EDITORIAL: Jeremy Corbyn, opposition, Saughall Massie fire station and “land swaps”

Cllr Lesley Rennie speaking at a public meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 29th January 2015 on a consultation on closure of Upton and West Kirby fire stations and a new fire station at Saughall Massie

A councillor on Wirral Council once suggested to me I write an editorial. It was a good suggestion, but generally I like to steer clear about giving a party political opinion.

Over the weekend, Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader of the Labour Party and Tom Watson Deputy Leader (Wirral’s own Angela Eagle missed out on becoming Deputy Leader).

Within hours of Jeremy Corbyn‘s election as Leader, I received a press release (nothing too unusual about that) from a PR company with quotes from DeVere Group (who describe themselves as “one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients").

It seems that Jeremy Corbyn becoming Leader of the Labour Party has to put it mildly rattled those who work on behalf of the rich. There were a series of hyperbolic quotes which if I included here would be taking sides on a party political matter and alienate any of my readers that lean towards the left (although some of the quotes are so full of hyperbole that they’re funny).

However, it brings me to an important point about opposition. One of the quotes describes him as “Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition” . Opposition really matters in politics.

Moving from national politics to more local matters, on Tuesday evening (I’m writing this on Sunday but it will be published on Monday) Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee will discuss Cllr Chris Blakeley’s notice of motion about whether the greenbelt land owned by Wirral Council in Saughall Massie should be blocked from being gifted, sold or leased to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority for a new fire station. The public meeting starts at 6.00 pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall.

The issue was reported extensively on this blog and the local newspapers over the last few years, however it an example why opposition in politics is important because there are about a thousand people who signed a petition against it going ahead.

On Thursday afternoon, a meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s Policy and Resources Committee will decide whether to transfer the land by Birkenhead Fire Station to Wirral Council for a Youth Zone. The land is worth an estimated £250,000, but is predicted to be transferred to Wirral Council “at nominal consideration” .

In other words Wirral Council will probably get it just for the costs of the legal costs involved in the sale and not at the market price. So how are the two issues connected?

Back on the 30th June 2015 when the issue was being decided by the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, Cllr Lesley Rennie asked for an explanation about a series of emails from its former Deputy Chief Executive Kieran Timmins that had been released in response to a FOI request.

The Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens just answered that he didn’t know anything about it, Kieran Timmins (the author of the email stayed silent) followed by comments from at least one Labour councillor alleging that Cllr Rennie was making things up.

Below is an email from Kieran Timmins suggesting that a “land swap” happens. It suggests Wirral Council gets the land it wants next to Birkenhead Fire Station in exchange for the land in Greasby (this is before Greasby was ruled out and replaced with Saughall Massie).

I have no idea what Wirral Council’s response was to this suggestion!?

I might also point out that Colin Schofield is the PFI Project Manager at Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and it’s never been made crystal clear whether the new Saughall Massie fire station will be part of the PFI fire stations or owned outright by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) only partially answered my FOI request as to what Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority was spending the £4.4 million of grant money on.

Timmins, Kieran

From: Timmins, Kieran
Sent: 12 December 2013 09:58
To: ‘Armstrong, David’
Cc: Royle, Jeanette E.; Schofield, Colin
Subject: RE: Request for Sites

Thanks David, much appreciated. Hope you are ok?

Not sure if Tony can pick this up but it strikes me as making sense if (presuming a Wirral owned site is identified in Greasby) that a land swap for the youth zone in Birkenhead might be a sensible approach for tidying up ownership etc…….. what do you think?

Take care

Kieran

Kieran Timmins
Deputy Chief Executive
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Fire Service HQ
Bridle Road
Bootle
L30 4YD

Tel: 0151 296 4202
Fax: 0151 296 4224

kierantimmins@merseyfire.gov.uk
www.merseyfire.gov.uk

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

People power leads to Wirral Council U-turn on sale of Rock Ferry High School woodlands

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

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

Wirral Council’s Cabinet meeting of the 10th September 2015. The item on Rock Ferry High School starts at 17 minutes and 16 seconds

Cabinet discusses the future of Rock Ferry High School 10th September 2015 L to R Cllr Chris Meaden Cllr Pat Hackett Cllr Adrian Jones

The issue of what happens to the former Rock Ferry High School site was on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agenda for a decision at last Thursday’s meeting.

Included with the reports for the meeting were details of the public meetings held. In case anyone has forgotten, one of the public meetings sparked a series of bizarre stories in the Liverpool Echo about what happened in the lead up to the 2015 General Election. The story continues with a Wirral Globe article and a Green Party investigation clearing its members of what Frank Field accused them of doing (which is that exceptional case of a party sticking by and believing its own members and not throwing them to the wolves when an influential member of another political party complains).

Maybe the Green Party aren’t like other political parties who take a "guilty until proven innocent (and we the party will decide upon what prove innocent means)" approach and grill the party member when a complaint happens. No I’m not referring to the recent suspensions of councillors in the Wirral Labour Group… but my own personal experience of the Lib Dems taking seriously a party political complaint about me from former Labour Cllr Harry Smith (sent to both me and the party with a Wirral Council "With compliments slip").

In essence his complaint was that when he was Vice-Chair of the Pensions Committee (the Pensions Committee manages the Merseyside Pension Fund worth £billions which has over a hundred thousand people either pensioners or employees part of it) I put in a leaflet to people in the Bidston & St James ward that he didn’t go to a meeting that reported the Merseyside Pension Fund had dropped by hundreds of millions of pounds.

His complaint was that he decided to go on holiday instead (he didn’t send a deputy to the meeting) and that my leaflet wasn’t unfair personally to him because it led to people going to his surgery and asking him questions (because and I mean this with a lot of dripping sarcasm of course, obviously the last thing a local councillor is paid a generous allowance of thousands of pounds a year for is to actually have to deal with the public and see what I write below for why the Labour Group of 2015 takes a different view on representing the public to Harry Smith). Therefore former Cllr Harry Smith (around the time of a one week suspension as a councillor for not apologising properly for bullying) wanted disciplinary action taken against me by the Lib Dem Party for telling the Bidston & St James residents the truth.

Ultimately the Lib Dem Party (who then were always very keen to curry favour with other political parties) gave him and his fellow Labour party members their way in 2011 but the Lib Dems (under a lot of pressure to get rid of me) did it so badly, the Birkenhead County Court ruled one of the Lib Dem councillors, the local Birkenhead party and indeed the whole Lib Dem Party had broken the law in doing so.

Thus proving that politicians are terrible at realising that there are legal limits on what they should or shouldn’t do. As many will know, the political class have an arrogant view at times that rules and laws apply to everyone but them! The MP expenses scandal showed that.

However to be fair (and hopefully as balanced as I can be) to the Lib Dem Party, their view is that an unlawful decision still stands and court orders should be flouted (and then the Lib Dem Party wonders why it lost 49 MPs at the recent General Election?)

As former Cllr Harry Smith didn’t get his way over that complaint he tried to stop filming of a public meeting of Pensions Committee meeting stopped, telling others on the Pensions Committee it I was because I was a member of a political party (at the time a lie as I wasn’t a member of the Lib Dems then, due no doubt in part to his complaints and moaning about me "blotting my copybook" as one party member put it). A rather young fellow Labour councillor had the gall to tell him such a point was irrelevant which really got him going, however I am digressing into stories from yesteryear. It was suggested to me recently that I should be more positive (however remembering how former Cllr Harry Smith used to be is enough to spoil anyone’s good mood)!

Returning to the Cabinet meeting, Cllr Adrian Jones explained that Rock Ferry High School had closed in 2011. He outlined the process that had to be followed if the Rock Ferry High School and the playing fields were to be used for a different purpose and that this required government approval from the Minister. He summarised the efforts so far on finding an alternative educational use for the buildings which unfortunately had not panned out.

The costs (business rates and security) of managing the vacant site were costing Wirral Council money. The original intention had been for Wirral Council to sell the buildings and playing fields. However following public consultation and "opposition" to disposal of the site, a compromise position had been found or as Cllr Adrian Jones put it, “However, we are a listening Council and following extensive public consultation it was evidenced that there was a very significant amount of opposition to that proposal.”

He went on to say that this option would produce a reduced capital receipt to Wirral Council, but this would allow the Residents’ Association to bring forward proposals for the playing fields and woodland.

Cllr Adrian Jones proposed the following recommendation.

"It is recommended that:

17.1 Cabinet approves the submission of the application to the Secretary of State for Education for the disposal and change of use of the former Rock Ferry High School.

17.2 Approve the mixed use option for the site as outlined in 6.4

17.2 Approve officers to progress development proposals to site (area A) for residential development in accordance with local planning requirements

17.3 Work with the newly formed Rock Ferry Residents Association to bring forward proposals for the management of the site (areas B and C)"

For the purposes of information 6.4 (which recommendation 17.2) of the report refers to states:

6.4 Take account of local views and develop a mixed use option for the site

(i) area (A) i.e. the main school site, development for housing

(ii) areas (B) and (C) the former playing field site could be considered for community asset transfer for continued sport use and open space. This is of particular interest to the residents in the area and plans for the management and development of the area are being considered. Football clubs in the area have expressed an interest and there are opportunities for obtaining grant funding. This area was previously designated as school playing fields and the only community use was through lettings agreed with the school, general community access was not endorsed.

Areas B and C are detailed in the report. Areas B and C are playing fields and area A covers the buildings and part of the playing fields.

Councillor Chris Meaden pointed out that it was in her ward and referred to "slightly heated meetings" that she had attended and that they’d listened to the residents, changed the recommendations so that the woodland was kept and the sports field. She thanks the residents of Rock Ferry and that "we hope we’ve proved ourselves to you"

Cllr Meaden went on to thank Jeannette Royle (Senior Manager, Asset Management), David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) and David Ball (Head of Regeneration) for attending the meetings and she wanted to thank them for their support and their efforts in listening to residents.

The recommendation were agreed by Cabinet.

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

Why is there a £17k to £19k discrepancy in allowances and expenses for councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority?

Current Chair of the Audit Sub Committee Cllr Denise Roberts is in the foreground of this photo from 27th November 2014 Background L to R former DCE Kieran Timmins DCFO Phil Garrigan and councillor

There’s a discrepancy I’ve spotted. In the papers for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Policy and Resources Committee that meets on the 17th September 2015. There is a note in the Statement of Accounts (note 29) on page 59. It’s short so I’ll quote it below as it’s mainly information in a table.

29. Members’ Allowances

The Authority comprises of 18 councillors from the 5 districts of Merseyside. The total allowances paid to members within the year were:

	2014/15	2013/14
	£000	£000
Allowances	225	239
Expenses	14	23
	239	262

As you can see from the table above, for 2014/15 the total allowances paid to councillors is £225,000 and the total expenses for 2014/15 to councillors £14,000. The total for these two figures is £239,000.

On June 11th the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority met, agenda item 9 was Members Allowance Payments 2014/15. This agenda item contained a table detailing payments to councillors for 2014/15.

The total allowances detailed in that table for 2014/15 are £143,242.50 + £16,140 + £24,210.00 + £1.345.00 + £8,070.00 + £11,939.57 + £6,053.04 + £2,690.33 = £213,690.44

However £213,690.44 does not equal £225,000!

The difference is £11,309.56 +-£500!

The total expenses detailed in that table are £1,338.45 + £4,175.84 + £2,194.05 = £7,708.34

Again £7,708.34 does not equal £14,000.

This difference is £6,291.66 +-£500!

The two differences add up to a grand total of £17,601.22 +-£1000.

As the figures in the statement of accounts are rounded to the nearest £1000, this could be any figure between £16,601.22 and £18,601.20.

On the expenses side I can make an educated guess that the expenses paid directly by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority that are detailed on the 49 pages of expenses here for councillors weren’t in June being properly coded. Page 2 of a letter from Janet Henshaw states that this amount estimated at between £5,700 and £6,700 wasn’t being coded to each councillor as it would require going through approximately 12 monthly invoices and coding expenditure to 18 councillors (which is classed as a “wholly unreasonable use of scarce resources”).

I’ve totted up amounts in the first twenty-four pages and they total £3,068.04. Assuming the other pages are for broadly similar amounts that would make the total in the ballpark figure of £6,136.08 (which is within the range of £6,291.66 +-£500).

However I’m still at a loss as to why there’s a ~£11,309.56+-£500 difference on allowances for 2014/15!

Perhaps I should ask the auditor Grant Thornton what’s going on and also raise it with the councillors and officers?

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

What connects “persons interested”, Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

What connects "persons interested", Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

As regular readers of this blog will know, I exercised my Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(1) right to inspect invoices and contracts at Merseytravel (now part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (who go by the public name of Merseyside Recycling & Waste Authority) and Wirral Council for the 2014/15 financial year.

This ties in with a right under Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(2) as a local government elector can then ask the auditor questions.

It’s well established that "persons interested" in Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15(1) means local government electors for the public body concerned.

The problem however came with my request to Liverpool City Council, as I’m not a local government elector in the Liverpool City Council area. Case law has determined that “interested person” (a term sadly not defined in the legislation itself) is a wider group than just local government electors.

R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 is an interesting case that as far as I know isn’t available online so I looked it up in the university law library. I’ll refer to R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 [24], [25], [39], [49] and [50] as it goes into the legislative history of who is considered an “interested person”.

"The authorities

24. The concept of “persons interested” has received very little consideration by the courts. In Marginson v Tildsley (1963) 67 JP 226 the appellant was a member of the Fleetwood urban authority for 20 years before he became bankrupt and was disqualified from the council. He sought the right to inspect the accounts under the Public Health Act 1875. He preferred an information against the clerk of the council alleging that the clerk had wrongly refused him access to the accounts. The justices dismissed the information but their decision was overturned on appeal. Lord Alvertstone CJ held that he was a person interested because although no longer a member of the council, the possibility that his estate could be liable for any surcharge rendered him a person interested.

25. In the later case of R v Bedwellty Urban District Council, Ex p Price [1934] 1 KB 333 the court held that a person interested was entitled to inspect the accounts by an agent, who in that case was his accountant. It was argued that the accountant was a person interested in his own right, but the point did not have to be determined and Avory J expressly left it open.

39. He also referred me to a passage in Jones, Local Government Audit Law, 2nd ed (1985), ch 8. The last edition of this valuable book was sadly in 1985. But in a discussion on the meaning of the concept of a “person interested”, the author expressed the view that the right was attached to any person who had a financial interest in the accounts, as well as somebody with a legal interest, such as a local government elector who has the legal right of objection.

49. I think it is somewhat artificial to say that non-domestic ratepayers do not contribute to the local authority’s budget. Although their contributions are channelled through, and will be subject to, redistribution by central government – the income will be received indirectly by the authority as a grant from central government – nevertheless I think this gives them a sufficient interest in inspecting the accounts and satisfying themselves as far as they can that they are in order. In my view, this is reinforced by the fact that they had the right for their representatives to be consulted on expenditure decisions.

50. I consider that these factors together give them a real and close interest in the council’s activities sufficient to confer these rights upon them. I would, moreover, be reluctant to think that this right, which undoubtedly existed until the Local Government Finance Act 1988, had been removed as a consequence of the restructuring of local government finances in that year. It follows that in my view the claimant is a "person interested" within the section."

So from the above I can gather that the concept of "interested person" means:

local government electors (which for Liverpool City Council at the last election I estimate at around ~320,000 local government electors)
former politicians of that public body (although as I think the ability to surcharge councillors has been repealed this may not apply in most circumstances)
those assisting local government electors such as accountants
as the R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 case above established a company or business based in the area covered by the public body that pays business rates (or by its more formal term of non-domestic rates)

However according to Liverpool City Council my request was refused because as far as they see it, I don’t fall into one of the above categories.

I do however have a legal interest in 22 of the invoices I requested as I made a FOI request for them on the 14th May 2015. Liverpool City Council refused to supply a copy of the invoices and also refused at internal review. I exercised my right under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.50 to complain to the regulator (the Information Commissioner’s Office about this) on the 31st July 2015 and a decision by ICO is awaited.

Some ICO decision notices take a much wider view as to the definition of “interested person”. This decision notice (FS50582149) at part of paragraph 62 states (ACA 1998 refers to the Audit Commission Act 1998):

"As stated in paragraphs 24 and 25 above, the ACA 1998 provides a right of access to inspect accounting information for their local authority to any local government elector and ‘any persons interested’. Although the term ‘interested person’ is not defined within the ACA 1998, the Audit Commission suggest the term must refer to an individual who has a legal or financial interest in the accounts which would include local government electors, non-domestic rate payers and those with a financial or contractual relationship with the Council or those in receipt of services from the Council."

Keen followers of local government will know that the Audit Commission doesn’t exist any more, however if the Liverpool City Council shared the view of the now defunct Audit Commission that an "interested person" as was someone "in receipt of services from the Council" then I certainly fall into that category!

I regularly walk on Liverpool’s roads (maintained by Liverpool City Council), have made at least one Freedom of Information Act request to Liverpool City Council and have filmed public meetings of Liverpool City Council starting with this one of the Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September 2014 last year (there have been a number I’ve filmed since the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 forced Liverpool City Council to remove the anti-filming public meetings section in their constitution).

However, this is going off the point a little and the next point will sound like an arcane legal point. I can’t request permission from a High Court Judge for judicial review of Liverpool City Council’s decision to refuse inspection/copies of the invoices under the audit legislation that relate to the FOI request. Why is that? That’s because it would be refused due to the existing right of appeal to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office).

I would guess that if permission for judicial review was applied for, a High Court Judge would refuse permission to the part of the request to Liverpool City Council under the audit legislation that relates to the 22 invoices that pertain to the earlier FOI request on those grounds. This is because part 5 of the Pre-Application Protocol for Judicial Review makes it clear that "Judicial review should only be used where no adequate alternative remedy, such as a right of appeal, is available."

It is far better to establish the principle of whether the invoices are able to requested through FOI requests through an ICO decision notice. However before Liverpool City Council did a U-turn and realised I wasn’t a local government elector I did get copies of 7 invoices for its legal costs (the first of which is at the end of this article).

There will be a delay getting editorial approval with the other six as Liverpool City Council have done an extremely bad job at redacting some of the information. One of the invoices relates to a Family Court matter that it probably be unlawful for me to publish in its present form as the names of the parents and a child are clearly visible. Those more well versed in data protection law could perhaps leave a well-informed comment on why giving out such detail to a member of the public ain’t a good idea.

As usual the thumbnails are linked to higher resolution images for each page.

I would make an educated guess that the invoice below relates to a decision of Liverpool City Council’s Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee on the 30th July 2014 to revoke the licence for Kenny Food & Wine at 237 Kensington, Liverpool 7.

There’s a right of appeal of decisions of such committees (a Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee is composed of councillors and meets in public) to the local magistrate court. The premises licence holder’s name is Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam (which is published in the report to that committee).

The Liverpool City Council solicitor this invoice went to is Mr. P Merriman. He’s the licensing, gaming and betting solicitor at Liverpool City Council.

Mr David Hercock of Six Pump Court is a barrister. The invoice is for £2,400 (£2000 + VAT).

Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 1 of 2 thumbnail

Liverpool City Council invoice David Hercock Six Pump Court 28 January 2015 page 2 of 2 thumbnail

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

Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agree to joint review for collaboration between Merseyside Police & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

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

Video of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) meeting held on the 1st of September 2015.

The Police and Fire Collaboration Committee met for the first time on the 1st of September 2015. Papers for the meeting are on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website.

The first meeting of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee elected Councillor Dave Hanratty as Chair.

The other members of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee are:

Councillor Linda Maloney (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority)
Councillor Leslie Byron (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority)
Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside)
Sue Murphy (Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside)

The Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agreed the terms of reference.

Most of the rest of the meeting was discussion of the Fire and Police Collaboration Programme. There was a 5 page covering report and 8 page appendix detailing the “Collaboration/Shared Services Guiding Principles between Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service“.

Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens presented the report, as did Sir Jon Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police). Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens drew the Committee’s attention to the list of possible areas for shared services in the report at part 6. The areas detailed in the report are:

Human Resources
Occupational Health
Finance
Procurement
Vehicle Fleet Management
Estates/Facilities
Press Office
Communication and Marketing
Performance/Corporate Development
Legal Services
ICT

He gave an example of shared working in the shared estates area as the Joint Control Centre in the building where the public meeting was being held. Dan Stephens highlighted the staffing implications in the report (section 16-17 on page 10). He stated, “Just to reassure members of the Committee that a Communications Strategy is being developed to ensure that all of our staff can be fully informed. As you can appreciate there will be a fair degree of interest in the work as it progresses.” Dan Stephens also referred to the legal implications, financial implications and other implications in sections 18-24 in the report.

Chief Constable Sir John Murphy added, “Everything that the Chief has just laid out there has been drawn up in complete collaboration with ourselves”.

Jane Kennedy, Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside said “That’s a good and comprehensive list of potential quick gains. For knowing what I know of the potential cliff edge that the Force is facing in terms of its funding and the particular threat in particular to community policing, for me B Ways of Working is absolutely crucial to the future benefit to the community of our two services working together. I can’t, my waking nightmare is the loss of what we currently know of as community style policing.

If we lose community policing altogether then there would still be neighbourhood policing, but we are, we are very close to that now. There is potential gain from us working very closely together with your people and the Force’s people on the ground in communities which I think is probably the greatest benefit.”

Councillor Hanratty (Chair) said that they needed to have conversations with the North West Ambulance Service to see “how they could work better together with them”. He suggested inviting the Chief Executive and Chair of the Board of Trustees of the North West Ambulance Service to a future meeting. Cllr Hanratty suggested that when they got to the last agenda item adjourning the meeting.

Jane Kennedy agreed with Councillor Hanratty but that it had taken her six months to get a meeting with North West Ambulance Service but, “I completely agree with what you’re saying David”.

Cllr Hanratty referred to both Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and Merseyside Police’s independence. He commented that both organisations do “fantastic work”.

Chief Constable Sir John Murphy said, “Just to endorse what the Commissioner’s said there, the great strength of what we’re embarking on here is the MFRS [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service] and Merseyside Police are under the same pressures, we share the same footprint and there’s a real joint will amongst the Chief Officer Teams and the people in this room to get things done.

Our experience with working with North West Ambulance and the North West is a problem to start with is that it’s not quite that straightforward and the experience of the JCC [Joint Control Centre] here and they’re in, they’re out, they’re in, they’re out, I would not like to see North West Ambulance Service get in the way of what we’re trying to achieve, but the principle of what you’re suggesting and the commenced approach towards that I agree.”

Councillor Leslie Byrom added, “I mean I agree with everything that’s been said, what we’re going to have in the next few months of business other than the budget stuff which is going to have a real major impact on how we’re going to plan for the future. This is the first step.

We’be got the overlay also that’s emerging of the Police Reform and Criminal Justice draft Bill. That mentions fire and police collaboration. It may mean that it’s more intended to affect non-metropolitan areas, there may be a separate solution anticipated for metropolitan areas but there is so much happening I think we are going to have to be fleet of foot for the next few months, adjourning this meeting is absolutely right.

Err, enabling us to call a meeting at you know legally short notice, errm and deal with changes that are being presented to us as they happen because you know we are on a bit of a roller coaster.

NWAS [North West Ambulance Service], obviously that’s another part, that’s another facet, another side of the entire blue light issue isn’t it? And I don’t think you know, I know we have difficulty sitting round and meeting with them, but actually I think we can’t leave that as an excuse can we?

We have to, they can not participate yes, but we have to be making the, giving leadership on this issue and showing that you know there is that overlay of blue light and the cross issues. Both the money and the way that they operate are quite different to us, I understand that, but we’re all in the area of public expenditure at this time.

So you know we just try our best with NWAS [North West Ambulance Service] to move things forward.”

The Chair thanked the officers for their work and referred to it as “a culture change for both of our organisations and the way they’ve worked together so far has been tremendous as well”

The recommendations contained within the report were agreed which are:

“That members:

a. Approve the draft Guiding Principles for the Collaboration Programme attached at Appendix A

b. Instruct the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and Chief Constable (CC) to undertake a joint review of existing and potential opportunities for collaboration in line with the methodology detailed within the Guiding Principles.”

The Chair then agreed to adjourn the meeting, so that they could “call the meeting as and when required” but that the next meeting should be within the next couple of months.

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

EDITORIAL: Jeremy Corbyn, opposition, Saughall Massie fire station and “land swaps”

Share this:

People power leads to Wirral Council U-turn on sale of Rock Ferry High School woodlands

Share this:

Why is there a £17k to £19k discrepancy in allowances and expenses for councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority?

Share this:

What connects "persons interested", Tharmathevy Thanabalasingam and Liverpool City Council?

Share this:

Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agree to joint review for collaboration between Merseyside Police & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Share this: