Information about the employment of Stewart Halliday

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

As a Wirral resident and Council Tax payer,I would be grateful if you will furnish me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act

1. What position does Stewart Halliday hold on the Wirral Council?

2.What is his salary for the work he is doing?

3. What references were taken up before his appointment?

4. Were any references requested or obtained directly from his former employers at York City Council?

5. If not, why not?

6. Were Wirral Council aware of the damning report about Mr. Halliday`s activities whilst employed by York City Council before his employment on Wirral Council?

7.Now knowing of the report, published extensively in the York Press, in Private Eye and Wirralleaks, what action does the Council intend to take about his continuing employment?

Yours faithfully,

Charles Nunn,

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Nunn,

 

I refer to your emails of 16 and 20 March, which contain the following
requests for information:-

 

16 March

 

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

As a Wirral resident and Council Tax payer, I would be grateful if you
will furnish me with the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act

 

1. What position does Stewart Halliday hold on the Wirral Council?

 

2. What is his salary for the work he is doing?

 

3. What references were taken up before his appointment?

 

4. Were any references requested or obtained directly from his former
employers at York City Council?

 

5. If not, why not?

 

6. Were Wirral Council aware of the damning report about Mr. Halliday`s 
activities whilst employed by York City Council before his employment on
Wirral Council?

 

7.Now knowing of the report, published extensively in the York Press, in
Private Eye and Wirralleaks, what action does the Council intend to take
about his continuing employment?

 

 

Request of 16 March

 

1.Mr Halliday is not employed directly by the Council. He is engaged via
an agency as a Programme Manager (Assets).

 

2.  Mr Halliday is not receiving a salary. He is paid on a daily rate.
However I consider that  information relating to that daily rate is
exempt information under section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) in that it would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests
of the Council, the agencies it works with when recruiting interim
managers and Mr Halliday himself, if daily rates were to be disclosed to
members of the public. The Council accepts that there is a public interest
in the transparency in the accountability of public funds. However I
consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under
Section 43 in this case outweighs the public interest in disclosure. It
would threaten the Council’s ability to recruit interim managers in
future, if potential candidates were aware that financial information
concerning their daily rates were to be given to members of the public
 and such disclosure could also weaken  the bargaining position of the
Council by revealing market sensitive information.

 

3. 4 and 5

I consider that this is exempt information under section 40 (2) and (3) of
(“FOIA”) in that it includes personal data of which you are not the data
subject and that the first condition set out in section 40(3)(a) applies,
that disclosure of the information would contravene any of the data
protection principles. I consider that the disclosure of the requested
information would contravene the first data protection principle, that
personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and shall not be
processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act 1998 is met.  I consider that none of the conditions in
Schedule 2 would be met, the most significant condition being that
contained in Schedule 2, condition 6 (1) which is in the following terms:-

 

“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests
pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom
the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any
particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject”

 

I refer to the case of Goldsmith International Business School v The
Information Commissioner and The Home Office [2014[ UKUT 0563 (AAC) which
is a decision of the Upper Tribunal and binding on the lower courts. Judge
Wikely gave a detailed analysis of the test of “reasonable necessity” when
considering condition 6 (1)  and endorsed eight propositions concerning
this condition, derived from case law.

 

Paragraphs  35,36,37 and 38  of the decision provide the first four
propositions:-

 

“Proposition 1: Condition 6 (1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA  (Data Protection
Act) requires three questions to be asked:-

(i)            Is the data controller or the third party or parties to
whom the data are disclosed pursuing a legitimate interest or interests ?

(ii)           Is the processing involved necessary for the purposes of
those interests?

(iii)          Is the processing unwarranted in this case by reason of
prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data
subject.?”

 

“Proposition 2: The test of “necessity” under stage (ii) must be met
before the balancing test under stage (iii) is applied”

 

“Proposition 3 :”Necessity” carries its ordinary English meaning, being
more than desirable but less than indispensable or absolute necessity.”

 

“Proposition 4 : Accordingly the test is one of “reasonable necessity,
reflecting the European jurisprudence on proportionality, although this
may not add much to the ordinary English meaning of the term.”

 

I consider that you as a third party are pursuing a legitimate interest.
However I consider that the processing of personal data ie the release of
personal data in respect of  Mr Halliday is unwarranted  by reason of
prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of him as the
data subject. I refer to paragraph 58 of the decision where Judge Wikely
states “ While it is proper to recognise the public interest in the
disclosure of official information as being relevant under condition 6, we
think it important not to lose sight of the principal object of the DPA,
which is to protect personal data and allow it to be processed only in
defined circumstances. The first part of condition 6 can only be satisfied
where the disclosure is ‘necessary’ for the purposes identified.”

This part of Section 40(3)(a)  is not subject to the public interest test.

 

6 and 7

I do not consider these to be valid requests for information under FOIA.

 

20 March

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

I have already submitted a Freedom of Information request regarding
Mr.Halliday but I omitted  further questions for which I would be grateful
to receive an answer.

 

1. Is it correct that, apart from an Agency summary of Mr.Halliday`s
employment career there was only one personal referee?

 

2. Was that reference from Kersten England, Mr. Halliday`s former Chief
Executive at York City Council?

 

3.If so, was that reference written whilst she was in post as  Chief
Executive at Bradford Council and written on paper, or by  email, which
indicated her position in Bradford?

 

4. Without asking for disclosure of the contents of the reference, can you
please tell me the date it was written.? (NOT the date it was seen by
Wirral council)

 

 

Request of 20 March

 

I consider that all of the information that you have requested on 20 March
is exempt information under Section 40(2) and (3) (a) above in that it is
personal data relating to Mr Halliday. I repeat the response above given
in respect of queries 3,4,5 .

 

I am therefore refusing the majority of your request for information on
the basis that the exemptions contained in Section 40(2) and (3)(a) and
Section 43 of FOIA apply. You have the right to ask for an internal review
 which should be sent to the Records and Information Manager, email:
[1][email address]. If you are dissatisfied with this response to
your request for information, you have the right to complain to the
Information Commissioner, but would normally be expected to exhaust the
internal review process before complaining to the Commissioner. The
address is:-

The Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tel -0303 123 113

[2]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Sent on behalf of

Rosemary Lyon,

Solicitor,

Business Services,

Law and Governance

Town Hall,

Brighton Street

Wallasey

Wirral

CH44 8ED

 

 

 

[3]LGC Awards15_Winner_MIP

 

This information supplied to you is copyrighted and continues to be
protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.   You are free
to use it for your own purposes, including any non commercial research you
are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for
example commercial publication, would require our specific permission, may
involve licensing and the application of a charge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. blocked::mailto:[email address] mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Information about the employment of Stewart Halliday'.

As a lay man it seems that the replies have been bureaucratic and a face saver in its refusal to supply information indicating that Wirral Council are paying a very large sum to a man with a dubious background in local government.

The refusal to give his payment is ridiculous as I have already been informed by a senior Councillor that it is "in excess of £188,000"

[ GIVE DETAILS ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT HERE ]

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Charles Nunn

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Nunn,

Thank you for your request for an internal review shown below.  Please
take the contents of this email as Council’s response to your request.  As
the reviewing Officer I have considered the questions you raised within
your 2 linked requests of 16 and 20 March 2017 and the answers you were
provided with.  I have given particular consideration to the elements of
the request/s which were refused by the Council.

 

Request of 16 March

Question 2.

This information was refused and the Council sought to rely on Section 43
of The Freedom of Information Act in refusing to disclose this
information.  I believe if this information were disclosed it would be
likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Wirral Council and other
3^rd parties.  These other 3^rd parties would be the recruitment agencies
we work with, Interim Officers and Mr Halliday himself.

There is a public interest with regard the accountability of public funds
but this must be balanced against the Council’s ability to do business
with recruitment agencies to recruit interim officers.

I must also consider that the Council’s bargaining position in the market
place would be weakened if this information were made available to the
public.  I therefore uphold that the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

  

Questions 3, 4 and 5

This information was refused and the Council sought to rely on Section 40
(2) and (3) of The Freedom of Information Act in refusing to disclose this
information.  The information requested includes personal data of which
you are not the data subject.  Because of this the first condition set out
in section 40(3)(a) applies, that disclosure of the information would
contravene any of the data protection principles.  It is clear that
disclosure of this information would contravene the first data protection
principle which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and
lawfully, and shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions
in Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 is met.   None of the
conditions in Schedule 2 would be met. 

 

Questions 6 and 7

These questions are not valid requests for recorded information and cannot
be considered as such under The Freedom of Information Act.

 

 

Request of 20 March

 

The whole of your request of 20 March was refused and the Council sought
to rely on Section 40 (2) and (3) of The Freedom of Information Act in
refusing to disclose this information.  As the reviewing Officer I agree
that the whole of your request should be refused and the Council can seek
to rely on Section 40(2) and (3) (a) of the legislation.  The reliance of
this exemption has already been detailed in our response to Questions 3 to
5 of your request dated 16 March, see above and this argument remains true
for the whole of your request of 20 March.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with this response to your Internal Review then
you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner.  Contact
details below:-

The Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tel -0303 123 113

[1]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

Yours sincerely,

Jane Corrin

 

Records and Information Manager

Business Services - Digital

Wirral Council

[2][email address]

 

Visit our website: [3]www.wirral.gov.uk

 

[4]LGC Awards15_Winner_MIP

 

This information supplied to you is copyrighted and continues to be
protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.   You are free
to use it for your own purposes, including any non commercial research you
are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for
example commercial publication, would require our specific permission, may
involve licensing and the application of a charge

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections