Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Blakeley “Where will it end, what next? Will Wirral be twinned with Pyongyang?”
The Mayor thanked Cllr Harney, he asked councillors to keep their speeches to three minutes so that everyone who wanted to could have a say.
Cllr Blakeley said he would stick to three minutes. He said that twelve years ago when the Cabinet form of local government had been started, there was a select committee for each portfolio. This was so there would be no overlap and Cabinet Members were invited along to be asked questions, he said “everything seemed to work ok”.
These were deemed to be “too unwieldy” and “taking too much of officer’s time” so they were reduced to six, although there were some overlapping responsibilities it “was in the main manageable and workable”. Now they [the Labour administration] wanted to cut six committees to three, which Cllr Blakeley regarded as “extremely dangerous”. Cllr Blakeley referred to the Children and Young Peoples Overview and Scrutiny Committee and high-profile cases that had happened in other Boroughs such as Victoria Climbié and Baby P.
He asked them not to forget the overcharging of vulnerable adults on Wirral. He said the new committee would have to “scrutinise these two vast departments”. Cllr Blakeley said, “This is typical of Labour’s control freak dictatorial ‘We know what’s best’ capacity”.
He said that Area Forums made a difference by “giving local people a real opportunity to have a say”, “yet here we have Labour wanting to grab power back to the centre” and that the new constituency committees would be given a “token amount of funding” far less than the funding to the Area Forums they replaced. Cllr Blakeley said it was a “failure to understand what people of this Borough want”.
On the changes to Council meeting procedures, he said if it went through it would “effectively gag councillors from debate in the Council Chamber and put even greater power in Labour’s hands”. Cllr Blakeley said, “Sadly tonight Mr. Mayor, we are witnessing the destruction of the last vestiges of democracy in Wirral and the residents of this Borough will be ruled by a controlling, tyrannical Labour Group”.
He referred to the refusal of the £1.3 million Council Tax Freeze Grant, increases to car parking charges, the brown bin charges and asked “Where will it end, what next? Will Wirral be twinned with Pyongyang?”
On 28th February 2013 there was a by-election in the Pensby and Thingwall ward after the resignation of Conservative councillor Don McCubbin. The Labour candidate Philip Brightmore won. The full results (in alphabetical order) are below:
Planning Committee bans filming again on 6:5 vote.
Present:
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair)
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Paul Hayes
Cllr Steve Foulkes
Cllr David Elderton
Planning Committee started late, due to a discussion between myself and Surjit Tour about whether to film the meeting. He tried to persuade me not to. Needless to say I didn’t agree and stuck to the NUJ Code of Conduct which states “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed”. The following notice of motion (agreed the evening before) was given as the rationale as to why the Planning Committee meeting of the 18th December 2012 should censor any filming. Personally I believe this breaches my article 10 rights on Freedom of expression.
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Despite the notice of motion (below) stating the complete opposite to what was agreed at Planning Committee, councillors refused to even bring up the notice of motion on the screen and read it before voting.
Proposed by Councillor Bill Davies
Seconded by Councillor Moira McLaughlin
Delete everything and replace with the following:
(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.
The same councillor also stated that if he took a photo of me and put it on a website, he could be accused of bullying under the Members Code of Conduct. I really don’t mind if people take a photo of me though, I’m not as camera shy as the Labour councillors are! He then went on to state they have more important things to think about like the 2013/2014 Budget.
The below is what happened at a recent meeting of Wirral Council’s Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the end of a discussion about their response to the consultation on the budget option on the closure of Birkenhead dog kennel. The main concern was that if implemented the budget option would result in owners of dogs having to go to Halton to collect their pets. There’s an online petition against closure that has attracted over five hundred signatures.
Cllr David Elderton (Chair): Well as I’ve said before, I’m not prepared to continue with this tonight if we’re not allowed, yes, well that’s the point, no point in us giving our input unless it’s noted and I’m asked for it to be noted. I think that’s sensible, we’re all here to make our contribution to what’s going on. So are we happy with that and take a vote on that nominal contribution? All those in favour? Cllr Jerry Williams: No, no, no! Cllr David Elderton (Chair): OK, well this meeting is likely to be a waste of time if you can’t make some notes based on what we believe is contributing to a successful conclusion for all concerned. I’m disappointed but I’m not prepared to make an issue out of it. Can we, any more comments on dog kennels as such? I’ve made my own notes on that and I shall be reporting them to the right places. What’s the next one? Answer: The next one is page 57. Cllr Leah Fraser: Excuse me, sorry but as Dave [Mitchell] said there’s a whip going on, that’s supposed to be declared before the meeting. Cllr David Elderton (Chair): Yes it should! Cllr Leah Fraser: Well they’ve just been told to change their minds! Cllr David Elderton (Chair): Well that’s a whip, so anyway…
Cllr Jerry Williams said it was purely up to [Labour] councillors how they deal with decisions. Cllr David Elderton (Chair): Right, well if that’s the case I’m going to, I’m not wasting a lot of time on this, it’s a long night, I’m going to wind the tape back and I’m going to say I specifically propose as Chairman that this Committee that it should have some comment in the minutes saying the logistics of the issue should be taken into account during the consultation process. Do I have a seconder for that?
Cllr Steve Williams seconds. Cllr David Elderton (Chair): Right, which means that the comment that I am about to formulate, including this certain term, dealing with all party on both sides’ interest in this, that we should ask to be investigated. Can I have a vote on that, without a party whip?
For: 4 (Conservative plus Lib Dem)
Against: 2 (Two Labour, the rest abstained)
Well, in what is becoming a rather predictable saga and in a repeat of what happened at the start of Pensions Committee on Tuesday evening, Labour councillors once again voted that filming be stopped of this public meeting of Wirral Council’s Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday evening.
The Conservative councillors (except for the Chair who abstained) and sole Liberal Democrat councillor voted against banning filming but were outnumbered by the Labour councillors.
When asked by Cllr Fraser what the reasons were for banning filming the proposer of the motion Labour councillor Jerry Williams responded as follows:-
“Well, we’ve had clear guidance on this issue, here we are, on the other hand ostentatiously filming and recording events from the gallery could be regarded as disorderly and disruptive or otherwise. It is secondly unsettling to point a camera at someone at issue, significantly Members would know as they were being filmed, we have no control over way the film is taken, edited or even produced. I think that’s quite clear.”
Cllr Dave Mitchell, Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, “I’m in no rush, but I want my say in the end. In relation to that particular note, the passages that you’ve read out, what was the final recommendation to Cabinet or to the Council when that was actually dealt with? I’m just reminded while you’re looking it up, if you look behind it your good selves you will see there are Cabinet here, and for eighteen months every Planning Committee was filmed by the local authority. Did I interrupt you guys? Again it goes back to the comments [Cllr] Leah [Fraser] made before, it was stopped for financial reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with it being filmed because I know I’ve got nothing to hide.”
There were many items on the agenda that I’m sure the Wirral public would’ve liked to see (and hear) their local councillors’ views on which included domestic homicides, pavement and grass verge parking, parks modernisation and the Arrowe Park hospital travel plan.
Ironically (and causing much laughter) in the first main item after filming was banned (an item on domestic homicides) the Labour councillor Mike Sullivan, who had earlier seconded the motion banning filming, spoke of his regret that it was “not on the record” followed up with the barbed insult of “people this side [Labour] know the rules, Members opposite don’t”.
In extraordinary scenes tonight, Labour councillors at Wirral Council (where else?) chose to ban filming during a public meeting of the Pension Committee. The Pension Committee has eleven Wirral Council councillors on it, along with a councillor from each other Merseyside local authority and a trade union representative. Wirral Council are the administering authority for the £4.7 billion Merseyside Pension Fund, which at its last valuation had a £1.3 billion deficit. Quite what are the real reasons behind this move we’re not entirely sure, although it makes the public wonder what they’ve got to hide (agenda and reports on Wirral Council’s website here)?
I quote from this letter from their previous Director of Law, Bill Norman dated 22nd July 2011 “Finally, I can confirm that, since Monday 28 February 2011, blogging, Tweeting and the use of video cameras have all been permitted during meetings of the Council. Indeed, a number of people were using some of these technologies in the meeting on 1 March. Wirral Council was the first local authority in Merseyside to respond to the request by the Government to take this step to allow greater public scrutiny of meetings and decisions.”
(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.
Licensing Act 2003 Committee (Wirral Council) 7th November 2012
Present
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair), Labour
Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour)
Cllr John Salter (Labour)
Cllr Harry Smith (Labour)
Cllr Steve Niblock (Labour)
Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour)
Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative)
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat)
Council officers
Anne Beauchamp (Committee Officer)
Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager)
Ken Abraham (Legal adviser)
Unknown officer (male)
In attendance
Cllr Geoffrey Watt
Press/public
John & Leonora Brace
The meeting started with Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) giving apologies for Cllr Pat Williams (Lib Dem). The meeting was interrupted by the tune of an ice cream van, which the Chair, Cllr Bill Davies made a joke about, he went on to say that there were a number of meetings going on of different committees and that a number of councillors had sent their apologies. Apologies had been received from Cllrs McCubbin, Davies (George), Leech and Williams (Pat). He said he had a quick Any Other Business and asked if he could sign the minutes?
Agenda Item 1 Declarations of Interest 1:09 to 1:30
Cllr Niblock asked if he could declare a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Cllr Denise Roberts also declared a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Agenda Item 3. DRAFT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES UNDER THE GAMBLING ACT 2005 1:50 to 8:20
The Chair asked Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager) to talk about this item. She said the Committee had agreed a draft statement in July which had gone out to consultation, which had closed on the 31st October [2012].
At this point a Council Officer arrived.
Margaret O’Donnell continued that they had received one response which was attached at appendix 3, there were no specific direct comments so no amendments had been made to the draft since July, she said the purpose of the evening was to seek approval, then it would go to full Council on 17th December [2012] and was to be revised no later than January 2013.
Cllr Niblock referred to page 15 3.3 in the reference to “Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Authority” which should read Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. He pointed out a minor error where a full stop should be a comma and asked a question about page 31 about bingo being played in a member’s club.
Margaret was about to answer his points but Cllr Niblock went on to point out page 36, 21.2 apologising and saying he meant 27.3 and the phrase “will be decided on a case by case individual basis”, which he thought should either be case by case or individual.
Cllr Harry Smith agreed with him.
Cllr Niblock went on to point out that certain proper nouns such as Licensing Authority needed to be capitalised but were all in lower case.
Margaret O’Donnell said she would ask it to be looked at.
Cllr Harry Smith said, “Who are we going to shoot?”
Cllr Hornby asked a question about CRB checks and qualifications for door supervisors?
The Chair said that they used to interview door supervisors.
Margaret O’Donnell said that [door supervisors] were covered by the Security Industry Agency and they had to go through a process to be licensed.
Cllr John Salter asked if they had consulted the Chief of Police and if the Police had made comments?
Margaret O’Donnell confirmed the police had made no comments.
The Chair commented about training, the three meetings on tonight and that they were looking for alternative dates. As there were no further questions, the recommendation to the Council meeting of the 17th December of the Draft Statement of Gambling Principles was agreed.
4. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS ACCEPTED BY THE CHAIR 8:20 to 24:04 Classification of unclassified film “Small Creatures” (Light Cinema, New Brighton)
The Chair said there was one item of Any Other Business which Margaret would explain.
Margaret thanked the Chair for allowing this item of Any Other Business. She said it was in respect of the classification of a film in accordance with guidance issued by the British Board of Film Classification, as they had a cinema in New Brighton called the Light Cinema which wanted to show an unclassified film. She said they were obliged to protect children from harm. She said she received an email on the 6th November from a gentleman who wanted to show it during anti-bullying week (the week starting the 19th November), she said it had been classified by Liverpool Licensing Authority, she said the film related to anti bullying, an individual called Martin Wallace wanted to show the film Small Creatures and had submitted a synopsis and was classified as a 15 by Liverpool City Council screening at FACT. She read out a synopsis about the film. She said there was discrimination of a homophobic nature, on-screen cannabis smoking, no horror in the film, reference to two instances of self-harm, but brief, it had strong occasional language, no nudity but occasional references to sex, crime and occasional violence (a school fight on a field) and a stabbing on camera.
Cllr Harry Smith asked if there was a moral ending?
Margaret O’Donnell said the film was about 89 minutes long.
Cllr Harry Smith referred to possible abuse.
Margaret O’Donnell suggested it could be delegated to a subcommittee, who would then have the chance to view the film.
Cllr Harry Smith asked again if there was a moral ending?
Margaret said that the 14-year-old boy ignored the advice of his teachers and gets involved in knife crime, there’s then a stabbing.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was “disappointed with the ending of the film”.
Margaret said the key thing was the classification and if people should be permitted to go see it.
Cllr Niblock asked if Liverpool City Council had just classified it based on a synopsis, as what it looked like might not be like what’s written on paper. Margaret O’Donnell responded. She said they hadn’t been able to establish how Liverpool City Council had come to its decision.
Cllr Sykes referred to the guidance, Margaret O’Donnell responded by reading out what the British Board of Film Classification see as a 15 classification, during this Cllr Andrew Hodson arrived at 5:47pm for the 6pm meeting. Another councillor arrived at 5:48pm for the 6pm meeting.
Cllr Sykes asked if it would be shown as part of anti-bullying week? Margaret nodded.
Cllr Gregson made some comments.
Cllr Salter wanted something written down.
Cllr Gregson asked about the Liverpool decision.
Margaret O’Donnell said she was seeking the “general view of the Committee” and that she was more than satisfied to report back. She said the email had put them in a difficult position, if it hadn’t been for the meeting she’d have suggested setting up a subcommittee, which would depend on the availability of councillors, she said she would report back the comments made this evening and it was a matter for the applicant if they wanted to pursue it further.
Cllr Hornby said it depended on how the film was directed, which can be misunderstood. He said, “I don’t like the idea of we giving carte blanche to something because someone else across the river said, “It’s OK.”" Cllr Hornby said it was his view it had to be done through a subcommittee.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was really worried there was no moralising end to it and referred to what happened to the baddies at the end of Grange Hill.
Cllr Hornby referred to direction.
Cllr Mitchell agreed that it should be delegated to a subcommittee, who would get the information prior to the meeting, she said it’s to coincide with anti bullying week.
Cllr Roberts asked if the Liverpool councillors seen the film? She said it was no worse than books for teenagers.
The Chair said at his discretion a member of the public has indicated they wish to say something and that he will allow it.
Declaration of interest: The member of the public is my wife and writes and edits for this blog.
Mrs. Brace thanked the Chair for letting her speak. She said that similar types of films had been banned, but if it did go ahead she thought that only people aged over 18 should go and watch it.
The Chair thanked Mrs. Brace for her comments.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair said he thought a decision had been made and it would go to a subcommittee. It was agreed to delegate the decision to a subcommittee.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair closed the meeting and said that the Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee would start in five minutes.
Wirral Council previously agreed back in March of this year (2012) (when it decided the Budget for 2012/2013) to pay all its employees earning less than £21,000 (which comes to over 2,000 employees) an extra £250 (net of National Insurance, Income Tax, pension contribution etc) in December 2012.
“Our staff are those who are best placed to point out where we are failing and to tell us how we can improve the services that we will deliver. We are therefore investing to ensure we listen and properly engage with them in the future:”
…..
“We recognise the importance of leading by example as an employer and we will again make provision for a payment of £250 for our lower paid workers – those earning under a full time equivalent of £21, 000.
£600,000″
Now go forward to now and there’s a proposal to the December Council meeting not to pay this £250 to 2,470 employees earning less than £21,000. The linked document goes into the detail and shows it affects a higher proportion of their female employees (calling this an “unintentional disadvantage”), a higher percentage of black and ethnic minority employees, a higher percentage of non-Christian employees, a higher percentage of transgender employees and a higher percentage of its young (under 30) employees.
So what have they done to mitigate the impact of this? They state they’ve written to the 2,470 employees that would be affected by this and they’ve discussed it in meetings with the trade unions.
As to the reasons why it’s being done, as the music hall song chorus goes:-
“It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor what gets the blame,
It’s the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn’t it a blooming shame?”
However if last March is a guide, then the Labour councillors will vote for this proposal and the Conservative/Lib Dem councillors will vote against. Labour have seven more councillors (plus Cllr McLaughlin can now vote as she’s no longer the Mayor). Conservative and Lib Dems have seven less. So whatever Labour decide will happen… and they tend to go by what the senior officers of the Council tell them to do.
This proposal (if it goes through which seems likely) just makes a small dent in the currently projected £13.2 million overspend. Quite what awaits the staff in the New Year is probably a much reduced workforce…. as to who is for the chop we’ll just have to wait and see.
Merseytravel (Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority) meeting of the 25th October 2012. Pictured are councillors (Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour Party, Wirral Council), Cllr Steve Foulkes (Labour Party, Wirral Council), Cllr Les Rowlands (Merseytravel Alliance Signals Good Governance (Conservative), Wirral Council), Cllr John Dodd (Merseytravel Alliance Signals Good Governance (Liberal Democrat), Sefton Council) and other councillors), various officers and a member of the public.
Audit Commission criticise Merseytravel in audit report on Mann Island lease
Unfortunately I arrived at the meeting (starting at 2.30pm) about fifteen minutes late, caused in part by an eight minute delay due to Platform 1 at nearby James Street station being close (which is run by Merseyrail in which Merseytravel have a controlling interest) and other reasons.
When I got there (and negotiated my way to the first floor using the terribly confusing system for the lifts where you have to enter your floor number and press another button before you get into the lift), the meeting had started, the agenda had already been reordered and the item I was particularly interested in (ten) had already started as unfortunately items 3-9 were being left to the end of the meeting. I had missed completely agenda items 1 (Apologies for absence) and 2 (Minutes of the last meeting), which is no big loss as the minutes can be read on Merseytravel’s website and who was absent could be ascertained by who was there.
Agenda item 10 was the Audit Commission: Completion of 2011/12 Audit which sounds dull but wasn’t. The Audit Commission were there to report on the Completion of the 2011/2012 Audit for Merseytravel (both the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority and Merseyside Integrated Transport Executive).
The audit fees had increased by £10,140 due to an extra two and half weeks of unplanned work required by the District Auditor, Audit Manager and Principal Auditor which related to four areas:-
a) responding to queries from officers, councillors and members of the public,
b) problems with working papers, quality assurance not being robust, not all agreed improvements being made,
c) changes to accounts and disclosures
and
d) errors in the accounting treatment for the Mann Island lease (see picture below) and lease incentives.
I came across this Chair’s note for Merseytravel’s Budget Meeting in February, which I found interesting and explains why Cllr Mark Dowd (Labour Chair) did things the way he did at the meeting. I’m not sure if I was given it by mistake.
Merseytravel (Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority) meeting of the 25th October 2012. Pictured are councillors (Cllr Ron Abbey (
