Merseytravel and the LCRCA again refuse to show how your money is spent and claim it is vexatious to even ask!
Merseytravel and the LCRCA again refuse to show how your money is spent and claim it is vexatious to even ask!
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Lead Member for Finance and Organisational Development) front (right) answering a question at a public meeting of the Transport Committee (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) 9th August 2018
Last year I asked to inspect these invoices during the 30 day inspection period and was told this was unreasonable. I was asked to submit a FOI/EIR request (which I did). Now having submitted a FOI/EIR I am told Merseytravel estimate it would take 11 hours (within the 18.5 hour FOI cost limit). Merseytravel estimate that the activities of consulting and redacting (which don’t count towards the 18.5 hour limit) would take an estimated further roughly 24 hours that Merseytravel wish to class the request as vexatious instead.
What was in the 11 A4 page witness statement of Surjit Tour (Wirral Council) about a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee (EA/2016/0033)?
At the outset I will make four declarations of interests.
1) I am the Appellant in this case (EA/2016/0033).
2) My wife was my McKenzie Friend in case EA/2016/0033.
3) I made the original Freedom of Information request on the 29th March 2013.
4) I am referred to by name (Mr. Brace) in paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the witness statement of Surjit Tour.
5) My profession ("local press") is referred to in paragraph 27.
Line breaks are indicated by a double horizontal line break. A picture of Surjit Tour at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee from the 15th June 2016 is below so people reading know who I’m referring to. I have included his signature, typed name and handwritten date at the end of the witness statement as an image.
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days
Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
I wanted to write this piece to show how hard it is to get information out of Wirral Council, that is routinely published elsewhere.
On the 29th March 2013, I made this Freedom of Information Act request for the minutes of the previous meeting of Wirral Council’s Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE).
This document on Brent Council’s website on page 14 states “The main meetings of SACRE are public and open to all. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 all SACRE documents are required to be available for public scrutiny.”
Under Wirral Council’s internal rules this committee is not however administered by Legal and Member Services, but instead serviced by officers from the Children and Young People’s Department. It doesn’t for example appear in the list of public meetings on Wirral Council’s website.
So this is what happened when I tried to request the minutes of one meeting of SACRE.
29th March 2013 FOI request made using excellent whatdotheyknow website. 29th April 2013 Wirral Council exceeds 20 day limit for responding to request and is sent a reminder 30th April 2013 Request refused on s. 12(1) cost grounds (require >18.5 hours of work) due to:
“a great deal of Personal Data and Sensitive Data, which would have to be reviewed and redacted were applicable.”
30th April 2013 Internal review of decision of 30th April 2013 requested. It is pointed out to Wirral Council that redacting documents does not count towards the 18.5 hour limit. 30th July 2013 Internal review decision also refuses request, not on s.12(1) cost grounds but on s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) grounds. 14th August 2013 Internal review decision appealed to Information Commissioners Office 8th September 2014 ICO issue decision notice FS50509081
Decision notice states (in relation to this part of the FOI request) Wirral Council breached s.10 and incorrectly applied s.12 and s.16:
s.10 (time for compliance with request) due to failure to respond to FOI request within 20 working days
s.12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) (failed to provide evidence)
s.16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) (breached requirement)
ICO require Wirral Council to take the following steps within 35 calendar days (deadline 13th October 2014) or alternatively appeal the decision notice within 28 days of the 8th September 2014:
Issue a response to the complainant’s request that does not rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Provide advice and assistance to the complainant about which of the requested information is held by the council, and therefore falls under the terms of the FOIA or EIR.
So the minutes supplied (this is an extract of the first three agenda items) look like this (I’ve added annotations in italics with an asterisk):
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2013
Present:
Names Redacted
* Groups A to D are as follows (who makes up SACRE is determined by s.390 of the Education Act 1996:
Group A “a group of persons to represent such Christian denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;”
Group B “except in the case of an area in Wales, a group of persons to represent the Church of England;”
Group C “a group of persons to represent such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought to be represented, having regard to the circumstances of the area;”
Group D “a group of persons to represent the authority.” (see below)
Councillor W Clements
Group D
Councillor W Smith
Group D
Councillor P Kearney
Group D
Councillor B Mooney
Group D
In Attendance: Names redacted
Name redacted in the Chair
1. WELCOME
Name redacted formally welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the first item on the agenda – the Election of a Wirral SACRE Chair for the year 2013/14. .
2. ELECTION OF POSTS
Name redacted was proposed by Councillor Clements and seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
Name redacted nominated Name redacted for the post of Vice Chair and this was seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
3. SACRE Business Matters
Apologies for absence were received from Names redacted, Councillor T Smith, Name redacted.
So advice anyone, should I request an internal review of the decision to redact the names? As these are public meetings, how are the public or press supposed to find out when they meet? If I requested further SACRE meeting minutes do you think they’d take 20 months (rather than the 20 days required under FOI) to supply them?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?
Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?
Ministry of Truth George Orwell 1984 comment removed
As I run a blog, I will declare an interest at the start of this article in that I am the operator of this blog. Before anyone accuses me of bias again (I will point out that much of the below is an opinion piece based on a recent court case, legal changes and experience).
One of the things I enjoy about writing (and reading other blogs) is that people do leave comments (although many others read without leaving a comment). The United Kingdom is however not an ideal place to base a high-tech business, which is part of the reason that in an ideal world doing what I do, I wouldn’t be based at all in the UK but somewhere that doesn’t have such a peculiar regulatory environment.
Previously the UK was well-known for its “libel tourism” because of the way the courts here operated when it came to libel. However from past cases certain things can’t be libelled, such as a political party or a local council. Even on matters published abroad, in the past lawyers had preferred to sue in the UK because of the way the court system was here and how easy it was to win their case (and how disastrous financially for the defendant even if they won!).
A lot of the laws that govern the media in this country were based on print publications and arguments about censorship have raged for centuries. A lot of the laws were written before the internet actually happened and were frankly, well overdue for reform. Eventually reform came.
For an example of what used to happen, I direct you to the case of what happened involving Carmarthenshire County Council. Details of the judgement in Thompson v James & Anor ([2013] EWHC 515 (QB) can be read by following that link.
Please note this next bit is in reference to Wales (a country within the UK that borders the Wirral but has a different set of laws and legal system (as well as political system) to here in England).
A local blogger there, Mrs Thompson sued the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council Mark James, alleging that he had libelled her. This was in reference to a letter written from Mark James that referred to Mrs Thompson that was published on another blog (that is not the blog of Mrs. Thompson) that writes under the nom de plume madaxeman.
When sued, the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council used public funds to pay his legal costs (Carmarthenshire County Council had provided him with an indemnity for his legal costs) and his legal team also counterclaimed against Mrs Thompson for references made about Mr. James on her blog which he took exception to.
The court dismissed Mrs Thompson’s libel claim, but upheld Mr James’ counterclaim.
Although the audit bodies in Wales in relation to Carmarthenshire County Council have questioned the issue of whether using public funds for his employer to pay the Chief Executive’s legal costs in a libel lawsuit is actually lawful, Mark James is now vigorously pursuing enforcement of the court order he was granted against Mrs Thompson through a Land Registry charge on her property in respect of damages awarded to him and the defendant’s legal costs (paid for by the taxpayer).
Partly to prevent the courts getting completely clogged up with libel cases (because let’s face it if everyone who had ever had anything written about them untrue online actually filed a lawsuit with the court that would happen), whereas in the past somebody could sue not only the author of a comment, but the publisher and the editor as well, the law was changed. The UK ended up with a new libel law (Defamation Act 2013), which completely reformed the old libel laws, introduced defences of truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest and also new regulations were introduced that came into force on 2nd December 2013.
The new libel law also introduced a test that had to met. Any statement that was claimed to be defamatory had to have “caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”. The new regulations are referred to as the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 and cover comments left on blogs.
This blog (and comments left on it) fall under the new regulations as I’m the operator of the blog and am based in the UK. In theory if I wasn’t based in the UK but the people leaving the comments were, their comments would probably fall under the new regulations too.
In relation to user generated content (such as comments) on blogs, it means that now the operator of the blog (such as myself) is not liable if the operator of the blog follows the rather strict procedure laid down in the regulations when a complaint is made.
The regulations can be read online, but basically as an operator of a blog if a complaint (that falls within the regulations or even a defective notice) is made about a comment on my blog, I have to within 48 hours (assuming the commenter complained about actually has provided an email address) get in touch with the poster of the comment and they then have 5 days to respond. I also at this stage contact the complainant too.
If no response is received from the person who left the comment within 5 days, the comment is removed, otherwise I’m in breach of the regulations. The person who left the comment has five days to respond and the regulations give them a variety of options which partially determine what happens next. For example they can withdraw their comment in which case it is removed at that point. There are however other options also available to them.
Other larger technology businesses aren’t entirely happy with the current regulatory framework under which they have to operate here in the UK and have published transparency reports as to complaints received and outcomes. I have decided it is high time that I did this too, especially considering the views of the media on censorship.
Out of many thousands of comments currently on the blog since the new regulations came into effect on the 2nd December 2013 there have been complaints so far about two. Detail is provided below.
However, I’d like some feedback from you the reader as to the level of detail provided below and how open and transparent I am being. Are there things you think I should include in future reports, that I am not including currently?
Obviously in the case of complaint #1 I’m not allowed to republish the original comment as that has concluded and the author of the comment has withdrawn it. However there seems to be a general pattern emerging as to the type of stories I get requests for comments to be removed on, doesn’t there?
============================================================================================================== STATUS: Completed (comment removed 4th July 2014 see here)
Complaint number: Complaint #1
Comment author: John Hardaker
Complainant: Surjit Tour of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (Wirral Council)
New law to make it mandatory to record individual councillor’s votes (by name) at Wirral Council’s Budget Council
New law to make it mandatory to record individual councillor’s votes (by name) at Wirral Council’s Budget Council
Coming into force on the 25th February 2014 (the day Wirral Council decides on its budget), the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 will mean that the votes of each individual councillor on the budget (and amendments) will be recorded by name in the minutes of the meeting. This will include any councillor who votes for, against or abstains.
The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said in a written statement “Over the coming weeks, councils will be holding their annual budget meetings at which they will formally take decisions about their expenditure on local services and their council tax levels for the year ahead. These discussions will affect the lives and household budgets of all who live in the council’s area.
Local people should be able to see how those they have elected to represent them have voted on these critical decisions. However, such decisions could be clearer.
A survey by Conservative Way Forward in August 2013, based on Freedom of Information Act requests to 340 councils, found that 78% of councils could not or would not say how councillors had voted on setting that year’s council tax. Three-quarters of councils which chose not to freeze council tax had not recorded their votes.
The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 will lay the way for greater reporting of council meetings using digital and social media. To complement this, we believe that local accountability would be further enhanced by asking all councils to publish, as a matter of record, how each councillor votes on any budget decisions including council tax changes. Indeed, recorded votes are the norm for parliamentarians.
Accordingly, we have written to every council leader making clear our expectation that this year all councils will adopt at their budget meeting the practice of recording in the minutes of the meeting how each member has voted on the budget and amendments to the budget.
To facilitate this, we laid before Parliament the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 which make provision requiring councils to amend their Standing Orders (it is open to councils to waive them before they can be permanently amended) so as to make mandatory the practice of recorded votes at budget meetings.
This small but practical reform increases council transparency and accountability over council tax, and highlights the work that councillors do in championing their communities and representing local electors.
It is the latest step in a series of measures the coalition Government have taken to help address the cost of living for hard-working people. This Government have announced a further two years of council tax freeze funding, on top of the average 10% cut in council tax in real terms that this Government have helped deliver since May 2010.
We will be also publishing shortly the final local government finance settlement and the council tax referendum threshold for 2014-15. ”
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
