Mayor Rotherams work diary

 
Dear Joe
 
Thank you for your recent correspondence, which has been received by the
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and Merseytravel. Please use the
reference number 3624156 in any future correspondence on this matter.
 
For requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental
Information Regulations 2004  we will aim to provide a response within
twenty working days.
 
For requests under the Data Protection Act 2018 or General Data Protection
Regulation we will aim to respond within one month.
 
To contact us about this case click below
 [1]Contact us about this case 
 
 
Kind Regards
 
Andy Henderson
Senior Information Management Officer | 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP
Office: 0151 330 1679 |
Email: [email address] 
 

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
iCWLCRCA

References

Visible links
1. Contact us about this case
https://legalmerseytravelportal.icasewor...

Dear Joe

Thank you for your recent request made under the Freedom of Information
Act.

The prominence of the Metro Mayor and the Combined Authority has grown
significantly in recent years, meaning that the Metro Mayor’s Outlook
diary is heavily populated with appointments. I am also advised by the
Metro Mayor’s office that the calendar is used to show personal
appointments, officer leave and office cover, so includes a large amount
of information.

In handling your enquiry, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority has
given consideration to a [1]decision of the First Tier Tribunal in
relation to a request for the diary of James Wharton, formerly the
Minister for the Northern Powerhouse. The Tribunal decision stated that
the Department for Communities & Local Government were entitled to
withhold personal information (such as private appointments, details of
junior officers and anything that was purely party political in nature)
from disclosure.

Section 12 of the Act defines the cost limit for responding to a request
under the Act for a local government body at £450, which is calculated at
a rate of £25 per hour (totalling the equivalent of 18 hours’ work). When
considering the cost of responding, we are is able to take into account
the time spent

a) determining whether the information is held;

b) locating the information;

c) retrieving the original record, and

d) extracting the requested data from the original record.

This is not a factor in providing a copy of the Metro Mayor’s calendar for
the past twelve months, as that could be facilitated through screenshots
from Outlook. The majority of the required effort would be spent on
consulting with those organisations and individuals referenced in the
appointments, considering any possible exemptions of confidential,
commercial or personal information (including third parties, staff and the
Metro Mayor himself), identifying those meetings that are party political
in nature, carrying out necessary redactions and undergoing a quality
check. All of these tasks can be considered as part of the overall burden
of responding under Section 14 of the Act.

The Information Commissioner has published guidance on when the burden of
responding to an FOI request is too great on their website at [2]this
link.

A sampling exercise was undertaken for a single recent month, which took
c.3 hours to prepare and finalise. Repeating this for the entire requested
timeframe would require a considerable amount of work, estimated to be in
the region of 36 hours in total. It is our view that this would constitute
a disproportionate effort on the Combined Authority, and this aspect of
your request is therefore refused in accordance with Section 14.

In line with Section 16 of the Act, and to provide you with advice and
assistance, we can advise that we estimate that we would be able to
provide around six months of the diary within the constraints of the
legislation.

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

Louise Outram

Chief Legal Officer / Monitoring Officer

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

[3][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

[4]www.ico.org.uk

Andy Henderson

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

Email: [5][Liverpool City Region Combined Authority request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information supplied 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

 
Dear Joe
 
Thank you for your recent correspondence, which has been received by the
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and Merseytravel. Please use the
reference number 3624156 in any future correspondence on this matter.
 
For requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental
Information Regulations 2004  we will aim to provide a response within
twenty working days.
 
For requests under the Data Protection Act 2018 or General Data Protection
Regulation we will aim to respond within one month.
 
To contact us about this case click below
 [1]Contact us about this case 
 
 
Kind Regards
 
Andy Henderson
Senior Information Management Officer | 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP
Office: 0151 330 1679 |
Email: [email address] 
 

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
iCWLCRCA

References

Visible links
1. Contact us about this case
https://legalmerseytravelportal.icasewor...

Dear Mr Hannigan

I refer to your request for an internal review dated March 15^th 2024
relating to your request for information in respect of 'Mayor Rotherams
work diary'.

You submitted the request on 29 February 2024 and the response was sent to
you as per the requisite timeframe.

The request for review covers two aspects that

• The reasons for refusal are spurious; and
• Liverpool City Council (LCC) have released information from former the
LCC Mayor, Joanne Andersons’ diary

Review of the grounds for refusal

The Combined Authority relied on Section 14 to refuse your enquiry based
on the overall burden that would be required in order to provide a
response.

In reviewing our response, I have engaged with the Head of the Mayor’s
office and their staff. They have confirmed that the Outlook calendar for
the Mayor’s account, that contains details of his own meetings, is
essentially also used as a team planner, containing details of officer
leave and office cover. The aim of this is to ensure that the Metro Mayor
and his staff have a single point of reference to establish office
staffing levels, absences, appointments, etc.

Further, the Mayor also uses it to record personal, party political and
other non-Mayoral responsibilities to ensure that it remains an accurate
record of his availability.

You may be aware that we will shortly have Mayoral Elections and as a
result the diary contains a significant amount of information.

In conducting this review I have also paid due consideration to the
Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Decision Notice concerning an FOI
request made to the Department for Transport (DfT) for the ministerial
diary of Grant Shapps to cover the 16 months when he was Secretary of
State for Transport. While this is not precedent setting, this is a useful
guide to how similar enquiries are viewed by the ICO.

The ICO agreed that the overall burden of responding, which came to an
estimated 43 hours, posed an excessive burden on DfT and the request was
rightly refused under Section 14 as vexatious.

It should be noted that the appropriate cost limit under Section 12, which
is viewed as a guide for estimating the Section 14 burden, for central
government is 24 hours rather than our the 18 for the Combined Authority
and local government. The implication here being that central government
is expected to spend more time responding to a request; the DfT estimated
that providing a response would take circa 43 hours, which the ICO agreed
was excessive.

I have also considered the cited references in the response to your FOI
request. The Senior Information Management Officers reference to the
[1]decision of the First Tier Tribunal in relation to a request for the
diary of James Wharton, formerly the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse.
The Tribunal decision stated that the Department for Communities & Local
Government were entitled to withhold personal information (such as private
appointments, details of junior officers and anything that was purely
party political in nature) from disclosure.

This together with the ICO guidance on when the burden of responding to an
FOI request is too great published on their website at [2]this link are
valid considerations I therefore conclude that the cited grounds are
appropriate and not as suggested spurious. I therefore uphold the grounds
for refusal.

Other Authorities and their actions

I acknowledge that you are aware of requests to other Authorities and you
specifically cite LCC, who have been able to provide you with the Mayor’s
diary of appointments within the constraints of the Act.

While our initial response may seem incongruous to this, each authority
must decide for themselves how to respond based on the information they
hold and how they hold such information.

I have reviewed and referenced above how the Mayor and his office use his
diary. Whether LCC or any other Authorities use their Mayor’s diary in a
similar/dissimilar way is not something that we are privy to.

Considering the above, I am satisfied that the Combined Authority’s
initial response to your enquiry was in accordance with the FOI Act. The
Mayor’s office have demonstrated that they have made every effort to
engage with the request in good faith, and have reiterated their
willingness to consider a request with a refined timeframe bearing the
above in mind.

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

[3]www.ico.org.uk

Louise Outram

Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer | 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3
1BP

Email: [4][Liverpool City Region Combined Authority request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information supplied 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