something, unfortunately his councillors do it.”

This was withdrawn by Simon Holbrook prior to the disciplinary panel meeting. However as mentioned earlier the disciplinary panel report stated “The Panel expressed their concern about the organisation of Wirral’s selection procedures and felt that the problems should be addressed and resolved.” The second part is a partial quote. The whole quote is “However when Simon Says do something, unfortunately his councillors do it.” which was comment sixteen if you follow that link.

4. Making an Unsubstantiated Allegation of a Complaint

In an email to Cllr Pat Williams dated 19 May 2011 at 00:05, John Brace did allege that former Cllr Simon Holbrook had made a complaint about his conduct, when no such complaint had been made.

In the same email, he made reference to Simon Holbrook’s personal statement that he will not seek elected office in 2012 and concentrate on his professional career and seeks to link that with his own on website blogs with no factual justification.

This allegation was withdrawn by Simon Holbrook prior to the disciplinary meeting.

The email referred to stated “Although I have not been made aware of who is making this complaint, I suspect it is from the former constituency exec member and Prenton candidate Simon Holbrook as that was who my comment mainly related to.”

In other words I didn’t allege he had made a complaint about me I just stated that I suspected he had. At this point I hadn’t been made aware of who was making a complaint to Cllr Pat Williams, but as the complaint was about a comment I’d made about Simon Holbrook I suspected that he was the one who had made the complaint (which is ironic as within a fortnight he went onto make the long complaint that this blog post is about).

The other reference referred to in the email was this “Simon Holbrook (issued by a press release on the Lib Dem website) has stated he will not to stand as a candidate in 2012 and is to concentrate on his Environment Agency. I do not know whether this is connected with my comments made or not. That is his personal choice to make.”

The press release was on the Wirral Lib Dem website and is copied below.

MEDIA RELEASE

Issued by: Simon Holbrook
Date of Issue: May 9th 2011

Statement by Simon Holbrook

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people, council officers, political friends and foes alike, who I have worked with and who have helped me during my 12 years as a Wirral Councillor.

“I am proud to have served as Councillor for Prenton Ward, and thank the many local residents who have supported me and the Liberal Democrats during this time. I would particularly like to thank those people who have stuck with the Liberal Democrats as we have attempted to do difficult things in difficult times.

“For most of my time, Wirral has been a Council where political parties have had to work together to get things done. As Group Leader, I always sought to apply Liberal Democrat influence in the best interests of Wirral people. The past four years have been particularly challenging as a coalition partner to both the other Parties. I am particularly proud of the fact that, during the past 12 months, we have responded to the most difficult financial conditions ever put onto local government, without making the types of cuts made by other councils, protecting front line services and no compulsory redundancies.

“Whilst I shall remain active in politics locally, I now intend to concentrate on my professional career within the Environment Agency. I will therefore not be seeking election in 2012, but do hope to return to frontline politics at some point in the future.

“I pass on my sincere best wishes to all members of Wirral Council in the difficult task that I know still lies ahead of them.”

The most curious bit about part 4 of the complaint are the dates and the timing. Councillor Alan Brighouse deputised for Councillor Pat Williams at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the evening of June 1st 2011. After this meeting finished, he told me in the car park of Wallasey Town Hall that Simon Holbrook had emailed him and Cllr Pat Williams with a compliant about me at some point in the days prior to June 1st 2011. The court order granted by Deputy District Judge Ireland in April 2012 was for this original complaint and email (which had to have been sent prior to June 1st 2011). However part 4 of Simon Holbrook’s complaint refers to something that didn’t happen until the evening of the 3rd June 2011 (which seems impossible). Simon Holbrook writes “In the same email, he made reference to Simon Holbrook’s personal statement that he will not seek elected office in 2012 and concentrate on his professional career and seeks to link that with his own on website blogs with no factual justification.” which is a clear reference to this blog post Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Party Constituency Executive Suspends John Brace and the quote which first appears on it when it was first published on the evening of 3rd June 2011 (it has later had a few revisions) which originally stated “Well, I’ve been suspended from the Liberal Democrat Party following a complaint by Simon Holbrook. I can’t say much more than that (obviously) as contrary to the complaints procedure I haven’t been provided with a copy of the complaint. Having written that, if he is concentrating on his career in the Environment Agency he’s showing a funny way of doing it!”

5. Seeking to Attend a Civic Function without an Invitation

That together with Leonora Brace, John Brace did seek to attend the celebration party following the Mayor Making ceremony despite not having received an invitation to the event. When challenged, John Brace did inappropriately attempt to claim that his possession of a ‘Press Card’ entitled him to attend this invitation only civic function.

Note: John and Leonora Brace did attend part 1 of the Annual Council meeting from the public gallery, which they are entitled to do so.

This allegation was withdrawn by Simon Holbrook prior to the disciplinary panel meeting. It’s untrue and probably so for a number of reasons which I will state here. Part 1 of the Annual Council meeting has been held every year prior to May 2011 for as long as anyone can remember in the Civic Hall at Wallasey Town Hall. There is a gallery above the Civic Hall but in the time period referred to by Simon Holbrook nobody was permitted to be in it as it was classed as “unsafe”. It’s only in more recent years when I’ve been filming the Annual Council meeting that I’ve been in the public gallery in the Civic Hall as Council employees insist I couldn’t film anywhere else as it was a “fire hazard”.

I will state a few things here that also will show that I wouldn’t want to attend a celebration party. I have a diagnosed special dietary requirement (a fact that is probably unknown to Simon Holbrook) called lactose intolerance. I have to follow a gluten-free and dairy free diet. Therefore anything that would be available to eat at a “celebration party” I wouldn’t be able to anyway. In fact I can categorically state that I’ve never gatecrashed a celebration party following part 1 of an Annual Council meeting.

However part 1 of the Annual Council meeting is a public meeting (as pointed out in the complaint), the public have a right in law to be there. I do remember one year someone (probably working for the Mayor’s office) asking me for my invitation on the way in to the Annual Council meeting in the Civic Hall and I pointed out to this person it was a public meeting, that I didn’t need an invitation and had a right in law to be there as it was a public meeting. I was then asked what I was planning to do at the end of the Annual Council meeting to which I answered I would be leaving (which I did). If memory serves me correct about what happened the same person came over to me again once the meeting had finished and people were leaving and asked us again if I were leaving (this happened near the stairs just outside the Round Room). I explained that as my wife has mobility problems I would be helping her down the stairs (she’s claustrophobic when it comes to lifts) and that I was waiting for a sufficient gap in the crowds of people who were milling around in order to do so safely as I was concerned that I didn’t want her to be jostled which would cause her to fall. Quite how this series of events morphed into Simon Holbrook’s spurious, fanciful and totally untrue allegation about what happened I’m not sure.

6. Giving a False Impression of Holding Public Office

In a separate blog John Brace did write -“Although in theory I hold the position of councillor, it’s not with Wirral Council and like the Mayoress of Wirral Mrs Jennings is unelected so am I, as like with the Mayoress it’s to do with who I’m married to.”

This remark appeared in a blog speculating about the future shape of the Council administration. Although its purpose is unclear, it does seek to give credibility to the comments through claiming an association with a public office.

This allegation was withdrawn by Simon Holbrook before the disciplinary panel meeting.

This is the blog post referred to written on 11th May 2011. The whole quote (in context) is

“It’s strange of Cllr. Foulkes and his Labour councillors to pursue a strategy of going after the Lib Dems for five weeks, then be all smiles and wanting our help after Labour have lost control in 2010 and are desperate to get a sniff of power. Admittedly all parties behave like this to varying degrees, the Conservatives saw this coming and have (thankfully) told the public some of the skeletons in the cupboard of the previous Labour administration.

What will happen? It’s up to the ten Wirral Lib Dem councillors to decide. Although some residents think I hold the position of councillor, I do not with Wirral Council. The Mayoress of Wirral Mrs. Jennings is unelected so am I, as like with the Mayoress it’s to do with who I’m married to.”

This was a reference to my wife holding a position on the Council of Elders which governs a reservation where she’s from in Canada. The quote used alleges I am a holder of public office, however if the comment is actually read it shows that although some people may think that, I did not. I am married to Leonora and that is the position she holds.

7. Did Make Allegations in his Blog of Irregularities in the Count

In a blog following the local elections, John Brace claimed that the votes had not been counted properly. He sought to compare the declared result with his own canvass returns to justify his claim that his own votes had not been counted properly. In the same blog, he inappropriately said that a large number of votes in Oxton changed hands on the recount.

This is the blog post referred to. The issues were (as explained in the blog post) to do with errors made at the count. Here’s what I put “No yellow 25s were initially handed out to counters. This was raised by myself as candidate as to why the Lib Dem votes weren’t being counted.”, “The counters soon ran out of 25s so 25s from different parties were used. This meant each candidates’ total was a mixture of colours and instead of using separate trays, one tray was used for Labour, the Conservative and UKIP votes were put in a second tray with the Lib Dem votes hidden from view behind a ballot box.” and “We only have to look at the Oxton recount to see how a large number of votes changed after being recounted.”

This is just a factual account of what happened at the count. The Deputy Returning Officer before he declared the result in Bidston & St. James agreed with me and took some votes off the Labour amount before the result was declared and added them to my total as a compromise as he didn’t want to have to do a recount. The result in Oxton (after a recount) was that Stuart Kelly got 1,918 votes and Matthew Patrick 1,792 (a majority of 126). However the original count of the Oxton votes put Stuart Kelly’s majority as much larger at around two hundred.

8. Making an Unjustified Complaint against a Lib Dem Councillor to the Standards Board of England

John Brace did report Cllr Ann Bridson to the Standards Board over the seating arrangements for members of the public at a meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee. The complaint was investigated at significant public expenses and was dismissed as unfounded.

The complaint had the potential to be damaging to the reputation of a party colleague, yet at no time did John Brace seek to discuss the matter about which he felt aggrieved with Cllr Bridson, or any other member of the Liberal Democrat Council Group.

Well this is what the disciplinary panel stated in their report “The panel found this not proved.”

Firstly, I have never made a complaint about Councillor Ann Bridson to the Standards Board for England. In fact the law at the time stated only Wirral Council could do that. I did discuss it with Cllr Bridson and Cllr Williams before making the complaint.

However I did make a complaint about former Cllr Bridson to Bill Norman (who was then Monitoring Officer at Wirral Council). This complaint was never referred to the Standards Board for England. The complaint about former Cllr Bridson that was referred to the Standards Board for England was the one made by Martin Morton about her and other councillors. The statement that I didn’t seek to discuss the matter with her before making the complaint is untrue.

From my signed witness statement “21. I did raise with the Chair after the meeting the issues about disability and her Committee had a specific responsibility for these. I did not want the events repeated again at this discussion she said that she was not prepared to listen to arguments from members of the public. 22. I was surprised and shocked by what she said.”

From my wife’s signed witness statement “17. After the meeting they had approached the Chair. She [Leonora Brace] became engaged in conversation with a Councillor close by, while her husband was speaking to the Chair [Ann Bridson] and I did not hear the full conversation. She could hear well enough to know that attitude of the Chair [Ann Bridson] was not good. She [Ann Bridson] was shouting in a loud voice and she [Leonora Brace] heard her [Ann Bridson] say this is “not the time nor the place” for speaking. 18. In Mrs Brace’s creed there is great emphasis put on the need to be polite. The Chair was not being polite.

From Ann Bridson’s signed witness statement “24. John Brace may have approached me at the end of a meeting in the last 7 months, and I may have suggested his enquiry/comment was inappropriate at that time. However really I cannot recall.” and “31. On another issue relating to the course of this complaint and regarding the Liberal Democrat Party, John Brace had emailed the Chair of the Liberal Democrats [Birkenhead] Constituency Committee [Cllr Pat Williams] that he had made a complaint about me under the Council’s standards procedures. The Chair of the [Birkenhead] Constituency Committee had sent that email out to all members of the Executive Committee and at the next meeting when this was made clear to me, I felt obliged to say in front of the Committee that it was not a complaint that related in any sense for example fiddling expenses or an income tax offence.”

The Deputy Monitoring Officer at the time Surjit Tour wrote the covering report about the complaint to the Standards Initial Assessment Panel meeting of 20th December 2010. The detailed report of the ethical standards officer Mr David Swallow was also submitted to the Standards Initial Assessment Panel.

I asked the Chief Executive of Wirral Council Graham Burgess at the public meeting of the Improvement Board in November 2013 a question about how this standards complaint had been handled. A record of the questions and answers of Wirral Council are published on Wirral Council’s website.

My question was:

8. A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four Councillors referred to above (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03″. This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?

The answer of Wirral Council is perhaps typical of what would be termed “spin”. Other people may comment that it goes further than that.

This is the answer “The administrative error was that the number 3 was put into the complaint reference instead of number 2. The complaint, relating to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct was considered by the Standards Committee Initial Assessment Panel which concluded that no action should be taken as there was no evidence to support the allegations. The minor typographical error had no detrimental impact on the complainant as all of the content was correct and considered, and as the panel found no evidence of wrongdoing it would not be appropriate to issue an apology.”

Firstly it was allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct not “an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct”. If I remember correctly about what was in the decision notice, the Standards Committee Initial Assessment Panel accepted the recommendations of the ethical standards officer David Swallow. The ethical standards officer stated in his report that the sections of the Code of Conduct alleged to have been broken were

“3. (1) You must treat others with respect.

5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or Authority into disrepute.

6. You (a) must not use or attempt to use your position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage”

However Surjit Tour’s covering report just mentioned the following two:

“5.1 The relevant parts of the Code in relation to this complaint are:

Paragraphs:

3. (1) You must treat others with respect.

5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.”

The Standards Initial Assessment Panel accepted the three recommendations in the ethical standard officer’s report which were:

“10 My Recommendations are that –
10.1 The finding that there has been no breach of the Code be accepted;
10.2 No further action be taken in respect of this matter and the case be closed
10.3 As to general issues maybe highlighted by this matter, some consideration be given to the issues raised in this Report as to the facilities made available to those with disabilities in attending meetings of the Committees – eg positioning of the water machine; reservation of seats for those with disabilities.”

The statement by the Chief Executive that “no action should be taken as there was no evidence to support the allegations” is therefore ludicrous as one of the recommendations (10.3) agreed by the Standards Initial Assessment Panel was that consideration should be given to the issues raised in this report.

At the public meeting of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee last Monday Councillor Phil Gilchrist complained that he couldn’t hear what was going on because of the noise of the tea/coffee machine and asked for it to be turned off. So recommendation 10.3 was never actually put into action. The Chief Executive’s assertion that “all of the content was correct and considered” is untrue due to Surjit Tour’s admission. As to “no evidence of wrongdoing”, there’s plenty of evidence (see above) but when it comes to allegations of disability discrimination involving Wirral Council, well due to the culture no-one is ever found to be accountable however much evidence there is are they?

P.S. You may well say, well you can’t do this John, what about s. 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 which makes disclosure of the above in relations to a standards complaint a criminal offence? Well as regulation 5(d) of The Localism Act 2011 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional, Savings and Transitory Provisions) Order 2012 meant that part 5, schedule 25 of the Localism Act 2011 had the force of law from the 1st July 2012. Part 5, schedule 25 of the Localism Act 2011 repeals sections 56A to 67 of the Local Government Act 2000.

This also means (despite the legal advice the Standards Committee has been given in the past) that there is no reason in law why previous reports about standards complaints about other Wirral Council councillors can’t be released to the public.

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

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

In an update to the blog post headlined Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?, something seems to have happened “behind the scenes” as Surjit Tour had this to say to councillors on the subject at last night’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on an item about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (the bit he says about Wirral Council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity is the relevant part):

“Thank you Chair, just very briefly taking you through this particular report. It’s a report that’s already been considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 14th March and the report seeks to summarise the key provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

On the 13th August of 2010 the government announced its intention if you recall to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a decentralised process and arrangements with regard to the audit of public bodies. This Act seeks to set out the necessary framework in relation to the audit arrangements and I’ll turn your attention if I may to page fifty-seven of the report and that provides an explanatory note in terms of the key features of the current and new arrangements that are being introduced.

Paragraph 2.1 sets out and highlights features of the new arrangements and notably the abolition of the Audit Commission and with a view to arrangements being put in place. Under the new arrangements public bodies will be required to appoint an external, independent auditor on the advice of an independent audit panel. The audit panel which the Council must have in place and each local authority is required to have that audit panel in place to discharge their responsibilities, the appointment of an auditor. Various other… may be deferred on that particular panel by the Secretary of State.

The make up of that particular panel it talks about in the report of the recommended changes in the explanatory forward. The actual amend to the legislative framework with regards to council tax referendums and the revised measures to ensure local authorities’ compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

The Act also then introduces greater transparency and openness to meetings of Council meetings in particular by allowing local residents to film, tweet, blog and access the information in relation to decision-making in those committees. So it goes further than just the filming and the arrangements that we currently have.

We also then have arrangements and changes with regards to any local audit, taking account value for money elements which needs to be also factored in and we have a transfer of responsibilities of setting a new code of audit practice going now to the National Audit Office as part of these arrangements. So you see that in a bit more detail in paragraph three some of those provisions there in more detail.

In terms of our current arrangements, there are outsourcing arrangements in place and as you know we have Grant Thornton who is the external auditor for Council and that arrangement continues until 2017 at which point arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of a new local auditor and this is where the new local auditor panel will be engaged in the procurement of that particular body.

There will be a series of approved, accredited firms that will be able to do that and they will be made subject to assessment and criteria by the Financial Reporting Council and relevant professional accountancy bodies who are regulated in the provision of local government services.

In terms of the panel itself, details of its make up are set out in paragraph six of the explanatory note and this is where we need to have a panel which would consist of a majority of independent members and it would be chaired by an independent member. Now our Audit and Risk Management Committee can act as the Council’s auditor panel under the act if so required and if we need to appoint individuals then there’ll be a process that’ll need to be gone through.

You’ll recall that the Audit and Risk Management Committee, in fact it happened last year, indicated that it wished to be a majority of members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be independent and there will, arrangements are in hand to make those necessary arrangements. However the Secretary of State is still yet to publish regulations in relation to this particular Act, particularly the criteria and it needs to be expanded on what appears in the Act itself. So the draft regulations are not complete in terms of what the criteria will be for the appointment of independent members and as such a decision has been taken to await the Act or indeed those final regulations to ensure that any appointment that is made is compliant with those regulations.”

The Chair said, “Thanks Surjit, any questions, comments? Pat?”

Cllr Patricia Glasman said, “Paragraph 2.1.5 access information relating to the decisions made in those meetings, I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on that specifically the Pensions Committee we have attachments which are not available to the public. It’s business meetings and I just wondered was there any change to really the way those are treated?”

Surjit Tour replied, “No, there’s no, those changes with regards to information at committees considering the exempt schedules, the schedules before them so those provisions remain unchanged. This is very much the ability to report in open session at committee meetings, individuals being able to not only film, but to tweet, blog information in real-time and as decisions are made.”

The Chair said, “If there’s no further questions, can we agree the recommendations on page fifty-five, 11.1 agreed?”

The Committee agreed the following recommendation:

That the Committee notes the Report and Appendix 1 concerning the changes being introduced by the Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and its implications.

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

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

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.

The point in the video above of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting where the “community newspaper” proposals starts is at 21:28

Prior to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting held on the 10th April that decided to go ahead with the “community newspaper” idea, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) would have received this letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government about council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

I won’t include the letter here as you can click on the link and read it in its entirety yourself, but I will quote some sections “The background to the new power is that whilst the majority of local authorities comply fully with the Publicity Code’s provisions, it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature or continuing to publish newspapers more frequently than stated in the Code’s provisions. The Secretary of State being able to direct compliance with the Publicity Code is a means whereby these concerns can be addressed” and “The Secretary of State intends to adopt the following approach to this consideration. Where on the basis of any material or information currently available to him, the Secretary of State considers that there is some evidence of non-compliance since the Publicity Code was issued in March 2011, and there is no current unambiguous evidence available to him that the non-compliance has ceased and that there is no risk of future non compliance, he will be minded to give a direction to the authority concerned.”

So what does the code state on frequency?

Section 28 quite clearly states “Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, news-sheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly.”

So what frequency was approved by the Birkenhead Constituency Committee? I quote from the report on it, “It was proposed to produce a monthly publication to include information residents want to read about.” and later on it describes the frequency of the issues as “The pilot would be to produce an 8 page publication, bi-monthly for 6 months (3 editions) working in partnership with Lairdside Communities Together.”

Moving to the bit in the letter that states “it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature” the report to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee states “The content of the publication would be devised from the committee and community requests.” Everyone on the Birkenhead Constituency Committee is a politician (whether councillor or MP), does the public expect their requests for what goes in it not to be political. As there won’t be any advertising in the first three editions personally I don’t think there will be enough “community requests” for three eight page editions so the majority of the content is likely to be suggested by politicians.

Here was what was said at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on this item which starts at 21:28 in the video above.

=======================================================================================================DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
The second item on this Councillor Doughty talked to last time was around a local publication, so we’ve done some further thinking around this and just to clarify what this will be, it will be a community focussed publication supporting people with what’s on in the community. The data shows that the feedback that a lot of Members get is not all our residents get the local newspaper currently.

It will be a focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.

What we’re asking from the Committee is a pilot of three editions to see if it works and to monitor that pilot there will be two subgroups and one will look at it will be an editorial board that will ensure the content is non political and it’s what people want to read on the feedback we’re getting.

It’ll aim to recruit an apprentice for nine to twelve months and involve the community around the community news and how that’s developed. So we’re talking as people have been appearing through this there’s been a really positive feedback from some, from a lot of people saying we’ve had for example a few of have been today at a conference around food planning and how people are struggling accessing food and what, there’s massive support out there with people saying I don’t know where it is around initiatives such as somebody wrote to Councillor Kenny saying that we’ve got an initiative around supporting to access free bikes and that’s the sort of information to go in there. Any questions?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Questions on that? Yes please, yep?

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
Did you find out about whether the Council actually paid additional money to have the newspapers circulated everywhere? Did that actually happen?

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
My understanding was that it used to happen, it doesn’t happen now.

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
So it’s too late to have any redress for it?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Phillip I think we should actually follow that up, it’s a serious point. Can we actually have that in the minutes please and follow it up? What happened to that?

COUNCILLOR CHRIS MEADEN
As I understand it, that’s what we used to do.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
What we have got since the last meeting is a breakdown of where it is going and where it isn’t going so we can help with that.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
So what we’re going to be doing, again it comes back to this whole point what does the contract say and is it actually being fulfilled, if not what do we do about it? (At this point he looks at officers to his left and says sotto voce “answer this evening”)? Really, thanks.

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

What’s interesting is Dawn Tolcher states that the community newspaper will have a “focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.”

There’s something called the Wirral Public Service Board. Last year I made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the agendas and minutes of their meetings over the previous year. That request was refused by Surjit Tour under s.36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act stating that releasing the agendas and minutes would (or would be likely to) inhibit “the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.” and have a “chilling effect” on their discussions. He also refused it on the basis that the minutes would contain the names of people (data protection grounds).

So just to recap, Wirral Council won’t release the agendas and minutes of meetings held with other public sector organisations at which the decisions and discussion about joint working are made. However they plan to write articles about the decisions made at these meetings and the joint work that Wirral Council is doing in a publication they plan to send out to 39,823 properties in Birkenhead? Oh and after the third edition Wirral Council will charge these other public sector organisations to include details about these projects in their “community newspaper”?

I don’t believe there is as much support for this community newspaper idea as was claimed at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting. I previously wrote about this proposal and included a poll. The poll’s question was “Do you think Wirral Council should spend £22,500 to start a community newspaper in Birkenhead?” with the three following answers to choose from yes, no and don’t know. At the time of writing nineteen people had answered the question. The results were clear, eighteen said no and one answered don’t know.

So did Wirral Council’s Chief Legal Eagle Surjit Tour point out Eric Pickle’s new legal power (which has been in force since the 30th March 2014) to direct Wirral Council to comply with the code (which as outlined above the proposal as it stands doesn’t)? No Mr. Tour didn’t (but then he wasn’t asked for any legal advice on this item). The taxpayer pays him a salary of £73,352 a year. His role (according to Wirral Council’s constitution at 2.3 of Wirral Council’s financial regulations) is defined as follows “The Monitoring Officer is responsible for reporting any actual or potential breaches of the law or maladministration to the Council and/or to the Executive”.

No councillor or MP asked Surjit Tour during the meeting whether aspects of the proposal for a community newspaper were lawful and for his advice. Surjit Tour didn’t say anything during this item and the letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government went to Graham Burgess (so it seems likely that Surjit Tour hasn’t seen it).

The letter from DCLG finishes with “If you have any questions about the new powers, please contact ConductCode@communities.gsi.gov.uk. You can also contact the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly at eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said about the very issue of Council newspapers “The spread of the town hall ‘Pravda’ is manifestly unfair because they offer cut price local news, but mixed in with council propaganda that pours taxpayers money down the drain.

These free-sheets are often confused for the real thing by residents. I want our news to be told and sold under the masthead of an independent and free press, not through a knock-off Rolex imitation.”

The press release goes on to state “Where a council ignores the statutory code, the government or a concerned member of the public could seek a court order to enforce it. Disregard for that would result in contempt of court.”

So is Wirral Council going to change its plans or run the risk of a showdown with the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP over their newspaper plans? The Liverpool Echo also ran a story about this on the 26th March using the headline FURY OVER TOWN HALL PAPER PLAN; Town could see launch of newsletter.

I’d be interested to read your thoughts on this issue which you can leave as a comment (even anonymously if you wish) or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly yourself to let them know your views on what Wirral Council is proposing to do.

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 show how “open and transparent” they really are

I received this letter today from Wirral Council’s Chief Executive Graham Burgess (links to scans of each page and the envelope it came in with a handwritten “PRIVATE” on it are below).

(Wirral Council logo)

Graham Burgess
Chief Executive

Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
Merseyside CH44 8ED
Tel: 0151-691 8589
Fax: 0151-691 8583
Email: grahamburgess@wirral.gov.uk

date 21 March 2014

to Mr J Brace
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH

my ref GB0075.DOC/DC/35.7
your ref

Dear Mr Brace,

I refer to your request for an Internal Review.

I have reviewed your request and also considered the information in question, namely the minutes of the Standards Working Group relating to this meeting held on 17 December 2013.

I am the Chief Executive and the Reviewing Officer when an FOI request is refused and the Council has relied on Section 36. As such I have taken each of the points you have raised and addressed them below:-

1) The minutes of the Standards Working Group have been provided to an FOI request previously, without claiming a FOI exemption (see Paul Cardin’s request here

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/minutes_of_standards_working_gro#outgoing-257823

Response – Each request is reviewed and answered in accordance with the Freedom of Information and any other associated legislation. If a document is already available in the public domain, then the Council will signpost the requestor to it. The report requested above by Mr. Cardin was already in the public domain.

2) Agenda items 3 (Disclosing Information Reports Under the New Standards Regime) and agenda item 4 (Review of the New Standards Regime) of the meeting referred to in 1) both included “deliberating on matters relating to the Council’s Ethical Framework and considering changes to the framework” yet was also published on Wirral Council’s website at http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50010511/Minutes%2004022013%20Standards%20Working%20Group.pdf (see Standards Committee meeting agenda of 18th March 2013 http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId-127&MId=4203#AI21234.

Response – The information contained within the documentation which has been refused to you is not identical in nature to the information which was published at the hyperlinks you have highlighted above.

Once the Standards Working Group has completed its work, consideration will be given to the disclosure of the Minutes. The Working Group is currently undertaking important work and disclosure of the Minutes at this time would likely to have a “chilling effect” which “would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”.

3) Surjit Tour is also the Monitoring Officer and therefore in this capacity would be advising the Standards Working Group meeting of the 17th December 2013. He states that the minutes cannot be supplied because they “would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”. As he is the one advising the Standards Working Group this represents a conflict of interest. There are two qualified persons at Wirral Council able to give an opinion on a Section 36 exemption, Surjit Tour and the Chief Executive, Graham Burgess. Due to the conflict of interest outlined, it should have been the Chief Executive giving his opinion on the Section 36 exemption not Surjit Tour.

Response – I do not agree that Mr Tour had a conflict of interest when responding to your enquiry. As the Monitoring Officer it was appropriate and correct that he should be the person to answer and decide to rely on Section 36. It is then my role, as the Chief Executive, to act as Internal Reviewer in this particular case.

4) It is stated “there would likely to be a “chilling effect” which would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views between members of the Group, and disclosure would undermine the ability of the members of the Group and those advising the Group to express themselves openly.” As outlined in the minutes referred to in point 2, Members of the Standards Working Group are not referred to by name in the minutes, and therefore it is not possible from the minutes to ascertain the views of individuals in the Group. The only person referred to in the minutes of the previous meeting (by job description) is Surjit Tour. Due to the conflict of interest in giving a reasonable opinion that a Section 36 exemption applies in relation to his own advice, if a Section 36 exemption is claimed by Wirral Council in relation to this FOI request, it should have come from the other qualified person (the Chief Executive).

Response – As mentioned in my response to point 3, I do not agree with your view that Mr. Tour had a conflict of interest in giving a reasonable opinion.

5) It is stated in the response that “Reports from the Standards Working Group would be considered by the Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee, which is subject to the access to information requirements.” The next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee following the Standards Working Group on the 17th December 2013 was the 6th January 2014. However a report from the Standards Working Group of the 17th December 2013 was not on the agenda of that meeting. The next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee after that was the 6th February 2014, however that meeting has been cancelled and postponed to the 24th February 2014. It is therefore wrong to imply that a report of the Standards Working Group meeting forms part of the agenda of the next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting.

Response – Your comments have been noted.

6) Only qualified persons (the two at Wirral Council are Surjit Tour and Graham Burgess) can give an opinion on a Section 36 exemption. The opinion given finished with “Sent on behalf of Surjit Tour”; therefore it is unclear whether it is his opinion or the opinion of the person who is sending the communication on his behalf. If it is the latter then the person giving the opinion is not one of the two qualified persons to do so rendering it invalid.

Response – The reply contains the opinion of Mr. Tour; however the reply was sent from the email address of Jane Corrin and copied to the Council’s central FOI email address for monitoring purposes. As you have rightly stated it is only the Monitoring Officer or the Chief Executive of the Council who can make a decision with regards to the application of Section 36.

After giving due consideration to the request you made, the original response from Mr. Tour and also the points you raise in your request for an Internal Review; I have concluded the following:-

I concur with Mr Tour that the information you requested is exempt information by virtue of Section 36 of The Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is my considered and reasonable view as Section 36 can be relied on if disclosure would/would be likely to;-

(b) Inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views; or

As you are aware, Section 36 requires the qualified person to give their reasonable opinion that disclosure would or would be likely to cause the types of prejudice or inhibition listed above. This was clearly stated in the original response you received. Guidance was also considered from the Information Commissioner’s Office, “prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36), Version 2, 22 March 2013.

As was pointed out in the original response, the Standards Working Group is not a formal committee or sub-committee of the Council, it has advisory status only. I agree with the view taken by the Monitoring Officer that releasing the minutes of the Standards Working Group meeting of 17th December 2013, would indeed inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the exchange of views.

The Group were considering and debating the Council’s Ethical Framework and given views as to whether any changes should be put in place with regard the framework. Members of such groups must be, I believe, given a ‘safe space’ for deliberation of these important issues.

My reasonable opinion is that the minutes should not be disclosed and I need to be satisfied, as Chief Executive, that there exists the opportunity for free and frank provision of advice/exchange of views within the Group to ensure sound decision making. I am of the opinion that to disclose the minutes would undermine the ability of members involved to engage in a free and frank discussion on important issues such as the Council’s Ethical Framework. I have considered the public interest test factors, given in the original answer in favour of disclosure and in favour of none disclosure. Having considered this test afresh, it is my considered and reasonable opinion that the reasons/argument previously articulated are valid and robust. I am satisfied that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure.

If you remain dissatisfied with this response, then you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address is

Information Commissioner’s Office.
Wycliffe House,
Walter Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

(signature)

Graham Burgess
Chief Executive

Envelope
Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

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

EXCLUSIVE: £1,800 "confidential" report clears Councillor Chris Blakeley after allegation of Cllr Foulkes that comments in Liverpool Echo were disrespectful

Share this:

How much evidence does there have to be of wrongdoing at Wirral Council before an apology is given?

Share this:

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Share this:

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Share this:

Wirral Council show how “open and transparent” they really are

Share this: