invoices (April to July 2017)

ScarletPimpernel made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Liverpool City Region Combined Authority,

Please could you provide electronically invoices (or if invoices are not available for any of them other payment information that explains what the payment is for) that relate to the following payments listed below? I have numbered each payment from 1-30 for easy reference.

If the invoices are multiple pages, please regard this request as for all pages (including any attached schedules) and not just the cover page.

I remind you of your duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance.

No, Name, Date, Subjective Name, Cost Centre Code, Cost Centre Name, Line Amount (inc VAT)

1, DLA Piper UK LLP, 28/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £2,473.44

2, JC Rathbone Associates Ltd, 28/2/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £12,000

3, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 11/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead North Car Park (STEP), £31,860.72

4, Halcrow Group Ltd, 21/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £127,396.38

5, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/3/17, Main Contractor, R-8612, Birkenhead North Car Park (STEP), £130,489.00

6, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, 2/5/17, Main Contractor, R-7003-, Rolling Stock Infrastructure Power, £137,248.68

7, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 28/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £347,061.78

8, Ardent Management Ltd, 4/4/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1 Development, £5,935.81

9, JC Rathbone Associates Ltd, 28/2/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £12,000.00

10, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead North Car Park (STEP), £28,761.64

11, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 11/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead North Car Park (STEP), £31,860.72

12, Halcrow Group Ltd, 21/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £127,396.38

13, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/3/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead North Car Park (STEP), £130,489.00

14, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 28/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £347,061.78

15, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £984.00

16, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, S-2231-, Misc - General, £1,719.00

17, Punter Southall Ltd, 18/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £5,033.00

18, Ardent Management Ltd, 8/5/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1 Development, £5,004.10

19, Weightmans LLP, 28/4/17, Court Fees, S-2031, Legal and Committee Team, £5,616.00

20, DLA Piper UK LLP, 7/6/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-, Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £5,780.50

21, Weightmans LLP, 31/1/17, Court Fees, S-2031-, Legal and Committee Team, £7,000.00

22, DLA Piper UK LLP, 30/4/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-, Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £26,949.10

23, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 11/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £39,751.34

24, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-, Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £45,726.50

25, H Jenkinson & Co Ltd, 2/6/17, Furniture Purchases, A-3005-, CA Mayoral Expenses, £698.00

26, Ardent Management Ltd, 5/6/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1 Development, £1,063.75

27, H Jenkinson & Co Ltd, 2/6/17, Furniture Purchases, A-3005-, CA Mayoral Expenses, £1,295.39

28, Alta Innovations Ltd, 25/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £1,500.00

29, Ardent Management Ltd, 5/7/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1 Development, £4,576.22

30, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 19/6/17, NNLNNG, R-0203-, Rolling Stock Maintenance, £12,000.00

31, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 19/6/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £23,869.37

32, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 18/5/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £53,435.51

33, Stadler, 29/5/17, Main Contractor, R-7001-, Rolling Stock MSA, £8,202,748.56

34, Halcrow Group Limited, 27/6/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock Programme, £96,726.88

Yours faithfully,

John Brace

Liverpool City Region FOI Mailbox, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Dear Mr Brace

RSN16586

Thank you for your email to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will be answered within twenty working days.

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me. Please quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Henderson, Andrew,

12 Attachments

Dear Mr Brace

 

Thank you for your recent request made under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA), in which you asked for the following:

 

Please could you provide electronically invoices (or if invoices are not
available for any of them other payment information that explains what the
payment is for) that relate to the following payments listed below? I have
numbered each payment from 1-30 for easy reference.

 

If the invoices are multiple pages, please regard this request as for all
pages (including any attached schedules) and not just the cover page.

 

I remind you of your duty under section 16 to provide advice and
assistance.

 

No, Name, Date, Subjective Name, Cost Centre Code, Cost Centre Name, Line
Amount (inc VAT)

 

1, DLA Piper UK LLP, 28/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £2,473.44

 

2, JC Rathbone Associates Ltd, 28/2/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling
Stock Programme, £12,000

 

3, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 11/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead
North Car Park (STEP), £31,860.72

 

4, Halcrow Group Ltd, 21/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £127,396.38

 

5, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/3/17, Main Contractor, R-8612, Birkenhead
North Car Park (STEP), £130,489.00

 

6, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, 2/5/17, Main Contractor, R-7003-,
Rolling Stock Infrastructure Power, £137,248.68

 

7, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 28/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £347,061.78

 

8, Ardent Management Ltd, 4/4/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1
Development, £5,935.81

 

9, JC Rathbone Associates Ltd, 28/2/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling
Stock Programme, £12,000.00

 

10, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead
North Car Park (STEP), £28,761.64

 

11, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 11/4/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead
North Car Park (STEP), £31,860.72

 

12, Halcrow Group Ltd, 21/4/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £127,396.38

 

13, George Cox + Sons Ltd, 28/3/17, Main Contractor, R-8612-, Birkenhead
North Car Park (STEP), £130,489.00

 

14, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 28/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £347,061.78

 

15, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £984.00

 

16, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, S-2231-, Misc
- General, £1,719.00

 

17, Punter Southall Ltd, 18/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £5,033.00

 

18, Ardent Management Ltd, 8/5/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1
Development, £5,004.10

 

19, Weightmans LLP, 28/4/17, Court Fees, S-2031, Legal and Committee Team,
£5,616.00

 

20, DLA Piper UK LLP, 7/6/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-,
Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £5,780.50

 

21, Weightmans LLP, 31/1/17, Court Fees, S-2031-, Legal and Committee
Team, £7,000.00

 

22, DLA Piper UK LLP, 30/4/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-,
Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £26,949.10

 

23, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 11/4/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £39,751.34

 

24, DLA Piper UK LLP, 31/5/17, Cost MTVL External Solicitor, R-0205-,
Rolling Stock Legal Challenge Costs, £45,726.50

 

25, H Jenkinson & Co Ltd, 2/6/17, Furniture Purchases, A-3005-, CA Mayoral
Expenses, £698.00

 

26, Ardent Management Ltd, 5/6/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1
Development, £1,063.75

 

27, H Jenkinson & Co Ltd, 2/6/17, Furniture Purchases, A-3005-, CA Mayoral
Expenses, £1,295.39

 

28, Alta Innovations Ltd, 25/5/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling
Stock Programme, £1,500.00

 

29, Ardent Management Ltd, 5/7/17, Main Contractor, P-7503-, M/Tram Line 1
Development, £4,576.22

 

30, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 19/6/17, NNLNNG, R-0203-, Rolling Stock
Maintenance, £12,000.00

 

31, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 19/6/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £23,869.37

 

32, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd, 18/5/17, NNLNNG, R-0200-, Rolling Stock
Programme, £53,435.51

 

33, Stadler, 29/5/17, Main Contractor, R-7001-, Rolling Stock MSA,
£8,202,748.56

 

34, Halcrow Group Limited, 27/6/17, Consultants Fees, R-0200-, Rolling
Stock Programme, £96,726.88

 

Although your request was directed to the Liverpool City Region Combined
Authority, it is being responded to by Merseytravel in its role as the
Executive body that provides professional, strategic and operational
transport advice to the Combined Authority. This transfer is in accordance
with Part III of the Code of Practice issued under Section 45 of the FOIA.

 

Part IV of the Code recommends consulting with third parties (those other
than the public body and the requester) when disclosure under the FOIA is
likely to affect their interests. As a result, Merseytravel has contacted
all twelve of the companies who submitted the invoices in question for
their views on potential sensitivities of the contents.

 

Unless the third party has specifically stated that they have no issue
with the personal information of their staff being disclosed, or the
individual holds a senior position within Merseytravel, the names and
contact details of officers have been removed in accordance with Section
40(2) of the FOIA as disclosure would constitute a breach of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

 

Merseytravel does not regard disclosure as constituting the ‘fair and
lawful’ processing of personal data, meaning that its release would
therefore breach [1]the First Principle of the DPA, neither is it believed
that any of the conditions of [2]Schedule 2 or [3]Schedule 3 are met.

 

Due to their nature, certain aspects of the invoices and attached
schedules will inevitably contain some information that is potentially
commercially sensitive, and must give consideration to Section 43 of the
Act. Section 43 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption, and is
therefore subject to a public interest test. The Information
Commissioner’s Office has issued guidance on Section 43, which can be
viewed on their website at [4]this link.

 

I will explore the particular circumstances of each invoice below, but in
general terms the public interest argument for disclosure is that it
allows a greater degree of scrutiny over how public money is spent in the
delivery of Merseytravel’s functions, while contributing to transparency
over how decisions have been reached. It is important that public
authorities allow their decisions to be scrutinised by the public to
ensure that funds are managed appropriately.

 

The public interest factors to withhold the information relate to the
prejudicial impact that the disclosure would have on the commercial
interests of any person (including the public authority itself). It would
not, for example, be in the public interest to disclose information about
a particular commercial body if that information was not common knowledge
and would be likely to be used by competitors in a particular market to
gain a competitive advantage. Disclosure under the Act is viewed as to the
world at large, not simply to the individual requester, and consideration
must therefore be given to how it may be used by any party.

 

Alta Innovations Ltd (Invoice 28)

 

The only redactions are of personal data in accordance with Section 40(2)
of the FOIA.

 

Ardent Management Ltd (Invoices 8, 18, 26 & 29)

 

Ardent had no issues with the names of their staff or their respective
hourly rates being disclosed.

 

All of these invoices relate to ongoing arbitration in respect of a
compensation claim for the Merseytram scheme. Merseytravel must therefore
give consideration to Section 42(1) of the FOIA, which states

 

Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege
or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained
in legal proceedings is exempt information.

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on Section 42
at [5]this link.

 

There are two types of privilege; litigation privilege and advice
privilege. The information in question relates to litigation privilege,
which, as stated in the ICO’s guidance,

 

[8.] applies to confidential communications made for the purpose of
providing or obtaining legal advice about proposed or contemplated
litigation. There must be a real prospect or likelihood of litigation,
rather than just a fear or possibility.

 

Merseytravel can confirm that the litigation is in progress. A
‘communication’ is any ‘document that conveys information. It could take
any form, including a letter, report, email, memo, photograph, note of a
conversation, or an audio or visual recording.’[18]

 

The guidance continues

 

For information to be covered by litigation privilege, it must have been
created for the dominant (main) purpose of giving or obtaining legal
advice, or for lawyers to use in preparing a case for litigation. It can
cover communications between lawyers and third parties so long as they are
made for the purposes of the litigation.

 

The invoices contain details of the work carried out in relation to this
litigation, in which Merseytravel is the client and Ardent Management Ltd
are the legal advisor.

 

The information has not been disclosed to other parties or to the world at
large, meaning that privilege has not been waived.

 

Section 42 is a qualified, class-based exemption, and is therefore subject
to a public interest test. As stated in the ICO’s guidance, the ‘general
public interest inherent in this exemption will always be strong due to
the importance of the principle behind LPP: safeguarding openness in all
communications between client and lawyer to ensure access to full and
frank legal advice, which in turn is fundamental to the administration of
justice.’[52] This is given added weight if the case is on-going and the
work remains live, which this is.

 

The public interest factors for disclosure, as with Section 43, include
the need for public bodies to be accountable and transparent in their work
and with how they spend public funds.

 

The case of Crawford v Information Commissioner & Lincolnshire County
Council (EA/2011/0145) stated that in order for the public interest test
to decide in favour of disclosure there would need to be ‘clear,
compelling and specific justification that at least equals the public
interest in protecting the information in dispute’. Merseytravel does not
believe such a justification exists in this scenario, and the public
interest is therefore in favour of withholding the information contained
in the ‘Work Type Description’ column of the Attendance Sheets.

 

DLA Piper UK LLP (Invoices 1, 15-16, 20, 22, 24)

 

Some information has been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2).

 

Invoices 20, 22 & 24 relate to the on-going Rolling Stock Procurement
legal challenge, and consideration must be given to Section 42, as
outlined above.

 

As above, Merseytravel can confirm that the litigation is in progress and
the information contained in the invoice has been created solely in
relation to this case. Merseytravel are the client and DLA Piper UK LLP
are the legal advisor.

 

The same public interest issues are engaged as with the Ardent invoices,
with the potential to substantially weaken Merseytravel’s position in
defence of the claim adding considerable weight to the argument of
maintaining the exception. Disclosing this information to the world at
large as a response to an FOIA request would expose Merseytravel’s defence
strategy and arguments, seriously undermining Merseytravel’s ability to
mount a robust and successful defence. The public interest therefore lies
in maintaining the exemption.

 

It is considered that the totality of the invoices that relate to the
procurement claims against Merseytravel are covered by litigation
privilege, and no further details of their content can be disclosed than
those which are already in the public domain and contained within your
request (i.e. the overall amounts, date of invoice, etc.)

 

The remaining invoices (1, 15-16) contain certain details that are
commercially sensitive, and consideration must be given to Section 43(2).
These details include the hourly rates of DLA staff and the company bank
account details.

 

Regarding the bank details, DLA have stated that ‘these details are
disclosed to our clients with whom we have a relationship based on trust
and confidence.  We do not publicise our bank account details to the
public at large.  To do so may expose DLA Piper to risk of theft or
fraud.’

 

The hourly rates are unique to the agreement between DLA and Merseytravel,
and disclosure would place DLA at a serious disadvantage in relation to
the negotiation of commercially acceptable fee levels with other clients,
i.e. if it could be seen that Merseytravel received a service for a
particular price, a prospective customer is unlikely to accept paying DLA
any more, while a competitor would be able to undercut the rate and damage
DLA’s future business. DLA state that this prejudice was likely to occur.

 

It is Merseytravel’s opinion that the public interest argument is in
favour of withholding the hourly rates and bank account details. Invoices
1, 15 & 16 are therefore provided with partial redactions.

 

George Cox + Sons Ltd (Invoices 3, 5, 10-11 & 13)

 

The only redactions are of personal data in accordance with Section 40(2)
of the FOIA.

 

H Jenkinson & Co Ltd (Invoices 25 & 27)

 

The unit prices of the items listed in the invoices are agreed as part of
a contract between Merseytravel and Jenkinsons, so will differ from those
already in the public domain on their website. As a result, we must
consider Section 43(2) of the FOIA.

 

When consulted, Jenkinsons stated that ‘this is pricing relating to a much
longer contract for Merseytravel, [and that disclosure of] the net price
would compromise that contract if our competitors were privy.’ They also
stated that they believed that prejudice definitely would occur.
Merseytravel agrees with this opinion, and believe that the public
interest lies in withholding the net prices of the items.

 

Halcrow Group Ltd (Invoices 4, 12 & 34)

 

Please note that invoice 12 is a duplicate of invoice 4. There are
therefore only two invoices to provide to you.

 

Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2) of
the FOIA.

 

In their response to the consultation, Halcrow stated that disclosure of
the timesheets (including the hourly rates of staff members) would be
‘very damaging to our commercial competitiveness in the market.’ Halcrow
believe that this prejudice definitely would occur.

 

Merseytravel agrees with Halcrow that these details would have a strong
possibility of having a negative impact on Halcrow’s operations, and
believes that the public interest is best served in withholding the
timesheet data.

 

There is, however, no objection to the weekly costs being disclosed.

 

Reference was also made by Halcrow to the existence of a confidentiality
agreement with Merseytravel, which they believe would also cover the
redacted details. There is a possibility that this information would
therefore also be exempt under Section 41 of the FOIA, but as it is
believed that the details are exempt by virtue of Section 43(2), Section
41 has not been considered in depth.

 

JC Rathbone Associates Ltd (Invoices 2 & 9)

 

Please note that invoice 9 is a duplicate of invoice 2. There is therefore
only one invoice to provide to you.

 

The only redactions are of personal data in accordance with Section 40(2)
of the FOIA.

 

Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd (Invoices 7, 14, 23, 30-32)

 

Please note that invoice 14 is a duplicate of invoice 7. There are
therefore only five invoices to provide to you.

 

Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2) of
the FOIA.

 

The contents of the invoices and attachments contain the details not only
of Merseyrail’s commercial activities, but also those of their partners.
In their consultation response, Merseyrail stated that disclosure ‘would
leave Merseyrail and our third party suppliers are a commercial
disadvantage as their commercial charging rates and terms which have been
negotiated with Merseyrail would be in the public domain and accessible to
their competitors and the open market.’ Merseyrail believe that this
prejudice definitely would occur.

 

This argument has additional weight as a result of the current issues
regarding the on-going industrial action faced by Merseyrail.

 

Merseyrail presented arguments for the redaction of certain information,
which Merseytravel agrees with to an extent. For the information redacted
in the invoices, Merseytravel believes the public interest lies in
withholding it from disclosure.

 

Following discussions between the two parties, partial redactions have
been applied to the attached invoices.

 

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Invoice 6)

 

Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2) of
the FOIA.

 

Certain information was viewed as outside the scope of the request. This
information relates to funding from the Network Rail Discretionary Fund
(NRDF) and was provided attached to the invoice to serve as background
information only. It did not have any direct relevance to the invoice
itself.

 

Punter Southall Ltd (Invoice
17)                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

The only redactions are of personal data in accordance with Section 40(2),
and bank details in accordance with Section 43(2). The bank details are
removed in order to eliminate the risk of their use for illegal purposes,
and there is no notable public interest argument in favour of their
disclosure.

 

Stadler (Invoice 33)

 

Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2) of
the FOIA.

 

Stadler identified certain details contained within the invoice as
commercially sensitive, including their bank account details (for reasons
explored above), the total order value and details of the percentage of
the aggregate unit price contained in the advance payment.

 

In their consultation response, Stadler stated that disclosure ‘would
allow the competitors of Stadler Rail Service UK Limited to understand the
company’s approach to pricing.  They would decide on their approach to
pricing after taking account of the knowledge they have about Stadler Rail
Service UK Limited.  This would put us at a commercial disadvantage.’ It
was further stated that Stadler believed that the prejudice definitely
would occur.

 

It is accepted by Merseytravel that due to the amount of public money
involved in the purchasing of the new Rolling Stock, weight is added to
the public interest argument in favour of disclosure.

 

A great deal of information about the agreement is, however, already in
the public domain, which Merseytravel feels adequately addresses the
public interest and the need for transparency. Consideration must also be
given to the extremely competitive industry that Stadler operate in, as
well as the on-going legal challenge to the procurement process.

 

In light of the above, Merseytravel agrees that the public interest in
withholding some elements of the invoice outweighs the argument for their
disclosure. Following discussions between the two parties, partial
redactions have been applied to the attached invoice.

 

Weightmans LLP (Invoices 19 & 21)

 

The only redactions are of personal data in accordance with Section 40(2)
of the FOIA.

 

I trust that this information is of interest to you.

 

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right under the Act to ask for an internal review, which should be
addressed to:

Mrs Julie Watling

Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Manager

Merseytravel

PO Box 1976

Liverpool

L69 3HN

[email address]

 

If you are not content with the result of your internal review, you also
have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address
is

The Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire SK9 5AF

www.ico.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

Andy Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box
1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN

Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright. 
You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study
and non-commercial research and for any other purpose authorised by an
exception in current copyright law.  Documents (except photographs) can
also be used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of
news reporting.  Any other reuse, for example, commercial publication
would require the permission of the copyright holder.

show quoted sections