Tag Archives: Cllr Denise Roberts

by

Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee 28th March 2013 Further ban on filming and conflicts of interest


The papers for this meeting can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

Most of the meeting was about the current twelve week consultation on the closure of Moreton Day Centre (which runs until the 5th June 2013).

However once again, filming of this meeting was not allowed as the Chair said he had had “representations that one of the Members would not like to be filmed” and “until there was a policy please turn off the camera until we do get a policy, thank you.” For those who don’t know Members means councillors.

I then asked which councillor it was (as I could’ve quite easily moved the camera to point away from them).

Me: “Can I just ask which Member that was?”
Cllr Simon Mountney (Chair), who looked very uncomfortable at me having asked the question, answered with the politician’s answer of “Errm, you can ask, I think if the Member wishes to indicate then they can, if they don’t then they don’t.”

At this point Cllr Bernie Mooney looks straight at the camera (make of that what you will).

So what is the policy on filming meetings? Well, there’s the policy “Lights, Camera, Action” agreed unanimously by 64 councillors in December 2011. As it’s short it’s below:-

Council:

(1) Welcomes public engagement in the democratic process. Council notes the growing use of blogs and microblogs by members of the public and notes that many sites now also include video and audio recorded at Council meetings.

(2) Reaffirms its commitment, made last year by the previous Conservative Liberal Democrat administration, to ensure that any member of the public who wishes to film or broadcast from a public Council meeting is encouraged to do so.

(3) However, Council is concerned to protect the rights of members of the public, petitioners and others who are not elected members and may interact with the Council and its committees. Council asks the Director of Law HR and Asset Management to ensure that the Chairs of committees are appropriately briefed.

(4) Council would not wish to see proper debate constrained in any way by the presence of cameras or audio equipment and therefore asks the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to clarify in writing for members the position on qualified privilege which may go some way to allay fears about unfounded legal actions arising from detailed recordings of proceedings.

(5) Council further asks the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to draw up a protocol on the use of material designed to prevent any abuse of material which could be harmful to councillors who are legitimately engaged in the processes of democracy.

(6) In the meantime, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management is asked to re-circulate the original guidance he produced when the issue first arose.

There’s then the amended motion (recording and filming within Council meetings) decided last December agreed by 42 councillors:

(1) Council notes that the Administration has not banned the public from being able to attend and film at meetings.

(2) The issue of filming is under review. The Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management has been asked to look at how a balance can be struck between maintaining openness and transparency and addressing concerns among some members about what safeguards can be put in place on how video recordings might be used.

(3) Council notes that the wider issue of the Council streaming its committee meetings is being considered by the cross-party members Equipment Steering Group.

(4) Council asks for the outcome of the review to be presented to the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee for detailed consideration.

On point (4) there have been not just one but two meetings of the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee since last December, at neither one has a “review” been on the agenda.

There are also two Standards Committee decisions on this matter (all of which were agreed by Council without any amendment):

29/9/10 Resolved (12:0)- That this matter be referred to a future meeting to allow a much wider discussion involving all members of the council before a decision is made.

26/1/11 That the report be noted and that no further action be taken regarding this matter.

So the agreed policy (as outlined) is filming is allowed, the proposed review (which never seems to happen) is merely a smokescreen to ban filming yet the public are told Wirral Council has no policy.

As pointed out by the Health and Safety Executive here it’s nothing to do with health and safety, but openness and transparency.

Hmm openness, that rings a bell, ahh yes it’s mentioned in the new Councillor’s Code of Conduct:

OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

There’s also some other fine words on the same page about how councillors should “promote and support these principles” (one of which is openness) “by leadership and example”.

However why would a councillor not want what they say at a public meeting on tape?

Well that was revealed shortly after filming stopped.

Cllr Denise Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in item 2 on the agenda as she’s a trustee of Arch initiatives whose funding is to be cut by £327,000. However Cllr Roberts didn’t leave the room as required during item 2.

Cllr Bernie Mooney declared an interest as an employee of Age UK (in the report linked to above they’re down under their previous name of Age Concern). The report detailed the fact that they needed to reduce grant funding by a further £173,000, Age Concern is currently in receipt of six amounts (£128,602.00 (Core costs), £134,569.00 for Advocacy and info, £33,339.00 for carer support and further amounts for two Day Centres and the Older Peoples Parliament).

Cllr Mooney lists her occupation as advice officer at Age UK. So did she declare a prejudicial interest in this agenda item and leave the room as any cuts to funding could affect her day job or at the very least that of her colleagues? No she didn’t leave the room while it was discussed. She declared an interest and then when the item came round for debate said her employer had an advocate paid for through the grant with two temporary ones, but talked about the growing need for these services.

So what does the current Councillors Code of Conduct state about this?

3. As a public figure, your public role may, at times, overlap with your personal and/or professional life and interests however when performing your public role as a member, DO act solely in terms of the public interest and DO NOT act in a manner to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family, your friends, your employer or in relation to your business interests.

6. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

7. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your
role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or
professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters. (Further clarification is provided in Schedule 2 of this Code).

9. Where you disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest, you must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which you have an interest, except where you are permitted to remain as a result of a grant of a dispensation.

About these ads
by

Bidston and Claughton Area Forum | St James Centre | 5th February 2013 | Part 1


Bidston & Claughton Area Forum
St James Centre

Present:
Ian Brand (Lead Officer)
Tracey Smith (Community Engagement)
Jim Parsons (Community Rep)
Jean McIntosh (Community Rep)
Pat Lansborough (Community Rep)
Steve Preston (Community Safety)
Paul Murphy (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service)
Cllr Denise Roberts (Chair)
Cllr Harry Smith
Cllr Steve Foulkes
Cllr George Davies
Cllr Ann McLachlan

+ various members of the public

The Chair, Cllr Denise Roberts welcomed people to the Bidston & Claughton Area Forum and asked the Lead Officer, Ian Brand to read out a statement. Ian Brand said it was a standard statement that was being read at each Area Forum. A report proposing a new approach had been recommended in January and would be voted on by councillors in the coming weeks. The proposal was for four neighbourhood teams, with devolved decision-making and budgets. These would consist of multi agency teams including the local authority, police, health, fire and would result in the abolition of the eleven Area Forums.

These local committees would draw down and allocate resources based on a neighbourhood plan. The benefits would be that costs would be reduced and there would be better outcomes for local people. The area covered would be each of the four parliamentary constituencies which would each have a public service board, chaired by councillors. There would also be an overarching Wirral Together Public Service Board. If the proposal was agreed it would be implemented from May 1st [2013]. Ian Brand said he would be happy to go over any points people missed and answer questions.

Various questions were then asked of Mr. Brand. He answered that the new public service boards would replace the Area Forums covering the area of a parliamentary constituency (in this case Birkenhead). Details such as allocation of funding was yet to be finalised. Cllr George Davies pointed out that the Birkenhead public service board would cover the existing wards of Bidston & St. James, Birkenhead and Tranmere, Claughton, Prenton, Oxton and Rock Ferry. Cllr Roberts said that people would get more news at the next Forum.

Tracey Smith said that on one issue from the last Forum, on the changes to Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit, the finance department had provided a detailed response from Neil Powell which was attached to the minutes of the last meeting.

Cllr Harry Smith pointed out that he’d attended the last meeting, but that this wasn’t reflected in the minutes. Cllr Roberts apologised and asked if there were any questions arising from the minutes.

by

Bidston & Claughton Area Forum 3rd October 2012 Part 1


Bidston & Claughton Area Forum
Bidston Avenue Primary School

Here
Cllr Denise Roberts, Chair, Claughton
Cllr Jim Crabtree, Bidston & St. James
Cllr Steve Foulkes, Claughton
Cllr Harry Smith, Bidston & St. James
Michelle Gray, Community Engagement
Jim Thompson Community Safety
Paul Murphy Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
Ian Brand, Lead Officer (Asset Management)
Jim Parson, Community Representative
plus about thirteen members of public

The Chair, Cllr Denise Roberts welcomed people to the Area Forum and asked those on the panel to introduce themselves. She then asked the Lead Officer, Ian Brand (Head of Asset Management) to make a statement.

Ian Brand said he was making a statement on funding, which was a standard statement that would be read to all Area Forums. In September the Director of Finance had reported to Cabinet. Due to a projected overspend, immediate action was taken to freeze non-essential spending and release a [£7 million] reserve, which meant the suspension of the Neighbourhood Funding grants program. He said that this doesn’t mean it is cancelled or removed, but suspended until there is a recommendation as to how to move forward. Mr Brand said that by end of the year they would know the status of applications.

Cllr Roberts said that Kay Smith, from VCAW Wirral was also here to talk about how Healthwatch would replace LINKS.

Michelle Gray gave an update on items discussed at the last Area Forum. On Buttermere Avenue, she said the work has been completed, but she had not been down to see it.

Cllr Harry Smith said that Cllr George Davies had had a site meeting and was satisfied, but another issue raised had been raised at the last Area Forum. He said that the siting of the telegraph pole was down to the developers Rowland Homes, however no one would move into the property unless work completed. On the subject of speeding traffic on Budworth Road, Cllr Smith said that in the program of works it wasn’t identified as priority, but there would be more information at the next Area Forum.

The Chair, Cllr Roberts asked for an officer to give an update on the Budget consultation.

Michelle Gray said she would give a brief update in two stages. The consultation was launched on the 10th September [2012] and would be running until the 19th October [2012] . They had visited Aldi, Tesco, Asda and Morrisons as well as community groups and resident’s groups. Once the consultation was finished all the feedback would be collated and there would be a full report, done around November or December time. The plan was to save £100 million over three years. The consultation would also feed into the three-year Corporate Plan and at the end the Budget would be cut by about a third. She gave out some statistical information and said that they has visited ninety-six events and distributed thirty-seven thousand of the questionnaires. So far three thousand six hundred had been completed online and there were more coming in daily.

Continued in Part 2

by

Bidston and Claughton Area Forum 12th June 2012 Part 1


The Bidston and Claughton Area Forum was held on Tuesday, so having previously mentioned it was happening as I was there I thought I should write up what happened.

Cllr Roberts welcomed people to the June Forum and asked those present from the public sector to introduce themselves. Apologies were given for Cllr Crabtree. She asked if there were any matters arising from the last meeting.

Michelle Gray said she wished to provide a follow up to item 5 which had changed that day, she gave updates on a number of different issues involving Buttermere Avenue, Tapestry Gardens and Beaufort Road. She also gave an update on a stolen grit bin.

Inspector Roy McGregor arrived.

A member of the public brought up the issue of a telegraph pole on Stanley Road. Cllr Smith asked her if it was in front of the new housing, she answered yes. Technical Services said they would investigate.

Cllr Roberts said if there were no further questions they would move onto item 3.

Rob Clifford gave a brief talk about the 20mph zones consultation. He said it would cost £1.1 million and be in two phases covering 132 areas between now and 2014. On the leaflet the blue areas within phase one would be consulted on over the Summer, with schemes started in October. The red areas would be consulted and implemented a year later. He welcomed comments and there would also be a consultation advert in the local newspaper, a leaflet would go to houses in areas proposed as 20mph zones by the scheme and plans would be available in libraries. He asked for comments on the postcards.

Cllr Roberts asked how long the consultation would be for?
Cllr Smith answered twenty-eight days.

Cllr Smith asked if the police would enforce the 20mph zones? He blamed it on the previous coalition Cabinet and said it wasn’t the police’s fault. He brought up the example of a 20mph zone in Oxton (where he lives) where he had seen the police driving at 30mph. He thought that the £1.1 million to be spent on 20mph zones was a waste of money.

Inspector McGregor pointed out that under strict criteria the police were allowed to go at up to 40mph, their response time for grade one calls was ten minutes.

A member of the public brought up the issue of ambulances using their sirens in residential areas and how the police used their sirens every night on Corporation Road coming out of the Custody Suite.

Inspector McGregor said the police received advanced driving training and if they didn’t use their sirens and lights when exceeding the speed limit and there was an accident, that the driver would be culpable.

Donnie was surprised the police nationally didn’t recognise 20mph signs in built up areas.

Cllr Crabtree arrived.

Donnie asked if Streetscene could be told that the Area Forum failed to agree on the 20mph schemes.

Cllr Smith said it wasn’t the police’s fault as police numbers had been cut. In his view they had their hands full and he’s heard crime was rising. He mentioned that the Council had to cut £80 million from its budget over the next few years.

Inspector McGregor said that although the majority adhered to the law on the current 30mph zones a small minority break the speed limit, but that enforcement wasn’t the only answer and that it partly relied on members of the community.

Cllr Smith said he’d agree to disagree.

Pat Landsborough from Grosvenor Road that the 20mph zone in Claughton had been very effective. Rob Clifford said they were implementing a 20mph policy across the Borough.

Cllr Smith said it would not be implemented in areas that didn’t want it following the consultation.

George Thomas said he thought it was a waste of public money and pointed to the scheme whereby members of the public were given speed guns.

Donnie asked now that Labour were in charge, were they in a position to rescind the £1.2 million? He called it “crazy”.

Cllr Smith said that the Labour administration was reviewing all budgets.
Cllr McLachlan mentioned the consultation.
Donnie proposed a vote.
Michelle Gray said the minutes of the meeting would be passed to Rob’s team as part of the consultation.
It was suggested that instead of moving rejection, people could make their point on the cards. Every house in the areas covered by the first phase of the scheme (in blue on the map) would receive a leaflet.

Michelle Gray gave an update on the Neighbourhood Plans which there were also handouts about. Local people had asked for more sporting activities and a lack of youth services on the Beechwood had also been highlighted. Road repair had also been an issue. Issues surrounding health and social lives of the elderly had also been brought up. More education and training was wanted, as well as courses on stopping smoking, alcohol, drugs, sexual health for young people and on losing weight.

IT training in the community centres was wanted and the existing free courses needed better promotion, one stop shops and libraries were suggested.

In the Your Economy theme, jobs was the main issue, the feedback on Reach Out was positive, but people wanted more job clubs and better advertising of the existing ones. In addition to this, people wanted help with CVs, mock interviews, volunteering opportunities and work experience.

Better service from the job centres for those made redundant was asked for as well as free training in basic skills such as maths and computers.

She also highlighted the funding available in two pots, Funds for You and You Decide. She have the example decided in a previous year of an extra foot patrol for Flaybrick Cemetery/Tam O’Shanter which had reduced antisocial behaviour.

There was also £35,000 ring fenced for road safety funding.

The application forms for funding would be available from the 2nd July 2012 with a closing date of the 17th August 2012. Initial applications would be filtered by officers to see if they met the criteria. They were looking this year for applications in community safety, environmental health (such as projects that would reduce litter or flytipping), public health, improvements to community life, projects benefitting children or young people, projects that would train people or offer skills and advice, projects that would support work experience or volunteering and projects that would help SMEs.

Pat Landsborough asked why it was £83000?

Michelle Gray said that for this financial year, it was because some areas with higher need were allocated more money.

Pauline asked about organisations applying that served people across Wirral?

Michelle Gray said they should tick all eleven Area Forum areas on the application form.

It was asked if the priorities were the same across all areas?

Michelle answered that each area had slightly different priorities, but there were some that were common Wirral-wide.

George Thomas said that Beechwood had been abandoned by Wirral Met and Birkenhead Sixth Form College who said they would provide courses such as employability skills, but can’t pay the rent. He said Reach Out had just made eight redundancies.

Michelle Gray asked if the rent was covered, was the training free?

by

Standards Committee (Wirral Council) 26th January 2012 Part 1 Declarations of interest, Minutes, Implications of the Localism Act on the Standards Regime


Present (part of Standards Committee)

Independent

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair)
Alex Nuttall

Conservative

Deputy Mayor of Wirral, Cllr Gerry Ellis
Cllr Simon Mountney deputy for Cllr Les Rowlands
Cllr Chris Blakeley

Labour

Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Bill Davies

Liberal Democrat

Cllr Tom Harney deputy for Cllr Pat Williams
Cllr Ann Bridson
Cllr Bob Wilkins

Officers

Shirley Hudspeth (Committee Clerk)
Surjit Tour (Legal Adviser)

Press/public

2 members of the public (John Brace and Leonora Brace)

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair) said he was chairing the meeting tonight in the absence of the Chair Brian Cummings. Mr. Harrison told those present that Brian Cummings couldn’t make it due to “family problems” and he was indisposed. He thanked those here for attending and asked for apologies.

Apologies were given for Cllr Pat Williams, Stella Elliott and Cllr Les Rowlands.

Item 1 Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

Cllr Denise Roberts declared an interest in item 5 (correspondence received by the Chair) as she was named in the correspondence.

Cllr Denise Roberts declared an interest in item 4, in respect of the meeting on 6/1/2010.

Cllr Chris Blakeley asked Cllr Denise Roberts if it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in?

Surjit Tour asked Cllr Denise Roberts if it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in?

Cllr Denise Roberts confirmed it was item 5 she was declaring an interest in.

Cllr Ann Bridson declared an interest in item 5.

Surjit Tour asked if there were any more who wished to declare an interest in item 5?

Deputy Mayor Gerry Ellis apologised and said he “didn’t think”.

Cllr Ann Bridson wanted to ask legal advice on an interest matter.

Surjit Tour said that for information, it was being recommended that item 5 be dealt with as an exempt item. Therefore he said the public could not be present for item 5 and any councillors who had declared a prejudicial  interest could not be present either. Mr Tour said they could however wait in the corridor until item 5 was over, rejoin the committee after item 5 and he would explain the decision. The discussion and debate would be exempt and it was in their [the councillor's affected] interests not to take part.

Cllr Ann Bridson asked about item 4?

Cllr Denise Roberts said she had made a mistake with item 4, one referred to herself and Cllr Bridson.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said that item 5 does refer to the four women.

Cllr John Salter jokingly asked why Cllr Chris Blakeley wasn’t in here?

Cllr Simon Mountney responded to the joke by referring him to pages 66 and 67. The committee laughed.

Surjit Tour said Cllrs Roberts and Bridson both had a personal and prejudicial interest in item 5. They would therefore have to withdraw from the meeting when it was considered. He asked if the committee was happy for him to advise them in private session or open session? Would he be able to do this?

Cllr Ann Bridson asked if they would be in or out?

Surjit Tour said she would be out, then in.

The Chair said it was just like cricket and thanked Surjit Tour for his advice.

Item 2 Minutes

The Chair asked if they agreed the minutes of the meeting held on the 29th September 2011? He asked if all agreed to the above, and they said yes they did.

Item 3 Implications of the Localism Act on the Standards Regime – UPDATE

The Chair said this was on pages seven to fifty-four of the agenda.

Surjit Tour said they must be proper and thorough. He was providing an update on the implications of the Localism Act 2011 which had implications for the standards regime, Members’ Code of Conduct and Standards Committee. The changes happening from 1st July 2012 as mentioned in 4.3, were outlined in an explanatory note giving an indication of the timetable. The original date of 1st April 2012 had been changed to 1st July 2012, which gave a greater lead in time.

There would be further guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government about the pecuniary interest which was difficult to explain. Appendix 2 had a new draft Code of Conduct. Put together with the national changes, it would be used as a basis to invite discussion and debate with the new Code being adopted.

Mr Tour said it was coming in across Merseyside and would hopefully be easier to administer. Appendix 2 contained a draft Code of Conduct to consider. The report also recommended to set up a Working Group to allow further discussion on the new amendments. The new regime would come into effect as of the 1st July 2012. Paragraph 4.10 summarises the key areas.

Mr Tour continued by stating there was no longer a requirement under the Act to have a Standards Committee. However, in order to administer arrangements it was a helpful vehicle. There was no obligation to have a Members Code, but they did have to have a new Members Code of Conduct which would be a requirement. The new role for independent persons was different to Independent Members. The nature of the role, description and approval would require amendment. They had to have at least one independent person.

This person would be consulted. There would still be a requirement on those covered by the Code to keep the Register of Interests up to date. It would be to the discretion of the Committee, as to the procedure regarding conduct matters. He then explained about dispensations (once they existed) and the protocol (in the unlikely event) that a matter should be referred to the police.

The new rules covered eight critical areas. Before 1st July 2011 as outlined at 4.11 they needed to set up a Working Group. The terms of reference were outlined at 3.1. Mr. Tour finally asked if there were any other items or issues?

The Chair asked if there were any items he wanted to draw attention to?

Surjit Tour said on page twelve there were various points in the explanatory note. S. 27 placed a duty on Wirral Council to promote and maintain high standards of conduct on Wirral Council. The other thing was the issue of sanctions. There were issues regarding decisions made outside of jurisdiction. The advice obtained may be considered.

A formal letter or censure was fine. Removal was limited as sanctions were up to political groups and not a sanction that could be imposed. Press releases and publicity was not an issue. There was no longer a reference to a special obligation not to publish and it would be to their discretion as to whether confidentiality still extended to the matter.

On the issue of allowances it was doubtful as to whether these could be withheld as it would be deemed to be unlawful. Even if an allegation related to access to confidential information, further access to confidential information by councillors couldn’t be restricted.

The appointment of the independent person could cause some difficulty due to the legal restrictions on conflicts of interest. This Surjit Tour felt would lead to a loss of knowledge and experience. He reiterated that an independent person was different to an Independent Member.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it would have to commence by the 1st July. He said it was an awful lot of change. A lot of councillors and Members couldn’t understand the current system. Therefore it was difficult for people to comply, he realised however that ignorance wasn’t a reason. He felt that if they go down that route with a draft Code of Conduct, they had to get the message across to councillors and Members. His personal view was that although they don’t have to have a Standards Committee, was that it was easier to continue with the Code and just transpose the old one to the new one. It had served them well for four years, the difference being was that the sanctions would come out. It was just a suggestion.

Surjit Tour said it was at their discretion but there were some changes as the ten principles had been reduced to seven. There was no reason why they couldn’t adopt the old Code of Conduct as the new Code of Conduct.

Cllr John Salter said that they would have to have training on it between now and July to highlight this, he thought training would only take a couple of hours.

Cllr Bill Davies said he had been on a lot of subcommittees, when members of the committee were ill they sent deputies, it meant the deputies needed training too. Another idea was to exchange with other councils, but he did feel deputies should be included in the training.

The Chair said it was essential especially in the spirit of the matter. In his view training was very important. Anyone sitting or deputising must be trained.

Cllr Ann Bridson said to bring them down to earth she had spotted some misprints.

On page 9, in 4.11 “4.8” should read “4.10“.

On page 22, the first principle was “SELFISHNESS” but this should read “SELFLESSNESS“.

The Chair joked and said it was “not really a mistake”.

Cllr Bridson said adding to what other people have said, she wanted to look at what we’ve got and went on to make a point about training for everyone and deputies.

Cllr John Salter said he encouraged everyone in the Council to have training.

Cllr Ann Bridson said that “everyone should know their limitations”.

Cllr John Salter said they could swap with Liverpool City Council.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he would prefer it to be pan-Merseyside rather than twelve here, twelve in Liverpool, five authorities, two of them with fifteen person committees. He said it would bring consistency.

The Chair said it was in the pipeline.

Related articles
by

Cabinet 12th January 2012 AOB – Urgent Business Approved by the Chair (Part 1) – Independent Review of Claims Made by Martin Morton (and others) Part 2


Before I write this up, I need to (to be ethical) state a raft of conflicts of interest as I have been overcharged by Wirral Council’s Social Services in the past in the time period around 2004-2005. However the money has since been refunded to me.

There are further many conflicts of interest I now have and to be ethical have to declare (what I can) about two of the four councillors named in the decision notices.

1) I am now a member of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
2) I have previously been a member of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and have are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
3) I am now a member of the North West Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
4) I have previously been a member of the North West Liberal Democrats and so have Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
5) I am now a member of the Liberal Democrats and so are Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
6) I have previously been a member of the Liberal Democrats and so have Cllrs Ann Bridson and Cllrs Pat Williams.
7) I have previously been a member of the Wirral West Liberal Democrats and so has Cllr Ann Bridson.
8) Although, not at the time of writing I have in the past been elected as a political party office holder for both the Birkenhead Local Party and Wirral West Liberal Democrats at the same time as Cllrs Ann Bridson with respect to Birkenhead and Wirral West and Cllrs Pat Williams with respect to Birkenhead. These positions were:-

a) past office holder of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrat Constituency Executive at the same time as Cllrs Bridson and Cllrs Williams
b) past office holder as Federal Conference representative (Birkenhead Local Party) at the same time as Cllrs Bridson and Cllrs Williams
c) past office holder as North West regional conference representative (Birkenhead Local Party) at the same time as Cllr Bridson
d) past office holder as North West regional conference representative (Wirral West Local Party) at the same time as Cllr Bridson

I am also have two further undisclosed interests of Cllr Bridson and one of Cllr Williams. I’m not willing at this point to declare what these are, just to state they exist. I have delayed writing this report of the Cabinet due to the need to read the report and appendices which total 529 pages.  The following documents were published on Wirral Council’s website for this agenda item.

Report of Chief Executive (14 A4 pages)

Appendix 1 AKA Final Report (249 A4 pages)

Appendix 2 Martin Smith report by North West Employers into claims made by Martin Morton (276 pages)

Appendix 4A (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Pat Williams (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4B (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Moira McLaughlin (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4C (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Denise Roberts (1 A4 page)

Appendix 4D (Standards for England Decision Notice) Cllr Ann Bridson (1 A4 page)

There are also the draft minutes are on Wirral Council’s website. There is also more information that has been known to us for some time in this matter which involves some of the Appendices to the AKA Final Report.

I have previously written about Appendix 9 here.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 14 Urgent Business – Correspondence Received by the Chair


Continued from Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it “needs more than five minutes to understand the ramifications” and asked when the next meeting was.
The answer given by Mrs. Shirley Hudsepth was the 30th November [2011].

Cllr Les Rowlands said there were no time issues.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said this needed to be conveyed to Mr. Morton.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said it was not fair on councillors.

Surjit Tour said the process was explained in the middle of August. However the letter had been delivered on the eve of the committee. The process had been communicated to individuals in the middle of August. There had been delay, Standards for England had decided in the middle of August (17th August).

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider it if he had the time to read it and digest it and give him justice.

The Chair Brian Cummings asked if everyone wanted a copy?

Surjit Tour said they should consider whether to make it exempt or not.

RESOLVED:  That Mr Morton’s correspondence be considered at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled for 30 November 2011 and he be informed of this decision.

The meeting finished.

by

Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 13


The Chair, Brian Cummings said he wanted to consider an urgent request in respect of whistleblowing from Mr. Martin Morton.

Cllr Pat Williams declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr Denise Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as Mr. Martin Morton had made a complaint about her.
Cllr John Salter declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being on the Initial Assessment Panel.

Cllr Gerry Ellis asked Surjit Tour a question which was answered.

Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr John Salter having declared a prejudicial interest in this matter left the room.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked for clarification as he had been involved in a call-in.

Surjit Tour said there were no further conflicts of interest.

The Chair, Brian Cummings said something about it being “before his time”.

Surjit Tour said the letter regarding the standards matter and whether it should be urgent business had only been sent to the Chair [Brian Cummings]. There were issues involved. He suggested they consider representations this evening and make a decision. Surjit Tour said the complaint had been addressed and gone through true process. The level of detail, would require sufficient time for representations however there was not time limitation and would be more appropriate by the next meeting when the full range of issues could be discussed.

Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis asked if it was the same letter from a West Kirby resident?
Cllr Les Rowlands said in his opinion it should be on the next committee’s agenda, it was not right to digest it all and make decisions.

by

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint


Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a piece of work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Programme Board to look at the work processes and how flows and blockages were happening.

Ken Harrison said he would like it minuted if ok, asking if they had the manpower with sufficient staff or was it the case that existing staff were not capable? He had listened to this “time after time”.

Bill Norman said it was “part capacity and part priorities”, however it would have “a higher priority than hitherto”. Cllr Chris Blakeley asked about enlisting the help of other authorities to speed it up?

Brian Cummings said it shouldn’t be taking two to three years to deal with the public. There was no other business raised by committee members so the meeting ended.

Since the meeting the agenda on Wirral Council’s website has been reordered to remove item 6. Therefore agenda item 7 has become agenda item 6. The report for this item can be read here with the appendices here.

Please note this blog post uses the original numbering of agenda items, not the changed agenda that Wirral Council changed a day after the meeting on their website to remove item 6.

The original agenda distributed at the meeting had the following added as agenda item 6:

EXEMPT INFORMATION: EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The grounds given were paragraph 7c of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however as you can see here by reading the legislation there isn’t a paragraph 7c.

by

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint


Cllr Bill Davies said on the report they were awaiting he had “nothing to say”. Cllr Les Rowlands said he noted the history, but “what has happened in the department”? He said a mistake had been made twice and asked how they could proceed to avoid it happening again and what improvements would be made?

Bill Norman said that future reports would be cleared by Bill Norman or the Head of Service in future before the reports go out.

Cllr Mitchell said there had been a similar situation in planning about mobile phone masts. There had been an independent review which had led to things being dealt with in stringent chronological order. This meant they stopped to check the item was dealt with and treated before moving on and he hoped a similar process regarding the workings would be made to avoid “horrendous mistakes”. These were the kind of mistakes he “wouldn’t expect from a first year apprentice”, hopefully they could “move to the right process” where things were “done in a given order” and the “boxes ticked up”.

Cllr Blakeley accepted this and referred to 2003 in Greasby where it had been revoked. Cllr Mitchell said there needed to be an independent review by an outside body so that things would be “tightened up”. Cllr Gilchrist said he was “happy this was in public” and “not exempt”. However what would Wirral Council do what it was asked to see the information for this agenda item? He hadn’t read the documents, but just skimmed through the two hundred pages written by Smith. He had deciphered it and proceeded over how people had been treated. The inquiry would ask what was this about? Where they prepared against any public action?