Glasgow, FOI and Equal Pay

I reported recently that the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) has agreed to conduct a formal investigation into my freedom of information (FOI) request about the costs of Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme.

Now the WPBR is the single biggest employment related event in Glasgow City Council's  history and it would clearly be the most astonishing turn of events, if Scotland's largest, best resourced council has deliberately destroyed information which ought to form part of an important historical record.

As the council's policy on 'Preserving the Archival and Historic Memory of Glasgow' states:  

"Most records document the actions of the Council. The Archivist seeks to retain that portion containing significant documentation of Council activities and which are essential to understanding and evaluating Council actions. For example, the Archives retains permanently those records that document the basic organisational structure of the Council and its services and major organisational changes over time, policies and procedures that pertain to a department's core functions, and key decisions and actions."

Yet senior council officials are saying they cannot readily find these records or, in response to a separate and more recent FOI request, they argue that it would cost more than £600 to provide this information - and so rejected they have rejected this later request which I have 'appealed'.

The scandal is that this information should already be freely and readily available, as part of the Glasgow City Council archives, to anyone who wants to read about the history of the WPBR.

Not just the cost, but how the project was commissioned, was the contract put out to commercial tender, how did Hays HR Consulting emerge on the scene, what were the terms of reference for the WPBR and so on.

All of these issues are about holding public officials (elected and employed) properly to account for their behaviour, decisions and use of public money.

But instead of acting openly and transparently, as the new political leadership of the Council demands, information is being slowly dragged out of senior officials in a series of long drawn out FOI battles.

Which only goes to prove that when bureaucracies and bureaucrats behave as if they have something to hide - 'daylight is the best disinfectant'. 

  

Scottish Information Commissioner

Kinburn Castle

Doubledykes Road

St Andrews

Fife

KY16 9DS

By email to: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info

Dear SIC

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 8 November 2017. 

I asked for a review of GCC’s initial response on 7 December 2017, but I am dissatisfied with the council's response for the following reasons. 

1) The Council's response focuses exclusively on invoices from something known locally as the SAP system and comes down to this extract from letter dated 09 January 2018:

"Without the invoices, I have been advised that it is not possible to identify the reason for a payment being made."

2) But my point is that the WPBR was a unique event in Glasgow City Council's history, the single most important employment issue the council had faced up to that time (2005/06/07) - and the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the WPBR (including the cost) must be documented in official council reports or in correspondence and emails from/to senior council officials.

3) In other words it simply beggars belief that the only way of providing this information is through individual invoices that were processed for payment back in 2006/07/08. As anyone with any experience of local government knows, all major council decisions including the approval of major of expenditure and budget costs) are recorded through council committees and followed up by senior officials in correspondence.

4) In my view, the council's explanation for not providing the information on the WPBR is completely unconvincing. If the information really does not exist, this would mean there is no proper audit trail for a major item of expenditure and unique policy initiative which would, of course, be a very serious matter in itself.  

5) I reproduce below an extract from the City Council's policy on record keeping - 'Preserving the Archival and Historic Memory of Glasgow':

"Paragraph 1.4 It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that we do not need to keep every individual record. However, we need to identify and preserve as archives those records which:

• assist the Council and the public to scrutinise the decisions and activities of the Council and its partner services
• help satisfy the public interest in the decisions and actions of the Council and its partner services, which affected they lives and those of previous generations or shaped the development of Glasgow and areas of the former Strathclyde
• allow the community to retain and transfer knowledge, learn from past experience, and protect the interests of citizens collectively and individually 

"Paragraph 6.2 Records Documenting the Actions of Council Officials

"Most records document the actions of the Council. The Archivist seeks to retain that portion containing significant documentation of Council activities and which are essential to understanding and evaluating Council actions. For example, the Archives retains permanently those records that document the basic organisational structure of the Council and its services and major organisational changes over time, policies and procedures that pertain to a department's core functions, and key decisions and actions.

"Paragraph 7.2 Decision making

"To identify, create and capture records providing the Council and the public with best evidence of the deliberations, decisions and actions of Council and Council institutions relating to key functions, programmes and significant issues.

"EXAMPLES

• Meeting papers, including records that reveal the background to, and reasoning behind decisions and actions, for:

Council and committees (and predecessor authorities)

Boards and Board Committees of the various partnership organisations

Directors', Senior Management, Service/Function Management meetings, i.e. any meetings which are responsible for key functions, programmes and significant issues."

6) In my view, the council has been looking in the wrong place to find the information I requested, deliberately or otherwise, and instead of focusing on invoices or SAP (whatever that is) the search should have concentrated on key committee reports regarding the WPBR and/or correspondence and emails from senior officials regarding the procurement of the WPBR, and its development/implementation during the period 2005 - 2007.

7) In summary, I would ask the Commissioner to uphold my appeal and instruct the council to release all relevant documents, reports, letters and emails regarding the WPBR because the information must exist according to Glasgow City Council's own vital records policy.

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 7

1) Original FOISA request to GCC dated 8 November 2017
2) Initial response from GCC dated 06 December 2017
3) Review Request letter to GCC dated 07 December 2017

4) Review Request response letter from GCC 09 January 2018

5) Further letter from MI to GCC dated 31 January 2018

6) Further Review request response letter from GCC dated 5 February 2018

7) Final letter from MI to GCC dated 6 February 2018

Enclosure 1 - Original FoI request dated 8 November 2017

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
To: annemarie.odonnell <annemarie.odonnell@ced.glasgow.gov.uk>; foi <foi@glasgow.gov.uk>
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 12:09 pm
Subject: FOISA Request

8 November 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. 

1. Please confirm the total monies paid to Steve Watson and/or Hays HR Consulting in connection with the introduction of Glasgow City Council's Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) and the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)? 
2. Please confirm whether these monies were paid in instalments and if so, the dates on which individual payments were made?
3. Please provide a breakdown of these payments between the WPBR and EDC?

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 

Enclosure 2 - GCC"s initial response to my FoI Request dated 6 December 2017

6 December 2017

Sent by email to markirvine@compuserve.com

Dear Mr Irvine 

Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“the Act”)

Thank you for your request received on 8 November 2017 requesting that the following information be provided to you:

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

Please confirm the total monies paid to Steve Watson and/or Hays HR Consulting in connection with the introduction of Glasgow City Council's Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) and the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)? 

Please confirm whether these monies were paid in instalments and if so, the dates on which individual payments were made?

Please provide a breakdown of these payments between the WPBR and EDC?”

Glasgow City Council (“the Council”) is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and can respond as follows:

In accordance with Section 17 of the Act we would advise you that the information you are looking for is not held by the Council. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf.  Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request.  The reasons for this as follows:

Glasgow City Council have no record of any payments being made to Steve Watson.

Glasgow City Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting. However, the information available does not allow for the identification of the reasons for payment.   It is therefore not possible to identify payments made in respect of Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or the Employee Development Commitment (EDC). 

If you are dissatisfied with the way Glasgow City Council has dealt with your request you are entitled to require the Council to review its response.  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:

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 by requesting that the Council review its response.  Details of how to request a review are set out in the above paragraph “Right of Review”.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Team

Chief Executive’s Department

Enclosure 3 - FoI review request dated 7 December 2017

7 December 2017

Carole Forrest

Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council

Glasgow City Council

By email to: FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk

Dear Ms Forrest

FoI Review Request

I refer to the letter from Glasgow City Council dated 6 December 2017 responding to my earlier FoI request dated 8 November 2017, a key extract of which is reproduced below for easy reference:

"In accordance with Section 17 of the Act we would advise you that the information you are looking for is not held by the Council. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf.  Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request.  The reasons for this as follows:

"Glasgow City Council have no record of any payments being made to Steve Watson.

"Glasgow City Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting. However, the information available does not allow for the identification of the reasons for payment.   It is therefore not possible to identify payments made in respect of Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)."

I am asking for a review of the City Council's initial decision for the following reasons:

1) The information I requested relates to the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WBR) and Employee Development Commitment (EDC) - two very specific and discrete issues on which the Council was advised by Steve Watson of Hays HR Consulting.

2) My request covers the period from August 2005 onwards when the City Council first began to consider new, supposedly non-discriminatory pay arrangements (the WPBR and EDC) which were finally introduced in January 2007.

3) For example, I am in possession of a document from Hays HR Consulting dated December 2006 which bears the title: Glasgow City Council - Employee Development Commitment. The document states that it has been "Prepared by Steve Watson" and "Prepared for Elma Murray" whom I believe was your predecessor as Director of Governance at Glasgow City Council.  

4) So, I am absolutely astounded to hear that the City Council does have records of payments being made to HR Consulting (and therefore Steve Watson), but that the FOI Team has no idea why these payments were made - because this must surely amount to an extremely serious breach of the council's Financial Management and Control Regulations.

5) I attach a copy of Glasgow's Financial and Management Control Regulations (from May 2017), in case you are not familiar with this document, and separately from my FoI Review Request I am quite prepared to raise this matter with the City Council's internal and external auditors, as well as making a complaint to the Accounts Commission for Scotland. 

6) In any event I simply do not believe that Scotland's largest and best resourced council is unable to explain the basis of these potentially large payments to Hays HR Consulting and Steve Watson who were engaged by Glasgow City Council for a very specific and clearly identifiable purpose during the period I have identified.

7) Perhaps you can explain in your response to my Review Request what other work Hays HR Consulting (Steve Watson) carried out during the period covered by their invoices and how much these invoices were for, as this would obviously help to sort the 'wheat from the chaff', so to speak.

8) In any event, I am very concerned that the FOI Team is somehow being misled or misdirected because the only other explanation I can think of is that the City Council is deliberately withholding this information.

I look forward to your response to my Review request and would be grateful if you could reply to me by email at: markirvine@compuserve.com

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

Enclosure x 1 

GCC's Financial and Management Control Regulations from 2017 - although I am sure the control mechanisms were just as rigorous back in 2006/07 when George Black was the council's chief executive.

Enclosure 4 - GCC's response to my FoI Review Request dated 9 January 2018

Our Ref RQST6467009 Your Ref

9 January 2018

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

Thank you for your email of 7 December 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 for the following information:

“Please confirm the total monies paid to Steve Watson and/or Hays HR Consulting in connection with the introduction of Glasgow City Council’s Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) and the Employee Development Commitment (EDC)?

Please confirm whether these monies were paid in instalments and if so, the dates on which individual payments were made?

Please provide a breakdown of these payments between WPBR and EDC?”

THE DECISION

The Council emailed you on 6 December 2017 and provided you with a response to your request for information.

You were advised that in accordance with section 17 of the Act, the information that you were looking for is not held by the Council. You were advised that the Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting. However the information available does not allow for the identification of the reasons for payment. It is therefore not possible to identify payments made in respect of Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or the Employee Development Commitment (EDC).

YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW

On 7 December 2016 you emailed the Council requesting a formal review of the decision. A copy of your review request is attached at the Appendix to this letter.

1

THE REVIEW DECISION

I have carried out a full and impartial review of the initial response provided to you.

I can confirm that the Council does not hold the information that you have requested in accordance with section 17(1) of the Act.

As advised in the Council’s initial response letter, the Council does have records of payments made to Hays HR Consulting but it is not possible to identify the reason why older payments were made. I have been advised that payments are also recorded as being made to Hays HR Personnel and Hays Recruitment Specialists. This information has been obtained from our SAP system which was introduced in 2006. I am advised that the earliest payment that we currently have hold in SAP to Hays is on 5/8/2008.

The SAP system contains the invoice number, date, amount paid and other codes such as assignment number and document number. There is also a notes section on SAP but this is not a mandatory field to complete and often this field is left blank. In our order to identify if a payment has been made in respect of the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) or Employee Development Commitment (EDC), it is necessary to use the invoice number/charge code listed on SAP to check the invoices. I am advised that in line with the Council’s file retention policy, invoices are normally retained for 5 years plus the current financial year before being destroyed. Without the invoices, I have been advised that it is not possible to identify the reason for a payment being made.

You have asked whether we can explain “what other work Hays HR Consulting (Steve Watson) carried out during the period covered by the invoices and how much these invoices were for, as this would obviously help to sort the ‘wheat from the chaff’, so to speak”. Payments can be made to Hays for a variety of reasons, for example, for the payment of agency workers. As explained above, if invoices are no longer held it is not possible to identify the reason why an individual payment was made. Unfortunately it would therefore not be possible to provide any accurate figures which would be of assistance to you.

I have also checked whether any staff within the Council would be able to identify which payments have been made to Hays/Hays HR Consulting for WPBR and/or EDC. However, all senior managers who were involved in WPBR/EDC and may have been able to assist with the identification of payments have since left the Council.

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.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

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

Appendix- Copy of request for review

“I am asking for a review of the City Council's initial decision for the following reasons:

1) The information I requested relates to the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WBR) and Employee Development Commitment (EDC) - two very specific and discrete issues on which the Council was advised by Steve Watson of Hays HR Consulting.

2) My request covers the period from August 2005 onwards when the City Council first began to consider new, supposedly non-discriminatory pay arrangements (the WPBR and EDC) which were finally introduced in January 2007.

3) For example, I am in possession of a document from Hays HR Consulting dated December 2006 which bears the title: Glasgow City Council - Employee Development Commitment. The document states that it has been "Prepared by Steve Watson" and "Prepared for Elma Murray" whom I believe was your predecessor as Director of Governance at Glasgow City Council.

4) So, I am absolutely astounded to hear that the City Council does have records of payments being made to HR Consulting (and therefore Steve Watson), but that the FOI Team has no idea why these payments were made - because this must surely amount to an extremely serious breach of the council's Financial Management and Control Regulations.

5) I attach a copy of Glasgow's Financial and Management Control Regulations (from May 2017), in case you are not familiar with this document, and separately from my FoI Review Request I am quite prepared to raise this matter with the City Council's internal and external auditors, as well as making a complaint to the Accounts Commission for Scotland.

6) In any event I simply do not believe that Scotland's largest and best resourced council is unable to explain the basis of these potentially large payments to Hays HR Consulting and Steve Watson who were engaged by Glasgow City Council for a very specific and clearly identifiable purpose during the period I have identified.

7) Perhaps you can explain in your response to my Review Request what other work Hays HR Consulting (Steve Watson) carried out during the period covered by their invoices and how much these invoices were for, as this would obviously help to sort the 'wheat from the chaff', so to speak.

8) In any event, I am very concerned that the FOI Team is somehow being misled or misdirected because the only other explanation I can think of is that the City Council is deliberately withholding this information.” 

Enclosure 5 - Letter to GCC regarding my Review Request dated 31 January 2018

31 January 2018

Carole Forrest

Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council

Glasgow City Council

By email to: FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk and carole.forrest@ced.glasgow.gov.uk

Dear Carole

FOISA Review Request - Your Ref: RQST6467009

I refer to your letter dated 9 January 2018 regarding the monies paid by Glasgow City Council (GCC) to Hays HR Consulting to design an develop the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR).

I am minded to appeal Glasgow's decision to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), but before doing so I would be grateful if you could clarify what effort, if any, the City Council has made to retrieve this information from the following potential sources.

1) Lynn Brown - GCC's former Director of Finance 

Glasgow's former Director of Finance left the City Council's employment a relatively short time ago, in September 2016 if I remember correctly, and I imagine she must be easy to contact at this point in time. I met Lynn Brown during my dealings with GCC as a member of SLARC (Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee) and I was impressed with her forensic knowledge of Glasgows finances. 

I understand that Lynn was Glasgow's Director of Finance from 2003 until 2016 and given the unique circumstances surrounding the commissioning of the WPBR from Hays HR Consulting, I suspect Lynn could help to identify the costs involved. 

I also understand than Lynn was awarded an OBE for services to local government in the New Year Honours list for 2016, so I suspect she would be more than happy to assist the City Council in this matter.

2) Elma Murray - GCC's former Head of Organisational Change

Glasgow's former 'Head of Organisational Change and Depute Director of Finance' was in post, I believe, during the relevant period up until 2009 and I have seen Elma's name on a variety of important documents relating to the WPBR including reports on the Employee Development Commitment (EDC) Steering Group, for example.

I understand that Elma is now the chief executive of North Ayrshire Council and while I don't know Elma personally, I would imagine that she would also be willing to help GCC get to the bottom of my FOI request.

3) Ian Drummond - GCC's former Executive Director of Corporate Services

Ian Drummond is Glasgow's former Executive Director of Corporate Services and I am sure Ian must have played a pivotal part in awarding the WPBR contract to Hays HR Consulting. 

As you know, Ian Drummond was the subject of a previous FOI Review Request from me which went all the way to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) who upheld my subsequent appeal. The City Council contacted Ian Drummond directly about my initial FOISA Request, even though he had retired from the council's employment in 2010.

Which means there is a useful precedent for contacting former senior officials on matters of public interest and importance.

4) George Black - GCC's former Chief Executive 

As Glasgow's former Chief Executive and Director of Finance I would say that George Black's knowledge of the City Council is second to none, so he would seem an obvious person to contact, especially as George only left the council's employment at the end of 2014.

In summary, I would be grateful to know what steps the City Council has taken to contact these various individuals in an effort to respond to my original FOISA Request and if the answer is 'none', whether the City Council is prepared to do so now in order to avoid a potentially unnecessary appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

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

Kind regards

Mark Irvine

Enclosure 6 - GCC's final response dated 5 February 2018

-----Original Message-----
From: FOI Reviews <FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk>
To: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 2:35 pm
Subject: RE: FOISA Review Request RQST6467009

Dear Mr Irvine

Thank you for your emails below of 31 January and 1 February 2018 regarding your recent FOI review. 

You will be aware the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 provides a right to recorded information which is held by public authorities. As detailed in our review response letter of 9 January 2018 the council no longer holds recorded information relating to your request in terms of section 17(1) of the 2002 Act.

You have asked the council to contact some former employees to ask if they could assist with your Freedom of Information request. Section 15(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 provides a duty on public authorities to provide advice and assistance to applicants. However, we are of the view that your current request goes beyond our duty to provide advice and assistance. In any event, the council is of the view that even if we were to contact the individuals you have listed, it is unlikely that they would be able to provide much assistance without access to the recorded information which, as we have previously advised you, the council no longer holds.

In your email of 31 January 2018, you have suggested that it would be appropriate to contact previous staff members as we previously contacted Ian Drummond about an FOI request. In the FOI request which you have mentioned, you had asked for information on Ian Drummond’s pension. The council held the information which  you had requested but was of the view that it was Mr Drummond’s personal data and the only ground for releasing the information to you would be if we received the consent of Mr Drummond. It was due to these unique circumstances that we reached the view that it would be appropriate to make contact with Mr Drummond and to seek his consent to release the requested information. Your current request for information differs from the circumstances in this previous request as you are not seeking personal data and we don’t hold the copies of the information that you have requested. 

I trust this is of assistance in explaining the reasons why we are unable to provide further information in relation to your request. I hope that you are satisfied with the council’s response to your request, however, if you remain dissatisfied I would remind you of your right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner as detailed in our review response. 

Regards,

FOI Review Team

FOI Review Team

Glasgow City Council

www.glasgow.gov.uk

  

Enclosure 7 - Final letter from Mark Irvine to GCC dated 6 February 2018

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
To: FOIReviews <FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk>
Sent: Tue, Feb 6, 2018 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: FOISA Review Request RQST6467009

Dear FOI Review Team

FOISA Review Request RQST6467009

Many thanks for your letter dated 5 February 2018.

I will now be appealing this decision to the Scottish Information Commissioner and you will obviously get to see my grounds of appeal in due course, but I would make the following points by way of feedback on the review process.

1) The circumstances surrounding the WPBR are every bit as unique and far more important, in my view, than my earlier FOI request regarding the Council's decision to boost Ian Drummond's pension package with extra 'added years'. 

2) So I am surprised at the Council's negative response to my suggestion about contacting former senior officials to get to the bottom of things regarding the cost of the WPBR. Two of these officials have been awarded OBEs for services to local government, if I remember correctly, so I am sure they would be delighted to help.

3) The Scottish Information Commissioner subsequently ruled in my favour in this case involving Ian Drummond and agreed that my request for information was about the Council's actions in relation to added years - and did not involve the 'personal data' of any council official.

Kind regards

Mark Irvine