Now here's an interesting document - one that might interest senior officials in Glasgow City Council, or at least those who claim to have little, if any, knowledge of the Council's controversial EDC pay scheme which gave a long-term guarantee on future earnings to male employees in bonus earning jobs.

According to this document Glasgow City Council established a high powered Joint Steering Group to oversee the operation of the EDC scheme which kept minutes of its meetings (as you would expect) and included representatives from every part of the Council: elected councillors, the chief executive's department, service departments and all of the trade unions (including Unison and GMB) were involved.

Mike Kirby from Unison was present at this particular meeting and Mike is now the union's regional secretary in Scotland.

So maybe Mike can help jog the City Council's memory about what deals were done to upgrade hundreds of male Gardener and Gravedigger jobs - while leaving all the female dominated jobs still stuck firmly at the bottom of the Council's pay ladder.

Does anyone in Glasgow really believe that senior officials of the City Council can't find this information - maybe they are just not looking hard enough or could it be that they are looking in the wrong places?

EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT STEERING GROUP

NOTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2007

in Café George, Parish Hall

ATTENDEES:
Elma Murray	Chair	Carol Ball	UNISON
Glenda McKendrick	Chief Executive Dept	Mike Kirby	UNISON
L Norwood/W Stewart	DaCS	John Murdoch	UNISON
David Halliday	APAX	Eddie Sneider	GMB
Martin Doran	GMB

Apologies were received from Councillor McKeown, Mary Brown (UCATT) and Janice Irvine.

E Murray opened the meeting in Councillor McKeown’s absence.

1. Notes of Previous Meeting and Matters Arising

1.1 The Note of the previous meeting was accepted.

1.2 Confirmation was asked for regarding point 1.3, Training for TU representatives, which Councillor McKeown was to raise with N Aird. E Murray advised that she would clarify action on this item and advise the group.

Action: Clarify with Councillor McKeown E Murray

1.3 Clarification was asked for regarding point 1.4, consistency of information being issued to staff when invited to attend Review proceedings. E Murray advised that she would ask I Drummond to raise at the next Governance Board meeting and issue a response to the group prior to the next meeting.

Action: Raise with I Drummond E Murray

2. PDP Paperwork - L Norwood/W Stewart, DaCS

L Norwood advised the group of how the PDP process is conducted within DaCS and W Stewart explained all aspects of the paperwork which has been developed in line with the corporate approach.

C Ball expressed some concern at the lack of preparation time which would be given to staff prior to a PDP meeting. She also pointed out that the DaCS paperwork has 4 levels of competency compared to the corporate 3 levels and asked if these points could be considered.

3. Council Wide Progress

E Murray explained the new format of the reports and the following points were discussed:

3.1 Based on the figures reported, the group asked for clarification of the actions being proposed. E Murray advised of the commitment given by the CMT that staff facing protection should have received a PDP before the end of this year. Details of development options and service reform for individuals are to be looked at with Services.

Concerns were expressed regarding the timescale, particularly within Education, as the PDP rollout is still taking place.

3.2 The issue of Review results taking as long as 6 weeks to be issued was raised.

Action: Raise with I Drummond E Murray

3.3 An issue was raised regarding 3 Parking Staff who lost their Review and have had no further contact from management. There was also a point made that within LES a restructure of Senior Management based on salary has taken place although some of those involved are awaiting Reviews.

Action: Clarify with R Booth E Murray

3.4 The group asked why the BS and CA Reviews have been postponed until November. E Murray advised that this is due to the previous reviews taking longer and to allow Services to begin these job families at the same time. C Ball expressed concern at this as Education is ready to proceed with reviews for these families.

300 reviews have already taken place for 7,000 staff, including group reviews.

1,600 reviews have still to be heard for 3,000 staff, a large number of which are individual reviews.

3.5 The group asked if the number of Reviews that have taken place could be updated for the next meeting.

Action: E Murray

3.6 The group asked if it is the intention for ongoing reviews to be heard by job family. E Murray advised that this is necessary to maintain the integrity of the WP&BR. A point was made that within Education someone had been advised at their Review that a review of the job was required.

4. Careers Scotland Progress

E Murray spoke to the report.

4.1 A point was made that the low take up of the Careers Scotland services may be due to staff perception that the service is to assist them in finding a job outwith the Council.

4.2 E Sneider asked for a demonstration of the mapping tool. G McKendrick invited him to attend the next Process Workshop scheduled for 20 September.

5. Schedule of meetings

The following dates have been scheduled:

12 December 2007

5 March 2008

5 June 2008

All at 2.30 pm in Café George.

Glasgow's Low Paid Workers Get 'Capped' - Council Boss Cops £250,000 Pay 'Bonus' (15/06/17)

Glasgow City Council have suddenly backtracked on the previous decision to refuse my FoI request regarding the payment of 'added years' to boost a senior official's leaving package.

After registering an appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner, the City Council wrote to me in the following terms:

Mr Irvine,

I refer to your recent Freedom of Information request to the Council regarding Mr Drummond’s leaving package. We have received correspondence from the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner advising us that you have requested a decision from them on this matter.

Your request for review stated that you were looking for “a review of the City Council's refusal to answer Part 3 of my original FOI request in which I asked whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package included any discretionary benefits such as 'added years' in respect of the Local Government Pension Scheme”. We advised you in our letter of 7th April 2017 that we considered the information that you were looking for constituted personal data and as such, was exempt in terms of s38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. For the reasons set out in the Council’s review decision letter, we did not consider that you had a legitimate interest in obtaining the data.

Although Mr Drummond no longer works for the Council, we have been able to contact him to ask whether he would prepared to give consent to the release of the information you have requested. The Council recognises that personal data may be released if consent is provided by the data subject to do so. Mr Drummond has now consented to release of the information requested to you.

Accordingly, please note that Ian Drummond received added years to his pension. Due to his age and length of service, this was on the basis of 6 and 2/3rds “added years” to his pension, in line with the Committee Report calculation (attached).

This calculation was applied to all staff who left at this time. The Annual accounts previously sent to you show that Mr Drummond received £109,000 “compensation for loss of office”. This figure comprises a £33,000 enhanced lump sum from the added years plus £76,000 redundancy payment.

There is an £11,000 per annum addition to Mr Drummond’s pension arising from the added years calculation. No payments for loss of office were made to Mr Drummond beyond the standard formula set out in the policy, i.e. maximum 6 2/3 added years (applied to the calculation of both the lump sum and the annual pension) plus maximum 30 weeks’ pay as a redundancy lump sum as Mr Drummond was aged over 50 and had access to his pension.

Please note that election payments (made to Mr Drummond as a result of the then chief executive being on long term sickness absence following a heart attack) are not pensionable and did not give rise to any additional payment of either pension, lump sum, or redundancy payment.

I trust this answers the query posed in your request for review.

Regards,

FOI Review Team

So the upshot is that Mr Drummond did receive a big boost to his pension plan - in the shape of an extra £33,000 by way of a lump sum plus another £11,000 a year on top of his annual pension payment.

Now this is an extra, 'discretionary' payment remember - and it should be compared to the way low paid council employees are treated, often after a lifetime's work in Glasgow's essential front-line services.

In fact, if you make the not reasonable assumption that Mr Drummond will draw his pension for another 20 years, the extra boost to his pension is worth at least £253,000 - i.e. 20 years x £11,000 (£220,000) + £33,000 = £253,000.

But what really gets my goat is that this Labour-run council placed a 'cap' or ceiling on the equal pay settlements of the Council's lowest paid workers back in 2005 - the most anyone received was just £9,000 which meant thousands of people were 'duped' into accepting much less than their claims were really worth.

As regular readers know, the local trade unions were involved in negotiating this unfair cap on people's settlements, yet they now try to claim credit for fighting the 'good fight' over equal pay.

Shameless to the end, the unions then made light of of their terrible track record and tried to tempt A4ES clients to go back to them once the Court of Session ruled that Glasgow's equal pay claimants had been unfairly treated and badly let down.

Give me a break, please!

Because the reality is that Glasgow City Council and the local trade unions worked together to ensure that '1st Wave' equal pay settlements were much lower than the real value of people's claims in the run-up to Christmas 2005.

In 2006 they also agreed to give special treatment to all of the 'red circled', former bonus earning, traditional male jobs when the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review was introduced - without first of all bringing women's pay into line with the men, a hugely significant point that was highlighted in the recent judgment from the Court of Session.

So if you ask me, the Labour Council bosses and the spineless Labour trade unions should all be thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.

Glasgow and Equal Pay (26/05/17)

The Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) invited me to make a further submission in respect of my appeal against Glasgow City Council's refusal to explain whether one of its senior officials had his leaving package boosted with 'added years'.

Here's what I had to say along with a previous post explaining the background to my original FoI request.

Dear SIC

Thank you for your letter dated 10 May 2017.

In my view Glasgow City Council does not have a valid reason for refusing my request, not least because much of this information has already been released with the disclosure that Mr Drummond received a remuneration package worth £462,555 in the year ended 31 March 2011.

According to the Council the figure of £462,555 comprised of £211,000 in accrued pension benefits plus £251,555 in Salary Fees and Allowances, Compensation for Loss of Office and Election Duties.

My FoI request in respect of 'added years' does not affect the figures already released into the public domain and the issue comes down to whether or not the Council used its powers to provide Mr Drummond's leaving package with a further financial boost using public funds.

I believe I have a legitimate interest in the City Council's use of public money as a taxpayer, especially when government at all levels (both local and national) have been operating on tight budgets.

In 2005 Glasgow City Council 'capped' equal pay settlement offers to thousands of low paid women workers at a maximum of £9,000 even though their employees claims were worth considerably more than £9,000. Mr Drummond was the City Council's chief legal officer at that time.

In my view the public has a right to know whether or not the City Council was especially generous to one of its senior officials and if so, the reasons for someone at the top of the organisation receiving more favourable treatment than the 'foot-soldiers' at the bottom of the pay ladder.

I cannot see how the release of this information can be detrimental to Mr Drummond in any way since the decision to award 'added years' or not lay with the City Council - not Mr Drummond himself.

For these reasons and those detailed in my original submission I would ask the Scottish Information Commissioner to uphold my appeal.

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

Glasgow and Equal Pay (20/04/17)

I said in a recent post that I would be submitting an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) over Glasgow City Council's refusal to confirm whether a senior official's leaving package benefited from 'added years'.

So here is my letter of appeal to SIC and if you ask me, the City Council has a real cheek in refusing to disclose this information.

I suspect the answer is that when it comes to boosting people's pensions with 'added years' senior officials are treated more generously than the council's foot-soldiers, but let's see what SIC has to say.

10 April 2017

Dear Ms Agnew

Glasgow City Council (GCC) – FOISA Appeal

I enclose an exchange of correspondence with Glasgow City Council (GCC) regarding a FOISA enquiry I initiated with the council on 15 February 2017.

I asked for a review of GCC’s initial response on 16 March 2017, but I am dissatisfied with the council's answer and refusal to provide me with the information I requested regarding a senior official's leaving package.

I would, therefore, like to register an appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) for the following reasons:

The information I requested relates to GCC as an employer and, specifically, the council's ability to use its discretionary powers to award extra 'added years' to boost the value of an employee's leaving package.
An employer's decision to use its discretion in this way represents a cost to the public purse - one which is borne by the council alone and not the individual employee.
In its response to my Review Request, the council raises a number of 'red herring' points about 'employee contributions' and 'opting into or out of the scheme', but these are completely bogus arguments because they have no bearing on the employer's ability, or otherwise, to award 'added years'.
I reject the council's assertion that I do not have a legitimate interest in the matter. As a publicly minded citizen and Glasgow council tax payer, I believe I am perfectly entitled to know how Scotland's largest council is spending public funds.
I also believe that the council has a duty to ensure that its most senior, highly paid officials are not treated any more favourably than other council employees.
If GCC did not award 'added years' to this official's leaving package, then the council should have answered 'No' in its initial response and the matter would simply have ended there.
If GCC had any genuine concern about an employee's personal data, the council should have answered "Yes, Mr Drummond' was awarded 'X' number of added years to his leaving package, but we decline to provide further details as we believe this information constitutes personal data" - leaving the matter open to a further appeal (by me) to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Instead GCC has chosen to obfuscate and conceal whether or not its powers of discretion were used in the case of its Executive Director of Corporate Services who was, I believe, the author of the original 'redundancy and retirement' report.
In my view, GCC does not have a legitimate reason for withholding this information and I suspect the real motive behind its refusal to answer this particular aspect of my FoI request is a desire to shield the council from criticism over its use of public money.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course and if you require any further details or clarification at this stage, please contact me by e-mail at markirvine@compuserve.com

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

List of enclosures x 4

1 Original FOISA request to GCC dated 15 February 2017

2 Initial response from GCC dated 15 March 2009

3 Review Request letter to GCC dated 16 March 2017

4 Final response letter from GCCC dated 7 April 2017

Enclosure 1 - Original FOISA Request dated 1 February 2017

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
To: annemarie.odonnell <annemarie.odonnell@ced.glasgow.gov.uk>
Sent: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 4:04 pm
Subject: FoI Request

15 February 2017

Annemarie O'Donnell

Chief Executive

Glasgow City Council

By email to - annemarie.odonnell@ced.glasgow.gov.uk

Dear Ms O'Donnell

FOISA Request

I would like to make the following request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

I refer to the article in The Telegraph newspaper dated 25 April 2012 which reported the remuneration package of Ian Drummond (in the previous year) as £450,628.

I understand that Mr Drummond left the City Council's employment in 2010-11 and that the figure of £450,628 will have represented a 'leaving package'.

I would be grateful if you could:

Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc
Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated
Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme

I look forward to your reply and would be grateful if you could respond to me by e-mail at: markirvine@compuserve.com

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

Mobile - 07947 795222

Enclosure 2 - GCC's Initial Response to my FOISA request

-----Original Message-----

From: Dickson, John (Revenues) (Revenues) <John.Dickson@glasgow.gov.uk>

To: 'markirvine@compuserve.com' <markirvine@compuserve.com>

Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 3:36 pm

Subject: FOI request

			Financial Services Glasgow City Council Room 10 City Chambers, Glasgow G2 Phone 0141 287 8186 Fax 0141 287 9568 Email: FS_FOI@glasgow.gov.uk					Corporate Services Glasgow City Council City Chambers George Square Glasgow G2 1DU Phone 0141 287 8186 Fax 0141 287 4575 Email customercare@glasgow.gov.uk

Date 15 March 2017

Mr Mark Irvine

Sent by email to: markirvine@compuserve.com

Dear Mr Irvine,

Freedom Of Information Request

I refer to your Freedom of Information request received on 16 February 2017 requesting that the following information be provided to you:

“I understand that Mr Drummond left the City Council's employment in 2010-11 and that the figure of £450,628 will have represented a 'leaving package'.

I would be grateful if you could:

1. Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc

2. Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated

3. Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme”

The Council is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Please note, some of the information which you have requested is, in our opinion, exempt from a request under section 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 because of an exemption contained in s 38(1)(b) of the Act. In other words, in our opinion disclosure of the information would involve disclosure of personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended) and that such disclosure would breach the Data Protection Principles contained in Schedule 1 Part 1 of that Act. We are therefore unable to comply fully with your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The information which you have requested and which can be provided is as follows :

1. Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc

Ø Within the Councils 2010/11 annual accounts, as a Senior Officer, Mr Drummonds annual remuneration was detailed as follows:

4.3. Remuneration of senior employees

Year ended 31 March 2011

Remuneration Salary fees Compensation Election Duties Total

of senior and for loss of

employees allowances office

Ian Drummond £ 132,051 £ 109,303 £ 10,201 £ 251,555

Executive Director of Corporate Services

(to December 2010)

and Executive Director of Special Projects

(from December 2010)

Thereafter, within the annual accounts, as a Senior Officer Mr Drummond’s Pension Benefit’s were detailed as such :

5.2. Pension benefits of senior employees

In year pension contributions Accrued pension benefits

Pension benefits of

senior employees For year to 31 March 2011 As at 31 March 2011

Ian Drummond £ 199,073 Pension - £ 56,000

Lump sum - £ 155,000

2. Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated

Ø Please see attachment, detailing Council’s policy on redundancy and retirement provisions for the requested period, which was approved by the Executive Committee on 13 November 2009.

3. Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme”

Ø This request relates to personal information which is exempt in terms of section 38(1)(b) the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, as explained above.

I trust the above information is of assistance. If you have any further enquiries or questions I can be contacted on telephone number 0141-287-8186 or at the noted e-mail address.

However, should you be dissatisfied with the way Glasgow City Council has dealt with your request you are entitled to require the council to review its decision. Please note that for a review to take place you must:

Lodge a written requirement for a review within 40 working days of the date of this letter. Include a correspondence address and a

description of the original request and the reason why you are dissatisfied.

Address your request to the :

Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council

Glasgow City Council

City Chambers

George Square

Glasgow G2 1DU

Email: FOIreviews@glasgow.gov.uk

You will receive notice of the results of the review within 20 working days of receipt of your request. The notice will state the decision reached by the reviewing officer as well as details of how to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner if you are still dissatisfied with the Council’s response. You must request an internal review by the Council before a complaint can be directed to the Scottish Information Commissioner. For your information at this stage, an appeal can be made to the Scottish Information Commissioner by contacting her office as follows if you do remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council’s review decision -

Address: Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, KY16 9DS.

Email: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info

Telephone: 01334 464610

You can also use the Scottish Information Commissioner’s online appeal service to make an application for a decision:

www.itspublicknowledge.info/appeal

Please note that you cannot make an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner until you have first requested an internal review by the Council.

If you wish to submit a complaint to the Council in relation to the manner in which it has handled your request for information then you can do so by requesting that the Council review its decision. Details of how to request a review are set out in the above paragraph “Right of Review”.

Yours sincerely

John Dickson

Executive Compliance Officer

Financial Services

Glasgow - UK Council of the Year 2015

Disclaimer:
This email is from Glasgow City Council or one of its Arm’s Length Organisations (ALEOs). Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of the council, or ALEO, who will not necessarily be bound by its contents. If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Please be aware that communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore, we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to someone else, would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature then please write to us using the postal system. If you chose to email this information to us there can be no guarantee of privacy. Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the council, or ALEO, for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to make sure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law. Glasgow City Council, or ALEOs, cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.

Enclosure 3 - Review Request Letter from Mark Irvine

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>

To: FOIreviews <FOIreviews@glasgow.gov.uk>

Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 1:05 pm

Subject: Fwd: FOI request

Dear Glasgow City Council

FOISA Review Request

I would like to register a formal FOI Review Request in response to Glasgow City Council's refusal to provide me with information regarding Mr Ian Drummond's remuneration package upon leaving the City Council's employment in 2010-2011.

Specifically, I am seeking a review of the City Council's refusal to answer Part 3 of my original FOI request in which I asked whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package included any discretionary benefits such as 'added years' in respect of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

I do not agree that this information is exempt as personal information given Mr Drummond's position as one of the City Council's most senior officials. In my view, since other aspects of Mr Drummond's remuneration package have been released, the same logic must apply to any discretionary payments agreed by the Council in respect of this employee.

Furthermore, I believe this is especially important since Mr Drummond, as Executive Director of Corporate Services, appears to be the author of the report on 'discretionary redundancy and retirements payments' from which he seems to have benefited personally on leaving the City Council's employment.

I look forward to hearing from you and would be grateful if you could respond to me via email at: markirvine@compuserve.com

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

Enclosure 4 - GCC's Final Response letter dated 7 April 2017

Our Ref RQST6081264/HC Your Ref

7th April 2017
By email: markirvine@compuserve.com

Dear Mr Irvine

Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council Carole Forrest LLB DipLP

Glasgow City Council

City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
DX GW145
Legal Post: Corporate & Property Law

LP-4, Glasgow 10

Hand Deliveries to: 40 John Street Glasgow G1 1JL

REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (“THE ACT”)

Thank you for your email of 16th March 2017 requesting a review of the response by Glasgow City Council (“the Council”) to your request for information under the Act.

YOUR REQUEST

You submitted a request on 16th February 2017 for the following information:

“I would like to make the following request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

I refer to the article in TheTelegraphnewspaper dated 25 April 2012 which reported the remuneration package of Ian Drummond (in the previous year) as £450,628.

I understand that Mr Drummond left the City Council's employment in 2010-11 and that the figure of £450,628 will have represented a 'leaving package'.

I would be grateful if you could:

Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc

Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated

Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme”

THE DECISION

The Council emailed you on 3rd March 2017 and provided you with a response to your request for information. The content of the response is reproduced in the under-note for ease of reference.

YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW

On 16th March 2017 you emailed the Council requesting a formal review of the decision. Your review request is reproduced in the under-note for reference.

THE REVIEW DECISION

I have carried out a full and impartial review of the initial response provided to you with regards to the withheld information. I can confirm that I uphold the original decision to withhold certain non-publically available information. I refer you to Decision 139/2012 which held that disclosing information about income received by a living individual on their retirement would breach s38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

In terms of the application of s38(1)(b) to the information you requested, the following points are noted:

1. Is the information requested personal data, as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998?

Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 defines personal data as data which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that data or from other information in the possession of/likely to come into the possession of the data controller.

The Council is of the view that the information you have requested is personal data as it relates to income received by a living individual on retirement. The information clearly relates to a former employee of the Council and, in this context, would identify him as the request only relates to one individual.

Would disclosure breach the first data protection principle?

Disclosure of the withheld information would breach the first data protection principle. This requires that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 to the DPA is met. The processing would be the requested release of the withheld information into the public domain.

Schedule 2 of the Data Protections Act 1998

For this matter, it appears that the most relevant condition of Schedule 2 is contained in paragraph 6 which permits processing if the processing is necessary for the ‘purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject’.

To assess whether paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 is met, the Council has considered whether you have a legitimate interest in obtaining the data.

There is no specific definition of ‘legitimate interest’ in the Data Protection Act 1998. TheSIC has noted in guidance that in ‘some cases, the legitimate interest might be personal to the applicant e.g. he or she might want the information in order to bring legal proceedings. With most requests, however, there are likely to be wider legitimate interests, such as the scrutiny of the actions of public bodies or public safety.’

The SIC has previously noted that salaries are derived from public funds & as such, there is a potential for there to be a legitimate interest in them. However, the SIC has stated in Decision 139/2012 that information about occupational pension arrangements has a different nature. This is because ‘the value of an occupational pension is a product of contributions made by both an employee and their employer (and also, in the case of the scheme under consideration at least, receipts from invested funds), and the value of that pension will be a product of a range of factors, including the length of service and salary, but also decisions taken by the employee. For example, an employee may choose to opt in or out of a pension scheme; they might transfer contributions from the pension scheme of one employer to the scheme of another, or make additional voluntary contributions.’ Accordingly, there is no general legitimate interest in knowing the value of an individual’s pension.

In your request for review, you said you considered that as ‘other aspects of Mr Drummond's remuneration package have been released, the same logic must apply to any discretionary payments agreed by the Council in respect of this employee’. I would note however, that information that has been released is in accordance with the CIPFA Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting.

As the Council does not consider you to have a legitimate interest, consideration is not given here as to:

(a) whether such disclosure is necessary to achieve these legitimate aims (i.e. if the disclosure is proportionate as a means and fairly balanced as to ends, or could these legitimate aims be achieved by means which interfere less with the privacy of the former employees); or

(b) whether the disclosure would cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the former employee.

Condition 6 has not been met and therefore, the Council regards disclosure of the withheld information as unlawful. Disclosure would breach the first data protection principle and as such, the initial decision to withhold this information is upheld.

RIGHT OF APPEAL

I hope you are satisfied with this response. However, if you are not you have the right to make an application within six months of receipt of this letter for a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner. The Scottish Information Commissioner can be contacted as follows:

Address: Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, KY16 9DS. Email: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.infoTelephone: 01334 464610

You can also use the Scottish Information Commissioner’s online appeal service to make anapplication for a decision:

www.itspublicknowledge.info/appeal

Thereafter a decision by Scottish Information Commissioner may be appealed on a point of law to the Court of Session.

Yours sincerely

CAROLE FORREST
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNANCE AND SOLICITOR TO THE COUNCIL

Under-note
FOI response dated 3rd March 2017

I refer to your Freedom of Information request received on 16 February 2017 requesting that the following information be provided to you:

“I understand that Mr Drummond left the City Council's employment in 2010-11 and that the figure of £450,628 will have represented a 'leaving package'.

I would be grateful if you could:

1. Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc
2. Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated

3. Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme”

The Council is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Please note, some of the information which you have requested is, in our opinion, exempt from a request under section 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 because of an exemption contained in s 38(1)(a) of the Act. In other words, in our opinion disclosure of the information would involve disclosure of personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended) and that such disclosure would breach the Data Protection Principles contained in Schedule 1 Part 1 of that Act. We are therefore unable to comply fully with your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The information which you have requested and which can be provided is as follows:

1. Provide me with a breakdown of the £450,628 figure into its component parts, i.e annual salary, pension payments etc

 Within the Councils 2010/11 annual accounts, as a Senior Officer, Mr Drummonds annual remuneration was detailed as follows:

4.3. Remuneration of senior employees - Year ended 31 March 2011

Remuneration of senior employees	Salary fees and allowances	Compensation for loss of office	Election duties	Total
Ian Drummond Executive Director of Corporate Services (to December 2010) and Executive Director of Special Projects (from December 2010)	£ 132,051	£ 109,303	£ 10,201	£ 251,555

Thereafter, within the annual accounts, as a Senior Officer Mr Drummond’s Pension Benefit’s weredetailed as such:

5.2. Pension benefits of senior employees

	In year pension contributions	Accrued pension benefits
Pension benefits of senior employees	For year to 31 March 2011	As at 31 March 2011
Ian Drummond	£ 199,073	Pension - £ 56,000 Lump sum - £ 155,000

2. Explain the basis of the 'compensation for loss of office' payment and how this payment was calculated

 Please see attachment, detailing Council’s policy on redundancy and retirement provisions for the requested period, which was approved by the Executive Committee on 13 November 2009.

3.
discretionary payments, e.g. 'added years' under the Local Government Pension Scheme”

Confirm whether Mr Drummond's remuneration package benefited from any



This request relates to personal information which is exempt in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Request for review – 16th March 2017:

Search This Blog

Mark Irvine - Blogger, Campaigner, Organiser

Glasgow - Equal Pay Update

Glasgow - Equal Pay Update (13/09/17)

Glasgow's Low Paid Workers Get 'Capped' - Council Boss Cops £250,000 Pay 'Bonus' (15/06/17)

Glasgow and Equal Pay (26/05/17)

Glasgow and Equal Pay (20/04/17)

Phone 0141 287 8186

Freedom Of Information Request

Popular posts from this blog

Kentucky Fried Seagull

SNP Hypocrites Have No Shame

Can Anyone Be A Woman?