| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Wigan committee met behind closed doors. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4390 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | JD [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Wigan committee met behind closed doors. |
On September 8th Wigan Regulation committee closed its doors on the public when it met to confirm its restricted numbers policy. The survey was not disclosed to the public prior to this meeting and it was only through my persistence yesterday, that I managed to get these minutes published on the Internet. The LO Mr Dearden and the vice chair of the committee were yesterday still trying to maintain disclosure privilege under section 100I 12 A of the 1972 Local Government act. However it seems the pressure I brought to bear has resulted in the minutes being made available. The survey and LO report will still not be made public until after the Cabinet has rubber-stamped the regulation committee decision on Thursday. So much for public accountability? If you live in Wigan and you want to comment on the survey findings then I'm afraid it's tough luck because you won't be allowed. Wigan seems to think that councillors and their pre conceived policies come first and the public comes a very poor second. Wigan is the only council out of all 151 authorities who were asked to address the Government guidance who saw fit to exclude the public from making representations on the LO and survey reports. Some will no doubt think it strange that the report by LO Dearden, which obvioulsy included representations from interested parties such as the Taxi and Private hire trades was also denied to the public. I find this a sorry state of affairs but I wouldn't mind betting that certain people in the Taxi trade were given access to Deardens supposedly public exempt report? http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/council/ ... 080906.htm Regards JD |
|
| Author: | GA [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How dare a council decide its own policies without refering a decision until it has been scrutinised by someone who doesn't even live or work in their area. Thats a discrace if you ask me 
I would invite JD to all of our meetings ............... alas I know not where to send the invitation. B. Lucky 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I would invite JD to all of our meetings ............... alas I know not where to send the invitation.
I'd be careful there JD, you'll get accused of being a spy, and please take that from a man who knows 
CC |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GA wrote: How dare a council decide its own policies without refering a decision until it has been scrutinised by someone who doesn't even live or work in their area.
This about the democratic process and the citizens of Wigan, it isn't about me. Its about people being allowed to represent their views. In respect of your forthcoming review in Gateshead I can just imagine your reaction if the council turned around and said "the report by the relevant committee will not be made public until after the cabinet has made their decision in private". lol. Your full of it mate, democracy is the chosen word no matter what side of the fence you sit on. JD |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: This about the democratic process and the citizens of Wigan, it isn't about me. Its about people being allowed to represent their views.
In respect of your forthcoming review in Gateshead I can just imagine your reaction if the council turned around and said "the report by the relevant committee will not be made public until after the cabinet has made their decision in private". lol. Your full of it mate, democracy is the chosen word no matter what side of the fence you sit on. JD Transparency surely JD? CC |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Transparency surely JD? And that toooooooooo! lol The outcome doesn't really matter to me because no matter which way Wigan went about it the end result was never in doubt. The whole point of elected officials is to serve the public to the best of their ability, I don't think they have done that in this case. Further more if you read item 5 of the particular section under which they exempted themselves from public scrutiny then you would see where I am coming from. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it tends to show how differnt councils work and the daft way the government has given advice regarding the FOI. However, the LG Act 1972, s100A(4) allows exclusion on the grounds of information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person. So if the report includes finances of individuals, could it not be argued for the exclusion? Isnt there also an exclusion if legal proceedings are being contemplated? regards CC |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: I think it tends to show how differnt councils work and the daft way the government has given advice regarding the FOI.
However, the LG Act 1972, s100A(4) allows exclusion on the grounds of information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person. So if the report includes finances of individuals, could it not be argued for the exclusion? Isnt there also an exclusion if legal proceedings are being contemplated? regards CC The exclusion order was made under item 5, which is the one that refers to legal instruction etc as you highlighted. However even that particular item should not have been used because it has no relevance. Even if it did have relevance once the legal instruction had been offered then there was no need for the reports or the minutes of the meeting to be suppressed. And they are still being suppressed at this moment in time. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The exclusion order was made under item 5, which is the one that refers to legal instruction etc as you highlighted. However even that particular item should not have been used because it has no relevance. Even if it did have relevance once the legal instruction had been offered then there was no need for the reports or the minutes of the meeting to be suppressed. And they are still being suppressed at this moment in time.
I believe if the LA was aware that the implications of their decision may be a legal challenge, they can exclude the public and press. Any challenge to the council decision is via the ombudsman for maladministration? Even then, it doesnt appear that the decision would be void or nullified. regards CC |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cap ,I think they are just being careful after what happened last time
|
|
| Author: | TDO [ Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GA wrote: How dare a council decide its own policies without refering a decision until it has been scrutinised by someone who doesn't even live or work in their area.
Thats a discrace if you ask me I would invite JD to all of our meetings ............... alas I know not where to send the invitation. You could always PM him.
But if a council isn't acting fully above board then if someone wants to draw attention to that then surely where he/she comes from is irrelevant. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Quote: The exclusion order was made under item 5, which is the one that refers to legal instruction etc as you highlighted. However even that particular item should not have been used because it has no relevance. Even if it did have relevance once the legal instruction had been offered then there was no need for the reports or the minutes of the meeting to be suppressed. And they are still being suppressed at this moment in time. I believe if the LA was aware that the implications of their decision may be a legal challenge, they can exclude the public and press. Your belief is founded on what for example? What legal implications might exist in the future that do not exist now? There are no legal implications other than those that already exist. A person denied a license could legally challenge that decision whether councillors like it or not? A person dissatisfied with the way a policy decision was reached has legal recourse through the courts. The exclusion elements contained in 12A of the 1972 act are discretionary and the first test of implementing these discretionary actions should be founded on "whether the public right to know" is greater than their right not to know? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wigan council's two differing examples of the reasoning behind this exclusion order. First the Regulation committee said it was because they were being offered legal advice and second the Cabinet Committee said it was because the document "itself" contained exempt information. What I would like to know is what makes this report so different from the other 150 reports submitted by other councils? Regulation Committee said. 8th Sept meeting. 5 ( Information covered by legal professional privilege i.e. legal advice from a qualified legal representative) Cabinet Committee said. 21st Sept meeting tomorrow. The Report Submitted With This Item Contains Exempt Information Within The Meaning Of Schedule 100a Of The Local Government Act 1972 And Therefore Is Not Available For View By Members Of The Press Or Public. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Therefore Is Not Available For View By Members Of The Press Or Public. or JD 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Your belief is founded on what for example?
What legal implications might exist in the future that do not exist now? There are no legal implications other than those that already exist. A person denied a license could legally challenge that decision whether councillors like it or not? A person dissatisfied with the way a policy decision was reached has legal recourse through the courts. The exclusion elements contained in 12A of the 1972 act are discretionary and the first test of implementing these discretionary actions should be founded on "whether the public right to know" is greater than their right not to know? Regards JD Does the public have the right to know of an individuals finances? CC |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|