Tag Archives: Surjit Tour

by

Employment and Appointments Committee (Wirral Council) 27th March 2013 Compromise Agreements Part 1


The agenda and reports for this meeting can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

Present:
Cllr Paul Doughty (Chair)
Cllr Phil Davies
Cllr George Davies
Cllr Adrian Jones
Cllr Chris Jones (deputy for Cllr Ann McLachlan)
Cllr Peter Kearney
Cllr Lesley Rennie
Cllr Jeff Green

The Chair Cllr Paul Doughty welcomed people to the Employment and Appointments Committee meeting, he asked for any declarations of interest. No declarations of interest were made. He said he had received apologies from the Lib Dem spokesperson Cllr Mark Johnston and it would be possible that Cllr Harney would arrive in his place.

He gave those on the committee extra time to read the minutes of the meetings held on the 7th February and 14th February (copies of which had been handed out) as these hadn’t been included in the reports pack. Cllr Jeff Green asked if these had been published on the intranet, an officer answered that they had. Cllr Jeff Green then asked when they had been published. The officer said they hadn’t had a meeting since the 14th February, there was due to be one [on the 11th March] but it had been cancelled. The Chair asked if there were any matters arising, nobody raised any so the minutes were agreed.

Cllr Green asked if the dates of the meeting were correct, the Chair said they were right in his diary. Tony Williams (Human Resources Manager) pointed out a correction to be made to the minutes. The Chair asked if they were happy for him to sign the minutes?

The Chair said that agenda item 11 on Monitoring Compromise Agreements had been dealt with in the open part of the meeting last time and he proposed the same at this meeting.

Cllr Green said they were simply appendices and he couldn’t spot anything specific.

Chris Hyams said that referring to item ten, she was recommending it stays exempt. Cllr Jeff Green said that it didn’t identify people, but Chris Hyams disagreed and said individuals could be identified. Cllr Green asked how anyone would do that as he could see no reason at all for it to exempt as individuals would be really difficult to identify. Chris Hyams said that the report had been consistently exempt and individuals could be identified. The Chair said for consistency they would continue with item 10 being exempt. Cllr Green asked how you could see who the individuals are?

Cllr Chris Jones said that people know who’s on the redeployment register so they would be able to identify them. Surjit Tour said that the test was if through reasonable inquiry they could work out who the individuals were or could enable their identity to be revealed.

Chris Hyams said that when the numbers were lower it was easier to identify individuals.

The Chair moved the meeting on to item 3 (Managing Attendance).

About these ads
by

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) bans filming again


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.

I discussed this with a Labour councillor after the meeting. He said that one of his councillors had tried to film their grandchildren’s nativity play at a school and been stopped by school staff. This guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office entitled “Data Protection Good Practice Note Taking Photographs in Schools” shows this was incorrect.

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.

by

Standards Committee (Wirral Council) 19th November 2012 Part 1 Councillors debate the complaints system


Present
Standards Committee
Independent
Mr Brian Cummings MBE
Mr David Robert Burgess-Joyce
Mr Chris Jones
Prof Ronald Samuel Jones
Labour
Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr Bill Davies
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Steve Foulkes deputy for Cllr Moira McLaughlin
Cllr Chris Meaden deputy for Cllr Ron Abbey
Conservative
Cllr Chris Blakeley
Cllr Les Rowlands
Cllr Leah Fraser

Wirral Council Officers
Surjit Tour
Shirley Hudspeth
Geoff Paterson

Apologies for the ~19 minutes missing from the start of the meeting. No declarations of interest were made and the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd July 2012 were agreed. In item 3, it was agreed that one of the independent persons sit on the Standards Working Group.

Surjit Tour introduced his report on whether reports made in response to complaints about councillors between 2008 and 2012 could be made public and the legal framework.

Cllr Foulkes declared asked if as a person who had made a complaint or had had a complaint made against them, did this mean he had to declare a conflict of interest?

Surjit Tour answered that it wasn’t a prejudicial interest, but it didn’t prevent him declaring a personal interest.

Cllr Foulkes declared a personal interest, so did Cllr Blakeley, Cllr Roberts, Cllr Salter and Cllr Rowlands (who then asked for a blanket personal interest to be recorded for everyone that fell into this category).

Surjit Tour continued summarising his report, detailing the legislation and the consequences he felt would arise from publishing reports (as outlined in 2.f(i) of his report), ranging from “unwanted media attention”, discouraging legitimate complaints and other reasons.

Cllr Blakeley asked about the obligation to publish in the local press the findings unless the councillor stated they didn’t want this to happen, he asked if the person who was the subject of the complaint consented to disclosure could the report be published?

Surjit Tour stated this would require the consent of the other parties. This is the point at which the video of the meeting starts.

Cllr Blakeley said, “It is very easy for people to make complaints, and just get away with it because they’ve submitted a complaint and there’s no case to answer, the person complained against is subject to an investigation, been put through that stress and turmoil and the complainant just walks away with a smile on their face, so I think the complainant should have to take some flak if there is no case to answer.”

Surjit Tour responded to Cllr Blakeley’s comments.

Cllr Foulkes said, “… I think the Council’s reputation is bad enough at the moment, with more difficult things at hand, do we want to invent another mechanism for dredging up stuff that’s gone on many, many years previous to that? … Imagine the position where picking out where we have someone who is a persistent complainant or someone who may have a different view of the world, and continually complains, with the knowledge that whatever they say would find the light of day?

We all know that subsequently we have a press that report things, they don’t report things to make it you know uninteresting, they will use any lurid issues or any lurid accusations that the complainant makes during the complaint process and a little paragraph at the end reading “no case to answer” so, so we have all the public glare of something that might have been … not to say the complaint was vexatious, but there was no case to answer and you have the whole story of the whole complaint aired in public, and we all know how the press … and if we all know what the rules are from now on, that there is an extreme likelihood, a high percentage that the findings and the report itself may find in the public gaze, then that’s how we’re all entering the whole system of complainants and those who’ve been complained against but I think it’s a little bit unfair to retrospectively to publish past reports…”

Surjit Tour pointed out that s.63 of the Local Government Act 2000 c.22 still applies to information obtained during an investigation and that confidentiality still applies.

by

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 28th September 2012 Any Other Urgent Business Approved by the Chair


Interest declaration: The author is a member of a trade union and a member of the media affected by this law change.

There was an Any Other Business item at Wirral Council’s Cabinet last night, with a recommendation from Surjit Tour, the Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management (which was agreed). It seems to be in response to a point I made a week ago by email to a Wirral Council councillor when the Cabinet agenda was published and follows on from this blog post, as the law referred to came into effect on the 10th September 2012.

I had previously brought it up with my trade union, that Wirral Council didn’t seem to be complying with the new law, which is why I followed the approach suggested and brought it up with Wirral Council’s legal team and the people involved. One councillor on the Cabinet has asked for an email about it which I will write in the near future.

URGENT BUSINESS

Recommendation

That Cabinet authorises the Council’s Chief Officers to seek all requisite consents and/or agreement on behalf of Cabinet from relevant persons as required by The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 where an item to be considered by Cabinet includes exempt information and it is not possible to provide at least 28 clear days notice of that item.

Personally, it’s not quite resulting in the outcome of considerably more openness and accountability I had hoped for (although most legislation has caveats and loopholes that can be exploited). It is however, a step in the right direction as it (hopefully) provides a check and balance on the executive power of the all-Labour Cabinet’s future attempts to make decisions behind closed doors resulting in less scrutiny from the press and public, as really (because to do so without giving 28 days notice they have to first seek consent from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee first) should (unless officers and councillors are deliberately trying to make an administration make major decisions in secret) only happen very rarely.

This seems to be one small step on the way to complying with the legislation (whether the spirit and intent behind the legislation is followed depends how Wirral Council implement it in practice), which means regulation 5(2) and 5(3) don’t have to be complied with (see regulation 5(6)) if the part of the meeting held in private is “urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred” and they get the agreement of the relevant Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (or if they’re not available others are mentioned)).

Personally as last night’s Cabinet meeting (it wasn’t a special meeting but a regular one) was in the calendar of meetings decided on the 12th April 2012 and it was a matter that had been known about since 26th June 2012, why wasn’t the 28 clear days notice given (which would’ve had to have been given around the end of August 2012)? Well firstly, the Colas matter did need urgent attention (as Colas have been behaving churlishly since the public interest report by the Audit Commission as to how the contract was awarded to them was published and announced they don’t want the contract past 2014. So who’s Cabinet Portfolio does these two items fall under? It’s Cllr Harry Smith’s (Labour), the Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport.

Personally I think it should be the relevant Cabinet Member or Cabinet asking for consent from another councillor rather than Chief Officers on their behalf, although the legislation can be interpreted in different ways. In my opinion what was agreed last night puts too much power in Chief Officer’s hands, whose powers of persuasion over Wirral councillors are well-known.

by

Employment and Appointments Committee 22/3/2012 Wirral Council


As it was a short meeting I’ve already uploaded it to Youtube. It’s in two parts, part 1 (the first twelve minutes) and part 2 (the last eight minutes), which are also below.

The agenda and reports can be found on Wirral Council’s website except at the time of writing this, the AOB item entitled “Proposed Change to Senior Management Position”. It’s four pages which I’ve scanned in, Page 1, Page 2, Page 3 and Page 4.

The result of these changes will be that:-

(a) David Armstrong is appointed Acting Deputy Chief Executive,
(b) Surjit Tour becomes Deputy Monitoring Officer and stops being Scrutiny Officer (Head of Legal and Member Services) and
(c) Shirley Hudspeth, Democratic Services Manager stops being Democratic Services Manager and becomes Scrutiny Officer (Head of Legal and Member Services).

The Committee agreed to recommend (a) and (c) to Council and noted (b).

Items 5 (Chief Executives Office) and 7 (Department of Regeneration, Housing and Planning: Senior Management Structure) were deferred to a future meeting.

by

Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee (Wirral Council) Part 1 19/3/2012 Agenda items 1(Declarations of Interest), 2 (Minutes), 3 (Sex Establishment fees) & 5 (Local Election fees 2012/2013)


Well on the 19th March 2012, I attended the well-attended Licensing, Health & Safety & General Purposes Committee in Committee Room 1. There were the usual people there such as taxi drivers and union reps and a few new faces from Merseytravel, as well as the committee of councillors and officers.

The committee composed of the following councillors (Cllr Ian Lewis (Conservative) was absent):-

Labour (5)
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair)
Cllr Patricia Glasman
Cllr Chris Jones
Cllr Steve Niblock
Cllr Irene Williams

Conservative (3)
Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson)
Cllr Kate Wood
Cllr Tom Anderson

Liberal Democrats (1)
Cllr Bob Wilkins (Lib Dem spokesperson)

The following Wirral Council officers were there to support the committee:-
Committee clerk: Anne Beauchamp
Legal adviser: Mr. Ken Abraham
Others: Margaret O’Donnell, Mr. Robert Beresford + others I don’t know the name of

The meeting started late with the Chair apologising for the wait as they were waiting for their legal team in regards to item 3 (Proposed election fees 2012/2013). He apologised again for the wait and said they would skip item 3 until Surjit Tour arrived.

He started the meeting with item 1 and asked for any declarations of interest.

Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson) apologised for Cllr Ian Lewis who was not present.

No declarations of interest were made, so they moved to item 2, which was the minutes of the last meeting.

Cllr Steve Niblock objected to the list of people attending the last meeting as he had not been at the last meeting due to being at the Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting which was also held on the 8th March.

He said he couldn’t be in two places at the same time, so he had sent Cllr Salter in his place as deputy. Therefore he asked for the minutes to be changed and his name replaced with Cllr Salter. The Chair said they would make sure it was changed. With the amendment to the minutes, the minutes (item 2) were agreed and the Committee skipped item 3 to item 4 (Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences).

The Chair explained they would also skip item 4 and deal with it at the end.

At this point a councillor’s mobile phone started ringing and the Committee moved to item 5 sex establishment fees. Margaret O’Donnell introduced this report about the licensing of sex establishments and referred to various pieces of legislation including section 27 of the “Police and Crime Act 2009″, although she actually meant the Policing and Crime Act 2009. She asked the Committee to consider what fees should be charged by Wirral Council for receiving applications. She suggested £1,200 per an application based on an estimate of what costs would be incurred.

At this point 6.15pm Surjit Tour arrived fifteen minutes late and sat down.

Cllr Niblock asked if the £1,200 was just for a new one or the same for a renewal too?

Margaret replied that yes, she suggested £1,200 for both.

Item 5 was agreed that Wirral Council would charge £1,200 for new applications and £1,200 for renewals of sex establishment licences.

The Chair asked Surjit Tour to explain to the meeting his report,item 3 (proposed election fees for 2012/2013).

Surjit Tour asked the Chair if he wanted him to go ahead so they could agree the suggestions? The Chair agreed. Surjit Tour apologised for being late, he had thought the meeting started at 6.15pm, Ed – it was supposed to start at 6.00pm, he apologised again for his late arrival.

He explained that the election fees were proposed fees and were payments made to staff by the Returning Officer. There was no specific guidance or formula used as this was a local issue. The way it had previously been arrived at by the previous Chief Executive/Returning Office Steve Maddox was a yearly increase to take into account inflation. The increase for this year was therefore 3.9%, however it was calculated on the basis of individual wards. Neighbouring authorities fees were included in the report for comparison.

The Merseyside Electoral Administration team also discussed such matters at a meeting. However because of difficulties facing staff he proposed the following changes to those figures in the report.

(a) polling station inspector increased from £190 to £565.

(b) Deputy Returning Officer fee increased from a flat fee of £459.42 (per ward)  to 50% of the Returning Officer’s fee (£5,127.98 * 50%) = £2,563.99 (per ward)

The Chair thanked him for the report. The committee agreed the recommendations and changes. He thanked Surjit Tour again.

Related articles
by

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


Present (part of Standards Committee)

Independent

Ken Harrison (Vice-Chair)
Alex Nuttall

Conservative

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

Labour

Cllr Denise Roberts
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Bill Davies

Liberal Democrat

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

Officers

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

Press/public

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

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

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

Item 1 Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

Cllr Ann Bridson declared an interest in item 5.

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

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

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

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

Cllr Ann Bridson asked about item 4?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surjit Tour said she would be out, then in.

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

Item 2 Minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chair said it was in the pipeline.

Related articles
by

Scrutiny Programme Board 4th January 2012 Part 1, Declarations of Interest, Minutes


Present

Councillors
Cllr Andrew Hodson (Chair)
Cllr Simon Mountney (Vice-Chair)
Cllr Patricia Glasman (Spokesperson)
Cllr Ann Bridson (Spokesperson)
Cllr Ron Abbey
Cllr Chris Blakeley
Cllr Pat Hackett
Cllr Adam Sykes
Cllr Jerry Williams

Officers
Mark Delap, Committee Clerk
Surjit Tour, Head of Legal and Member Services
Another Wirral Council officer

Two members of the public.

The Chair, Cllr Andrew Hodson said good evening to everyone and commented on the fact that Cllr Bridson was looking better since he’d last seen her, but was not looking 100%.

Cllr Ron Abbey said there’d been no improvement in the Chair.

The Chair, Cllr Andrew Hodson said it had been three weeks since he’d seen Cllr Bridson and she looked a lot better. He asked those present to turn their mobile phones off. Cllr Hodson then asked councillors if they had any declarations of interest to make.

1. Declarations of Interest

Cllr Patricia Glasman asked for advice on a declaration of interest.

Cllr Tony Smith arrives late and apologised for being late.

Cllr Patricia Glasman says that it is about her role as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Surjit Tour replied that it was up to Cllr Glasman if she wished to declare an interest.

2. Minutes

The Chair, Cllr Andrew Hodson asked if members of the Committee were happy with the minutes [of the meeting held on the 8th September 2011]

Cllr Bridson said on page three, the top item there was a summary of complaints made against councillors that had led to a vibrant discussion. She said she had asked for costs to be presented, this had been agreed and noted.

Surjit Tour said he was happy to give to councillors this information as soon as possible.

Cllr Bridson said it was important the public knew how much they were spending when making inappropriate complaints.

Cllr Blakeley said it had been referred to the Standards Committee.

Surjit Tour said he would check it and apologised.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it had gone to the last Standards Committee meeting, however some final costs had yet to be decided.

The Chair, Cllr Hodson said he wanted it minuted.

by

Audit & Risk Management Committee (Wirral Council) 29th November 2011 Part 4 Internal Audit Update


Cllr Abbey said he had to be as blunt as this as time after time, actions had not been actioned. He had suspicions it was deliberate. He said the corporate governance recommendations had not been actioned, damage done and that they should have people sitting at this committee as it was a very important meeting in going forward. Cllr Abbey said they can’t do corporate governance without the relevant officers present and it was symptomatic of the problems.

Cllr Jim Crabtree said he apologised on Surjit’s behalf, Surjit had a meeting tomorrow and work to do and had asked Cllr Crabtree if he was needed.

Cllr Ron Abbey said they had more important and pressing matters and nothing was more important than good…

Cllr Jim Crabtree said Colin Hughes was in the building.

Cllr Ron Abbey said senior people were not here and they were “paying lip service” to “addressing issues”.

Cllr James Keeley said he agreed. It was a “statutory committee” and it was outrageous they had no legal adviser.

Cllr Jim Crabtree said he could adjourn the committee until one was found.

Cllr Alan Brighouse said he shared the concerns.

Cllr Jim Crabtree said Surjit had asked if he was really needed as tomorrow he had a tribunal.

Cllr Ron Abbey said he appreciated officers could be unable to attend, but a replacement officer should be a matter of course. He appreciated David Taylor-Smith was here on behalf of the Department of Finance, but there was no-one from the Department of Law, Human Resources and Asset Management.

by

Standards Hearing Panel (Wirral Council) 21st November 2011 Part 1


Standards Hearing Panel (Wirral Council) 21/11/2011 9:15am

Present:
Independent (2)
Ken Harrison
Stella Elliott

Councillors (3)
Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative)
Cllr Bill Davies (Labour) arrived at 9:18am
Cllr Pat Williams (Lib Dem) arrived at 9:20am

Officers present:
Surjit Tour, Deputy Monitoring Officer representing Bill Norman (Monitoring Officer)
Shirley Hudspeth, Committee Services Officer & Clerk
Rosemary Lyons, Investigating Officer

Press/Public:
Denis Knowles
John Brace (press)
Leonora Brace

The meeting started late (instead of at 9.15am) due to not all of the panel being present and some councillors (who were late) missing extra paperwork handed out which was handed out to those who were late along with an explanation.

The meeting started with Ken Harrison saying “Good morning” and explaining that as Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee he would be chairing the panel. He explained there was a problem which would mean the meeting would be deferred to a further date Ed – which turned out to be two months later on 24th January 2012. This was because of further paperwork which they needed time to act upon and digest, otherwise it would not be fair to Mr. Knowles and the public. Ken Harrison apologised for the waste of time, which he had no control over.

Denis Knowles asked if this was further evidence that Ken Harrison had referred to?

Cllr Chris Blakeley said it referred to reference material, specifically appendix 1 and 2. He said it was “outrageous”.

Surjit Tour said in answer to Denis Knowles’s question, “No”.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said they had “acted terribly”, that three minutes before the meeting was to start paperwork had been handed out. He said he would be writing to Bill Norman [Monitoring Officer] about the Legal Department’s approach.

Denis Knowles said he was “only a pawn”, that he “fully understands”, that it was “not fair on you” and that he was “happy to come back”.

A member of the panel misheard what Denis Knowles said as prawn.

The meeting was adjourned to a later date.