This grotesque, time consuming and very costly farce is a direct result of a small group of very senior council officers and the leaders of the Tory and Labour Party administrations agreeing a top secret deal which allowed Transeuropa Ferries (TEF) to run up an estimated £3.4 debt which will never be recovered. You and I will have to pay for this through reduced services and increased council tax.
Is it any wonder that the architects of this ill-conceived, high-risk gamble with public money, want to supress the truth of what went on behind closed doors. This is why they are trying to stonewall my requests because they know that the documents are likely to expose some unpleasant potentially career-ending facts.
If and when I have access to these documents I will publish them and you, the voters, can draw your own conclusions.
1 July 2013
Dear Sir/
Madam
I would like to request an internal review of this case.
I do not accept that allowing me to inspect the information
I have requested to see will in any way prejudice the court case. The court
will already have access to this information so I fail to see how me seeing it
will have any impact on the case. The Court case is taking place Brussels so
any discussion about information relating to the case is unlikely to have any
impact. Transeuropa has very few assets and it is extremely unlikely that the
Council will recover any of the £3.4 million
it is owed. There is therefore little to prejudice by letting me see the
information.
There is an overwhelming public interest in revealing how
the Council managed the Transeuropa debt particularly with regard to keeping
this debt secret from most councillors and not including it in the annual
accounts.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely Councillor
Ian Driver
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mark
Seed
To: Cllr-Ian
Driver
Sent:
Thursday, 27 June 2013, 17:36
Subject:
Transeuropa Ferries - Ref No: 50608
Dear Cllr Driver
Thank you for your
communication received on 3rd June in which you requested information about
Transeuropa.
Harvey Patterson
responded at length in relation to access to information in your role as a
councillor and your position on Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The response below
relates to your request being logged as an FoI as if this was coming from a member
of the public.
The information you request relates to meetings and other
communications with Transeuropa and this information would be directly
relevant to legal action taken by the
council to recover the outstanding debt. Premature release of information
relevant to a potential legal action could be significantly prejudicial to a
legal case taken by the council.
It is almost certain
that this information would be released into the public domain and lead
directly to the prejudice to any potential case.
The council is owed
over £3 million and any prejudice to legal action it may take would be
significantly prejudicial to its commercial interests. The application of a
public interest test in relation to this under Section 43 of the Freedom of
Information Act relating to commercial interests has been applied to this
situation and it is considered that the balance of public interest lies on the
side of not releasing the information you have requested as the wider public
interest lies in retaining the confidentiality of this information at this
stage. This will remain the case until the issue with regard to the legal
action to recover the Transeuropa debt is resolved.
If you are
dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for
an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two
months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and
should be addressed to: Information Request Assessor, Thanet District Council,
P O Box 9 Cecil Street, Margate Kent CT9 1XZ, or send an email to
foi@thanet.gov.uk.
If you are not
content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Mark
From: Harvey
Patterson
Subject: RE:
Transeuropa Ferries
Dear
Councilor Driver
However, I do not
agree that you have a need to know
by virtue of being a Ramsgate Councillor
for a ward that does not include the Port of Ramsgate. However, I did in fact in my e-mail of 10 June acknowledge
your statutory and constitutional rights of access to information as as
a member of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel and have only denied you
access to information
that I consider to be confidential
- as the Constitution authorises me to do. (Despite what you say,
the Oveview & Scrutiny Panel has not yet decided to undertake a review of this matter).
I also note your view that all the relevant information
concerning this matter should be in the public
domain and I would remind you that
although have have a statutory right to
access confidential information
in certain circumstances, you do not have a
right to disclose confidential
information, nor have you been authorised by the Council to do so.
It is partly for this
reason that I also decided to treat your request as a Freedom of Information Act request , thus enabling
due consideration to be given to the relevant information and for the public interest to be carefully
evaluated by an authorised officer. Should this result in some or all of the relevant information
entering the public domain, all well and
good as it will have occurred as a result of careful consideration and not by
the unilateral decision of an individual member
Your sincerely
From: Ian
Driver [mailto:ianddriver@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 10
June 2013 09:44
To: Harvey
Patterson
Subject: Re:
Transeuropa Ferries
Dear Mr Patterson
Thank you for replying on behalf of the Chief Executive to
my e-mail to her of 2 June 2013 requesting to see all the documents held by the
Council and its Executive in relation to the Transeuropa Ferries debt of £3.4m
to Thanet District Council.
I am very disappointed that you have chosen to be
unnecessarily obstructive in your response. I am also disappointed that the
justifications for your obstructions are ill-conceived and incorrect.
You appear to have denied me access to the information I
requested about the Transeuropa Ferries debt for the following reasons
1. Failure to provide
you with a “right to know”.
2. That as a
member of the Council’s Scrutiny Panel I am only able to request information
which has already been included in the OSP’s collectively agreed programme of work
3. Denying me
information because you deem it to be
confidential under the terms of the
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act
1972
I will deal with each of these issues separately
Right to Know. I am a Ramsgate Councillor and the
Transeuropa Ferries issue relates to the management of the Port of Ramsgate. I
therefore have a “right to know” because of electoral geography. There is a very strong public interest in the
Transeuropa Ferries issues as evidenced by extensive press, TV, radio and internet media coverage. I have also been contacted by many
constituents, non-constituents and journalists
who wish to hear from an elected
councillor how the Transeuropa situation came about and what the Council did/
is doing to protect taxpayers money. I therefore have a “right to know” on the basis of public
interest.
Scrutiny members’ right to information. Your reply appears to suggest that Scrutiny
members are only allowed to see information which relates to a programme of
work collectively agreed by the OSP. If this is true then I draw your attention
a statement made in the Friday last edition of Gazette by OSP Chairman Cllr Jo
Gideon which says that it’s not a question of if the OSP investigates the
Transeuropa Ferries issues, but when. I also have e-mail correspondence between
myself and Cllr Gideon in which she indicates that OSP will be discussing this
issue. It is clear that OSP will be looking into this matter and that therefore
you should be allowing me to see all the relevant documents so that I can
prepare myself for discussion at the OSP.
Notwithstanding the above, I challenge your erroneous view
that that members of OSP can only ask for information related to issues which
form part of a collectively agreed work programme. This is not the case.
Paragrpah 17 of The Local Authorities (Executive
Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 (Additional
rights of access to documents for members of overview and scrutiny committees)
states that
“a member of an overview and scrutiny committee of a
relevant local authority is entitled to a copy of any document which—
(a)is in the possession or under the control of the
executive of that authority; and.
(b)contains material relating to—.
(i)any business that has been transacted at a meeting of a
decision-making body of that authority;.
(ii)any decision that has been made by an individual member
of that executive in accordance with executive arrangements; or.
(iii)any decision that has been made by an officer of the
authority in accordance with executive arrangements
This regulation does not require, as you incorrectly
believe, that the information requested
by an OSP member must be part of a collectively agreed programme of OSP work before it can be made available to that
member. On the contrary the regulation clearly permits OSP members to review
and scrutinise Executive decisions on an individual basis, presumably with the
intention of referring anything they might discover to the OSP or any other
appropriate body. This regulation describes precisely my actions and I therefore insist you allow me to exercise
my legal rights.
Confidentiality
Your decision not to allow me to see the documentation I
have requested on the grounds of confidentiality cannot be justified. The fact
that there is an extremely strong public interest in how Thanet District
Council was able to secretly allow
Transeuropa Ferries to run up a debt of over £3.4 million, mitigates against
keeping information about this confidential from Councillors and the public.
The fact that much information about this issue is already in the public domain
also mitigates against your decision to keep documents secret. The fact that
TransEuropa Ferries is in administration
means that there cannot possibly be any commercial reasons to keep documents
related to a non-trading company secret from elected councillors and the
public.
Finally, Paragrpah 17
of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to
Information) Regulations 2012 states
that an OSP member who is reviewing or
scrutinising decisions made by the Council’s Executive has the right to inspect
“any such document or part of a document as contains exempt or confidential
information”. Once again the regulation does not link the process of review or
scrutiny with any work programme
collectively agreed by the OSP. Furthermore the Regulations also make it clear that that the term “documents
means any report or background papers taken into consideration in relation to
an executive decision”. Your decision to deny me access to these documents for
the reasons you have given is therefore clearly unlawful.
Please note that The
Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information)
Regulations 2012 require that inform the OSP in writing why you have decided
not to let me have access to the information I have requested.I would be grateful if you could reconsider your position in light of my comments and arrange for me to inspect all the documents relating to the Transeuropa support package including the £3.4 million.
If you are unable to comply with my request then please let me know as quickly as possible so that I can take the necessary steps to have your decision over ruled.
Cllr Ian Driver
From: Harvey
Patterson
Sent: 07
June 2013 12:55
To: Cllr-Ian
Driver
Cc: Sue
McGonigal; Victoria Williams; Mark Seed
Subject: RE:
Transeuropa Ferries
Dear Councillor Driver
The Chief Executive has refered your e-mails of of 3 and 7 June to me for consideration and
reply.
In considering your request, I have taken
into account that in the recent
past the Chief Executive
has had cause to write to you
explaining that being a councillor does
not give you a roving brief through the
Councils administrative records and that
in each case you have to establish 'a
need to know'.
I have also taken
into account the rights of access to information conferred by the Constitution on the Overview & Scrutiny Panel as a
collective and on individual Panel members .
In this regard it is relevant that you are no longer the the
Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny
Panel, nor, as at the date of writing,
is the Overview & Scrutiny
Panel reviewing the issues surrounding
the insolvency of Transeuropa Ferries, nor does this issue appear on the Panel's current Work Plan as an
item for future consideration.
That being so, Rule
22.1 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules in the Council's Constitution
confers on the Scrutiny Panel and
it's duly constituted Sub
Committees, the right to a copy of any documents in the possession or contol of
the Cabinet that relate to business
transacted at a meeting of the Cabinet
or to the decisions taken by an
individual Cabinet Member or by
officers under delegated powers. These will consist of Cabinet reports,
appendices and background documents and
individual Cabinet member/ officer
decision notices and related
background documents.
Rule 22.2 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules
confers on individual Panel
members the same rights of access to information as the Panel has - but with one important exception - the
exclusion of any right of access to
confidential or exempt
information unless the Scrutiny Panel or
a Scrutiny Sub-Committee is actively scrutinising or reviewing the matter, or the matter appears in the Committee Work
Plan. As this matter is not under review by the Overview & Scrutiny
Panel and does not appear in the Panel's
2013/14 WorkPlan, you do not have any
right of access to confidential or
exempt information in relation to Transeuropa Ferries.
In this regard you already have the documentation in the
possession and control of the Cabinet relating to the Cabinet recommendations
to Council on Transeuropa last week and it is my understanding that there are no
specific individual Cabinet member decision notices relating to your requests
(because the receipt of officer
briefings do not require decision notices to be made), although I will seek
confirmation of this understanding when Mark Seed returns from annual
leave next week.
Turning therefore to
your requests , some of these can be disposed of very quickly. Firstly, the Council hold no reports or
background documents relating to the legality of 'allowing
Transeuropa Ferries to use Council facilities without immediate
payment'. This is because officers were satisfied of the the legality of the actions taken as debt
payment was being deferred
and re-scheduled, not remitted.
Secondly, the Council holds no
reports or background documents relating
to the constitutional position of the
officer decisions in this matter as these did not in my view raise any
constitutional issue.
This leaves your request for reports and background
documents held by the Council in
relation to 'the decision to allow Transeuropa Ferries to use Council
facilities without immediate payment' as well as the monitoring of these
arrangements . In this regard it is my
view that the documentation supporting the making and
monitoring of these arrangements are confidential and therefore
mat not be disclosed to you as an
individual Overview & Scrutiny Panel member - and may only be disclosed to
the Panel itself or a Sub Committee of the Panel, should the decision be taken by the Panel to
review this matter.
This deals with your rights as a councillor. As to your rights as an individual, I intend
to treat your e-mail of 3 June as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
and have arranged for it to be deal with
accordingly. You can find more information about this on the Council'sl web site or the web site of
the Information Commissioner
Harvey
Patterson
Corporate
& Regulatory Services Manager
Thanet
District Council
Tel: 01843
577005
From: Ian
Driver To: Sent: Monday, 3 June 2013, 20:17
Subject:
Transeuropa Ferries
Dear Dr
McGonigal
I would like to inspect all the documents held by the Council
in relation to the decision to allow Transeuropa Ferries to use Council
facilities without immediate payment. I would also like to inspect all
documents in relation to the monitoring of this arrangement and the repayment
by Transeuropa of any monies owed to the Council. I would also like to inspect
any reports or background documents held by the Council in relation to
constitutional position of decisions related to this matter. Finally I would
like to inspect any reports or background documents regarding the legal position e.g. EU competition laws
of the decision to allow Transeuropa Ferries to use Council facilities without
immediate payment.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
Yours
sincerely
Cllr Ian
Driver
The main reason that it's time consuming is that you will not accept the advice that you are given. Whether that advice is relevant or not matters not a jot to you, focussed as you are on the career of Driver - nothing more or less. Your shenanigans in this matter are what is costing the council money. Perhaps if you worked with, rather than against, your councillor colleagues and the officers upon whom you actually depend, then TDC might be able to complete this process without you wasting valuable council resources that it can ill afford.
ReplyDeleteI am so looking forward to the next round of District Council Elections - that is the only way that we will ever know whether it's you that the electorate want or the labour councillor that they elected. I have a suspicion that I might know which way that might go.
You really are an idiot.
I'd be happy to work with the officers and political leaders of TDC if they were open and transparent. which sadly in this case they are not. In the meantime I will continue to expose hypocrisy, double standards and mismanagement where I find it. Hardly think that makes me an idiot.
DeleteWhat we have here is a failure of democracy. Over a long period of time lazy councillors have given the officers too much power. Now, there is a big, big problem and we are seeing the dark underbelly of the beast which has been created.
ReplyDeleteA council officer lectures Driver on his rights. It is not for an unelected officer to decide what a councillor may and may not see. It is for the councillors to decide what is appropriate and for unelected officers to be told what they will and will not do if they wish to continue claiming their salaries.
This isn't going to a jury trial so it can't be prejudiced by the release of information. Of course, if individuals were to end up being prosecuted I can see how information released to Driver might influence their trial, but this isn't on the cards, is it?
This entire matter must be dealt with by the elected members who can be removed from office if they don't do the right thing.
Well, actually in this case, it is for a Council Officer to tell an elected member what they can and can't see. The monitoring officer is legally qualified, and they have a statutory duty to ensure that the Council does not do what is unable to do in law. They answer to the courts, and not to any particular elected member, no matter what political party.
DeleteUnlike the rest of the population, a Council is a creature of statute, and can only do what the law says that it can do. This, whether Cllr Driver likes it nor not, includes him. He is not able to dictate to the monitoring officer a course of action if the law precludes it. I can see why he may dislike it - it might remove him from the headlines of the Thanet Gazette, or from his adoring public (both of them) who think that he actually knows what he's doing.
If Cllr Driver wishes to put this to the test, then the courts are open to him. But, as an elected representative of the Thanet District Council, maybe just once - just once- he might like to think about the money and resources that he's wasting.
Not to mention that by acting like a goat in a china shop (I meant goat, not bull), he's making all the councillors of Thanet District Council look as ridiculous as does he.
I could be wrong. But I seem to remember IoT Gazette reporting a debt of £560k in 2011 that increased by nearly £3M in less than two years. I also worked out that this debt equates to aprox £65 per council tax payer - or roughly one months payments.... shame
ReplyDeleteCouncillor Drivers has a legal right as a Member of the Authority to see all papers relating to an item before the Council. "Any document which is in the possession or under the control of a principal council and contains material relating to any business to be transacted at a meeting of the council or a committee or sub-committee of the council shall, subject to subsections (2) to (2C) below, be open to inspection by any member of the council".
ReplyDelete2. "In relation to a principal council in England, subsection (1) above does not require the document to be open to inspection if it appears to the proper officer that it discloses exempt information.]
2A But subsection (1) above does require (despite subsection (2) above) the document to be open to inspection if the information is information of a description for the time being falling within—
(a)paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to this Act (except to the extent that the information relates to any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract), or
(b)paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A to this Act.
(2B)In subsection (2A) above, “the authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 12A to this Act.
(2C)In relation to a principal council in Wales, subsection (1) above does not require the document to be open to inspection if it appears to the proper officer that it discloses exempt information of a description falling within any of paragraphs 12 to 18, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of Schedule 12A to this Act.]
Patterson needs challenging on this one.
All the time being wasted is the fault of the executives in the Council, using taxpayers money and resources to protect their personal careers which events show they are not qualified to continue with. If they were open about it they could prove there is nothing to hide and then earn their salaries by doing actual work beneficial to the local residents. As it is they are spending weeks writing spurious letters denying information to all who request it. Surely if Transeuropa is the the only company that owes this £3.4million, and we may have been lied to about that, and they are in administration, all TDC should have already done weeks ago is submit a detailed schedule of all the invoices that have not been paid and attach the supporting documents and the administrator will rank them according to what type of creditor they are (unsecured sounds likely) and will pay them out pro-rata from any residue if any. How releasing such information can prejudice what is virtually a mechanical process needs urgent explanation by Mr Patterson, or, like the Palm Bay Air Show, is this something else he has got wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell done Ian. This is outrageous with civil servants refusing a councillor any documents. And then partly justifying it as they took the decisions in secret and didn't keep minutes.
ReplyDeleteThe other 55 councillors are sheep. Raise a motion of no confidence in McGonigal, Seed and Harvey in council and as Scrutiny and sack them. No pensions. No payoffs and a jail sentence if required for fraud and misuse of public office.
Record which of the 55 sheep vote against or abstain.
Regarding the name-calling in 3 July 19:00, "an idiot" in this context would be a person who accepts and so is fobbed off by the excuses held out by the management of TDC for not making a full disclosure of the documents.
ReplyDeleteEven if it were genuine, which clearly is not the case, isn't messrs Patterson Seed and McGonigal's concern for “the wider public interest” over two years too late!
ReplyDelete