Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with Andy Day memorial cup by the Mayor of Wirral

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by the Mayor of Wirral at a meeting of Wirral Council

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

                          

In awarding the cup the Mayor of Wirral said during a meeting of the Council on Monday, “As this is my last full Council meeting,it falls upon me to present the Andy Day memorial cup. I’ve been very impressed by lots of councillors throughout the year, the amount of work that they do as councillors but also throughout their community. I’ve struggled over the last few days to select a particular Member who I believe is worthy of the cup and I’ve come to the conclusion that my nomination for the Andy Day Memorial Cup this year will be Councillor Phil Gilchrist.

The reason behind that is he’s a stalwart within my own particular ward. He’s taken up the mantle with myself being the Mayor this year and he’s taken on a lot more work than he would normally do. Outside of that I do know that he does an awful lot of work within the community. May I present the Andy Day Memorial to Councillor Phil Gilchrist.”

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said receiving the cup was “totally out of the blue”. Video of the cup being presented to Cllr Phil Gilchrist starts at 2:20 in the video 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.

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

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders on Wirral Council

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders on Wirral Council

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders

                                                  

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.

Cllr Phil Davies’ (Labour Leader) budget speech starts at 6:27. Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative Leader) speech on the budget begins at 20:00 and carries on into the next video.

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.

Cllr Jeff Green’s (Conservative Leader) budget speech starts at 0:01. Cllr Phil Gilchrist’s (Lib Dem Leader) speech on the Lib Dem budget starts at 1:20.

Cllr Phil Davies said, “Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr Mayor, we need tonight to set our budget for next year in perhaps the most difficult set of circumstances this Council has ever faced. Mr Mayor in his five years in power David Cameron will have cut funding to local government by 40%, by the end of 2016 this Council’s main revenue grant will have been cut by over 50% since 2010. This is a huge reduction and the government has hit the most disadvantaged areas the hardest, Mr Mayor this is a scandal.

The most deprived areas are shouldering the greatest reductions in government funding while some of the wealthiest areas will find themselves better off. Mr Mayor this financial year the Prime Minister’s own local authority of West Oxfordshire, one of the least deprived areas in the country actually received an increase in its spending power while some of our most deprived areas on Merseyside are dealing with the most significant reductions.

The consequences of this policy have been devastating. Local services decimated, massive job losses, councils predicting imminent bankruptcy, some actually saying that they may be unable to guarantee their ability to provide even statutory services and at a time when so many people are struggling with rapidly escalating energy bills, prices rising faster than wages and benefit cuts David Cameron is refusing to rule out cutting the top rate of tax yet again. This
affair is absolutely shameful.

If the last four years have taught us anything it’s surely that we need a government which governs for the many, not the few and in terms of local government we need a government that distributes funding in a fair way and a Secretary of State that treats hard working councils and councillors who do their best to serve their residents with respect not contempt.

Mr Mayor, when my party took over the administration of this Council in May 2012 we faced a hugely challenging set of circumstances. We inherited a set of bad budgets and bad debts culminating in a £17 million overspend inherited from the previous administration.

Government cuts of £109 million over three years cut off a third of our net revenue budget. Growing demand for many of our services as a result of demographic change, factors such as an aging population and an organisation with poor corporate governance, weak management and a silo mentality.

Mr Mayor, I’m proud that through the hard work of Members and officers supported by external experts on our Improvement Board Wirral is one of the fastest improving councils in the country and we’ve put the Council’s finances on a firm footing to such an extent that the latest financial monitoring statement from the Director of Resources reports that the Council has an underspend of £982,000.

Mr Mayor our approach to the budget setting has been to use our overarching goals attracting jobs and investment, protecting vulnerable people & communities and narrowing the gap in inequalities as our key priorities in shaping our budget. I am proud of the fact that we’ve listened to our residents in framing our budget proposals. The What Really Matters exercise we conducted last year, one of the largest consultations in the country genuinely influenced our decisions on budget options that we proposed to Council last December.

However I will not deny that we’ve had to make some difficult decisions £48 million of cuts this year, £27 and a half million next year. I’ve said many times that I did not come into politics to make cuts and if I was given a choice of course I would not wish to cut any services. However given that 85% of our incomes comes from central government we are in the invidious position of having to make these decisions in order to set a legal budget. But let me make one thing clear Mr Mayor in spite of what the opposition may say, responsibility for these cuts that we’ve had to make on this Council lies squarely at the door of this Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government and the parties opposite should be ashamed of what they’ve done to Wirral and this country.

Mr Mayor if I can now turn to our budget proposals, I’m pleased there is consensus around at least a number of items in the Labour Budget. The £7.6 million of growth in measures to support older people, younger people with learning disabilities and adoptions and special guardians. £1 million to enhance early intervention, £2 million invested in upgrading Europa Pools, Guinea Gap and West Kirby. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to use £400,000 from the waste development fund to reinstate monthly cleansing of entries and I’m also pleased that we’ll be continuing our funding commitment to constituency committees over the next year.

I’m pleased that we’ll ensure the Williamson Art Gallery can operate while the action group which has been looking at new ways of delivering this valued facility and finalising its business plan and I’m also pleased at being able to provide reassurance that no funding will be withdrawn from school crossing patrols where agreement cannot be reached with schools.

With regard to our staff I’m pleased that we were able to maintain a generous voluntary severance scheme, I’m also pleased that under this Labour administration this Council became a living wage Council last year and I now want to go further and I want Wirral to become a living wage Borough.

Mr Mayor I think it’s a shame that yet again the Conservative Group in their amendment is attacking our staff by deleting the funding for full time trade union officials. I have said many times that trade unions play a vital role in achieving good industrial relations and working with trade unions in partnership is the sign of a progressive organisation.

Mr Mayor with regards to next year’s council tax I’m pleased to announce that we will freeze the council tax in 2014/15. Providing the government doesn’t change the rules we also aim to freeze the council tax in 2015/16. We’ve been able to do this because the government have been forced to change its policy in response to the lobbying that this Council and others that the freeze grant should be built into the base budget.

Well let me make it clear Mr Mayor the freeze grant of £1.3 million whilst welcome, pales into insignificance against the £120 million which this government has cut from Wirral Council’s budget and if the government is really serious about helping councils like Wirral they should reimburse the lion’s share of this £120 million.

Mr Mayor, the council freeze will I believe will help all residents of the Borough. We will not impose an extra burden on council tax payers, hopefully for the next two years. We will continue to provide a discount to the vast majority of pensioners and we are putting £300,000 into the budget to ensure the poorest in our communities don’t pay more following the government’s disgraceful cut to council tax benefit.

Mr Mayor, these measures are important, but in contrast to the Tory amendment which proposes a series of largely short-term one off spending commitments, this administration is also proposing a £1.5 million house building program funded by a mixture of in year underspends and borrowing to kick start housing in those areas of the Borough which have lost out after the housing market renewal program was so callously cut by a stroke of Eric Pickle’s pen, an absolute disgrace.

Mr Mayor, the leader of the opposition is wrong to claim that Magenta Living could fill this gap. Official projections indicate we need to build around about six hundred new houses each year for the next five years. Magenta’s program will only be sufficient to meet a small proportion of this need and much of their new build will be a need to replace units that they have demolished.

Our program will generate a hundred new homes with the potential for substantially more. It will benefit future generations of residents long after this budget has been passed. It will create a significant number of new jobs and apprenticeships for our young people, most importantly because we know there is a strong link between good housing and good health it will contribute to reducing the gap in life expectancy, a key problem which has blighted Wirral for far too long.

Mr Mayor, in conclusion given the background I outlined earlier, this has been perhaps the most difficult budget I’ve been involved in setting. I would remind Council we still have a huge financial challenge ahead of us. We need to achieve additional savings of £44 million over the next two years and the remodelling work which was discussed at the Members’ seminar last week at the Floral Pavilion is essential if we are to deliver these savings and continue to provide good quality services.

Mr Mayor I think it’s essential that we continue to lobby the government to rethink the grossly unfair way in which it distributes funding to councils. I have to say I find the Tory Group’s proposal to withdraw from membership of SIGOMA, an organisation which has spoken loudly in favour of local government to be deeply, deeply cynical.

Mr Mayor although we’ve had to make some difficult I’m proud we’ve put the Council’s finances on a sound footing and we are helping all households with the council tax freeze in 2014/15 and hopefully the year beyond. We are putting extra money into the budget to meet our demographic growth, we are giving additional help to pensioners, the long term unemployed and attracting new jobs and investments. We have listened to and acted on the views of our residents. Crucially our house building program will leave a lasting legacy for future generations.

Mr Mayor this is a budget to be proud of, it’s a budget of a progressive Council with a clear vision for the future and a commitment to social justice and I commend it to the Council.”

Cllr Jeff Green said, “I will of course be brief Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, firstly let me say how much I welcome and I’m sure this is shared by the entire Council the fact that the Coalition government’s economic policies are working and the UK economy is now growing faster than any other major European economy. Businesses have created 1.6 million new jobs and unemployment has come down sharply. I’m sure we will also welcome the fact this government has allowed hard working people by amongst other things cutting income tax for the typical taxpayer by £590, giving a saving of £360 on petrol and of course freezing council tax.

Mr Mayor, what a difference to the economic mess the government inherited when they came to power. Labour had maxed out the national credit card, doubled our national debt and taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. They left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world and in our own peacetime history borrowing £1 in every four we spent resulting in payments of £120 million every day just to cover interest.

So Mr Mayor even the local Labour party must now admit bearing down on public spending was and remains an absolute priority for any sensible government. Even if the Leader of the Council over eggs the pudding somewhat by claiming that by 2016 we will have seen our overall budget halved since austerity measures were introduced. I’m sorry Mr Mayor that’s not over egging as I suggested, it is in fact utter tosh.

Mr Mayor let me be clear whilst I regret that sending grant to the government last year I do welcome the fact that the administration have swallowed their pride and have last decided to freeze council tax even if they’ve been brought to this point kicking and screaming.

I am however Mr Mayor disgusted that the only people who’ll see an increase in the direct contribution they have to make to Wirral services are pensioners. Given that the Labour administration have retained their cuts to pensioner discount and removed it completely from some without any recognition of their means.

Mr Mayor this is completely unfair and I’m delighted that if our amendment is passed tonight we will right this wrong. We also note that by their own hands the Labour administration increased the cost of living for the average family by £295.51 since April 2013. Therefore we demonstrate how the cost of living burden can be reduced by reverting to the pre April 2012 car parking charges, reinstating a year round free after three parking initiative, halving the charge for residents for garden waste collection and freezing for one year at its current level Wirral Council tax fees and charges.

We’ve also been able to find resources to ensure that funding meant for the education of Wirral school children is not diverted to pay for the Council’s responsibility to provide school crossing patrols. Now let me just be clear because I did check on this particular point as I do on them all of course and that was made very clear that whatever the warm words of the Leader of the Council no move has been made to put that money back into the budget and that cut remains in place.

Mr Mayor it also allows the street lights back on, increase the level of dog fouling enforcement, invest £1 million for an immediate programme to repair pot holes and improve Wirral’s roads and pavements and maintain our commitment to early intervention and Children Centres in the sure knowledge that failure to support young families in the early years will cost Wirral Council and taxpayers in the long term.

So Mr Mayor, how are we going to find the resources to reduce the cost of living burden and reverse some of Labour’s more baffling cuts? Well we’ve looked to find savings where any hard working Wirral family who could scrutinise the Council’s budget would expect cutting back on the cost of ourselves, leaning the Council bureaucracy, cutting out duplication and being more ambitious to transform the entire Council.

How on earth can the current administration justify an alternative support to councillors budget, spending £130,000 on paying for trade union officials, a Council press, marketing and design department of twenty posts, spending £1.9 million on items that are duplicated elsewhere in the Borough when cutting children’s centres, school crossing patrols, switching off street lights and making pensioners on fixed incomes pay for the privilege?

I also believe that with immediate action to increase the focus, ambition, discipline, rigour, risk management and improving accountability for the transforming Wirral Council change project can deliver increased cash benefits this year. Although I believe the current approach being adopted by the Leader of the Council does carry the risk of breaking any political consensus around the structural changes required be all Council led.

The fundamental question whose money is the administration seeking to spend? As Conservatives we believe the money earned by hard working people should be spent by them on their ambitions and aspirations themselves alone and only taken from them in council revenue or other sorts of tax when it’s absolutely essential.

Mr Mayor, if this budget amendment is passed tonight it will restore the safety of Wirral’s children and families, result in a 0% Council Tax increase for all Wirral residents, retain the pensioner’s discount in full, directly reduce the cost of living for hard working Wirral families and prevent the Council raising stealth taxes via its fees and charges, improve recycling, start the process of repatriating loans given out at bargain basement levels of interest to other Councils and I believe when that resource comes back it should be used to pay down the current levels of debt and maintain the entire Council’s commitment to a sustainable budget. Mr Mayor I commend our amendment to the Council.”

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said, “Thank you Mr Mayor. Perhaps if I just deal with the last point that was raised because last July I made enquiries about this loans situation and I’ve made more enquiries since. What puzzles me is that Councillor Green has included the whole amount that’s out on loan in his commentary at the same time we actually have earned £482,000 on the loans that have come back and we expect to get £238,000 on the loans that are still outstanding so I am cautious about the claims about the loans.

We have the money, it’s a bit like Father Ted. We have money resting in our account and the Council chose to invest it. We didn’t get as much as we’ve had in the past but at least the investments have produced some income and therefore that is to our health. So I was disagreeing with the interpretation of that.

Now I will turn to other things. I’ll try to be consistent and helpful as ever if I may. In December my colleagues and I welcomed some things and disagreed with others.

We welcomed the fact that we row over the country parks and Council charges, we welcomed new appreciation and concern about gritting among other things, while we continue to highlight our worries about a reduction in street lighting and what we saw as the threat, the idea that schools should pay out of money that they want to spend on education for school crossing patrols which we’ve always seen as a Council service.

Now we’ve highlighted this in December that if a school was running a tight budget or had concerns, we did not wish the school to have to chose between say a teaching assistant or some extra hours for staff and a school crossing patrol. Education was education in our mind and school crossing patrols were a separate service funding by the council payers and not the schools budget. So we continue to raise concerns about that.

I don’t agree with the description about the bad debts and bad budgets. These were things we’ve all known about for about ten or twelve years. It’s just that again year after year when we’ve debated the budget and argued about £2 or £3 million, that underlying problem which was known to senior Members was somehow glossed over and when a total look was taken at it and a clear long look by people who were less close to it, they said this genuinely is a problem and we accepted that and we do agree with the criticisms about us being in a silo culture.

Comments have been made about our Council against others and it is not me that says there’s a problem but Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the Local Government Association who says that the next two years will be the toughest yet for people who use and rely on the vital everyday local services that councils provide. So it’s accepted by Conservatives in local government nationally the problem in the same way that I accept there’s a problem here and I know that the Leader of the Council and I have many warm words to say about North Dorset.

In North Dorset they’ve decided to increase Council Tax by 1.99%. Their budget is a fraction of ours, their tax on their ratepayers is £111 in Band D. It’s not the same kind of Council and I have to say that the Lib Dem Leader of that district said that although it’s like putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound, this small increase is our only chance of keeping central service going with further savage cuts to government funding the year ahead will not be pleasant. That’s the Lib Dem Leader of a Council that is run by the Tories.

The picture we present is actually more realistic than this strange portrayal that everything’s wonderful elsewhere. In fact in Surrey the Tory Leader’s talking about a black hole in their finances and he’s putting his council tax up by 1.99% because he believes he’s got a black hole in his finances and North Somerset I looked at, they’ve freezed theirs but they’re talking about the council facing a continued reduction in government funding at least until 2018 and the biggest challenges are yet to come. We too face the biggest challenges yet to come because it get’s more difficult and my colleagues and I understand that. In fact a phrase doing the rounds in our party at the moment is ‘it’s grim up north’ which you’ll probably have more to say in a few weeks.

I didn’t quite catch what the Leader said but there are key things we believe we can fund and replace. We believe that the lighting that should be the subject of an investment program. I go along the roads and I look at the lights that are off, I don’t whether the light’s off because it’s failed, a fuse has been pulled out, the bulb’s gone, Manweb haven’t been able to connect the service up or some other fault and out there the electorate are even more, if I’m confused then people out there are even more concerned and confused because there are lights off in various places and nobody knows really knows whether it’s an official light off that we’re saving money on or one that’s supposed to be on because as I understand it when Members have objected to lights being off an officer’s had to go out and find some other fuse to pull to turn another light off to keep within the savings. So it’s a hit and miss approach which we disagree with and we believe there should be investment.

Finally I do want to look ahead and I know I didn’t catch what Councillor Davies said but I do look around and I look at what Councillor McMahon is saying in Oldham, it’s a few weeks since he said that he was going to have a freeze. He says, ‘On too many occasions we claim to present our case effectively both within our parties and within the media allowing ourselves to be characterised as prophets of doom or advocates of the old ways.’ It’s contained in last week’s councillor magazine which I probably got in the post so I do look at the wider world but I also look at the world as it is, not as the world as I might like it to be at.

I look at the worries that the leaders express, I look at the world Cllr Green describes. Yes I see an improvement in the economy, I see better employment, I see all those things and I think we’ve got to get from now to 2015/16 as we try and get stability and try and improve.

Finally I’ve listened to the upset comments coming from Labour colleagues behind me but I do read this document Labour’s zero based review. There isn’t a promise of you know this hall of plenty, that there isn’t. Mr Balls is saying that there is a problem. He accepts the problem if he’s going to make change if he were there. If he was there, if he was in that situation he’s made it clear not much is going to change from their first year or so. So we need to get from now, building stability, make all those savings that are underway with neighbouring authorities those shared services.

We don’t accept that the Tory target of boosting the £9 to £11 million for shared services is achievable yet. We haven’t seen the way things are going to work in practice. We have reservations about the budget some of which we raised last year about the youth services and youth zone and something squeezed but we have concentrated tonight on the key things that we think things are going wrong that could be readily put right and we think the Council would be wise to accept those changes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.”

When it came to the voting (much later in the same meeting), only Labour’s budget received enough votes to be adopted as Wirral Council’s budget for 2014/15.

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

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014) (an example of the kind of meeting the regulations will cover)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014) (an example of the kind of meeting the regulations will cover)

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

                                       
Though the mills of DCLG grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience DCLG stands waiting,
With exactness grinds DCLG all.

(with apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

As long-term readers of this blog will know I wrote last month about the government promise to introduce regulations to compel local councils (and some other bodies) to allow filming of their public meetings. This follows a power granted to Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP (by s.40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) to bring forward some regulations (which he can do so at any point after 30th March 2014) to the Houses of Parliament.

Since last month draft regulations have been circulated as part of a consultation. Also part of the consultation is asking for suggestions to what to put in the accompanying plain English guide to the new regulations, which will be along similar lines to the fourteen page Your council’s cabinet: going to its meetings, seeing how it works – a guide for local people. DCLG [Department for Communities and Local Government] have sent copies of the draft regulations to the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), the Local Government Association (LGA) and Lawyers in Local Government (which was formed last year by the merger of Solicitors in Local Government (SLG) and ACSeS (Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors)).

Queries on the draft regulations can be made to Hannah Brook (0303 444 1858 Hannah.brook@communities.gsi.gov.uk) or Eleanor Smyllie (Eleanor.smyllie@communities.gsi.gov.uk). Any comments (as part of the consultation) on the draft regulations are to go to Paul Roswell (Deputy Director – Democracy, Department for Communities and Local Government, 3/J1, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU 0303 444 1858 paul.roswell@communities.gsi.gov.uk) by the 12th March 2014.

The new regulations are expected to be in force at the end of May 2014 or early June.

The draft regulation and an explanatory note are below. I’ve included hyperlinks where legislation is referred to.

Draft Regulations laid before Parliament under section 43 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
================================================================================

DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

================================================================================

2014 No.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND

The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014

Made – – – –              ***

Coming into force in accordance with regulation 1

The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred by section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014(a), makes the following Regulations:

Part 1

General

Citation and commencement

  1. These regulations may be cited as the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and come into force on the day after the day on which they are made.

Interpretation

  1. In these Regulations—
    “the 1960 Act” means the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960;
    “the 1972 Act” means the Local Government Act 1972;
    “the 2000 Act” means the Local Government Act 2000;
    “the 2012 Regulations” means the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Part 2

Admission to and Reporting of Meetings of Relevant Local Government Bodies

Amendment of the 1960 Act

  1. The 1960 Act is amended as follows—

(1) Insert after section 1(3)

“(3A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsection (2) and (3), a relevant local government body are also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(2) Insert after section 1(4)(c)

“(d) Where a meeting of a relevant local government body is required by this Act to be open to the public during the proceedings or any part of them, any person shall be permitted to attend that meeting or part for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (9).”

(3) In section 1(7) substitute ‘but nothing in this section’ with “but subject to paragraph (7A) nothing in this section”.
(4) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(7A) Any person shall be permitted to attend a meeting of a relevant local government body for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (8).”

(5) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(8) For the purposes of this section–

“relevant local government body” means—

(a) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(b) a parish council; or

(c) a parish meeting.

“reporting” means—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings;

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later; and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available as the meeting takes place or later to persons not present.”

(6) After section 1 insert—

1A. Publication and dissemination of reports

(1) Any persons who attend meetings of a relevant local government body with the aim of reporting under section 1(7A) may use any communication methods, including the internet to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities.

(2) Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting.”

Amendment of the 1972 Act

4. The 1972 Act is amended as follows—
(1) After section 100A(5) insert—

“(5A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsections (2)-(5), relevant local government bodies are also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(2) In section 100A(6) for (c) substitute—

“(c) while the meeting is open to the public:

(i) duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending the meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report,

(ii) in relation to relevant local government bodies as defined in subsection (9) any person attending a meeting under subsection (7A) shall so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report.”

(3) Insert at the beginning of section 100A(7) “Subject to subsection (7A),”
(4) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(7A) (a) Any person shall be permitted to attend meetings of relevant local government bodies for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (10)

(b) Any persons who attend meetings of relevant local government bodies with the aim of reporting may use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities

(c) Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting”

(5) Insert after subsection (8)—

“(9) For the purposes of this section–

“relevant local government bodies” means—

(a) a district council,
(b) a county council in England,
(c) a London borough council,
(d) the London Assembly,
(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
(f) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
(g) Transport for London,
(h) a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
(i) an economic prosperity board,
(j) a combined authority,
(k) a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
(l) a National Park Authority for a National Park in England,
(m) the Broads Authority, or
(n) any committee, joint committee or sub-committee of the above bodies.

(10) Reporting for the purposes of subsection (7A) is defined as—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings,

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later, and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available as the meeting takes place or later to persons not present.”

Amendment of the 2012 Regulations

5. The 2012 Regulations are amended as follows—
(1) In regulation 4 insert after subsection (6)—

“(7) Subject to subsections (2)-(5), a decision-making body is required to permit any person attending a meeting of such a body to report on the proceedings.

(8) For the purposes of this regulation, report on proceedings is defined as—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording the proceedings of a meeting,

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later, and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available to persons not present, as the meeting takes place or later.

(9) Any person who attends a meeting to report on proceedings under subsection (7) may use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities. Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting.”

(2) After regulation 4(5) insert—

“(5A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsections (2)-(5), a decision making body is also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(3) In regulation 20 omit paragraph (4).

Part 3

Record of Decisions and Access to Documents

Interpretation of this Part

6. For the purposes of this Part—

“confidential information” means –

(a) Information provided to the local authority by a government department on terms (however expressed) which forbid the disclosure of the information to the public; or
(b) Information the disclosure of which to the public is prohibited by or under any enactment or by order of a court,

and in either case, a reference to the obligation of confidence is to be construed accordingly.

“decision making officer” means an officer of a relevant local government body who makes decisions on behalf of their relevant local government body, with authority to do so.

“exempt information” has the meaning given by section 100I of the 1972 Act (exempt information and power to vary Schedule 12A).

“open meeting” means a meeting of a relevant local government body to which any person who is not a member of that body may also attend.

“proper officer” has the same meaning as in section 270(3) of the 1972 Act (general provisions as to interpretation.

“relevant local government body” means—

(c) a district council,
(d) a county council in England,
(e) a London borough council,
(f) the Greater London Authority,
(g) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
(h) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
(i) Transport for London,
(j) a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
(k) an economic prosperity board,
(l) a combined authority,
(m) a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
(n) a National Park Authority for a National Park in England,
(o) the Broads Authority,
(p) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(q) a parish council, or,
(r) a parish meeting.

Recording of decisions

7.—(1) The decision making officer or other suitable officer within a relevant local government body is required to produce a written record of any decision which falls within paragraph (2).
(2) A decision falls within this paragraph if it would otherwise have been taken by the relevant local government body, or a committee, sub-committee or joint committee of that body but it has been delegated to an officer of that body either—
(a) under a specific express authorisation; or
(b) under a general authorisation to officers to take such decisions and, the effect of the decision is to—
(i) grant permissions or licences;
(ii) affect the rights of individuals;
(iii) award contracts; or
(iv) incur expenditure which materially affects that relevant local government body’s financial position.

(3) The written record should be produced as soon as reasonably practicable after an officer has made a decision of the kind in paragraph (2) and should contain the information specified in paragraph (4).
(4) The record required by paragraph (1) must contain the following information—
(a) the title of the decision making officer;
(b) the date the decision was taken;
(c) a record of the decision taken along with reasons for the decision;
(d) details of alternative options considered and rejected; and
(e) where the decision falls under paragraph 2(a), the names of any member of a relevant local government body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision.

Decisions to be made available to the public

8.—(1) The written records described in regulation 7, along with any connected or supporting documents, must as soon as reasonably practicable be made available to the public—
(a) at the offices of the relevant local government body;
(b) on website of the relevant local government body, if it has one; and,
(c) through any other means thought appropriate by the relevant local government body.

(2) On request and on receipt of payment of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, the relevant body must provide subject to regulation 9—
(a) a copy of the written decision.
(b) a copy of connected and supporting documents.

(3) Any written record required by paragraph (1) to be available for inspection by members of the public, must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of at least 6 years beginning on the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.

(4) Any connected or supporting documents relating to a decision to which a record must be made under regulation 7 which is required to be available for inspection by the public by paragraph (1), must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of at least 4 years beginning on the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.

Confidential and Exempt information

9.—(1) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to authorise or require the disclosure of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidence.
(2) Nothing in this Part—
(a) authorises or requires a relevant local government body to disclose to the public or make available for public inspection any document or part of a document if, in the opinions of the proper officer, that document or part of a document contains or may contain confidential information; or
(b) requires a relevant local government body to disclose to the public or make available for public inspection any document or part of a document if, in the opinion of the proper officer, that document or part of a document contains or is likely to contain exempt information.

Offences

10.—(1) A person who has custody of a document which is required by regulation 8 to be available for inspection by members of the public commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person—
(a) intentionally obstructs any person exercising a right conferred under this Part in relation to inspecting written records and connected and supporting documents; or
(b) refuses any request under this Part to provide written records and connected and supporting documents.

(2) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of these Regulations)

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT OPENNESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES REGULATIONS 2014
The Regulations amend the:

Admission to and reporting of Meetings of Relevant Local Government Bodies
The Regulations:

  • Allow any person to attend a public meeting of a relevant local government body for the purposes of reporting.
  • ‘Reporting’ is defined in the regulations as:
  • Filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings;
  • Using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later; and
  • Reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing.
  • Allow any persons with the aim or reporting to use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities, during or after the meeting.
  • Do not affect the current circumstances in which a private meeting may be held or a person may be excluded (for example, where exempt information would be disclosed or in the case of disorderly conduct).

Regulation 3 amends the 1960 Act to apply the policy to:

  • parish councils;
  • parish meetings; and
  • the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Regulation 4 amends the 1972 Act to apply this policy to:

  • a district council,
  • a county council in England,
  • a London borough council,
  • the London Assembly
  • the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
  • the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
  • Transport for London,
  • a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
  • an economic prosperity board,
  • a combined authority,
  • a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
  • a National Park Authority for a National Park in England
  • the Broads Authority, or
  • any committee, joint committee or sub-committee of the above bodies (this includes Police and Crime Panels and Health and Wellbeing Boards).

Regulation 5 amends the 2012 Regulations to apply the policy to councils operating executive arrangements to ensure a consistent approach.
Record of Decisions and Access to Documents

The Regulations also:

  • Require a written record to be made of any decision that has been delegated to an officer of the relevant local government body under a specific express authorisation, or under a general authorisation where the effect of the decision is to grant permissions or licences, affect the rights of individuals, award contracts or incur expenditure which materially affects the body’s financial position.
  • Require that the written records are made available to the public at the relevant body’s offices, on their website if they have one, by post if requested and on receipt of payment for copying and postage, and through any other means thought appropriate by the local government body.
  • Require the written record to be available for public inspection for at least 6 years, and any supporting documentation for at least 4 years.
  • Provide a criminal penalty for non-compliance. A person who has custody of documents which should be available for inspection, will commit an offence if that person refuses to disclose or intentionally obstructs the disclosure of such documents under these Regulations. The penalty for the offences is a fine not exceeding level 1 – that is £200 – on the standard scale. This replicates the existing penalty for failure to disclose or obstructing the disclosure of documents in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

This part of the Regulations applies to the same local government bodies as listed above, but will not apply to decisions on executive matters in councils operating executive arrangements as there are already equivalent provisions in the 2012 Regulations to cover these decisions.

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

Thirteen questions answered about the Lyndale School closure call ins

Thirteen questions answered about the Lyndale School closure call ins

Thirteen questions answered about the Lyndale School closure call ins

                            

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

Q. So what are the decisions that are being called-in?

There are two decisions that have been called in. The first is Cabinet’s decision of the 16th January to consult on closure of Lyndale School. The second is is a decision made at the same Cabinet meeting to change how much schools are paid for people with high needs.

Q. So if the decision called in was taken in mid-January why hasn’t the call in been decided yet?

Well the reasons are a little complicated. When the new constitution was approved last year, instead of all call ins going to the whichever scrutiny committee was relevant to the call in, the system was changed so that all call ins go to the Coordinating Committee. However there was a legal requirement on Wirral Council when considering educational matters to have extra voting representatives on the committee making the decision (between two and five parent governor representatives and one representing each of the diocesan bodies). The Coordinating Committee didn’t have such representation and due to the way the constitution is written, only Council can co opt people onto committees, so the meeting got adjourned to the 27th February so that the Council meeting on the 25th February could co-opt the relevant people.

Q. What exactly is a call in?

If six (or more) councillors disagree with a decision, they can request another committee look at it to see if it needs to be changed. Once a decision is called in, nothing further is done about it until the call in committee have reached a decision. That committee can then either uphold the original decision or make a recommendation back to the original decision making body that a different decision is reached.

Q. So what are the reasons why consulting on closing Lyndale School was called in?

Well the lead signatory to the call in (Cllr Tom Harney) has listed the following reasons:

“The Cabinet were not given the full information to make a decision

  • The category of Complex Learning Difficulties (CLD) includes children with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) and children on the Autistic Spectrum. Their needs are different. This is not made clear.
  • The School has been in discussion with the LA about its future for 8 years. The uncertainty has caused some parents to send their children elsewhere.
  • The educational needs of the children are not analysed.
  • In paragraph 2.8, the LA admits they have failed to consider the funding of the school over past years. The funding arrangements are, in reality, in the hands of the LA and, in fact, were agreed at the same time as this proposal.
  • The argument about overheads ignores the present discussions between the LA and Governors about reducing overheads.
  • Table 2 does not discuss the different nature of the intakes of the 3 schools. This is misleading.
  • The work done by Eric Craven on behalf of the LA looking at the needs of the PMLD pupils at the Lyndale and other schools has never been referred to.
  • The resolution of the Council of February 14 2010 and the work done by the LA following this have not been referred to, not even mentioned. This should have formed the context for the present decision.

So what does that all mean in plain English?

  • There are kids who are autistic at the schools that the children from Lyndale School would be moved to if it was closed. The kind of support each group of kids need is different.
  • As parents know Wirral Council have been threatening to close Lyndale School for a number of years, they have chosen to send their children elsewhere as they wouldn’t want their education disrupted if the school closed.
  • I think Cllr Harney is referring to the report being mainly about money. When closure proposals are considered, whoever is making the decision (in this case the Cabinet) has to (its a legal requirement) take notice of guidance issued by the government on making such decisions. Part of this guidance is something referred to as the “SEN Improvement Test”. Put in a nutshell the SEN Improvement Test means if a special school is closed then those children who are affected by its closure and transferred to other schools have to receive an education at those new schools that is equivalent to or better than the education they got at their previous school. The parents of children at Lyndale School disagree that this would be the case.
  • Each year Wirral Council receives a ring fenced grant for education from the government. For 2014/15 Wirral Council will receive just over £240 million. It’s down to the politicians to agree a policy as how this money is divided up each year. Cllr Harney is also referring to the other policy decision that was called in which determines how much money special schools receive for people who have high needs.
  • Overheads refers to the fixed costs of running the school.
  • Table 2 refers to the average cost per a pupil at five schools (Elleray Park, Foxfield, Lyndale, Meadowside and Stanley). Each special school has a different sets of pupils with different needs, therefore different staffing requirements (and overheads). Comparisons on a raw cost of cost per pupil therefore don’t take into account that each child is different, the cost of supporting each child will be different and also that at Lyndale School there are a number of children with medical needs that leads to increased costs.
  • I’m sure Cllr Harney will explain what this refers to on the 27th February.
  • On the 14th February 2011, Council received a petition of 1,874 signatures asking the Council to “develop, as a matter of urgency, a consistent and coherent policy for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.” Council agreed the following resolution “That the Council initiates, as a matter of urgency, a thorough review of the current provision for children and young people with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) on Wirral. The review will produce a comprehensive policy regarding the best ways to educate, support and care for these children and young people including transition from and provision during life beyond school. Parents will be fully involved in the planning and writing of this policy. This review will be presented to Cabinet by the end of 2011.”

    This review came back to Cabinet in January 2012. It had eleven recommendations, all eleven were agreed by the Cabinet.

Q. So what are the reasons why the decision on how money is allocated to special schools called in?

The reasons given were

  • The banding proposals (para 2.7) are not based on a clear costing of the needs of the children.
  • In particular, the needs of the children with profound and multiple learning difficulties should be quantified.
  • There is a clear need for one to one in terms of adult presence for many of the children. There is also a need for teaching and other staff. These are in addition to the running costs of the school.
  • In the case of the Lyndale, the funding proposals will result in the closure of the school. This has not been made clear in the paper.

So (again) what does that all mean in plain English?

  • The report and its appendices on banding proposals can be read on Wirral Council’s website. Each child would be placed into one of five bands. Each special school would get £10,000 + an amount depending on which band the child was in. These extra amounts range from band one (approximately an extra £1,000) to band five (an extra £16,000+). The band for the children with the highest needs assumes a staff ratio of 1:6 plus two teaching assistants, plus medical support. Lyndale School has children that would be placed in the new bands three to five (£17,000 to £26,000+ per pupil).
  • Some of the children at Lyndale School require a staffing ratio of one to one. Even if these children were in band five (the highest band), the money that Lyndale school received under the new policy wouldn’t Lyndale School’s costs. Although there is flexibility in band five, Lyndale School’s average cost per pupil in 2012-13 was £33,105.
  • If the banding proposals were adopted it would lead to a shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000, getting worse in future years which would lead to the school closing.

So what about the minimum funding guarantee that means that Wirral Council can’t reduce the funding to schools by more than 1.5% compared to last year?

Wirral Council have applied to the Education Funding Agency for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which would guarantee schools receive at least 98.5% of what they received last year. The outcome of Wirral Council’s application is at the time of writing unknown.

What about the special schools contingency of £908,900?

Some of the contingency could be used to fund Lyndale School’s deficit in 2014-15. However, Lyndale School’s deficit is predicted to be larger in 2015-16 than in 2014-15. If the banding policy is agreed, it’ll lead to the closure of Lyndale School at some point in the future.

What about the SEN (Special Educational Needs) underspend in 2013-14 of £500,000?

Some of the SEN (Special Educational Needs) underspend could be used to fund Lyndale School’s deficit in 2014-15. However, an underspend in the SEN budget can’t be guaranteed for next year and a more long-term solution is needed.

What about the petition against closure of Lyndale School?

The petition (at the time of writing) is of 6,407 signatures against closure of Lyndale School.

Who will decide the call ins?

There are fifteen councillors on the Coordinating Committee who are Cllr Steve Foulkes (Chair (Labour)), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Jean Stapleton (Labour), Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour), Cllr Denise Realey (Labour), Cllr Pat Glasman (Labour), Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour), Cllr Bernie Mooney (Labour), Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour), Cllr Alan Brighouse (Liberal Democrat), Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative), Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative), Cllr David Elderton (Conservative), Cllr Wendy Clements (Conservative) and Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative). Their contact details can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

In addition to these fifteen, there are a further three with voting rights who are Mrs H Shoebridge (parent governor representative), Mrs Nicola Smith (parent governor representative) and Damien Cunningham (representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury). At the time of writing the Diocese of Chester (Church of England) haven’t made a nomination to the committee.

If the Labour councillors (9) voted to uphold the Labour Cabinet’s decisions and the other councillors (6), parent governor representatives (2) and Damien Cunningham voted against it would be a tied 9:9 vote. If that was the case the Chair Cllr Steve Foulkes would have a casting vote.

Are there any more points?

Closing down a school they may have been at for years and moving them elsewhere to a different place, with different staff and different pupils would be very difficult and traumatic for them (and their parents) to cope with. If the school closed and the children would lose staff that had spent many years learning what their needs were. Some of the parents have said if the school is closed they will home school their children instead.

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

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

Will contingency in Labour’s 2014/15 Schools Budget be enough to fund outcome of Lyndale School call in?

                         

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.

The item on the Schools Budget starts at 21:54. I include a transcript below of what was said during this item. The Schools Budget (2014/15) is a recommendation from Cabinet to the Budget Council on the 25th February. This is two days before the Coordinating Committee meets to decide on the call ins on consulting on closing Lyndale School and the top up payments for schools.

Surjit Tour towards the end states that the proposed budget includes a contingency “to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing”, however as the Coordinating Committee hasn’t met and made decisions on the call ins yet how can the financial implications be quantified?

7. Schools Budget
Cabinet (13th February 2014)

The report for this item can be read by following this link.

Cllr Phil Davies: The key item there is the Schools Budget for 2014/15 and Tony you’re going to introduce this? Thank you.

Cllr Tony Smith: Thank you Chair. Thank you. This is the Schools Budget for 2014/15. The Schools Budget report which you have summarises the main factors that have been taken into account in setting the Schools Budget of £240 million for 2014/15.

The overall funding for pupils aged three to sixteen is maintained in cash terms. In addition the budget contains a small amount of growth for schools.

There’s funding for the further expansion of two year old provision from September 2014 and for the full year effect of high needs costs for 4-16 students. Some details for academies for high needs have still to be finalised and the Schools Budget will be updated with this information when this information is available.

The Schools Budget report was considered by the Schools Forum on the 21st January. The Forum agreed the recommendations listed in paragraph 2.1 of this report and that said that the dedicated schools grant funding the Schools Budget for maintained schools and academies is approved at the sum of £240,058,000.

The headroom of £1,215,100 which is detailed in paragraph 4.6 is allocated within the formula to all schools and early year providers. The high needs contingency totalling £908,900 is agreed.

A reduction in planned programmed maintenance, PPM, of £200,000 is agreed. Use of the dedicated schools grant reserve totalling £732,000 in setting the Schools Budget is agreed and the remaining balance for automatic meter readers reclassified as a reserve for installation of defibrillators.

An additional recommendation is also made in respect of the funding for school’s private finance initiative. The Council currently adds £2.6 million to the ring-fenced Schools Budget in respect of the PFI funding gap.

£2.3 million of this Council funding is an agreed saving in 15/16 and the remainder is protected at this time. This proposal is to reduce the Council’s funding for PFI by £600,000 in 14/15 … 15/16.

The 14/15 Schools Budget has already been submitted to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and is finalised. However there is a £1 million approx schools budget carry forward from 13/14 to 14/15 which can be used to compensate for the £600,000 funding gap.

The schools therefore will receive the same budget for 14/15 as planned. I’ve got a resolution Chair which I’m putting forward. “Council regrets that due to its financial challenges it is unable to fund in full the PFI affordability gap for 14/15 and will reduce the Council contribution to the Schools Budget by £600,000 to £2 million. Officers are instructed to take appropriate actions in respect of the 2014/15 Schools Budget.” That’s the resolution.

Cllr Phil Davies: Thanks Tony, I’m just going to ask Surjit to just say a few words about one particular element of this Schools Budget, Surjit.

Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Head of Legal/Member Services): Thank you Chair. Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK, so Tony Smith’s moved the resolution that we all heard. Can I ask can we agree that recommendation?

Councillors: Agreed.

Cllr Phil Davies: OK thank you very much, thank you Tony. Right OK, thanks very much for that Tony.

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