Councillors on Wirral Council’s Labour Cabinet to make decision today on public consultation over changes to green bin collection and food waste collection from Wirral’s residents
Councillors on Wirral Council’s Labour Cabinet to make decision today on public consultation over changes to green bin collection and food waste collection from Wirral’s residents
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Councillors on the Merseyside Recycling & Waste Authority (Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) discussed the upcoming decision by Wirral Council’s Cabinet on Friday afternoon (24th June 2016) at item 14 (Waste Composition Analysis) which starts at 14 minutes 30 seconds into the meeting.
Left: Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative, Wirral Council) describes at a public meeting of the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority the effect on his neighbour with 6 children of proposed changes to bin collections Right: Councillor Tony Norbury (Labour, Wirral Council)
A meeting of Wirral Council’s Labour Cabinet this morning (if you are reading this on the 27th June 2016) will (amongst other matters) decide on whether to consult on two options to changes to how waste is collected in the future on the Wirral.
These are the two shortlisted options that look likely to be consulted on.
What are the changes to citizen audit for 2015/16?
An example of an invoice supplied by Wirral Council during a previous audit
This year citizen audit changes. No longer are citizen audit rights covered by part II of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the underlying regulations as this is no longer in force.
Previously during citizen audit, public bodies could redact information about the names of their own staff, but if it was information about anyone else they had to get their auditor’s approval.
Now, public bodies can redact parts of documents or whole documents on grounds of commercial confidentiality (although a public interest test has to be carried out) and information about the names of their own staff. They are also allowed to redact information that is the name of other individuals but not if it’s the name of a sole trader.
Previously the auditor had to consider all objections (as long as a copy was sent to the public body) made by local government electors for a declaration that an item of account is unlawful, recovery of an amount not accounted, a public interest report or an immediate report.
Now, an objection can only be about a matter that the auditor could write a public interest report about or declare that an item of account is unlawful but the auditor can decide not to consider the objection if:
(a) the auditor thinks it is frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) the cost to the auditor investigating is disproportionate to the sums involved or
(c) it repeats an objection already made and considered by the auditor whether in that financial year or a previous financial year.
However the auditor won’t be able to decide not to consider an objection if it is "an objection which the auditor thinks might disclose serious concerns about how the relevant authority is managed or led".
Even if the auditor rejects an objection for one or more of the reasons above the auditor can still make a recommendation to the public body.
Previously the Audit and Account Regulations 2011 required the inspection period was 20 working days regulation 9 and also that an advertisement was published (as well as a notice on its website) 14 days before this inspection period started regulation 10.
Under the new regime, this changes. There will be a longer inspection period of thirty working days, but this period will now also be the time during which objections and questions to the auditor must be made.
£110,000 Community Fund grants scheme now open for expressions of interest from groups for waste prevention, reuse, recycling or carbon benefits projects in Merseyside and/or Halton
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority public meeting of 5th February 2016 (where councillors agreed to continue the Community Fund for 2016/17)
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority 5th February 2016 agenda item 11 Community Fund 2016 17 L to R Unknown, Mandy Valentine (Assistant Director of Governance and Performance), Cllr Graham Morgan (Chair), Carl Beer (Chief Executive) and Peter Williams (Director of Finance)
The author of this piece declares an interest as a customer of his business is employed by one of the Wirral organisations that received a grant from Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in 2014/15 mentioned below.
Last Friday afternoon councillors on the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority agreed to continue the Community Fund for 2016/17 with an allocation of £110,000.
£57,000 has been set aside for regional (Merseyside and Halton) projects with a maximum award of £25,000 per a project in this category.
£48,000 has been set aside for district level projects (districts are Wirral, Liverpool, Sefton, St. Helens, Knowsley and Halton) with a maximum grant award of £8,000 per a project in this category.
Any unspent monies at the regional level will be reallocated to projects at a district level.
Tomorrow’s Women Wirral received £10,000 for their Inspiration Hall project. Community Action Wirral received £19,982 for their Donate and Create Change project. Wirral Change received £9,064 for their Too Good To Waste project.
This year the Community Fund is open again for applications from registered charities, not-for-profit organisations (including social enterprises), community, neighbourhood or voluntary groups, faith groups delivering community work, schools, colleges or universities.
It is a two stage grant application process with the first stage being an expressions of interest stage.
Applications are sought for projects that can deliver waste prevention, reuse, recycling and carbon benefits.
A farce at Wirral Council’s public question time (Act 2, Scene 1) Is Wirral Council “open and transparent”?
A farce at Wirral Council’s public question time (Act 2, Scene 1) Is Wirral Council “open and transparent”?
A question on councillors expenses to Cllr Adrian Jones Wirral Council 14th December 2015
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Wirral Council’s Public Question Time 14th December 2015
Before I write about the question I asked of Councillor Adrian Jones at public question time, I am going to explain some of the legal background, what’s happened so far and why there are echoes of the extreme lengths that the former Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin went to over MPs’ expenses.
There are a number of different laws (and a bit of history) here that apply to this, so I am going to start by explaining my understanding of them and explain why Cllr Adrian Jones has unfortunately fallen into the trap of believing things officers tell him and also getting bamboozled by some of the legal jargon. Here is a link to a transcript of a previous answer he gave.
I’m a local government elector here on the Wirral (basically that means I get to vote in elections to Wirral Council).
Each year, during the audit there is a period of about three weeks when local government electors have a legal right to inspect and receive free copies of accounts to be audited and copies of all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.
Wirral Council can remove any details of employees, but has to seek the external auditor’s permission (in this case Grant Thornton) to remove anything else.
Once the inspection period ends, there is then a period when questions can be asked of the auditor followed by a period when formal objections can be raised or requests for a public interest report.
In case Wirral Council thinks I’m picking on it, this year I made requests to Merseytravel (part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority), Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (also called Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Liverpool City Council.
Each of those other bodies managed to respond and provide the information for inspection more or less within the inspection period.
Two of these authorities (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) provided some of what I requested in electronic format.
Wirral Council however decided that providing me with what I’d estimate at 10% of what I asked for was reasonable. It’s not!
These other public bodies I refer to are much smaller (in terms of staff and budget) than Wirral Council, yet by being flexible saved to give the example as outlined above the internal costs of copying a contract of over 11,000 pages in length. Had I requested such a contract from Wirral Council I would still be waiting as they would insist on supplying it in paper format!
In addition to this I requested various invoices and to inspect the councillors’ expenses (I haven’t seen any of the latter and received about one in ten of the former).
By reversing this decision Wirral Council saved ’thousands in the costs of perhaps adding an extra hour to the next Highways and Traffic Representation Panel public meeting, the cost of it then going on the agenda of the next Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee public meeting and the cost of a Cabinet Member finally making a decision (along with the associated costs of officers trying to persuade objectors to drop their objections).
I might point out that as I put this information in the public domain had Cabinet reversed their decision at an earlier stage the costs of consultation on the proposed traffic regulation order (an expensive public notice in the local newspaper etc) would have been saved too.
I would suspect that councillors’ use of taxis would be broadly comparable from year to year. So let’s test Cllr Adrian Jones’ assertion.
In response to this FOI request the taxi bill in 13/14 was ~£3k and Cllr Adrian Jones confirmed in answer to my question that for the 14/15 financial year the total cost was roughly the same.
Here are three councillors that got taxis in 13/14 and the costs:
Cllr Moira McLaughlin £755.30 Cllr Pat Hackett £700 Cllr Steve Niblock £493.90
Had anyone of those stopped getting taxis at Wirral Council’s expense the total amount for 14/15 would’ve dropped dramatically.
Yet here are the relevant amounts from the 2014/15 published list:
Cllr Moira McLaughlin £NIL Cllr Pat Hackett £NIL Cllr Steve Niblock £NIL
If these three councillors had all decided to give up getting taxis and the £NIL amounts were correct (the latter point Cllr Adrian Jones states in answer to my question) then the total amount would drop by ~£2k (the combined total of all three). However it hasn’t!
You can see the full exchange between myself and Cllr Adrian Jones below.
Cllr Ron Abbey (who is a member of Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee) makes the point before Cllr Adrian Jones that it is implied that this is unlawful and isn’t that terrible to imply such a thing?
Clearly as clearly outlined above, had Wirral Council not flouted a number of its other legal responsibilities I would be able to answer that question and Wirral Council’s cultural attitudes towards its legal responsibilities continue to have the effect of interfering with the freedom of the press and triggering the Streisand effect.
Councillor Adrian Jones makes the point that councillors are trusted not to misuse the public purse paying for their taxis.
Below is a claim form (as I’m being seasonal) from one of Cllr Adrian Jones’ party colleagues, a Councillor Peter Brennan (a councillor at Liverpool City Council) who claimed from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (and was paid for) £5.64 for car mileage expenses to and from a carol concert at St Nicholas’ Church. In the grand scheme of things you may point out that £5.64 doesn’t matter and at least he didn’t get a taxi! However it’s the cumulative cost to the public purse of these matters and the excessive secrecy at Wirral Council that is leading to suspicion as to why despite Cllr Adrian Jones’ claims about openness and transparency that at Wirral Council they are being anything but on this politically sensitive topic!
Cllr Peter Brennan car mileage claim November 2014 to February 2015 page 1 of 2 thumbnail
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Although industrial correspondents seem to have disappeared from the media, as a political journalist reporting on political protests is part of the role. As you’d expect I’ve seen many protests (in fact nearly every Liverpool City Council meeting I went to earlier this year seemed to have a protest outside) but never have I ever seen a protest involving a massive tuna can.
Greenpeace did send me a press release, however I haven’t based this story on the press release but instead some questions posed to Greenpeace instead as there are already other stories in the media based largely on the press release.
You are probably wondering what the connection is to the Merseyside taxpayer. A long time ago, Merseytravel moved its headquarters from Hatton Gardens and signed a lease for Mann Island. For some reason (don’t ask me why) they rented the whole building at Mann Island including many floors they wouldn’t need.
I posed some original questions to Greenpeace and these are their answers. I was at Mann Island yesterday for a public meeting, but due to the protest Mann Island was in partial lockdown so it would’ve been impossible to speak to John West to report on their side. My questions are in bold.
Q. The building you were protesting outside today is leased by a body called Merseytravel. However they realised they had leased too many floors and needed tenants.
Did you know about this taxpayer support that was behind John West’s HQ being based at Mann Island?
This looks interesting but it’s not something we have a position on I’m afraid – as our focus is on the sustainable and ethical fishing methods of John West and their owners – Thai Union – who are the world’s largest tuna company.
Q. You state that John West have broken their promises. Are there other brands of tuna you’d recommend consumers buy that are fished for sustainably?
Yes, we have a tuna league table which ranks the tinned tuna sold by the UKs major supermarkets and tuna brands, according to how sustainable and ethical it is. It’s here – scroll down. Overwhelmingly, the most sustainable options for consumers are supermarket own brands. Waitrose, M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Aldi all perform very well. So too do Asda, Morrisons and the Coop – all of which sell 100% sustainably caught tuna in their own brand tins. At rock bottom is John West, with just 2% sustainably caught tuna in their tins. Princes and Lidl also need to do much better and change the way they source their tuna.
Q. What is John West’s response to your protest? As someone who was in the building today, it was basically put on a partial lockdown in case protestors wanted to go to the John West part. Have you had any formal response from John West?
There has been no response from John West today as a result of our activities. We tried to deliver our petition containing the names of more than 70,000 people who are demanding that John West honour its sustainability commitment and its owners – Thai Union – clean up their act globally. But Paul Reenan, the John West MD refused to come down and accept it.
John West has put out a previous statement, responding to the launch of our campaign just over 4 weeks ago. The main points they raise and our rebuttals are here.
Q. If John West made claims that turn out to be false have you taken this up with trading standards?
A Greenpeace investigation found 1000s of John West tuna products coming from Thailand and some of them had 100% traceability labels on tins that were misleading. This is because they claimed the tuna could be traced back to the vessel that caught it, using their website, but this was false. More on that investigation here. It’s an interesting angle and it’s definitely something that could be looked into.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
