Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

Have the “bureaucratic machinations” returned to Wirral Council?

                         

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

Following yesterday’s blog post Surjit Tour emailed councillors (and myself) with his advice. My two replies to his advice are below. We’ll see what happens next.

from: Tour, Surjit surjittour [at] wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com

cc: “Davies, Phil L. (Councillor)” ,
“Smith, Tony A. (Councillor)” ,
“Foulkes, Steve (Councillor)” ,
“Brighouse, Alan (Councillor)” ,
“Hodson, Andrew C. (Councillor)” ,
“Harney, Tom (Councillor)” ,
“Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)” ,
“Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)” ,
Cllr Ian Lewis ,
“Povall, Cherry (Councillor)” ,
“Williams, Patricia M. (Councillor)” ,
“Burgess, Graham” ,
“Roberts, Andrew D.”

date: 11 February 2014 17:42
subject: RE: Cabinet (12th February 2014) Agenda Item 7 Schools Budget 2014/15 and call in of Cabinet minute 140 (proposals for changes to school top up payments for students with high needs)
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Brace

Thank you for your email.

In the event that the Schools Budget is approved at the Council meeting on 25 February, that does not preclude any action that may or may not arise as a result of the call-in hearing scheduled for 27 February being followed through.

Paragraph 4.6.5 of the Schools Budget Report outlines the purpose of the SEN Top Up Contingency, one of which is:

“Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.”

The call-in therefore remains a valid issue to be determined.

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
Department of Transformation and Resources
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED

Tel: 0151 691 8569
Fax: 0151 691 8482
Email: surjittour [at] wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

First reply (to same recipients as above)

Dear Surjit Tour,

Thank you for your email. You are right that the report to Cabinet states at 4.6.5 “Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups” and imply in your email that this “review of High Needs Top Ups” refers to the call in meeting on the 27th February.

This is also what was stated at 2.6.5 in the report that went to the Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 (agenda item 4 Schools Budget Report 2014/15) published on the 17th January 2014 (see
http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50016401/Schools%20Budget%20Report%202014-2015.pdf ).

That report was published one day after it was decided at Cabinet (minute 140) on the item Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs that “the Special Schools Contingency is used to support specialist provision facing financial difficulties (amendment to the second sentence of recommendation 3)” (a decision that was called in).

Therefore

a) the special schools contingency existed in a report before the item was called in and
b) is part of the decision at the 16th January Cabinet that was called in.

Bearing this in mind, perhaps this explains to you my view that the schools budget report going to Cabinet tomorrow contains elements of a decision that have been called in.

Finally, as the line “Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups” existed in a report to the Schools Forum before this item was called in, it therefore cannot be referring to any decision arising from the call ins or the call in meeting.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

2nd reply (same recipients plus Emma Degg also copied in)

Dear Mr Tour (and others),

In order to make my views crystal clear I will outline a few different scenarios that will result should the Schools Budget for 2014/15 be agreed by Cabinet this evening and referred to Budget Council on the 25th February 2014.

Scenario 1

All members of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call ins are also members of Council. They each vote on the budget (including the schools budget), voting on an identical budget & policy to the decision which has been called in. This year because of a change in legislation it will be done as a card vote. The press will report how politicians voted and this information will be known by the public on the 26th. Some people will therefore think that when councillors meet again on the 27th that they have already made their minds up and that whatever happens at the Coordinating Committee they will vote the way they did 48 hours previous to the meeting.

It will be seen as predetermination of the call in matters at best and a prejudicial interest at worst. The constitution describes the Coordinating Committee as an overview and scrutiny committee and the Code of Conduct has this to state on such matters:

12. In relation to any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of the Council (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where –

…….

12.3 that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by you (whether by virtue of the Authority’s Constitution or under delegated authority from the Leader):

You may attend a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committees of the Council or of a sub committees of such a committee but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving
evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purposes, whether under a statutory right or otherwise.

In other words, voting at Budget Council two days before the call ins is seen as according to the Code of Conduct as generating a prejudicial interest that would prevent councillors voting at the
Coordinating Committee.

Scenario 2
The Schools Budget is referred to Budget Council. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee declare a prejudicial interest in the vote on the schools budget by virtue of the call in and don’t participate in that part of the Budget setting process.

Scenario 3
The Schools Budget is decided at the reserve budget meeting after the Coordinating Committee decides the call ins (which would seem to be the most sensible option).

Finally, I will point out that officers re tabling identical proposals (that have been called in but not yet decided) is certainly not a good idea as it puts councillors in the difficult position as outlined above. I’ve made my position clear that the constitution states “and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed.”

Do you genuinely believe that the Cabinet making a decision to recommend the Schools Budget to Budget Council, with identical proposals in it to that which have been called in is complying with this part of the constitution? Is the Council’s constitution just being ignored or do you just have a massively different interpretation on words whose meaning would seem crystal clear to me?

I hope you reconsider and to avoid the above scenarios happening and advise Cabinet that the schools budget would be best decided at the reserve Budget Council meeting after the call in meeting has met and reached a decision on the call ins.

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

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

                            

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

This is a rather complicated saga, so it’s best to go back to the beginning and have a recap of what’s happened so far in chronological order. Way back on the 16th January despite an emotional plea from a parent, the Labour Cabinet decided to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting the same Cabinet also decided to agree to change how they divide up funding for pupils at special schools (which has an effect on Lyndale School).

On the 20th January I wrote a blog post headlined “Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?” which included two polls. The first poll asked readers if they thought the decision was lawful (so far 92.31% think it wasn’t and 7.69% that it was) as well as a second poll on whether the decision should be called in (75% voted yes, 25% voted no).

The two decisions were then called in by councillors. The decision to consult on closing Lyndale was called in by Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Ian Lewis, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Pat Williams. The decision on allocating funding (called proposals for change to school top up payments for students with high needs) was also called in by the same six councillors.

A meeting of the Coordinating Committee was arranged to consider the call in which prompted a blog post titled Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council Committee? along with another poll that asked whether it should be decided by the Coordinating Committee or the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee along with another poll in which 100% voted that it should be decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.

I wrote a further blog post on the 4th February headlined The Reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee met on the 5th February (covered in “When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…”) and agreed a recommendation to adjourn the call in meeting to the 27th February until after the Council meeting on the 25th so that Council could co-opt the necessary parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives onto the Coordinating Committee.

At this point it’s worth pointing out what it states in Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins (it’s at 35 (3)(b) (page 138) if you wish to check this out for yourself) “(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.”

I’ve added some underlining to emphasise the bit “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed”.

However agenda item seven for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting has an agenda item “Schools Budget 2014/15”, which is officer’s recommendation to Cabinet for the schools budget which will then be recommended to Budget Council on the 25th February.

At 4.3.5 of the report to Cabinet it states the following:

4.3.5 High Needs Block

The make up of this block is complex. It is based on the “place plus” system introduced by the DfE [Department for Education] from April 2013 and includes:

  • Special schools (pre and post 16), school bases and independent non-maintained special schools. All receive a base level funding of £10,000 per place following agreement of place numbers with the Education Funding Agency (EFA).
  • Alternative Provision Bases and WASP. This provision is funded at £8,000 per place.
  • Additional funding over and above that provided for places will be paid in the form of “top ups”. These will be provided on a per pupil basis. The top up, or “plus” element of funding, is based on the agreed assessed needs of pupils and is paid by the “commissioner” responsible; this may be Wirral Children’s Services, a school or another Local Authority. In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.
  • The costs of all education and training for post 16 specialist and LLDD provision (top ups) to colleges and private providers.
  • The Hospital Schools budget

Compare the above to the report titled Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs which went to be decided by Cabinet on the 16th January, resulted in Cabinet agreeing the proposals and was then called in (quoted below).

2.2 “with each school receiving an amount of £10,000 per place and an additional top up based on individual pupil needs.”

2.4 “Top Up funding (ie the “Plus” element) reflects the additional support costs in excess of place funding for individual pupils and students and takes into account factors such as the pupils individual needs and facilities / support provided.”

“This is a significant piece of work that has been undertaken with Wirral’s Schools Forum’s SEN Finance Steering Group, the outcome of which has resulted in a banded approach to top ups for:”

“Students in post 16 provision with element three costs; Further Education Colleges, Sixth Forms and Independent Specialist Providers (ISP);

Basically the proposals mean the same (but written with slightly different words). If these recommendations from officers on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 are agreed by Cabinet, it will become recommendations to Budget Council on the 25th February (and recommendations to Council can’t be called in). If that’s the case then the call in decision by the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February on the top up payments for students with high needs becomes a fait accompli as the decision on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 will have been made already by Council on the 25th February.

I pointed this out by email to the Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith), Cllr Phil Davies (who chairs Cabinet meetings), the Chair and spokespersons on the Coordinating Committee, the councillors who called in the decisions, Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer), Graham Burgess (Chief Executive who has a role in the call in process) and Andrew Roberts (the officer who wrote the report to Cabinet) which outlined what had happened and contained the following four questions.

I know there is a reserve Budget meeting set aside for the 4th March. Therefore my questions are:

1) Would it not be better to consider the schools budget on the 4th March as by this time the decisions reached by the call in meeting on the 27th February will be known?

2) Bearing in mind the constitutional requirement that “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed” can either the Cabinet on Wednesday recommend a schools budget (when an element of that budget being proposed has been called in) or Council on the 25th February decide on a schools budget (for the same reasons) without being accused of making a decision in breach of Wirral’s constitution?

3) If the schools budget is to be decided on the 4th March, will an extra Cabinet meeting be required between the 27th February and the 4th March to consider any recommendations arising from the call in
meeting?

and

4) In order for these decisions to be made according to Wirral Council’s constitution does this require the budget council procedure (agreed by Cabinet on the 16th January) to be altered so that the
schools budget is dealt with as a separate matter to the rest of the Budget?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I look forward to either hearing a response to these questions at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting or receiving a formal response by email before then.

So far I’ve received responses from two councillors. One just stated “Thank you for the information”, the reply from the other councillor stated that they’d follow up my query with the report author Andrew Roberts.

So what’s really going on? The line written in the report “In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.” makes it sound like the outcome of the call in is being predicted by an officer before it’s even taken place! So what’s really going on? Does anybody really know or is this just the uniquely strange and peculiar way that Wirral Council makes decisions?

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

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued)

                        

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub.

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Also the plot in front of you doesn’t have any access to the highway and fronts the street. There’s very little space in that it’s actually quite a small plot of land.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Tony?

Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton Council, Labour): Thanks Tony too. Do you have any details of the acquisition of the land neighbouring the land and when the current owners took possession of that land about the date that they purchased that land for? Whether it was because it was a big piece of land…about it was eighteen months.. the land valuation office about the land valuation office so it gives you a better guide as to not what they wanted, but what they already paid for the land that they’ve already got?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): I’m sorry I don’t have those details but I’ll see what I can find out.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Again Steve?

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): I suggest progress Chair that I think this, now that it’s a public document which I think it should be, the land valuation is out there and in you know the public arena. We’re unlikely then, to get any more than this for this piece of land but can we ask officers to consider the options that Members have raised when parcels of land like this as a general policy that we go to auction or we use that methodology to see if we can get the best return we can on any piece of land or any asset that we sell?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Yeah absolutely and I think that it’s central to the way that we deal with any asset I would sell in making sure that now the District Auditor and the District Valuer at all times for any disposal or acquisition with us in getting that relevant necessary advice at all times. Mary?

Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Just a kind of an afterthought really Chair. It would be interesting to know what pieces of land we do own and where they are so that we can be forewarned if you like we know nothing just jump out of the ground and be flogged off rather cheaply in the future? Just to make as all aware.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): And I think fundamentally all these things are captured in our asset register and it would be useful to actually have a workshop for all Members to take Members through everything that remains within the asset register and what its strategic long-term how its potential is. Ken?

Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley Council, Labour): Thanks Chairman. We used to have a New Deal for Communities earlier in across my area in Huyton and when we demolished about eleven hundred houses the price of the land then was at the maximum. Now we’re lucky to get a third of that price for that land and what we’re looking to do now is hold onto the land so we’ve got a development project. We already have developments there.

When they’ve finished one plot, hopefully that will sort of drive up the price of the next plot up. So the price of land at the moment is at an all time low and about ..%. The price has been advertised so nobody is going to pay more than the advertised price.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Gordon?

Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton Council, Labour): Just really a technical point on how we put this in the public domain. If we decided that we really wanted to seek an auction price for this meeting, we’d have declared our hand by it being a public document. Would we compromise ourselves? So I just wonder … that the information was regarding this, the mark down, but are we best advised putting this in the public arena with this being sold in anyway? Thank you very much Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool City Council, Labour): Ok, if there’s no further contributions, if I can move the recommendation in paragraph seven of the report?

Councillors: Agreed.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

                        

At Thursday’s meeting of Merseytravel, councillors had to decide whether to sell a Liverpool pub (bought for £106,174 in May 2009) for only £18,000. The pub was bought as part of the since axed Merseytram scheme. According to the report prepared for councillors it was “overgrown with vegetation”, “substantially demolished” and only retained its front walls. Due to fly tipping Merseytravel was served with a “environmental enforcement order” by Liverpool City Council. Despite its unloved state, since being purchased by Merseytravel, “minimal works to improve the site have been completed by Ascot Property Group in 2013”.

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 6 (Disposal of Land)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item number six is the disposal plans, Tony’s going to actually present that <A HREF="“>report, I’m just going to make the point that this part of the land is actually falls within my ward, I’ve checked with the Monitoring Officer and I don’t need to declare an interest because I have no personal interest in the matter. I did want to make that clear beforehand, so Tony?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Thank you Chair. Yeah, Merseytravel owns a small plot of land on the corner of West Derby Road as you can see in the report. This proposal is to accept an offer for the sale of it to an organisation called The Lofts (Ormskirk) Management Limited.

The background to this property purchase on behalf of our Merseytram scheme was to secure the land for the tram. Obviously now that the site is owned by ourselves, we’ve further looked to try and dispose of it. We have taken a decision it’s important to establish.

Effectively the building is just a façade, it’s just a shell, it’s an old pub, it’s derelict, it’s been knocked down. In fact recently it was identified by the city council as an eyesore and obviously I’ve been exploring there’s actually been a lot of debris and fly tipping from the site. At the moment it’s a liability to us and what we’re looking to try and do is dispose of it.

The advice of the District Auditor is effectively we should pursue a meeting and sell to the adjacent landowner, who’s actually preparing a land package to … a large … of the site. Our understanding is that there’s going to be a planning application for residential and then retail usage. The proposal is that we’ve had from them is to sell for £18,000 which is a reduction on what we purchased it for, details are in the report and if you want me to take any questions Chair on the proposal?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah, thanks Tony. Les and Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Yeah, I can understand the issues around this particular piece of land and it’s got a history of causing us problems. We are expending revenue on looking after the piece of land I guess, but my question and challenge is really about how we deal with what maybe I don’t know a portfolio of bits of land that are this. Some of them may be a remnant of Merseytram, others may be different but particularly there is another methodology of getting rid of land where you go through open auction, you do it through an agent and you don’t know who the owner is. Sometimes that brings a better price or a worse price.

The argument that’s sort of been discussed or debated is should we have gone to auction with this rather than just simply .. bid we’d have got more money. Or if we auctioned it now with a reserve price of £18,000 would we get more potentially?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): I’ll just say Chair, we did look at obviously going to auction there’s a cost but there’s no guarantees that there’d be buyers. The advice from the District Auditor was that the best option including the landlord who’s actually bought the plots of land is to make the best bid. If we want to open auction there would only be one bid and we may only get the reserve price.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Shane do you want to add to that?

Shane Fitzpatrick (Senior Head of Operations, Merseytravel): Just to add a comment on that, the land obviously was acquired from the Liverpool City Council and one of the conditions of the sale was to offer that back as an option. That was not, there was no take up on that offer.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks for that Shane, I’ve got Les first and then Tony.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative)): Chair, I was going to bring up the auction thing but that having been said now, looking at what it was bought for £106,000 and what we’re asking for it now £18,000 is actually a very low price for a plot of land that’s built some buildings on.

I mean I know in Wirral there’s been some damage to prices, but round about £80,000 to £90,000 for a plot of land for a house. So when I see £18,000 I mean I take it into account that it is a piece of land that’s been you know misused, fly tipping and everything else but it’s still a fair amount of land for £18,000. Surely you could have done a bit better than £18,000?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Obviously that reflects the condition of the land. It’s actually derelict and it’s only a façade wall, it’s completely derelict land. Also …

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued).

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

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

                               

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 4 (Tunnel Toll Setting 2014/15). The report for this agenda item can be downloaded from Merseytravel’s website.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item four is the tunnel tolls setting process for 2014/2015, Gary and Frank do you want to introduce the report?

Merseytravel officer (Gary Evans, Head of Customer Delivery): Thank you Chair. Members will have the report in front of them, just to summarise the report it’s very consistent with previous year’s toll setting arrangements. Section two of the report details the legal process that the Authority must follow in considering and setting toll levels for the year. Section three actually details the authorised toll levels that were triggered in line with the Tunnels Act 2004 by RPI levels published in November 2013.

Section four covers the actual tolls that have been charged over the past five years and helps give Members a historical view around the authorised levels compared to actual levels charged along with the Fast Tag discount offered and that detail is in section four. Section five of the report, in determining the tolls Members must take account of issues of an economic and social nature in their decision making process. Section five details a range of economic and social data for the Merseyside region for 2013. This range of evidence will allow Members to have a considered opinion.

In section six Members will be aware that some of the principles of the Tunnels Act are to ensure that toll levels are broadly in line with other transport options in the region and section six details the cost of those alternative or comparable cross river transport services in place. Finally section eight of the report it details that any potential toll increase of ten pence, passed on vehicles in other classes generates the Authority approximately £2.4 million per an annum. I’m happy to take any questions on that report.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks Gary. Are there any questions or comments for Gary in the first instance? Steve?

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Thanks Chair and clearly as a Wirral representative it’s a highly sensitive issue and a difficult issue for Wirral Members to deal with because I think it is well accepted that the major impact of the tunnel toll increase does fall on Wirral residents and a great number of other residents indeed who use the tunnel on a daily basis as a commuter route or route to work. So clearly it is a difficult issue, I just want to lay out though a few issues.

This is my, having been new to the Authority last year this is the second time I’ve been confronted by this difficult decision and it is a decision we have to make because there’s a little bit of a clue in the name of this organisation, it’s the integrated transport authority and those people who want to separate the tunnel as a separate entity are missing a trick. The tunnel is integral to the things we do. Integrated transport means all routes whether it be bus, whether it be train, whether it be ferry, whether it be people who use the tunnel and the tunnel is in our ownership. So it falls upon us to make this, make this difficult, often very difficult decision.

One of the factors Gary referred to is the issue in and around the economy and whilst we are being told by the government everything’s great and the economy’s on the uplift. The economy always grows slower in the north-west. I think the economy at the moment is the, economic growth is so fragile that the tunnel toll in our sort of own mini economic scenario may be something that doesn’t help the economy, in fact hinders it and slows it down even further. At the same time as hailing that the economy is on the up, Chancellor Osborne consistently refers to further austerity packages.

Austerity for the north west, well austerity for local government means you are singled out and are hit with the biggest cuts. Austerity for north-west local authorities means that you are picked out for the most severe cuts and the highest percentages. I won’t quote the examples but we are always hit hardest, perhaps because we lack a number of Tory MPs. So therefore I think the tunnel tolls, partly by being part of the integrated transport network is also part of the overall budgetary position that the Authority finds itself in.

Now individuals can pick which topic they think extra money made from tunnel tolls is spent on, others can pick ones that are more favourable, others can pick ones that are less favourable, but nevertheless it does form part of the overall budget package. So any money that isn’t, is removed by any resolution today, would have to be found and replaced. So I’m glad that later on in the business the Authority is setting a freeze on the levy for the local authorities and that will certainly ease the position for any council tax payer over on the Wirral. And if the money, if the tunnel tolls say overnight were to be free and passed onto the council tax payer directly I think that would be an enormous burden for every single household particularly Wirral and elsewhere.

That would be impossible to bear and would not get through a referendum Chair I would add. People would vote against something that would lead to a ten percent hike on Council Tax simply to pay for the tunnels. So we are in a position where we have to make a budgetary decision in and around that based on the knowledge we have in front of us.

My argument has been since I’ve come on the Authority and before that position is that this link between across the Mersey or links across the Mersey is such of economic, national economic significance that it should have the right to be included in the national road network and therefore funded directly from national taxation as opposed to what is a local taxation situation. It appears our plea last year was unheard and it also appears that consultation that is taking place at the moment actually picks out estuary crossings for one that will always be tolled under this government’s consultation. So I think, if nothing else happened today, we need to get lobbying and make sure that that exemption is removed and that we have the right to campaign for the tunnels to be taken into the national road network and see how far we get with that. So clearly there’s those issues.

The other issue is that the overall budget of the ITA must be robust enough to maintain the running and safety of those tunnels because we would know that the economic damage done by say one tunnel going down or you know heaven forbid two tunnels in a state that they couldn’t remain open would be massively detrimental to our economic recovery, in fact it would probably see the economy off overnight. So we have to have a robust budget and people think that whilst the tunnels are well maintained, there’s a reason for that because the cost of the serious and major repair and damage to the infrastructure of the tunnel itself would exceed you know many people’s budget, we’d probably have to borrow money to actually do that. So it is well that we remember that, that this budget should be robust and a high level of reserves to dig your .. major repairs if necessary.

So having said all those things I do not believe that this is the right time in the economic cycle for us to increase the tunnel tolls for all the I can see the temptation to do so and from my part I haven’t prepared any resolution otherwise, but will probably unless someone convinces me in the next part of the debate will see myself actually voting against the increase based on the fragile economy that we are part of that the tunnel toll increase at this time would be the wrong route but I do believe, I do believe seriously that if we are serious about getting into the national road network we need to up our game and certainly we have one Conservative MP on Merseyside who should have the ear of government.

It would appear that the ground can change overnight, when we look at the decision on the A14 which was to be financed by tolls and it so happens that the Tory MP had the ear of government and that decision was reversed so they can change their mind if the right people use the right amount of influence. So my view is that we should continue the campaign for the national road network to take over the funding of the tunnels. In the absence of that, I understand the very difficult decision that we make today but I don’t feel on the basis of the evidence that I’ve got in front of me that I could support it today. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks Steve, that’s a very helpful contribution at that.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thanks Chair. I’m not going to rehearse the story because quite frankly I agree with a lot of what Councillor Foulkes has had to say today. I do have a proposal to put forward, I think just to add to what Steve has had to say is that constantly on Merseyside, Wirral as well as a lot of the other surrounding councils are statistically below the national employment levels and have been for some time and quite a difference between those two levels. So it is an area that is actually under the cosh as it were.

Austerity I agree with Steve has hit us for whatever reasons us a lot harder up in the north-west and we’re all feeling it to all the councils and that means right down to the services that we’re giving and to the general public that have to pay for those services. It is really, really tight. Our councils locally will have to pull up their belt certainly and taking difficult decisions to actually keep those services running and to make decisions that are on a lot of occasions non political but have to be made to actually keep those services going to the people and if that means increasing you know they’ve had to do it but in other areas they’ve had to cut the cloth according to their need and take that service and the cost of that service down.

I think Merseytravel should be giving a message out at this time too, I agree again with what Steve said. I think this is the year, this is the time when we as Merseytravel, whilst still being safe in our tunnels, completing all the jobs that we’re expected to do health and safety and all that, should be sending out a message to say look we realise that this is hard, we realise that this is going to have an impact on the local economy ie people going to work it is going to be a hard time to put an extra ten pence on the tunnel tolls. It may not seem a great deal to us but it is to the people who have to travel every day through the tunnel to go to work. It’s a lot of money on their wage packets at a time when their wage packets are not going up, they’re going down.

So I’ve got a proposal that we keep and freeze the tunnel tolls to the level that they are now and then relook at it next year. At the same time I would like to see and I’ll reiterate what I said last year, a discount scheme and I am not talking about Fast Tag which is for everybody, I am talking about a Merseyside discount scheme which I know operates in other parts of the country. I would like to see that looked at and see whether we can do something for the people of Merseyside to have a local discount scheme. Now that’s my proposal to the meeting today. Thank you Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks for that. I appreciate you’re putting forward a motion. I’m going to suggest that we take your motion at the end of the debate and allow all Members who wish to have their contributions first but it is being circulated around the chamber. Does anyone else want to make any contributions? If there’s no other Members from the, oh go on Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): It is helpful now to see it in print. Errm, right ok well we do I mean yeah looking at paragraph d it’s probably something I missed out in my contribution before. I you know, in my every day life I have to turn up at Unilever which is an international company and we have many colleagues and employees that travel from this side of the water and beyond through the tunnels to go to work. I’m amazed actually the number because I do think I’m getting a bit obsessive about Merseytravel now, I’ve done my own mini survey and out of nine people I asked who do that trip on a regular basis in their car only one of them had got a Fast Tag and they’d let it run out.

So I have to asking myself Fast Tag there, which is a signficant saving every day, why is these barriers up or why are these people not engaging with something that immediately saves them money. I just wonder if our marketing of the Fast Tag is as great as it should be, because there is an alternative out there. So I actually have no problem supporting Les’s motion, it doesn’t say who’s seconded it. I believe that John has seconded it, so that’s fine and dandy by me so just the issue about Fast Tags, that there is an alternative for people to save money but I’m amazed by the number of people that don’t take them up.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah I think that’s a very good point Steve because I was going to say from my position sat here as Chair that I heard everything that you both have said and I think we all take the same view that this always a very difficult and challenging decision and process that Members go through every year. It’s not an easy process and inevitably some of the recommendations that come to us are challenging. Steve’s point is exactly right in the sense that if we were ever to get a free crossing across the river the only practical way of that ever happening would be for the government to take the tunnels into the national road network.

When we’ve asked in the past, government ministers and Department for Transport officials have been unequivocal in the fact that there is no government thinking of taking the tunnels into the national road network and furthermore and I’m glad Steve pointed it out in the government’s consultation on the national network’s proposals for both the road and the railway networks it actually singles out on page fifty-two of the document that estuarial and river crossings will remain on a tolled basis under the government’s policy. Added to that it also makes the point that new road schemes will be looked at under a tolled basis which is government policy but apparently doesn’t seem to count if the proposed road runs through John Major’s former constituency.

So with the government having no clear intent of taking the tunnels off our hands that leaves us in a bit of quandary doesn’t it you know in terms of the way you could finance the tunnels? Either it would be via the levy and the county taxpayer which in any circumstances would be challenging but in its current circumstances where finances for local government are so excruciatingly difficult because of the way the government is behaving. He’s absolutely right that on balance then the cost of the tunnels does fall to the users in that very difficult situation and obviously although the cost of running those tunnels is always significant to make sure we operate them not just in a way that is fit for purpose, but those key assets that they are for the Liverpool City Region but in doing so in a way that actually provides them to be some of the best operated in the world and some of the safest in the world. That does come at a price, but it comes at a price and we’re always very conscious and keen that we operate those in the most cost-effective and most cost efficient way accordingly.

I also take on board everything that’s been said about the state of the local economy. Whilst I think there’s been some elements of encouraging news and some elements of employment growth locally particularly some elements in terms of a report that came out last week about private sector employment increasing .. in the local area. I fully take on board just how fragile things are in the local economy and that remains a very, very difficult and challenging situation that we find and it would be nice to see the government taking a more thorough approach in terms of the way they look to support our region accordingly.

But I think it’s also important when we look at this debate that we don’t just view the tunnels as an isolated part of our transport network. You know we are an integrated transport authority and the tunnels are not only integral to the transport network of the Liverpool City Region but it’s actually vital that they operate in an integrated way and that the decisions we take in regard to the tunnels are not in isolation to the overall transport network as a whole and equally the decision that we take when we go through this process of setting the tolls we can’t take in isolation of our overall budget setting process which we’re going to deal with as the next item which we know is as challenging as it is this year and inevitable that it will get even more difficult as we go into the future.

So with that all in mind and it’s very, very difficult for us to take this decision, I’m on the balance of considerations of the opinion that the ten pence increase that is being proposed is proportionate and on balance the best decision that we can take in very difficult circumstances at this moment in time. However I’m still very conscious of the fact that that still represents a ten pence discount on the authorised toll that could be charged. It’s not going to up to £1.80, the proposal’s £1.70 and furthermore and Steve made the excellent point about the Fast Tag scheme, the Fast Tag scheme will still demonstrate a considerable saving for local users and your point about actively and proactively marketing the Fast Tag scheme is exactly right Steve.

Last year was the first time that we’d ever properly done that and I’m really pleased we’ve managed to get usage of the Fast Tag up to forty percent of all users and let’s remember the vast majority of those Fast Tag users are local residents and local businesses. There is a saving to be had and it works out that every seventh journey if you use the Fast Tag is free so it’s very strong I think from all of us that we want to make sure we continue that proactive marketing of the Fast Tag to make sure we maximise the uptake and make sure that local commuters and local residents and local businesses will get that benefit. If there’s no further contributions from the floor, Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thank you. Chair, I take on board the protection that you’ve said and I agree with a lot of it and there is obviously frustrations on both sides but given that reserves are healthy, given there’s been an underspend in the capital program, the £2.4 million could be found and I think it’s important that we send out a message from Merseytravel that we’re not prepared to raise it every year, year on year, year on year and in times we can listen and we can help and that’s all I’m asking for not every year we go against .. item but let’s send a message … to do that Chair that’s all I ask.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): I think I’ll take that on board Les and I think whilst I’m conscious that reserves are healthy, we need to make sure that we’ve got healthy reserves to deal with any issue that may arise. Both in terms of any sort of significant issue with regard to the operational maintenance and operational things but also any other opportunities on the transport network and the way that we want to develop an integrated transport network that is fit not just for the twenty-first century but is fit for a world class city region which is what we want for the Liverpool City Region. If there’s no further contributions Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Yes Chair, I’d like to move the motion and if I can remove paragraph c) from the proposed motion to my motion which says maintain existing discount on authorised tolls for cash and Fast Tag tolls to the level that is effective from the 1st April 2014 and d) the authority asks the Director General and Chief Executive to investigate the cost implications as well as any implications under the Tunnel Act 2004 of bringing forward a further discount for Fast Tag users in order to reduce the burden of tolls on regular users of the tunnel.

Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem): Second that Chair

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks John. Can I see all Members in favour?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): All against?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): That’s lost. In that case can I move the recommendations in paragraph 11 of the report. Is that agreed?

Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour): Can I second that?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Do you want to put that to the vote accordingly? All in favour?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and against?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and that’s carried.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Can I have my vote recorded?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Absolutely, that’s why we put it to the vote for you.

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

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other