Extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council called to discuss Girtrell Court Edited 24th March 2016 to add quote from Cllr Chris Blakeley. Edited 4th April 2016 to include a link to the Labour and Lib Dem amendments. An extraordinary meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about Girtrell Court (requested by Cllrs Chris Blakeley, Bruce Berry, … Continue reading “Extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council called to discuss Girtrell Court”
Extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council called to discuss Girtrell Court
Cllr Chris Blakeley talking about Girtrell Court at the Council meeting held on the 14th March 2016
Edited 24th March 2016 to add quote from Cllr Chris Blakeley.
Edited 4th April 2016 to include a link to the Labour and Lib Dem amendments.
An extraordinary meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about Girtrell Court (requested by Cllrs Chris Blakeley, Bruce Berry, Leah Fraser, Paul Hayes, Lesley Rennie and Steve Williams) is scheduled to take place starting at 6.00pm on Monday 4th April 2016. The meeting will take place in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED.
The request for the meeting relates to an article in the Wirral Globe and statements that Cllr Chris Jones made a few days before that article was published at the Council meeting on the 14th March 2016.
A copy of the Notice of Motion proposed by twenty Conservative councillors is reproduced below (I’ve linked the bit about the Wirral Globe article to the article in question).
MOTION – GIRTRELL COURT
Proposed by Councillor Chris Blakeley
Seconded by Councillor Bruce Berry
1. Council recalls that, at the Council meeting on the 14th March, 2016, the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health gave assurances that there was no timetable for closure of Girtrell Court.
2. Council noted this included a promise that Girtrell Court would remain open until such time as acceptable and alternative respite provision could be provided for users of Girtrell Court and that the Cabinet Member stated that no decision on Girtrell Court would be made until all the statutory ‘one to one’ consultations had
been completed.
3. Council is therefore deeply puzzled and disappointed that 48 hours later, in the Wirral Globe online version, the Cabinet Member announced that Girtrell Court will close at the end of August.
4. Council resolves that any budgetary decision about Girtrell Court is made in the public arena by Council as required by the Constitution of Wirral Borough Council.
Signed by:
Councillors:
Tom Anderson
Bruce Berry
David Burgess-Joyce
Chris Blakeley
Eddie Boult
Wendy Clements
David Elderton
Gerry Ellis
Leah Fraser
Jeff Green
John Hale
Paul Hayes
Andrew Hodson
Kathy Hodson
Cherry Povall
Lesley Rennie
Tracey Pilgrim
Adam Sykes
Geoffrey Watt
Steve Williams
In response to the meeting being arranged, Cllr. Chris Blakeley wrote, “In the last 14 days, we have been told, ‘yeah, but no, but maybe’ by the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health over the future of Girtrell Court.
At the same time, the Leader of the Council pledged to be open and transparent only to then delegate the decision to the Cabinet Member and Director, out of public view and with no reference to the rest of his Cabinet.
This whole sorry saga has proved to be traumatic to the staff and families; it has appalled the trade unions and ward councillors in Saughall Massie. I believe the Cabinet Member should now make it clear what, if anything, she has decided and on what evidence. Neither I, nor the families, believe the repeated claims about ‘extending choice’ – it is, in truth, about closing services.”
Both Labour and the Lib Dems have tabled amendments to the notice of motion above. The Labour amendment deletes paragraphs 3 and 4, criticises the Conservatives for calling a Council meeting about it and repeats their long running position about choice.
The Lib Dem amendment calls for the consultation findings to be shared with councillors and for greater scrutiny by councillors of any re-provision of care.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Labour councillors vote to hold Girtrell Court closure decision behind closed doors
Cllr Chris Blakeley explaining his notice of motion on Girtrell Court to Wirral Council councillors at a public meeting 14th March 2016
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The first part of the debate on Girtrell Court can be watched in the video above (starting at the 22 minutes 21 seconds point)
Councillors at yesterday evening’s meeting of Wirral Council debated a notice of motion on Girtrell Court proposed by Conservative Cllr Chris Blakeley. He asked councillors to agree that the decision on the future of Girtrell Court should be taken during a public meeting rather than behind closed doors.
The Labour councillors (in an amendment proposed by Cllr Phil Davies) disagreed with this and instead restated their previous position. Their view was that a decision on the future of Girtrell Court should be made behind closed doors by the Cabinet Member Cllr Chris Jones and the Director of Adult Social Services Graham Hodkinson.
The Lib Dem councillors (in an amendment proposed by Cllr Phil Gilchrist) agreed with the original motion, but called for all the background and supporting material to be published when Cllr Chris Jones makes her decision.
The Lib Dem amendment didn’t receive enough votes to be agreed as it was only supported by the four Lib Dem councillors. Labour’s amendment received 36 votes for, 24 votes against with one abstention.
It was also announced during the debate that bookings for Girtrell Court will be extended to the end of August 2016.
The following was agreed yesterday evening by councillors:
Girtrell Court
Council believes that it is important to offer service users and their families a choice of respite care provision. People want the ability to choose the type of care and support which is right for them. At present they are unable to do this. This is not about a building or provider, it’s about the person.
Council notes that the Leader of the Council has previously stated that he wants his Administration to be open, transparent and fair with the people of Wirral. Council welcomes this approach.
Council notes that a detailed debate on Girtrell Court took place at Budget Council on the 3rd March and a clear way forward was agreed. This involves statutory consultation with service users and their families followed by a clear new service offer and events for carers and cared for people to meet potential new providers. Services will be commissioned to meet all of the identified needs at that stage. Authority will be delegated to the Director, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member, to make decisions in order to avoid undue delays which would prolong uncertainty. We are not imposing deadlines on when this process will be complete and, in the meantime, Girtrell Court will remain open.
Council further believes that the families of those using Girtrell Court, the staff, trade unions and residents and users must be given every opportunity to influence the future of Girtrell Court through a clear and transparent decision-making process.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall about Girtrell Court 3rd March 2016 thumbnail
It is hard to know where to begin when writing about last night’s Council meeting of Wirral Council at Wallasey Town Hall to decide on the budget. Above is a photo of the demonstration outside the main entrance to Wallasey Town Hall protesting about Girtrell Court being closed.
Realising that councillors were bypassing this entrance and using the door by Committee Room 3, there was another protest outside that way in too.
The meeting started and within the first few minutes the petition item was reached. The Mayor asked Bernard Halley (pictured below with his son David) to present his petitions opposing the closure of Girtrell Court. His e-petition had 1,200 signatures (of those nearly a thousand were Wirral residents). There was also a linked paper petition with over six hundred signatories opposed too.
Bernard Halley said, “Both petitions begged this Council to keep Girtrell Court running until proper alternatives are established, costed, evaluated, consulted upon and proven to be adequate.”
Bernard Halley and his son David present a petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court to a budget meeting of Wirral Council 3rd March 2016
He gave a similar speech to the one he had made at the Cabinet meeting. Mr Cleary felt closing Girtrell Court was contrary to one of the 2020 pledges to protect the vulnerable and his opinion was that the proposed saving through closure would not save Wirral Council money but cost more money. Reference was also made by him to a proposal in 2011 proposed by Cllr Steve Foulkes and seconded by Cllr Phil Davies to stop the closure of Council-run care homes.
He expressed concern about the quality of care in the private sector and added, “At a time when users, their families, the public and staff see press stories of the frivolous use of taxpayers’ money, we implore you to look in the mirror, look into the eyes of those people in the balcony upstairs and tell them hand on heart how there is better provision out there.
We know you can’t do that and as such we urge you to fully drop this proposal. Thank you for your time.”
Although petitions of over 3,000 signatures can be debated for fifteen minutes, a decision was made to debate Girtrell Court during the budget debate instead.
Each of the political parties on Wirral Council with more than one councillor had a slightly different policy in their budget about Girtrell Court.
The Labour budget proposed closing it, subject to a later decision of the Cabinet Member Cllr Chris Jones and Director of Adult Social Services Graham Hodkinson.
The Conservative budget removed the need to close Girtrell Court by finding savings elsewhere instead. Three of the proposed areas for savings (amongst others) the Conservatives proposed were removing the free taxi service for councillors to and from the Town Hall, deleting the Executive Support Officer post held by Martin Liptrot and reducing the Council’s press, marketing and destination management team from fourteen posts to eleven and a half.
The Lib Dem budget stated this on Girtrell Court, “Council believes that the closure of the Lyndale School and the anguished debate about the re-provision of services at Girtrell Court underline the need to work closely with service users and their families. Council has a duty of care to ensure their concerns are fully addressed.
In the case of Girtrell Court, Council requests that the Director of Adult Social Services and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health produce regular reports to Members. These must set out how a range of sufficient quality alternative services is to be achieved. Members would be failing in their duty if they were not to seek assurance about the quality, availability and capacity of the
alternatives.”
Around three hours after the meeting had started, despite many heartfelt pleas about reversing their proposed closure of Girtrell Court, there was a vote on Labour’s budget and the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
The amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems were lost (due to Labour councillors voting against them). The Labour budget was agreed (due to the majority of Labour councillors on Wirral Council).
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
8 Labour councillors vote against motion asking for delay in closure of Girtrell Court until alternatives are in place
Labour councillors (except Cllr Christina Muspratt who abstained) voting against an opposition motion on Girtrell Court at the Coordinating Committee meeting on the 16th February 2016
However there’s been a public meeting involving Girtrell Court that I haven’t reported on yet.
In the past when there were budget options out to public consultation, Wirral Council’s overview and scrutiny committees each met in public. This gave an opportunity for backbench councillors to give their views on each budget option with an opportunity for the public to hear this. If there was a difference of opinion between councillors alternatives could be put forward and voted on. That was how scrutiny used to operate at Wirral Council all done at public meetings on camera.
Around a week before the Cabinet met to decide its recommendation on the budget for 2016/17 the Coordinating Committee (who coordinate the work of the overview and scrutiny committees) met on the evening of the 16th February 2016.
I thought as Wirral Council hasn’t yet met to decide the budget for 2016/17 and people associated with Girtrell Court weren’t at this meeting that a transcript of what was said in the debate on the report from the Families and Wellbeing workshop would be useful. However you can watch this item (item 5 2016/17 Budget Scrutiny Report) for yourself in the video below. The video should start at the right point but if it doesn’t this agenda item starts at the 31 minute 7 second point and the overarching report for this agenda item can be read here.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Coordinating Committee 16th February 2016
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair, Labour): Right, the next item on the agenda is item 5 and it is the report of the workshops that looked at budget scrutiny.
Errm, Joe [Blott] do you want to say something on that?
OK, errm, OK, just briefly as a bit of an overview, we used the same approach the workshop approach this year as was used last year with each Committee holding its own workshop, to give an opportunity for its members to examine in more detail the proposals put forward by the officers.
Errm, the obvious intention was to better understand the service implications and the achievability of the proposals as they were presented.
Errm, I do think that members who took part found them errm helpful and the purpose tonight is really to note the process that we’ve used and perhaps comment on that and whether that could be improved upon in the future and also the character of the workshops and then forward these documents to the Cabinet. I know they’ve already been reproduced and they will form part of the Cabinet minutes for next week.
Errm, I think all members don’t know really of the Council understand the scale of the task that’s underway at the moment over the budget. Errm, and I do hope errm that errm, I mean we won’t be as I said earlier in the earlier report we won’t be debating these proposals tonight, that wouldn’t be appropriate but I do hope that, errm, the non-elected, non-Executive members of the Council, this can form a good part of the consultation, their views on the consultation and that’s what it’s intended to be.
I’m going to errm, I’ll give a brief overview of what happened at Families and Wellbeing and then I’ll ask the other chairs of the other two committees to do the same.
Errm, the session that was on, held by Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee was very well attended, I know unfortunately Wendy [Clements] was unwell, but other than that we had a full turn out.
Errm, and there was err, I think everybody contributed in some form during the discussion that we had. Obviously some of the proposals that were put forward generated more discussion and comment than others.
Errm, what the Committee didn’t attempt to do was to recommend or reject any of the proposals. We didn’t see that as our role.
Errm what we did use, err do, was to use the workshops to dig deeper than the narrative that was presented by errm around the proposal by officers and to examine in more detail the impact, whether that be a positive impact or a negative impact and errm if we thought there were negative impacts to highlight those and possibly make suggestions as to how the negative impact could be errm mitigated and also we looked at the achievability of the savings because in the past errm savings haven’t always been achieved and that’s presented problems in the year, in the following year.
Errm, following the workshop, further information was requested on errm, modelling the saving around the concessions on leisure could be done differently to perhaps protect some of the most errm disadvantaged children in the Borough and since then I’ve had back a report from Clare Fish which we actually asked if we could look at what the errm the effect on the saving would be for errm children who were in receipt of free school meals if they were still entitled to a swim. Errm and the report I’ve had back from Clare Fish indicates that out of a saving of two hundred and fifty, which and there was comment if you look at the night, there was comment about, about the errm, how that figure was errm obtained, but that we would reduce err, would reduce the saving by fifteen thousand, but we would initiate a cost of two swims annually. Errm, so that’s err, as I said will go forward as well.
Errm and one of the members asked at a later stage, raised an issue around the impact of the changes around the CAMHS contract and errm the information that was received from that has been included in the narrative of the report.
Errm, the report’s already been circulated to members, participants of the Committee which the service support and I’m sure Wendy [Clements] you’ve had a copy as well.
Errm, but if you believe that it has been accepted by them as an accurate reflection of the discussion on the night and I thank all those who’ve attended and took part.
Errm, now I think it’s probably reasonable to say that at this point, Phil [Gilchrist] has submitted an email today which I didn’t really have a chance to look at this morning because I was on grandma duties, but I have looked at it as the day’s gone on and errm, I don’t know whether members of the Committee have had, I have to say Phil [Gilchrist] errm, I do believe that the areas that you’ve highlighted were thoroughly explored at the workshop and the comments errm, of Members are included in the narrative of the report.
I don’t really errm, I wouldn’t like to see this Committee, try to change the work that came out of that workshop. So I mean I’m inclined to say thank you very much for your comment and I’m sure you’d be happy to have that email forwarded to the Cabinet directly from you, but I wouldn’t want to change the errm, narrative of the Families and Wellbeing errm workshop report.
Errm, now obviously if the other people feel differently I’ll have to put that to the vote, but as the Chair of the Families and Wellbeing and the person who signed off the report, errm that’s my view. That points were raised, they were explored, they have been commented on and other consultations that maybe have taken place since, can report in their own way and I’m sure they will, but this is the work of the members of the Families and Wellbeing Committee at that workshop, that night and therefore I don’t wish to change it.
OK, errm, but I’m happy, it was, I’ll take questions on this point.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): Just a comment, if it’s legitimate to receive information later on, which you mentioned earlier about the swimming cost issue, and members are able to get a bit more information on certain issues and they reflected on what’s submitted then it seems equally legitimate, no offence meant at all, to hear what’s been said, concerns that have been raised in other places since and then to reflect on what the Working Party heard and to try and satisfy ourselves as to whether..
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): I understand the point you’re making but I don’t agree with it. Errm, I actually, the points that were raised, one of them was raised on the night by a member of the Committee and the other was raised by a member of the Committee at a later stage. So I think we’re in a different situation to try and use this Committee to change or highlight an area where that was one of the conclusions. Those were a range of concerns that were raised on the night, errm on this issue, but other positive things were put forward as well, so just to highlight those would almost change the emphasis and I understand that you feel strongly and I’m sure that you will make representations and other consultations that are under way will also put their feedback in but that’s for them to do and for those people who are the subject of the consultation to do, not for members of the Families and Wellbeing and that’s, I haven’t got any more to say on it. If you want to put it as a proposal, I’m quite happy to put it to a vote.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): I think Chair, I’m conscious there are a couple of deputies, I’m conscious that there are members who have been working during the day and might not have seen what I circulated and what I did circulate was a fair summary I thought, plus some suggestions and therefore I’m conscious that not everyone might have seen it, but we often suggest things during a meeting that people haven’t seen.
Errm and I’m not sure perhaps if there are members who have seen what I wrote even though it was about ten to midnight last night. If there are members who agree that it’s reasonable to put it forward they might say so and then they might be able to judge the feeling of members because of course I’m sitting here happily on my own, in my own little group as it were, but…
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): As I say, Phil if you want to read out your email and then if you want to move it and get a seconder, errm then we’ll put it to a vote. So if that’s what you want to do, fine! And I’m quite happy to do that!
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): I’m getting some indications from members, some members are nodding who have read it that agree with the points that I’ve raised and I’m conscious it’s very lengthy.
For the courtesy of other members would you agree that I should read it out and then members can consider it?
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Yes, err Ron [Abbey] briefly, because I want to move on!
Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour): I can’t be brief on that because I think we should take the advice of the Chair and I don’t think we should have any email or debate on this.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): We want to be fair though don’t we? So I want to give Phil [Gilchrist], I mean I’m sure it’s very difficult for Phil [Gilchrist] managing on his own. Errm, and I want to give him the benefit of all our help if I can on this, so you read it out Phil and then if you want to move it as a proposal, put it.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): Thank you for your courtesy Chair.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): I’m always courteous with you.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): Yes, thank you. I’m always courteous. I’m going to read
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson):carefully and modestly.
This meeting of the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee wishes to highlight the concerns expressed by members of the budget scrutiny working party relating to services offered at Girtrell Court.
During those deliberations it was recognised that “the key challenge is to meet the needs of individuals with what can be provided” and that “assurances were sought about availability and quality of the independent sector provision and also how each person would have their needs assessed”.
It was also reported that, “all respite will be honoured until March 2016, but provision will be continued until all reviews are complete and all users have alternative provision in place”. That’s the quote.
Then I went on to write, “In view of the concerns raised since the working party met, it’s even more important that attention is given to meeting the detailed needs of the families involved.
Services need to be offered at Girtrell Court, until it is clear that a range of providers are in place and lined up to offer services truly tailored to the physical, recreational and emotional needs of the users and are demonstrably appropriate to their ages and circumstances.
In view of the tight timescales that have caused concern the officers and Cabinet need to ensure that the transition to future provision is appropriately managed with clients able to use services at Girtrell Court until such time as alternatives are duly commissioned”.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Thank you very much Phil.
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson): That’s a fair read.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): and that was well read, errm, yes, Phil, I do want to move to a vote on this and then move on.
Cllr Phillip Brightmore (Labour): I just want to voice some concern that this is being attached to a report that came from the Families and Wellbeing Committee. It just strikes me that this is something that should stand on its own as a proposal if it’s going to be brought forward at all. I was on that Committee and it, I’d like the report to remain as it was.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): I’m going to put it to a vote Phil so I don’t want everybody around the room giving their opinion because I don’t think it’s needed. Wendy [Clements]? I’ll just going to take one more comment and then I’ll have a vote if Phil wants me to put it to the vote. I’ll draw people’s attention to page fifteen of the report.
Cllr Wendy Clements (Conservative): Thank you Chair. This is a report which is coming to this Committee and so its got our name on it, this particular bunch of people that’s sat here tonight and I would like to say that I will second this.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): We’ll put it to a vote and then we’ll move on. All those in favour of Phil’s suggestion that we attach that errm email,
Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour): Has he got as seconder for that Chair?
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Well Wendy [Clements]’s just seconded it! Errm, all those in favour of that, we attach it to the report from Families and Wellbeing. Please show.
6 councillors voted in favour who were:
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat spokesperson)
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative)
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative)
Cllr David Burgess-Joyce (Conservative)
Cllr Wendy Clements (Conservative)
Cllr Tom Anderson (Conservative spokesperson)
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Right and those against?
8 councillors voted against who were:
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair)
Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour)
Cllr Phillip Brightmore (Labour)
Cllr Walter Smith (Labour)
Cllr Michael Sullivan (Labour)
Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour)
Cllr Janette Williamson (Labour)
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour)
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): So that is not carried and the report…
Cllr Christina Muspratt (Labour): Sorry, we haven’t asked for abstentions!
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Sorry ok.
Cllr Christina Muspratt (Labour): Well I’m abstaining because I haven’t had it, I don’t want to have the .. meeting.
Cllr Christina Muspratt (Labour): So I’m abstaining on all this because I’ve not been following the chain.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): OK, one abstention, but I would ask members to look at page fifteen. So now we move on to.
Cllr Christina Muspratt (Labour): Sorry could I ask a question. I’m sorry Chair but I want to ask a question on page eighteen, the CAMHS service, do we know if the money coming from the government may help with this?
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair): Well this is one reason Christina, why I’m saying we won’t be debating these tonight, because we haven’t got the officers here to answer those questions. So if you want to submit a question in your own right on that I suggest you do, but that’s why we’re not debating these proposals tonight and I will now ask Jeanette [Williamson] to give her report.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
REVEALED: Minutes of the "secret" public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations
REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations
A long time ago, in a county far,
far away….
It is a period of strife.
The rebel Conservative
and Lib Dem parties,
have won their first General
Election victory against
the Labour government.
During the battle, rebel
parties managed to steal secret
plans to the Labour government’s
ultimate weapon, private finance
initiatives, a financial device
with enough power to
cause mass privatisation.
Pursued by no one,
John Brace races home aboard a train,
with the secret plans that show
the Merseyside people which Labour
councillors signed up to this.
So for the first time, in an exclusive for this blog here are partial minutes of that meeting when councillors agreed to a massive PFI contract for many of Merseyside’s fire stations (Belle Vale, Birkenhead, Bootle & Netherton, Formby, Kirkdale, Newton Le Willows & Southport). Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would pay the PFI contractor not just for rebuilding these fire stations, but for running these fire stations for many years after. The payments to the contractors made by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority increase each year under a formula linked to the rise in the Retail Price Index. The contracts that councillors agreed to at the meeting below make up the first three boxes on the left of the photo below.
The three boxes on the left comprise the PFI fire stations contract
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
21st September 2010
PRESENT: Councillors Tony Newman (Chair), Jimmy Mahon, Dave Hanratty, Sharon Sullivan, Les Byrom, Colin Strickland, Robbie Ayres, Barbara Murray, Ted Grannell, Denise Roberts, Linda Maloney, Lesley Rennie, Gerry Ellis, Martyn Barber, Steve Niblock and Eddie Clein.
Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Jimmy Kendrick and Andrew Blackburn Independent Member Keith Pickup
1. Preliminary Matters
The Authority considered if there were any declarations of interest, matters of urgency or items that may require the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.
(a) The following declarations of interest were made in relation to items of business on the agenda:
Councillors Linda Maloney and Robbie Ayres declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off, as they both sit on St Helens Council Planning Committee.
Councillor Mahon also declared an interest to this item as he sits on Sefton Council’s Planning Committee.
(c) the following items of business required the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information:
Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off. This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
The minutes of the previous meeting of the Authority, held on 24th June 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed accordingly by the Chair.
3. PFI Project Presentation
It was requested by the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer that Mr Skarratts – Fire Brigades Union representative be permitted to stay for the presentation and discussion of this item.
The Assistant Chief Executive and Treasurer and Mr. Schofield – PFI Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation to the Authority explaining the history of the Project from conception to the current day.
During the presentation Members were asked if they had a preference when building work was to commence as the building trade closes down for two weeks over the Christmas period.
Resolved that:
(a) Members had no preference when the building work was to commence as it would seem pointless to start work mid December then to close it down again.
(b) Noted that Balfour Beatty had confirmed they would do their utmost to drive the work forward to catch up and meet the deadline.
4. PFI Project Final Sign Off
(CFO/138/10)
This Minute is EXEMPT under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
Members considered Report CFO/138/10 of the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer concerning the Final Sign Off of the North West Fire & Rescue Services Private Finance Initiative Project.
Resolved that:
(a) The Final Business Case be noted and endorsed, and its submission to CLG be approved;
(b) Arrangements for the North West Fire & Rescue Services PFI Project be approved on the basis of the financial terms and general principles contained within the report;
(c) The execution of the following documents (collectively known as “the Agreements”) be authorised:
The Project Agreement and its Schedules, being the principal agreement to be entered into between the Authority, Cumbria County Council and Lancashire Combined Fire Authorities (“the Authorities”) and Balfour Beatty Fire and Rescue NW Limited (“Project Co.”);
The Direct Agreement, being the agreement entered into between the Authorities, Nord LB and Dexia (“the Funders”) and Project Co. (“the Direct Agreement”);
The Collateral Agreements to be entered into between the parties set out below:
– The Authorities, Mansell Construction Services and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Border Construction and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Balfour Beatty Workplace and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, Blue Sky Architects and Project Co.;
– The Authorities, and any other principal building sub-contractors or relevant members of the professional team; and
– Any other Collateral Agreements required under the terms of the Project Agreement.
The Independent Certifier Deed of Appointment to be entered into between the Authorities, Project Co., the Funders and Gleeds;
The Co-operation Agreement being the agreement being entered into between (1) the Authority, (2) Cumbria County Council, and (3) Lancashire Combined Fire Authority in relation to the relationship between the Authorities for the duration of the Project (“the Co-operation Agreement”); and
Any other agreements, certificates, acknowledgements, waivers, notices, letters or other documents incidental to the documents listed above or otherwise necessary or desirable in connection with the Project.
(d) The Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins), or in his absence, the Director of Finance (Ian Cummins), be authorised to certify that the following contracts are intra vires in accordance with the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997:
the Project Agreement and its Schedules; and
the Direct Agreement
(e) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Office (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagan) or the Assistant Chief Fire Office (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) be authorised to execute the Agreements under seal on behalf of the Authority and agree that their execution of the Agreements should conclusively demonstrate approval by the Authority of the Agreements in their final form;
(f) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagen) or the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) (“the Relevant Officers”) as appropriate be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the agreements, in consultation with Dickinson Dees LLP, the Authority’s legal advisers in relation to this Project; and in consultation with the Chairman of the Authority, or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of the Authority;
(g) the Authority will indemnify any of the Relevant Officers in respect of any claims and costs relating to the contract arragements, provided that the Relevant Officer has acted reasonably and within the ordinary course of their duties.
(h) the Authority request the PFI Project Team to monitor the use of local economy and report back.
(i) Members placed their appreciation on record to the PFI Project Team for seeing the project through for the Authority.
(j) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer placed his thanks on behalf of Officers to the Authority for supporting the PFI Project.
(k) noted that Kensington Fire Station was now complete; and
(l) requested information regarding Toxteth Community Hubs to be circulated to Members.
