Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?

Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?

Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?

                        

Power
Power

George Orwell “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

This is a tale of power, money, elections and the public right to know. What happens next following this is a reflection of the society we all live in. I strongly suspect that very little will result. I’ve used my editorial independence to write this as my conscience is clear if these matters are in the public domain.

I would like to point out that until recent years the chairs of committees at Wirral Council were shared across the political parties. Labour however decided in the recent past that they wanted to keep the power that rests with chairs to themselves. Therefore that is the reason why all the main characters in this are Labour politicians. It’s nothing personal and I have no axe to grind against the Labour Party.

Like all good stories this tale indeed starts well before the election started. However, we will skip ahead to the beginning of the elections in 2016.

All candidates have to fill out what are termed nomination papers and deliver these nomination papers to Wirral Council by a deadline to be included in the election. The four candidates this tale (who were each elected as councillors) are Anita Leech, Janette Williamson, Mike Sullivan & Bill Davies (real name William Davies).

During the election (but not now after the result is declared) you have a legal right to inspect the nomination papers and request copies. I requested these 4 nomination papers from the Returning Office Eric Robinson.

In addition to the nomination papers, in order to be a valid and legal nomination various pieces of legislation need to be attached too. These pieces of legislation deal with who is disqualified from being elected. I presume the point of having to attach these for a valid nomination is to prevent candidates and agents at a later date claiming ignorance of what they mean.

The declaration they each have to sign (which also has to be witnessed) states the following,

“I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief I am not disqualified for being elected by reason of any disqualification set out in, or decision made under, section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 78A of the Local Government Act 2000 or section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 (copies of which are printed overleaf), and I do not hold a politically restricted post, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, under a local authority, within the meaning of that Part.”
 

The nomination papers of each candidate are linked to at the end of this article.

The first part of section 80 declares:

80 Disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority.

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 81 below, a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member of a local authority … if he—

(a) holds any paid office or employment (other than the office of chairman, vice-chairman or deputy chairman [or, in the case of a local authority which are operating executive arrangements which involve a leader and cabinet executive, the office of executive leader or member of the executive]) appointments [or elections] to which are or may be made or confirmed by the local authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority or by a joint committee [or National Park authority] on which the authority are represented or by any person holding any such office or employment; or

 

So what does that mean? Well he above also means she, but the employment bit means councillors cannot also be employees of Wirral Council as it represents a conflict of interest. Section 81 provides an exception for teachers and other people employed by schools (who are technically classed as local council employees) to be elected as councillors.

As you can see from the above, any Leader of a Council or Cabinet Member is also not excluded from being elected on those grounds.

Edited: 9/5/16 It’s been pointed out that s.80(1)(a) is open to different interpretations and chairman could be interpreted as all people with the title of Chair or just the Chair of Wirral Council (the Mayor). The guidance the Electoral Commission produce for Returning Officers on the matter is here and makes it very clear about the disqualification of candidates represented on outside bodies. That guidance however makes it clear that the relevant dates about disqualification (as determined in previous legal cases) are the date of nomination and the date of election.

Each of the four candidates I name above were at the time of their nomination and election holders of paid office at Wirral Council. I outline below which paid offices they held and the annual amounts they received. These are additional allowances in addition to the basic allowances they receive as councillors.

Anita Leech – Chair of the Planning Committee (£4,585)
Janette Williamson – Chair of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585)
Mike Sullivan – Chair of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585)
Bill Davies – Chair of the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee (£4,585) and Chair of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (£1,375).
 

None of these four individual resigned their chairs before the date they were elected and they continue receiving allowances for these at the time of writing.

I presume the whole point of this is to ensure a level playing field and free, fair and open elections. After all if one candidate can turn round and say “Vote for me, I’m Chair of the Planning Committe” and in theory use their taxpayer funded paid office to pay for their election expenses is that fair?

The observant among you will have already realised that the above disqualification also rules out those councillors representing the Council on outside bodies (off the top of my head the Police and Crime Panel, the Merseytravel Committee (or other committees of the Combined Authority) and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) are a few that I could name.

However I am not covering these here and it’s up to you the reader if you wish to explore whether any candidates in the election would seem to be disqualified on these grounds.

So what you may say? Even if the above four resigned, that would leave 35 Labour councillors and only 27 opposition councillors. As I say, I haven’t considered whether any candidates would be disqualified on any other grounds and as the deadline for submitting election expenses is a month away I haven’t inspected the declared election spending of candidates too.

However as the public have a right to know, here are the nomination papers of the four candidates I have named above.

Obviously the individuals (and their agents) have some unanswered questions as to whether they knew the above at the time of their nomination. It is only however my job to observe this anomaly and report on it, rather than be in a position to take action to resolve the matter one way or another.

The nomination papers are multi-page TIFF files as these were the format supplied by Wirral Council. I have not converted them to image files that can be read by a browser as I felt it best to leave them as they originally were.

I will end this with a big caveat, the above is merely how it seems from here. The people named could be totally ignorant of what disqualifies people from being a councillor (which would seem to be a difficult position to maintain as they had to include the legislation with their nomination papers). I could be wrong and the above could just be an arcane legal point.

Looking at a case where two Lib Dem Assembly Members were elected to the Welsh Assembly but were disqualified, one of those two successfully argued that the published Welsh guidance on the matter was out of date therefore disqualification was unfair.

However, I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts on what I’ve written here.

Rock Ferry – William Davies (Bill Davies) nomination papers

Pensby & Thingwall – Michael Sullivan nomination papers

Liscard – Janette Williamson nomination papers

Leasowe & Moreton East – Anita Leech (nomination papers)

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.

SATIRE: What if the Saughall Massie fire station decision was a sports event?

SATIRE: What if the Saughall Massie fire station decision was a sports event?

SATIRE: What if the Saughall Massie fire station decision was a sports event?

Councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (30th June 2015) voting in favour of closure of Upton and West Kirby fire stations and asking Wirral Council for the land and planning permission for a new fire station in Saughall Massie
Councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (30th June 2015) voting in favour of closure of Upton and West Kirby fire stations and asking Wirral Council for the land and planning permission for a new fire station in Saughall Massie
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)
Cllr Chris Blakeley addressing Wirral Council Regeneration and Environment committee about a new fire station in Saughall Massie September 2015
Cllr Chris Blakeley addressing Wirral Council Regeneration and Environment committee about a new fire station in Saughall Massie September 2015

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Next week, we’ll be seeing another thrilling political battle between Cllr Chris “Bruiser” Blakeley (in the blue corner with a picture of a Conservative whip on his chest) and Dan “The Fireman” Stephens in the flaming red corner (and a picture of a fireman’s axe on his chest). Who will win following this encounter? This is a battle that the public think both of them can’t win.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: There’s a bit of history between these two characters isn’t there?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Yes, this whole fire station issue is part of the reason Chris Blakeley lost his job working for Esther McVey in May, but since then he’s had more time for campaigning. The kudos for stopping a new fire station in Greasby went to Esther McVey’s rival Margaret Greenwood (now an MP). The two (Cllr Blakeley and Dan Stephens) have had heated exchanges at a number of public meetings and are bitterly opposed on this sensitive political issue.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: But what happened last time?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: The Labour referee Cllr Mike Sullivan declared it a draw on points and decided to call it off for another night. No one had invited Dan Stephens along to that meeting so it would’ve been wrong to let Cllr Blakeley win under such circumstances.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: But strictly speaking Dan Stephens wasn’t the officer behind all this?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Yes that’s true. The man with the plan for this was Deputy Chief Executive Kieran Timmins (his line manager was Dan Stephens). However Kieran Timmins has been made redundant. So nobody can ask him questions. The land aspects of Mr. Timmins’ job are now under the remit of Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: So if asked, Dan Stephens can deny all knowledge of the emails released under a Freedom of Information Act request or in fact anything to do with all this?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: His answer at an earlier public meeting was he hadn’t written the emails, then from memory a Labour councillor on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (who had released the emails) just claimed the Tories were just making it all up.

Although Dan Stephens would be aware of this matter, it would be Mr. Timmins/Phil Garrigan that would be involved in the details. I’m sure Phil Garrigan will brief him ahead of next week’s meeting with answers to questions that are likely to be asked and/or be there in person.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: So what does Dan want?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: He has to work within the agreed policy. The politicians directed him to ask for the land at Saughall Massie and planning permission (or at the very least he has to find somewhere to build a new fire station if the politicians want one).

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: So what does Cllr Blakeley want?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: For Dan Stephens not to get the land at Saughall Massie and planning permission and if he has to build a fire station to do it somewhere else.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: I see, and after over 2 years of political arguing has anything been actually decided?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority did decide to go ahead and ask Wirral Council for the land at Saughall Massie and planning permission.

An interesting twist however, is that Cllr Blakeley seems to be have been stabbed in the back twice by his own side on this issue as both the Conservative government have offered Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service a grant towards the costs of a new fire station and fellow Conservative councillor Cllr Lesley Rennie voted for it too.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: So you’re saying in over 2 years and perhaps millions of words, all that’s happened is arguing, Esther McVey losing her seat and endless rounds of consultation over the £millions this could all cost?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Yes.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: And nobody thought it a good idea and value for money or sensible to just actually sit down and talk through these issues?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Officers did that, but thought councillors would just happily rubber stamp it. Large numbers of the public getting grumpy about a political decision makes politicians nervous. Nervous politicians don’t like to make unpopular decisions unless they know the facts so they delay making a decision.

However councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority seemed quite happy to have the people pay for taxis to and from public meetings, showing that a decision by a politician is only unpopular if the public actually knows about it.

SPORTS COMMENTATOR 2: So you’re saying that endless public meetings, consultations, press coverage and over 2 years of political arguments is because no consensus or compromise has been reached?

SPORTS COMMENTATOR JOHN BRACE: Yep, but it’s been great for our viewing and circulation figures isn’t it!?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

KPMG (external auditors) advise councillors that report nearly finished on objection to Merseytravel’s 2014/15 accounts

KPMG (external auditors) advise councillors that report nearly finished on objection to Merseytravel’s 2014/15 accounts

KPMG (external auditors) advise councillors that report nearly finished on objection to Merseytravel’s 2014/15 accounts

                                                   

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee 3rd November 2015

John Fogarty speaking at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee 3rd November 2015 about risk management
John Fogarty speaking at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee 3rd November 2015 about risk management

Risk management was a subject John Fogarty tried very hard to be interesting about by making topical references to Thomas Cook, TalkTalk and Volkswagen, however he was completely unaware that he was being upstaged by a couple in the background flirting while waiting for the lift (as pictured above).

That is the most interesting introduction I can make to a write-up of yesterday’s Audit Committee meeting. You can read the reports for the public meeting on Merseytravel’s website.

The one Wirral Council councillor on the Audit Committee (Cllr Mike Sullivan) wasn’t present and didn’t send his apologies. The other five councillors on the Committee were there (the Chair Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton Council), Deputy Chair Cllr Nina Killen (Sefton Council), Cllr Andy Moorhead (Knowsley Council), Cllr Rob Polhill (Halton Borough Council) and Cllr Pam Thomas (Liverpool City Council)).

On the agenda were three main items a presentation by John Fogarty (Treasurer to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) on risk management, a quarterly update on internal audit work and the final item was a report from the Treasurer on the final accounts for 2014/15 (which had two appendices the draft report to those charged with governance from the external auditors KPMG and the Annual Audit Letter 2014/15.

Although one of those reports only mentions one formal objection (I referred to the objection I made here), there is still another formal objection to the accounts.

As Merseytravel and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are audited separately (although this Audit Committee covers both bodies), I would guess that this relates to the matter discussed at Merseytravel’s meeting on the 1st October 2015 and minuted in this way (Members means councillors)Finally the Director advised of an objection raised by a member of the public in relation to a historical item from the accounts relating to the internal transfer of funds between two Merseytravel services. The outcome of this matter could be reported to Members once resolved. Councillor Abbey asked that it be placed on record that such complaints did result in a cost to council taxpayers as they required investigation by external auditors.

The external auditors (KPMG) confirmed at yesterday’s meeting that they are in the process of writing a report on that matter and hope to report back soon, however did confirm that the matter the objection related to doesn’t pass the threshold of materiality.

Due to the unresolved objection, the accounts haven’t been closed by the statutory deadline of the 30th September 2015.

There is not much else interesting I could write about the Audit Committee meeting (although video of the meeting can be watched below).

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee 3rd November 2015

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Why did 2 missing words from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 2014/15 accounts end up costing YOU £4,755?

Why did 2 missing words from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 2014/15 accounts end up costing YOU £4,755?

Why did 2 missing words from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 2014/15 accounts end up costing YOU £4,755?

                                                  

Councillor Phil Davies (Chair) at a meeting earlier this year of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

In the interests of openness and transparency here is an email I’ve just written. We’ll see what happens tomorrow morning. You can read the objection that led to the KPMG (the external auditors for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) increasing their bill by £4,755 here.


To
Councillor Anthony Carr (Chair) anthony.carr@councillors.sefton.gov.uk
Councillor Nina Killen (Deputy Chair) nina.killen@councillors.sefton.gov.uk
Councillor Andy Moorhead andy.moorhead@knowsley.gov.uk
Councillor Rob Polhill rob.polhill@halton.gov.uk
Councillor Mike Sullivan mikesullivan@wirral.gov.uk
Councillor Pam Thomas pamela.thomas@liverpool.gov.uk

Subject: Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee meeting (3rd November 2015) item 6 LCRCA Final Accounts 2014/15

Dear all,

I have read the reports for tomorrow’s meeting and as you are the people on the Audit Committee there to represent the people of Merseyside I wish to make the following points to you.

If you wish me to explain at the public meeting itself why I made the objection I am happy to do so, but as you will understand in this email what I stated in the objection is the tip of a larger iceberg.

Firstly, the same error was also made in the Merseytravel accounts (I think since Merseytravel’s Audit and Governance Sub-Committee was disbanded you are also responsible for Merseytravel’s accounts too). I know someone else made an objection to the Merseytravel accounts (I didn’t), but had I made the same objection to the Merseytravel accounts too as this would’ve added an extra ~£5k to your audit costs.

As it’s never been made clear to me if the same error in Merseytravel’s accounts was also corrected, I would appreciate an answer to that point.

There are other points about the accounts that I did not raise in my objection, that you as the Audit Committee should be made aware of.

The accounts for 2014/15 and accompanying reports refer to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015. However the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 only apply to financial years from 2015/16 onwards, therefore this is another error.

Finally, I am concerned that the system of internal controls at the LCRCA, the external auditor or the councillors approving the accounts did not spot this or the matters relating to my objection.

I hope at the meeting tomorrow you will exercise some scrutiny as to what happened and why and put into place controls to prevent it happening in the future.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

P.S. I will clarify what it stated on page 11 of the auditor’s report.

The accounts in their original form didn’t comply with legal requirements. It’s been acknowledged by the auditors and officers they were wrong. The point about the external auditors applying to the court for a declaration that the accounts are unlawful is therefore moot as they’ve been changed.

However it is important that councillors consider the reasons behind the objection in a public interest report, otherwise the people tasked with corporate governance will be in the dark as to what was wrong, why it had to be changed and be aware to check for this next year. I hope I have made this clear.

P.P.S On another audit related note, as the LCRCA now has a website, the Local Government (Transparency Requirements) (England) Regulations 2015 make it a legal requirement that certain information is published on its website (such as payments over £500 for example the payment to the auditors).

Currently this is being done on Merseytravel’s website, which makes it very hard to find the LCRCA payments amongst the Merseytravel ones. I would like the Audit Committee to please find out why this information isn’t published on the LCRCA website as it would aid with better openness and transparency about what the LCRCA is doing.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land

Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land

Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land

                                          

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Cllr Chris Blakeley addressing Wirral Council Regeneration and Environment committee about a new fire station in Saughall Massie September 2015
Cllr Chris Blakeley addressing Wirral Council Regeneration and Environment committee about a new fire station in Saughall Massie September 2015

Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee meeting of the 15th September 2015 (Part 1 of 4) who discussed a notice of motion about a proposed new fire station in Saughall Massie

A week ago I wrote Why did Councillor Blakeley ask councillors to block a fire station in Saughall Massie? which finished at the end of Cllr Blakeley’s speech which is only the beginning of that story.

Now as you’re reading the same blog a week later you can read what happened next, in what’s rapidly becoming a saga. If you’ve written as much on this issue as I have, you’d find it’s become a saga longer than the epic poem Beowulf (but not as exciting). Bonus marks to those leaving comments if they can tell me who the Grendel character is in this matter. However literary references aside here’s what happened next.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thank you Councillor Blakeley. Is there any questions from any Members? No? No?

Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Yeah, thanks Chair. As there are no questions regarding this, I’m happy to move that the three points I can only go along with to maintain the green belt, not to give, sell or lease the land and to remain to ask officers to continue to try and find an alternative solution which Councillor Blakeley’s has just said he believes that there is.

Sorry I’ll put the mike on. In view of that if I can move that the notice of motion be agreed in its entirety.

Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative councillor): Chair?

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Does anybody want to …, I’d just like to say that this is a planning issue and I think if it goes to Planning [Committee], I mean I’m not, am I correct to say that it hasn’t, there’s no plans been submitted yet to planning?

Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Yeah if I can assist there Chair, yes the outcome may be a planning permission and there hasn’t been any application that we’re aware of yet but this Notice of Motion is as Cllr Blakeley said prior to that and we’re asking that these three issues be taken into place which doesn’t concern planning.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): OK Steve, I take that on board but what I’d like to suggest, just let me finish Chris and then you can come in, what I’d like to suggest is, that rather than have a Notice of Motion that Steve and Gerry has seconded, if we get the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service to come and explain why they’ve identified this site, as opposed to any other site.

I don’t think it’s particularly fair that we have Councillor Blakeley’s, that side of the argument, without having the fire, somebody from the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority to come and explain their position.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: Why didn’t the Council invite them?

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Well hang on, I’ll take, if you can be quiet from the floor please Councillor Blakeley, err Chris? And then I’ll take Steve and then Dave.

Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour): Thanks err Chair. I really want to concur with that, what I was going to suggest that there has been a, so called evidence brought forward there’s just been some emails that have been flipped through. Obviously, to be fair in this situation, I think it would be about having a conversation with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority and getting to the bottom of some of the remarks that were made rather than going through to this Notice of Motion.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Steve?

Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Councillor, you did point before this. Bringing the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service, had this been heard as a normal Notice of Motion in Council, it’s just this new constitutional method that we’re bringing it to here. The [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service wouldn’t be there. We’re not discussing with it, we’ve had the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority have had their meetings, this isn’t for that. This is purely for the three points, items one, two and three which I don’t believe the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service can answer those three anyway.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Dave?

Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem spokesperson): Err, thank you Chair. Apologies for being late, I was stuck in traffic outside Cammell Lairds for forty five minutes, very unfortunate, but I.. that way. I did intend to be here on time to talk through the previous minutes. Unfortunately I missed that.

All I can say is that at the present moment, like Councillor Spriggs, I need to find out more information because stuff comes to light through emails that have been released, you talk about land deals, swaps, all sorts of things. I need to know the background of all this information prior before I make any decision at all in relation to what’s here before us.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thanks Dave. Rob?

Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour councillor): Thanks Chair, I mean I’m just going to reiterate what was said by comments already made. We’re talking here about response times, we’re talking about a professional judgement and really whereas I do accept the arguments about green belt and the biodiversity of the area, you know and that’s a serious issue that I take seriously Chris as well and you know I’m pleased that you’ve raised that point here but at the same time we’re talking about an emergency service that has made a decision and I really feel that they should come to us and give us the information how they’ve reached that decision and chosen one site over another. Thank you Chair.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): John?

Chair (Cllr John Hale, Conservative): I’m about to say Chairman, that I’m absolutely surprised and amazed that there was a Notice of Motion that has been in existence now for some weeks coming before this Committee and now what someone has been unable to anticipate that there would be suggestions put forward and evidence put forward which would show that the wrong site had been chosen and that’s .. I’m absolutely amazed that nobody made any attempt to bring here tonight the fire officers from the Merseyside Fire Service and Authority which would’ve shortcutted all of this.

We’ve have had a vote which has been referred to us for a vote, a thing that we were denied at Council but it’s come here tonight and I’d certainly like an explanation if not from our fire officers but from the [Merseyside] Fire [&] Rescue Authority, that if you were aware of this why you weren’t here tonight? Because they are simply delaying the right of people to have this examined by the proper body!

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): OK, thanks John I take that on board. So, can we delay the recommendation tonight and we can get the fire officer to come to our next meeting and tell us and maybe the process has moved on from there, there’s no planning application been sent in as yet, so it’s not time that we lack, I think it’s due diligence and we are, I agree with Rob, we are talking about life and death here, it is a very important emotive subject and taking on board the amount of people who attended the meetings and the hostility if you like but I would like to hear from the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service before we send any recommendations through and we’re not pressured by time.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: Oh we are!

Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Thank you Chair.

Member of the public: Sorry, Greasby was the original preferred site but that was withdrawn.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Can I just say that this is a private meeting held in public and I would ask you not to interrupt please, just listen please?

Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Thank you Chair. I think it’s importantly that we actually look at what’s being asked. I don’t think it’s beyond our remit to ask the Council to protect our green belt or to even to ask our officers to work with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. We’re asking them to go and deal with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority, not for us to make the decision on behalf of the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. We just want our council officers to go and do that on our behalf and I think that would be something that this Committee could decide tonight.

It’s not for us to decide whether the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority’s professional opinion is right or wrong, it’s just that we ask our officers to engage with them and ask them to think again, I think that’s what the spirit of the Notice of Motion is to ask them to take a look at the decision that they’ve taken and explore some alternatives and I think there’s no reason why we couldn’t make that decision without hearing the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority’s views in person.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thanks for that, this motion stands and it is the duty of this Committee to look at these things and make recommendations but as I’ve said before, I think it would be wise of this Committee as well as listening to what Councillor Blakleley had to say, to listen to what the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority have got to say and then we make a recommendation. Well it is the responsibility of this Committee to make recommendations and I think it would, it wouldn’t be in our interests or the general public’s interest, or the Council’s interest to make a decision when we’ve only heard one part of the argument.

Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Sorry Chair, can I just come back on that? I don’t think …

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): You can, but then I’m going to wrap it up.

Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): That’s fine, I don’t think I was saying that we’re not making a decision. I think what is in here this does not force a decision on the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. It would still be for the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority to present their planning application. That was my point.

Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Right well, I’m going to wrap it up now. If you want to make just a quick comment Gerry? If you’ve made a recommendation and you’ve seconded it we could have a vote on that.

Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative): Well I’m sure that there’s nothing in this resolution here that’s going to stop the process of going as it is. I would think that we should definitely support this resolution.

The voting was as follows.

For the resolution (5)

Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative)
Cllr John Hale (Conservative)
Cllr Tracey Pilgrim (Conservative)
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative)
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson)

Against the resolution (5)

Cllr Michael Sullivan (Labour Chair)
Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour)
Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour)
Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour)
Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour)

Abstentions

Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat spokesperson)

It was therefore a tied 5:5 vote (with one abstention).

The Labour Chair was asked to use his casting vote. He stated that they would invite the head of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service to the next meeting to listen to him before making a recommendation.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.