What was Mayor Anderson and Cllr Roz Gladden’s response to a campaign to save the Liveability service?

What was Mayor Anderson and Cllr Roz Gladden’s response to a campaign to save the Liveability service?                                          Above are three women protesting in the rain before the Liverpool City Council budget meeting last week. As the slogans are hard to read on the resized photos they are (from left to right), “LIVEABILITY for old, … Continue reading “What was Mayor Anderson and Cllr Roz Gladden’s response to a campaign to save the Liveability service?”

What was Mayor Anderson and Cllr Roz Gladden’s response to a campaign to save the Liveability service?

                                        

Protest before Liverpool City Council meeting about Liveability photo 1 of 2 resized
Protest before Liverpool City Council meeting about Liveability

Above are three women protesting in the rain before the Liverpool City Council budget meeting last week.

As the slogans are hard to read on the resized photos they are (from left to right), “LIVEABILITY for old, lame, sick, obese, lonely, confused. Don’t cut us off”, “It’s false economy to cut Liveability” and “LIVEABILITY helps us to help ourselves and saves money”.

Before the meeting I’d not heard of Liveability, but according to Liverpool City Council’s website it’s “a nurse led service that promotes the health and independence of people aged 50 and over”.

There were plenty of people apart from the three in the photo above that turned up to express their support for it.

Liverpool City Council meetings have a public question time/petitions/statements slot which was used by a campaigner against closure of the Liveability service. Second to speak during this slot was a Sue Carmichael. You can watch what Sue said below.

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.

Liverpool City Council Budget meeting 2nd March 2016 (public question time/statement/petition item)

Sue Carmichael (pictured below on the right) said, “Lord Mayor, Mayor Anderson, elected members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the newly formed Liveability Action Group.

Sue Carmichael addresses a meeting of Liverpool City Council about the Liveability service
Sue Carmichael addresses a meeting of Liverpool City Council about the Liveability service

We have a petition with over 550 signatures which I’ll hand over now.

We very much welcome the great achievements for a city under your leadership and we also understand the impact of nationally imposed cutbacks on the city’s finances.

Our action group was formed last Thursday and over two hundred attended. We are all deeply shocked by the summary destruction of this award-winning NHS-led, nurse-led service and there’s no consultation about options. It was all done completely by stealth from our point of view.

We believe it’s an ill-considered decision halfway through Liverpool’s decade of health and wellbeing.

The Liveability service is fifteen years old and it’s for the physical and mental health and well-being of people over fifty, but most are in their sixties to nineties. Only about ten per cent are in their fifties.

The 1,500 registered members, there are 500 users each week with 24 brilliant volunteers who help. There are about twenty different sessions including a chair based one and ones for those with dementia and their carers. Plans were already in place to roll the scheme out elsewhere because we know how important it is.

Most users have acute or chronic conditions or mobility issues, or like myself have had major surgery of chemotherapy and Liveability has been part of our recovery.

Many live alone or are housebound carers. The twenty-four volunteers are critical to the service’s success. They are welcoming, they support the staff, they make drinks in the cafe and arrange social events and trips. There is a 50+ charity which also fund raises alongside.

Liveability is much more than exercise. It’s an informal village hub, where we meet different people on different days thereby extending our social contact as well as getting physically healthy. The social aspect is crucial.

It’s won many awards deservedly, been on national TV and even been visited by the Department of Health.

The proposed annihilation will be a cruel blow. Many say Liveability is a lifeline for them.

We’ve just heard earlier on today, there is a surprise announcement that there will be a new 50+ exercise program being city-wide, that is most welcome.

But this instant replacement cannot reinvent Liveability, the nurse led service, mainly for those in their sixties to nineties. It’s a unique city health and well-being asset. We must save it!

The fifteen years worth of staff, volunteer and user experience is available to build on. Liveability certainly ain’t broke so don’t fix it by killing it off.

Mayor Anderson, please abandon this hasty and cruel decision done in such a surprisingly underhand way without consultation. Liveability’s experience and success is there to use. Let’s jointly find an intelligent way to do this.

Keep Liveability and roll it out across the city, it’s really magic. Thank you.”

In response to what Sue Carmichael said there was applause.

A heckler shouted, “Shame on you!”

The Lord Mayor of Liverpool Cllr Concepcion said, “Mayor Anderson, would you like to respond?”

Mayor Anderson responds to concerns about the Liveability service Liverpool City Council 2nd March 2016
Mayor Anderson responds to concerns about the Liveability service Liverpool City Council 2nd March 2016

Mayor Anderson replied, “Lord Mayor, I just want to make one comment and then if it’s ok for you, I’ll just hand over to the Cabinet Member who can explain what we’re doing and why the decision has been made but we’re more than happy, I’ve been to the Liveability scheme and I’m more than happy to meet with people that are using the scheme to explain why we’re doing and what we’re doing. We’ve lost a huge amount of funding and this … fit for purpose and ready to replace the existing one, but as I said, I’ll let Cllr Gladden explain a little bit more.”

Councillor Roz Gladden (Cabinet Member for Adult and Children's Social Care and Health) responds to concerns about the Liveability service at the Liverpool City Council meeting on the 2nd March 2016
Councillor Roz Gladden (Cabinet Member for Adult and Children’s Social Care and Health) responds to concerns about the Liveability service at the Liverpool City Council meeting on the 2nd March 2016

Cllr Roz Gladden (Cabinet Member for Adult & Children’s Social Care & Health) responded by saying, “Can I first of all thank you for the amazing campaign that you’ve brought together in such a small amount of time?

You know one of the sadnesses of being the Cabinet Member for Social Care is watching over a six-year period cuts happen to the service and very few people have actually complained about it, so I honour the fact that you care so much about your service that you’ve come out to campaign for it. So thank you for doing that.

Lot’s of people think that public health do nice wooly things like making sure you eat salad, not put sugar in and don’t eat cake and things like that but I think these cuts have proved, cuts to public health have proved that actually they do really important services such as the Liveability services, such as looking after people who are homeless, the rough sleepers and those with drug addiction problems and naturally as an Authority we have to take care of those who are most vulnerable. That’s not to say that you aren’t of course, but we’ve had £2.9 million of council cuts within this financial year and next year we’ve got a further cut of £7 million just to the public health budget. They are government cuts, they are not imposed by us, they are cuts directly to the public health service.

And what we’ve decided to do, what we have done is we’ve been looking for some time now as a physical activity strategy that will be announced later this year, but we are running this, three centres across the city.

I don’t know where you’ve been looking to roll this out across the city. I visited Liveability three years ago. I’ve been trying to negotiate, my officers have to try and get the Liveability model because we value it rolled out across the city. That’s not happened and I can’t, I don’t want a service that just operates in Austin Rawlinson, I want to see it where people in the north of the city and the centre of the city can benefit from it too because I think it’s really important.

So that’s what we’re going to do and we’re going to ask you how you think we can do that for the rest of the city? This won’t be excluding you, we will include your knowledge and your experience in how this services works really expertly in how we can do it. So I welcome you, I welcome on board this. We will come along to you, I will meet with you next week and we’ll carry on from there. So thank you so much for coming along tonight, I really do appreciate it, thank you.”

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

Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court

Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court

                                                          

Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall about Girtrell Court 3rd March 2016 thumbnail
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall about Girtrell Court 3rd March 2016 thumbnail

It is hard to know where to begin when writing about last night’s Council meeting of Wirral Council at Wallasey Town Hall to decide on the budget. Above is a photo of the demonstration outside the main entrance to Wallasey Town Hall protesting about Girtrell Court being closed.

Realising that councillors were bypassing this entrance and using the door by Committee Room 3, there was another protest outside that way in too.

The meeting started and within the first few minutes the petition item was reached. The Mayor asked Bernard Halley (pictured below with his son David) to present his petitions opposing the closure of Girtrell Court. His e-petition had 1,200 signatures (of those nearly a thousand were Wirral residents). There was also a linked paper petition with over six hundred signatories opposed too.

Bernard Halley said, “Both petitions begged this Council to keep Girtrell Court running until proper alternatives are established, costed, evaluated, consulted upon and proven to be adequate.”

Bernard Halley and his son David present a petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court to a budget meeting of Wirral Council 3rd March 2016
Bernard Halley and his son David present a petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court to a budget meeting of Wirral Council 3rd March 2016

There was a larger petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court of 3,054 signatures. As this petition was of over 3,000 signatures, it gave the lead petitioner Paddy Cleary of UNISON five minutes to speak.

He gave a similar speech to the one he had made at the Cabinet meeting. Mr Cleary felt closing Girtrell Court was contrary to one of the 2020 pledges to protect the vulnerable and his opinion was that the proposed saving through closure would not save Wirral Council money but cost more money. Reference was also made by him to a proposal in 2011 proposed by Cllr Steve Foulkes and seconded by Cllr Phil Davies to stop the closure of Council-run care homes.

He expressed concern about the quality of care in the private sector and added, “At a time when users, their families, the public and staff see press stories of the frivolous use of taxpayers’ money, we implore you to look in the mirror, look into the eyes of those people in the balcony upstairs and tell them hand on heart how there is better provision out there.

We know you can’t do that and as such we urge you to fully drop this proposal. Thank you for your time.”

Although petitions of over 3,000 signatures can be debated for fifteen minutes, a decision was made to debate Girtrell Court during the budget debate instead.

Each of the political parties on Wirral Council with more than one councillor had a slightly different policy in their budget about Girtrell Court.

The Labour budget proposed closing it, subject to a later decision of the Cabinet Member Cllr Chris Jones and Director of Adult Social Services Graham Hodkinson.

The Conservative budget removed the need to close Girtrell Court by finding savings elsewhere instead. Three of the proposed areas for savings (amongst others) the Conservatives proposed were removing the free taxi service for councillors to and from the Town Hall, deleting the Executive Support Officer post held by Martin Liptrot and reducing the Council’s press, marketing and destination management team from fourteen posts to eleven and a half.

The Lib Dem budget stated this on Girtrell Court, “Council believes that the closure of the Lyndale School and the anguished debate about the re-provision of services at Girtrell Court underline the need to work closely with service users and their families. Council has a duty of care to ensure their concerns are fully addressed.

In the case of Girtrell Court, Council requests that the Director of Adult Social Services and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health produce regular reports to Members. These must set out how a range of sufficient quality alternative services is to be achieved. Members would be failing in their duty if they were not to seek assurance about the quality, availability and capacity of the
alternatives.”

You can read each party’s budget in the supplementary agenda (Labour’s is pages 12-24, Conservative’s is pages 25-35 and the Lib Dem budget is pages 37-40).

Around three hours after the meeting had started, despite many heartfelt pleas about reversing their proposed closure of Girtrell Court, there was a vote on Labour’s budget and the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

The amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems were lost (due to Labour councillors voting against them). The Labour budget was agreed (due to the majority of Labour councillors on Wirral Council).

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

What was the government’s response to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report?

What was the government’s response to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report?

                                                       

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

I will start this by declaring some interests in the area of freedom of information. I am the appellant in case EA/2016/0033 (which is a case with the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FS50596346). A further case involving an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FER0592270 was put in the post on Monday, but is yet to be received by the Tribunal. There are also numerous ICO decision notices that have been issued about FOI requests I have made.

Yesterday the government published the final report of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information and there is a ministerial written statement here about it.

Introducing new fees for FOI requests (above those that can be already charged) has been ruled out partly because this would lead to a reduction in FOI requests from the media and others.

The ministerial statement also refers to updated codes of practice published. Interestingly one of the requirements of this new code of practice will be for public authorities with a hundred or more full-time equivalent employees to publish detailed statistics on how they deal with FOI/EIR requests.

I presume this will be something similar to the quarterly reports issued by central government which give a detailed account of how FOI and EIR requests have been dealt with over that timescale.

As the ministerial statement states “The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively.”

Certainly once the new code of practice is published, a new requirement on local government bodies to publish this detailed information will provide an insight into how FOI/EIR requests are dealt with.

There is also going to be revised guidance on the application of section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests). The ministerial statement states that they expect this only to be used in “rare cases” and that “the ‘vexatious’ designation is not an excuse to save public officials embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money”.

There is also going to be consideration by the government of whether to include a requirement to publish expenses and benefits in kind received by senior public sector executives. It seems FOI requests have been made for these, but turned down on data protection grounds.

As I’m the Appellant in the Tribunal case EA/2016/0033 (which isn’t classed as “active” yet (as “active” in such cases is defined as from the point when a hearing date is set), I can reveal that the only major development in that case is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has been added as a party to the appeal as second respondent (originally the case was just between myself and the Information Commissioner).

I’m still awaiting the Information Commissioner’s response (due by the 17th March 2016) and Wirral Council’s response is due not more than 21 days after they receive the Information Commissioner’s response.

Once the Information Commissioner responds and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council responds to the Information Commissioner’s response, I have up to 14 days to respond to their responses.

The Tribunal have asked all parties to notify them of any dates they are not available between 6th June 2016 and 29th July 2016, so I presume a hearing date will be set on some day between those two dates.

I’ve also been sent a copy of the practice note on closed material in information rights cases.

I’m sure there are those that could comment better than me about a practice direction that leads to hearings discussing the secret information while one of the parties to the appeal is excluded (secret hearings) and a guide to keeping information secret from one of the parties to the case.

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 a Labour councillor denying a vote took place on Girtrell Court?

Why is a Labour councillor denying a vote took place on Girtrell Court?

                                                              

Cllr Moira McLaughlin voting against Girtrell Court motion at Coordinating Committee 16th February 2016 thumbnail
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (second from the left) voting against Girtrell Court motion at Coordinating Committee 16th February 2016 thumbnail

As you can see from the still from a video I took of the Coordinating Committee meeting held on the 16th February 2016 Cllr Moira McLaughlin (second from the left in the background) is quite clearly voting on Cllr Phil Gilchrist/Cllr Wendy Clements’ motion about Girtrell Court.

This was a story in a blog post I published yesterday headlined 8 Labour councillors vote against motion asking for delay in closure of Girtrell Court until alternatives are in place. That blog post contains a video of the meeting and a transcript of what was said during that the discussion and vote on the motion about Girtrell Court.

Following publication of that piece, one of my readers emailed the Labour councillors involved in the vote. The reader forwarded a copy of a response received from Cllr McLaughlin which is included below (along with the original email). Cllr McLaughlin is Vice-Chair of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (therefore expected to lead by example when it comes to standards) but she responds in her role as Chair of the Coordinating Committee.

I have asked the reader for permission to publish this email, but at the time of publication have not heard back yet. Therefore I have removed their name, email address and signature block from both emails.

However considering Cllr McLaughlin’s denial in the email that a vote on Girtrell Court happened, I felt it was in the public interest and important that this is published before Budget Council meets on Thursday evening. Maybe Cllr McLaughlin can explain at Thursday’s meeting why she wrote this in an email (not just to the resident, but a number of other Labour councillors too)? This is one of those rare times I make a decision as editor using s.32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to publish such material.

I have not approached Cllr McLaughlin for a right to reply to this piece as I believe her views are conveyed in publication of the email itself.

From: McLaughlin, Moira (Councillor)
Date: 29 February 2016 at 14:44
Subject: RE: GIRTRELL COURT
To: ************** <****************>, “Abbey, Ron O. (Councillor)” , “Brightmore, Phillip A. (Councillor)” , “Smith, Walter W. (Councillor)” , “Sullivan, Michael (Councillor)” , “Williams, Jerry (Councillor)” , “Williamson, Janette (Councillor)” , “Williams, Irene R. (Councillor)”
Cc: “Davies, Phil L. (Councillor)”

Dear Mr. **********,

Thank you for contacting us.

I`m afraid , though, your information is inaccurate .

We have had no vote, as yet, on the future of Girtrell Court and I`m really not sure what information you have based this email on.

I don`t think it is appropriate for me to address the other points you make in your email

Regards

Moira

Councillor Moira Mclaughlin
Councillor for Rock Ferry Ward
Tel: 0151 644 8234
Fax: 0151 652 3248

The contents of this e-mail are the personal view of the author and should in no way be considered the official view of Wirral Council

From: ****************** [mailto:******************] On Behalf Of ******************
Sent: 29 February 2016 14:07
To: Abbey, Ron O. (Councillor); McLaughlin, Moira (Councillor); Brightmore, Phillip A. (Councillor); Smith, Walter W. (Councillor); Sullivan, Michael (Councillor); Williams, Jerry (Councillor); Williamson, Janette (Councillor); Williams, Irene R. (Councillor)
Subject: GIRTRELL COURT

Dear All!

Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) (Chair)
Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour)
Cllr Phillip Brightmore (Labour)
Cllr Walter Smith (Labour)
Cllr Michael Sullivan (Labour)
Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour)
Cllr Janette Williamson (Labour)
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour)

Is my interpretation correct that the above-named Councillors voted against a delay in the closure of Girtell Court until alternatives are in place?

If so, hang your heads in shame.

As a life-long Labour Party supporter, I believe in looking after the vulnerable in our society.

Since having become one of those vulnerable people (I am disabled), I had been hoping that the Party would help look after me. Now I see that it cares not one jot nor tittle. The Conservative Party looks after those able to cope with the vicissitudes of life. To whom must I turn at the next and future elections?

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