'Liverpool's Elected Mayor - 2012-16: An Independent Assessment

Dear Ms. Mullen,

Thank you for your email received 24th August, 2018 requesting information about Liverpool's Elected Mayor - An Independent Assessment. I am writing to let you know that we have received your request and will process it as soon as possible, and in any case within 20 working days of the day we received the request. You will hear back from us by 24th September 2018 at the latest.

It would assist us in answering your request if you could let us know whether you are a current student or staff member of the University.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Lesley Jackson, FOI Co-ordinator
The University of Liverpool, Foundation Building,
765 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 7ZX

show quoted sections

[1]Mrs Vicki Heath Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer The
Foundation Building 765 Brownlow Hill Liverpool L69 7ZX F 0151 794 2148 E
[University of Liverpool request email]
www.liverpool.ac.uk                                                                                                                    

Our Ref: FOI/VH

10 September 2018

Ms Josie Mullen

Via email: Josie Mullen <[FOI #512765 email]>

Dear Ms Mullen,

I refer to your email of 23 August 2018 requesting information relating to
a report published by the Heseltine Institute entitled “Liverpool’s
Elected Mayor 2012-16; An independent Assessment.” Under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 you are entitled to request information held by a
public authority and to have that information communicated to you.

In answer to your questions:

[1] Please supply all the reasons why this could possibly be called an
'independent' report when the Mayor/Liverpool City Council contributed
40,000 pounds towards the cost of the report

This does not constitute a request for information held by the University
of Liverpool, however the report was independently written by Professor
Michael Parkinson CBE. None of the original team responsible for the 2014
report “An initial assessment and evaluation strategy for Liverpool’s
Mayoral model of governance” were involved with Professor Parkinson’s
report.

[2] What was the total cost of the report?

There was no fee paid for Professor Parkinson’s report, it was pro bonum.

[3] This report was supposed to scrutinise the City Mayor's 2012 election
promises [amongst other things]. Please supply all information that
explains why most of Mayor Anderson's most important manifesto promises
that were never realised [broken] were never mentioned or referred to in
the report. [Please see below]

2012 Mayoral Manifesto Promises [Mr Joe Anderson]

Broken promise 1 – “I promise to keep weekly bin collections” – promise
broken in 9 months.

Broken promise 2 –“ I promise to drive up domestic recycling”. [ Liverpool
had, at the time of the report, the worst recycling rate in the North West
and costs £20.000.000 a year ] – promise broken

Broken promise 3 – “I promise every teenager [16-19]  NEETS will have a
job or a training opportunity within 12 months”[ 2013/14/15 stats. show
Liverpool has one of the   highest  NEETs rates for  16 – 19 year olds in
the country] – promise broken.

Broken promise 4 –“I promise to give every 16 – 19 year old from a
low-income family a Further Education,  £20 a week Mayoral allowance.[
Only Liverpool Community College got it for ONE YEAR  then nothing]–
promise broken.

Broken promise 5 – “Jobs will come as we build a new cruise liner
facility”. [Cruise liner facility NEVER built] – promise broken.

Modified promise 6 – “The Cruise Liner Terminal will now be in the Cunard
building….it’s a no-brainer” [Cunard not suitable] promise broken

Broken promise 7 “I will also give the opportunity to 3,500 young people
in Liverpool to become apprentices through our Liverpool Futures
programme” –[The  official target was 1,300. This scheme was shut down in
a matter of months. 2013 – zero/2014 – zero/ 2015 - zero] promise broken

Broken promise 8-“ I pledge to continue to improve the standards already
achieved in our schools” [2014 results down - 2015 GCSE’s – A – C down
25%,  stats. for school exclusions, one of the highest in the country ] -
promise broken

The report states in the first paragraph that “It looks briefly at his
[Joe Anderson’s] performance on a number of quantative pledges. But is
primarily concerned to explore the more qualitative, soft power dimensions
of the Mayor’s role and how it differs from a traditional city council
leader.” Also 3.1 clearly states the five main pledges that the report
focuses on, not the 8 ‘broken promises’ that you have listed. Professor
Parkinson did not collect other evidence about quantative pledges, he
reviewed the report by the City Council and found the data robust
therefore the University does not hold the information you are requesting.

[4]In light of this information please indicate if this report will now be
amended to reflect the above mentioned information that has been ignored

Similar to point 1, this is not a request for information held by the
University but I can advise that the report Liverpool’s Elected Mayor
2012-16: An independent Assessment will not be amended as a result of this
correspondence.

If you are not satisfied with the University’s response to your request,
you may ask the University to review it. If you wish to do this, please
write to the Freedom of Information Reviewer, Legal & Compliance, The
University of Liverpool, The Foundation Building, 765 Brownlow Hill,
Liverpool, L69 7ZX (email [2][University of Liverpool request email]) enclosing a copy of your
original request and explaining your complaint. Please include an address
for correspondence.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-

The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Telephone: 0303 123 1113

Website: [3]www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

Vicki Heath

---

show quoted sections

Dear Ms. Mullen,

I acknowledge receipt of your email requesting a review of the response to your recent freedom of information request. You will receive a response in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Lesley Jackson, FOI Co-ordinator
The University of Liverpool, Foundation Building,
765 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 7ZX

show quoted sections

Our Ref: FOI/Review

23 October 2018

Ms Josie Mullen
Via email: Josie Mullen <[FOI #512765 email]>

Dear Ms Mullen,

I refer to your email of 25 October 2018 requesting an internal review of the University of Liverpool’s response to your FOI request of 23 August 2018. The review process involves looking at the original response by the University and confirming whether information requested was withheld appropriately by the correct use of the exemptions available under the Act. I have reviewed the original response by the University and can advise as follows in answer to your complaints:

Complaint 1 - You said that Michael Parkinson did not get paid but did not confirm who actually received the £40,000 from Liverpool City Council [which LCC has stated is the amount they paid in an FOI response]

Your original request did not ask for this information. You asked how much “Liverpool’s Elected Mayor 2012-2016: An independent Assessment” report cost and we provided the information that it did not cost anything, no fee was paid.

Complaint 2 - You did not explain why two reports were written

Your original request did not ask for this information.

Complaint 3 - You did not say whether both reports were done in the name of the Heseltine Institute or was "An Initial Assessment......" done by Liverpool University

Your original request did not ask for this information however I can advise that both reports were done in the name of the Heseltine Institute. For the avoidance of doubt, the Heseltine Institute is part of the University of Liverpool.

Complaint 4 - You stated that the report looked at his 5 manifesto pledges...when it is quite clear that in all his speeches and press releases he stated quite clearly the following pledges, just as an example:
He was going to introduce a Mayoral Educational Allowance for pupils from low-income families from across the city who wished to go to 6th Form - "Rounding on the Coalition government’s scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance last year, he was greeted by rapturous applause when he promised Mayor Anderson would introduce a Liverpool Education Allowance of £20 a week for the city’s 16-19 year old students. - promise broken
“I won’t turn my back on you,” he notionally told the city’s young people and ended his manifesto speech by vowing that not one of them would “leave school without a qualification or training place”. - promise broken
This was clearly stated by Joe Anderson time after time in manifesto materials and in his speeches as well as the building of a liner terminal - [never built etc etc

This is a commentary on the content of the report rather than a complaint about how the University has discharged its duty under the Freedom of Information Act and therefore is not pertinent to the process of reviewing your FOI request.

Complaint 5 - You said that you looked specifically at the Mayors 5 pledges, one of them being to create 20,000 new jobs. The "team" obviously took everything that LCC and Anderson said at face value, without investigating any of the claims. My FOI to LCC revealed that most of these 20,000 jobs already existed and that LCC just 'supported' jobs when they employed companies to build schools etc. In any case, government statistics, Centre for Cities info etc etc would have made it perfectly clear that the statement that 20,000 new jobs had been created was untrue.
You did not make clear if the 'team' did any independent investigating into LCC/the Mayor's claims. If so, explain why they didn't find out the truth behind Mayor Anderson's claims

The University stated that Professor Parkinson did not collect other evidence about quantative pledges, he reviewed the report by the City Council and found the data robust. His report was also informed by interviews with the people detailed in the Appendix.

The main focus of your complaints appear to be about the content of the report “Liverpool’s Elected Mayor 2012-2016: An independent Assessment” and not the way the University has handled your FOI request. It is your prerogative to disagree with the findings of the report but this is a separate matter to the processing of reviewing your FOI request.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Website: www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Lesley Jackson, FOI Co-ordinator
The University of Liverpool, Foundation Building,
765 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 7ZX

show quoted sections