A blog about Wirral Council's public meetings, Wirral Council's councillors, Bidston & St. James ward and other public bodies on Merseyside
Author: John Brace
New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council.
Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.
Wirral Borough Council v McAdam and S & E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services v Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council
Wirral Borough Council v McAdam and S & E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services v Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council
There are two cases coming up this week in the Birkenhead County Court involving Wirral Council.
The first is on Tuesday 18th March 2014 in front of Deputy District Judge Abberton starting at 2pm and is expected to last ten minutes. The case is because Wirral Council is seeking a charging order (a charging order is a charge on a property registered with Land Registry which is paid if the property is sold) against a defendant referred to as McAdam. The case reference number for that case is 3bi07744.
In the second case Wirral Council looks like it’s listed as a defendant. The second case is down for Thursday at noon in front of Deputy District Judge Grosscurth (the same Deputy District Judge who decided on a court order last year in the case involving Kane and Woodley and a possession order for Fernbank Farm). It’s for a one hour case management conference. The party’s names in that case are listed as “S & E Lomax T/A Lomax Transport Svcs – Sherrard/Sherrard/WBC” which I presume means that the plaintiff is S&E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services and the defendants are Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council. The case reference number for that case is 3YJ60591.
I would guess that the first case is either a charging order to do with either work that the Council has carried out following a planning enforcement matter or about an outstanding debt. Lomax Transport Services is a road haulage business based in Rochdale. Quite who or what Sherrard are I’m not sure.
If anyone has further details on what these two mystery cases are about please leave a comment.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Cabinet agrees school meal price hike to £2.30 from September; government makes meals free for first 3 years of school
Cabinet agrees school meal price hike to £2.30 from September; government makes meals free for first 3 years of school
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) on the far left of the photo explains to Wirral Council’s Cabinet about the changes to the cost of school meal cost and what universal free school meals means
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The item on changes to the price of school meals starts at 2:09 in the video above and the report to Cabinet and its appendix are available on Wirral Council’s website by following those links.
One of the decisions made at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting was to increase the price of school meals to £2.30 from September 2014. This will increase the price of school meals at three nursery schools, sixty-four primary schools and thirteen special schools on the Wirral.
Just under half (48%) of school meals are however provided free. Families on means tested benefits such as income support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, receiving support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit (providing the person working is not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and has an income of less than £16,190), Working Tax Credit run on and Universal Credit may be entitled to free school meals.
The increase in the school meals cost is however the bad news, but there is good news. From September (as part of the reforms the government are bringing as part of the Children and Families Bill) there will be a legal requirement that school meals will be free for all children (not just children from families on the means tested benefits mentioned earlier) in reception as well as years 1 and 2. This will have effect from September 2014.
To cope with the increased demand that Wirral Council predicts will happen once there is a free school meal entitlement for all children in reception as well as years 1 and 2, Wirral Council are starting a recruitment process to hire a further eighty to a hundred people to work in school kitchens preparing the extra meals. Wirral Council will be receiving extra money from the government to pay for this extra free school meals entitlement.
The price increase and putting in place arrangements for the start of universal free school meals for infants from September were both agreed by Cabinet. However the topic will also be discussed at a future meeting of Wirral Schools Forum.
Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) had this to say about it at the Cabinet meeting, “This report is in two parts Chair, part one is to increase the price of a paid meal in schools from £2 to £2.30 with effect from September 2014. The second part is to implement government policy with the introduction of universal free school meals for infant aged children.
I’ll just take the first one free school meal policy. Metro provide to the authority meal service for eighty schools, nursery, primary and special and has a turnover in excess of £4 million. Food costs are increasing and unit costs remain historically in excess of £2.80. With a charge of £2 for each meal there is a significant subsidy. Decision about the price of a main meal is taken by government bodies taking account of local authority costs.
Many other authorities in the area that we’ve looked at currently charge in excess of £2 per a meal although none charge £2.30. Can I just say we haven’t got the figures from other local authorities for this year so we’re talking about what the charges were last year and some of those are in excess of £2?
The increase recommended that some, not all inflationary pressures over the period to help the Metro trading account achieve and maintain a balanced position. The cost of meal production will be reviewed and an expansion of the service will provide greater economies of scale through better financial monitoring.
The second part is on universal free meals. I think this has been adopted by the Deputy Leader in the last week or so. This is a new national policy initiative backed by legislation to provide all infant age children in schools with a free meal. Plan for this change, some additional equipment and alterations is needed. A capital grant of £623,802 has been allocated and should be included within the capital program.
Schools will be paid £2.30 by the government for each additional meal produced. It’s anticipated that Metro meal volumes will increase by 80% in September with an ongoing grant in the full year for schools of £3.5 million. The additional revenue and this is good news again funding will fund additional food production and the need for more staff in kitchens. We’re talking about eighty to a hundred posts in Metro kitchens.
At this time proposals have not been considered by the Schools Forum and the headteachers groups although this will happen prior to implementation. I’ve got three recommendations, that one that the price of a paid school meal is increased to £2.30 from September of 2014 in primary schools where their services are provided by Metro services and that this increase is recommended to governing bodies of primary and special schools.
Two subject to Council approval, that the capital grant received will implement universal free school meals for infants in maintained schools totalling £623,802 is included within the capital grant for 2014-15 and is used to progress a range of schemes described and thirdly that Metro school kitchen staffing numbers are increased to take into account the additional meal numbers with costs funded by schools and the Department for Education revenue grant based on £2.30 per an additional free meal served. Thank you Chair.”
Cllr Phil Davies replied, “OK, thanks very much, can we agree those recommendations?”
Cabinet agreed the recommendations.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?
Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?
The Cheshire Cat from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version) which seemed about the only image that seemed ideal for this story about Lyndale School and Wirral Council
First, if you’ve been away on holiday the past two months a recap on what’s happened so far in a saga that’s seems to quickly becoming as complicated as the plot to the Lord of the Rings.
It starts with a proposal to Wirral Council’s Cabinet by Wirral Council officers to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting Wirral Council’s officers also proposed introducing a new system for funding “high needs” students where from 2014-15 extra funding to schools would be determined by which one of five bands that school’s pupils were categorised as being in. There was an emotional plea made to councillors on the Cabinet by Dawn Hughes (who has a child at the school) not to agree to consult on closure of Lyndale School (which was reported on this blog). However Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to both agree to consult on closing Lyndale School and also the banding proposals too.
It’s important at this stage to state the reasons given back in January for consulting on closing Lyndale School by Wirral Council officers, which are detailed both in the minutes and the report.
Here are some quotes from the report (although at this point in time some of these purported facts have been found to be factually incorrect).
“The closure of the Lyndale School is proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll, which both contribute to a difficult financial position.”
“In 2013-14 the school has set a budget for the year based on School Funding of £761,733 with a small deficit of £3,647. This was achieved using all accumulated balances brought forward of £51,707. The latest position indicates there will be deficit at the year end of £15,667. This has resulted from changes in staff costs and support services.”
“In 2014-15 the school forecast, before any corrective action, is that there would be a deficit of £72,000. This deficit has the potential to increase to in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.”
…
“This means that for 2014-15 the shortfall the school may experience will be approximately £72,000 for the year based on the number currently on school roll. This is approximately 9% of their budget.”
Wirral Council did at some point make an application to the Education Funding Agency for the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% not to apply to it in 2014-15 (although I’m waiting for this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency to be answered as to the details on that). On the 27th January 2014 Cllrs Tom Harney, Phil Gilchrist, Jeff Green, Ian Lewis, Cherry Povall and Pat Williams called in the two Cabinet decisions.
These two decisions then went to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 5th February 2014 to be looked at again. However the Coordinating Committee didn’t have the required parent governor representatives and Diocesan Body representatives that they were required by legislation to have when making decisions on educational (or school) related matters. So the meeting of 5th February 2014 was adjourned and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on the 25th February 2014 so that the parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives could be added to the Coordinating Committee. This was agreed at a meeting of the full Council on the 25th February 2014.
While all this was going on, the Cabinet made its recommendation on the 2014-15 Schools Budget to Council on the 12th February 2014 and Council agreed the Schools Budget on the 25th February 2014 (including matters that were yet to be decided because of the adjourned Coordinating Committee meeting). The issue of the upcoming call ins was raised at the Cabinet meeting and councillors were told that there was a contingency (of £908,900) included as part of the Schools Budget which would mean that whatever the outcome of the call ins were that it could still be funded.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Video of the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School consultation closure call in (adjourned from the Coordinating Committee on the 5th Feburary).
On both matters the draft minutes state that a majority of the councillors plus the parent governor representative present who had a vote, voted to uphold the original Cabinet decisions. It’s worth pointing out that on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision the Conservative councillors proposed instead a review (which was voted against by nine votes to six). On the banding proposals the Conservative councillors proposed the following motion “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children” (which was lost by seven votes for the motion and eight against).
The votes on the Labour councillor’s recommendations to uphold the two original Labour Cabinet decisions were on the Lyndale School consultation closure decision nine votes to six (the Labour councillors plus the Lib Dem councillor Cllr Alan Brighouse voted in favour of a consultation on closure whereas the Conservative councillors and parent governor representative voted against). The vote on a recommendation by Labour councillors to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision on the banding proposals was won by a narrower margin of eight votes to seven (the Labour councillors voted for it with the Lib Dem councillor, Conservatives and parent governor representative being opposed to it).
So, what’s new? Well unfortunately I had to go (and as the first call in on consulting closing Lyndale School had taken three and half hours had run out of tape anyway) after the first decision over the Lyndale School closure consultation decision. So I’ve only found out what happened at the second part of the meeting by reading the draft minutes of that meeting were available at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.
Here is what the draft minutes state about the minimum funding guarantee. My comments are in italics underneath.
The first quote is about the explanation of the banding proposals decision by the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.
“Basically, the report had dealt with the banding model and informed how top ups would be made. The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”
Then this in the draft minutes from the evidence of the Vice-Chair of Governors at Lyndale School (and Chair of their Finance Committee) Ian Harrison.
“Mr Harrison informed that the Lyndale School now had a surplus forecast for 2013/14. It was going to get the minimum funding guarantee. There would be a small surplus in 2014/15.”
So if the original reason for consulting on closing Lyndale School was that an officer (or officers) at Wirral Council thought it wouldn’t have enough money, but the minimum funding guarantee exemption request has been withdrawn so that Lyndale School is now projecting a surplus (at least for 2014/15), why is Wirral Council going to the trouble of a twelve week consultation on closing the school?
“Members then asked Mr Harrison some questions which he answered as appropriate. It was noted that:
The Cabinet had received an early estimate rather than one at the end of the period when it would have been more realistic.”
Perhaps councillors were too polite to suggest that the Cabinet had based their decision on an estimate based on an assumption about the minimum funding guarantee (that is that the assumption that it would be approved and not withdrawn) which turned out not to be the case.
None of the special schools agreed with the formula that had been approved.
There are eleven special schools on Wirral (Hayfield, Clare Mount, Orrets Meadow, Gilbrook, Stanley, Elleray, Lyndale, Foxfield, Meadowside and Kilgarth). The 2014-15 budgets for each special school would have each been affected by the banding proposals. Had the minimum funding guarantee exemption application not been withdrawn, other schools could have been facing deficits (although Lyndale was the school most affected). The motion that was agreed on this item is stated in the draft minutes as “That the Committee upholds the Cabinet’s decision and it be ensured that consultation is meaningful, informed and transparent”. This is very unclear. Does that mean there’s going to be a consultation on the banding proposals or is it referring to the consultation to close Lyndale School?
So to summarise, Wirral Council officers thought there would be a large deficit in Lyndale School’s budget so recommended to the Cabinet that they should consult on closing the school. This decision was called in and during the call in it was discovered that Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee had been withdrawn. So now there’s a legal requirement that Lyndale School will get at least 98.5% of the amount they got in the previous year. As Lyndale School had looked into reducing costs of non teaching staff to reduce the original estimated large deficit, they now estimate a small surplus in their budget for 2014/15.
However Wirral Council is still going to carry out a twelve week consultation on closing the school based on an estimated deficit in Lyndale School’s budget that now can’t happen because the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% is a legal requirement on Wirral Council.
How much is such a consultation, based on a guesstimate by officers (which ended up being wrong) going to cost? Bearing in mind the above, is it any wonder that people get confused by Wirral Council’s decision-making and politics? Am I missing something vital or is everything I’ve stated here correct?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What are the reasons why Wirral Council can’t do a 12 week closure consultation on Lyndale School for July’s Cabinet?
What are the reasons why Wirral Council can’t do a 12 week closure consultation on Lyndale School for July’s Cabinet?
Councillor Phil Davies asked Surjit Tour for advice on what to do about the draft minutes on the call ins about consulting on closing Lyndale School and special educational needs funding at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of the 13th March 2014
According to the detail provided the outcome of the consultation (which hasn’t started yet) will be considered at a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet on 1st July 2014. However I don’t see it as possible for Wirral Council to comply with the timescales on this and I’ll explain briefly why.
The outcome of the consultation to close Lyndale School is classed as a key decision. Regulation 9 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 states that prior to making key decisions (see 9(e)) that Wirral Council has to publish “a list of the documents submitted to the decision maker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the key decision is to be made” (decision maker means the Cabinet) at “least 28 clear days” before the decision is made.
Clear days means the day it is published and the day of the meeting aren’t taken into account in the twenty-eight days calculation which means the last day this can happen is the 2nd June 2014 (there are provisions in the legislation where a decision can be made with less than 28 clear days notice if the decision is “urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred” but the agreement of the Chair of the Families and Wellbeing Committee would be needed for that). After the consultation finishes, as the report will have to mention what the responses to the consultation were, I estimate it would be reasonable to estimate a week for this to happen, a week off of 2nd June 2014 is the 26th May 2014.
The original report to Cabinet on the consultation back in January 2014 stated that there would be a twelve week consultation following a consultation document being published. Take twelve weeks off of 26th May 2014 and you get a date of 3rd March 2014 (which has already happened and was nearly two weeks ago).
The call-in meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee made its decision on the 27th February 2014 and according to Wirral Council’s constitution as the Co-ordinating Committee upheld the original two Cabinet decisions that were called in, the decision to consult on closure should’ve been implemented at this point. Instead it was put on the agenda of the Cabinet meeting of 13th March 2014, with the agenda stating that the Coordinating Committee had made recommendations to Cabinet (which it hadn’t done as the Coordinating Committee had upheld the original Cabinet decisions of the 16th January and not made any recommendations to Cabinet).
So I don’t understand how it’s possible (as the twelve week consultation hasn’t started yet) how on earth Wirral Council will manage to bring a report on it to the Cabinet meeting of the 1st July considering the above timescales.
The agreed calendar of meetings shows that the next Cabinet meeting scheduled following the 1st July is the 11th September. This of course doesn’t rule out a special Cabinet meeting on this matter in mid-July, however as the schools break up for their summer break around this time it wouldn’t be best to hold it at this time.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Cabinet takes 38 seconds to consider Lyndale School call in minutes and 10 councillors fail to mention at least 4 factual errors in them
Cabinet consider Lyndale School call in minutes in 38 seconds,10 councillors fail to mention at least 4 factual errors
Councillor Phil Davies asked Surjit Tour for advice on what to do about the draft minutes on the call ins about consulting on closing Lyndale School and special educational needs funding at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of the 13th March 2014
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Wirral Council’s Cabinet considers the draft minutes of the call ins on consulting on closing Lyndale School and how special education needs funding is allocated starting at 9:10 in the video above and finishing at 9:48 (a total of thirty-eight seconds on a matter on which 6,440 people signed a petition
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
I rarely refer to religion on this blog (which is about politics) as although we don’t have the kind of constitutional separation of church and state that a country like America does, religion rarely features in Wirral’s politics. I was raised up a Catholic but for many years was an organist (until sadly I broke my wrist in two places) at St. James’ church. The quote above is from the Anglican General Confession which I heard many times over the years. There also a bit in it that says “We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts” which some would say sums up why things went so pear-shaped at Wirral Council. However this blog post (much as it might be more interesting to write such a piece) isn’t going to be a fire and brimstone opinion piece or about whether making immoral decisions puts the immortal souls of politicians in jeopardy.
So moving on to things that Wirral Council has done which it ought not to have done and the things it should have done but didn’t. Yesterday’s Cabinet meeting had at agenda item 15 an item described on the agenda in this way:
“Recommendations from Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee – 27 February 2014
The Cabinet is requested to consider recommendations from the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee held on 27 February 2014, in respect of the following call-in notices:-
Cabinet 16 December 2013 (Minute 129) – Report Seeking Approval to Consult on the Closure of The Lyndale School
Cabinet 16 December 2013 (Minute 140) – Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs
Minutes to follow”
Now in the “bad old days”, when Wirral Council officers wanted politicians not to thoroughly scrutinise something it would be handed out on the night of the meeting itself and not included with the reports published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting or with the papers sent out to people on that committee.
I did see Cllr Tony Smith ask for (and receive) a copy of the draft minutes in the minutes before the Cabinet meeting started. Councillor Phil Davies said that the Cabinet had been given the draft minutes given to them “this evening” but would any councillor have had the time to read twenty-one pages of minutes before getting to agenda item 15?
“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done”
So why am I going on about all this? It’s unlawful to do things this way and yet politicians (and officers) seem to either in total blissful ignorance about this or do know and are deliberately keeping quiet.
6. (1) The decision-making body must give notice of the time and place of a public meeting by displaying it at the offices of the relevant local authority and publishing it on that authority’s website, if it has one—
(a) at least five clear days before the meeting; or
(b) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, at the time that the meeting is convened.
(2) An item of business may only be considered at a public meeting—
(a) where a copy of the agenda or part of the agenda including the item has been available for inspection by the public as required by regulation 7 for at least five clear days before the meeting; or
(b) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, a copy of the agenda including the item has been available for inspection by the public from the time that the meeting was convened.
7. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a copy of the agenda and every report for a meeting must be made available for inspection by the public—
(a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
(b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.
(2) If the proper officer thinks fit, there may be excluded from the copy of any report provided pursuant to paragraph (1) the whole, or any part, of the report which relates only to matters during which, in the proper officer’s opinion, the meeting is likely to be a private meeting.
(3) Any document which is required by paragraph (1) to be available for inspection by the public must be available for such inspection for at least five clear days before the meeting except that—
(a) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, a copy of the agenda and associated reports must be available for inspection when the meeting is convened; and
(b) where an item which would be available for inspection by the public is added to the agenda, copies of the revised agenda and any report relating to the item for consideration at the meeting, must be available for inspection by the public when the item is added to the agenda.
(4) Nothing in paragraph (3) requires a copy of the agenda, item or report to be available for inspection by the public until a copy is available to members of the decision-making body concerned.
(5) Where by virtue of paragraph (2) the whole or any part of a report for a public meeting is not available for inspection by the public—
(a) every copy of the whole report or of the part of the report, as the case may be, must be marked “not for publication”; and
(b) there must be stated on every copy of the whole or the part of the report—
(i) that it contains confidential information; or
(ii) by reference to the descriptions in Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act, the description of exempt information by virtue of which the decision-making body discharging the executive function are likely to exclude the public during the item to which the report relates.
(6) Except during any part of a meeting during which the public are excluded, the relevant local authority must make available for the use of members of the public present at the meeting a reasonable number of copies of the agenda and of the reports for the meeting.
(7) Subject to regulation 20, following a request made by a member of the public or on behalf of a newspaper and on payment being made of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, a relevant local authority must supply to that person or newspaper—
(a) a copy of the agenda for a public meeting and a copy of each of the reports for consideration at the meeting;
(b) such further statements or particulars, as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items contained in the agenda; and
(c) if the proper officer thinks fit in the case of any item, a copy of any other document supplied to members of the executive in connection with the item.
(8) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to copies of reports provided pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) as it applies in relation to copies of reports made available for inspection pursuant to paragraph (1).
In fact Cllr Phil Davies (the Chair of the Cabinet meeting) referred to the draft minutes during the Cabinet meeting itself as Cabinet agreed to note “the report”.
“And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;”
Moving onto the actual draft minutes of the meeting on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School call in, there are many factual inaccuracies in these minutes, which if the above procedure had been followed, both politicians and the public would have had a chance to spot these in advance of the Cabinet meeting.
These draft minutes are now on Wirral Council’s website.
The first error starts even with the list of who was present. A Councillor “A McLaughlin” is incorrectly listed as present which should be “M McLaughlin”. Three years ago when Cllr Moira McLaughlin was Mayor, her daughter Anna McLaughlin was Mayoress but that’s the only A McLaughlin I am aware of.
Moving onto page 2 the draft minutes state in relation to the procedure for the call-in “This procedure had been agreed and adopted by the Committee for this purpose at its meeting on 24 June 2014. (Minute No. 4 refers.)”
As the observant among you will have noticed a meeting on the 24th June 2014 can’t have happened yet! This is wildly inaccurate. Firstly the meeting it’s referring to is the one on the 24th June 2013 which decided “That the procedure be agreed and adopted for managing the present call-in, in relation to the LGA Annual Conference and Exhibition.”, therefore the decision on 24th June 2013 was about a previous call in, not the ones about Lyndale School and how funding is allocated to schools.
Secondly when the call in meeting started on 5th February agenda item 3 was “Procedure for considering a decision that has been called in” which also stated on the agenda of that meeting “The procedure to be used when considering a decision that has been call in is attached. This procedure was agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 3 July 2013 (Minute No. 4 refers).”
On the 3rd July 2013 the Coordinating Committee did agree meeting procedure rules (which then went on to be part of Wirral Council’s constitution) about call ins.
However, moving on… dates and years do seem to be a particular problem. In the bit about the reasons for the call in it’s stated in the last bullet point
The resolution of the Council of February 14 2010 and the work done by the Local Authority following this have not been referred to, not even mentioned. This should have formed the context for the present decision.
There wasn’t a Council meeting on the 14th February 2010, this was in fact a Sunday. It should be February 14 2011 and refers to this resolution following a large petition signed by 1,874 people.
Three paragraphs later things are getting confused again, “Councillor Harney reminded the Cabinet that at its meeting on 14 February 2014 the Council had received a petition from the Lyndale School of 1874 signatures asking the Council to develop, as a matter of urgency, a consistent and coherent policy for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.”
Firstly the date of 14 February 2014 should read 14 February 2011. It’s also written in a misleading way that could imply he was referring to a Cabinet meeting on the 14th February 2014 (when it wasn’t, he was referring to the Council meeting of the 14th February 2011). Although a Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith) was present at the Coordinating Committee meeting to decide on the call ins, Cllr Tom Harney wasn’t reminding the Cabinet, he was reminding the Coordinating Committee.
Moving to Cllr Tony Smith’s explanation of the decision the draft minutes state “Councillor Tony Smith informed that under the Education Act 1996, the local education authority had a statutory duty to ensure that there were sufficient school places in its administrative area and with fair access to educational opportunity to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential. To do this any future plans had to consider the educational benefits for children, value for money, and the ways schools could develop collaborative practice in the best interest of children.”
Now the way that is written it sounds like Cllr Tony Smith is stating (or at least its implied) that the Education Act 1996 means there’s a legal requirement under this act on Wirral Council to consider value for money. The only reference to value for money in the Education Act 1996 was to Section 23 which did originally refer to local Councils conducting value for money studies on grant maintained schools. However this provision was repealed in November 1999 and anyway Lyndale School is not a grant maintained school. Grant maintained schools was the term used between 1988 and 1998 for a school that had opted out of local government (which in Wirral’s case is Wirral Council) control and instead got their grant directly from central government.
Councillor Smith then goes on in the minutes to describe the “Place plus” system. This (for the financial year referred to) is determined by the The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013. However what’s missing from the minutes and is a point that’s very important to mention in all this is the legal requirement on Wirral Council under regulation 19 in respect of the minimum funding guarantee. In a nutshell this legal requirement means that what Wirral Council give a school to spend on education in 2014-15 can’t be less than 98.5% of what they gave them to spend on education in 2013-14.
There is however a caveat in the regulations, part (4) of Regulation 19 states “(4) A local authority may make changes to the operation of this regulation and to the operation of Schedule 4 in determining and redetermining budget shares where authorised to do so by the Secretary of State under regulation 25 (Alternative arrangements).”
As far as I know Wirral Council have asked the Department for Education for an agreement that the the minimum funding guarantee requirements don’t apply to them, but I don’t know if they have received a response back yet (although the Schools Budget for 2014-15 makes the assumption this consent is given).
Over three weeks ago I made this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency for details of Wirral Council’s application to the Education Funding Agency for permission that the minimum funding guarantee doesn’t apply and the Education Funding Agency’s replies to Wirral Council. I expect a reply to my Freedom of Information Act request in the next week.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.