Cabinet agrees smoking ban "anywhere on any Council site" and Freedom of Entry recommendation for HMS Astute and TS Astute

Cabinet agrees smoking ban “anywhere on any Council site” and Freedom of Entry recommendation for HMS Astute and TS Astute

Cabinet agrees smoking ban “anywhere on any Council site” and Freedom of Entry recommendation for HMS Astute and TS Astute

                                                     

Councillor Adrian Jones explains why Freedom of Entry status should be conferred upon TS Astute and HMS Astute (4th June 2015)
Councillor Adrian Jones explains why Freedom of Entry status should be conferred upon TS Astute and HMS Astute (4th June 2015)

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Wirral Council’s Cabinet met for the first time after the elections and unusually there were many members of the public. The item the public were there to hear was whether Wirral Council would be support the transfer of properties from Beechwood and Ballantyne Community Housing Association to Liverpool Housing Trust.

A petition of 250 residents of the Beechwood and Ballantyne estate opposed to the transfer of houses to Liverpool Housing Trust was given to the Councillor George Davies (Cabinet Member for Housing) half an hour before the meeting started. He said, “I should refer this back to Beechwood and Ballantyne Housing Association to reflect upon and that we defer any decision on this item this evening and bring it back to a future Cabinet, hopefully by the 29th of June.”

Cllr Ann McLachlan (ward councillor for the residents who signed the petition) added, “As late as yesterday and until mid-afternoon today I do know that negotiations and consultation were being undertaken with the community to allay and address fears that they had and my understanding was they had been largely addressed and that there was satisfaction regarding outstanding matters, so it has come as a shock to us to hear there is now this petition.

However Chair, if this further short period of consultation does seek to address those concerns, whatever they may be then I think it will be time well spent. Clearly I will want to address the report when it does come back to Cabinet in three weeks time.”

Cllr Phil Davies explained that a decision would be deferred to “give us more opportunity to try and get to the bottom of the issues that the signatories are concerned about and obviously with a view to try to come to some agreement in time hopefully for the next Cabinet meeting”.

Cabinet agreed to defer a decision to the 29th June (its next meeting).


Agreement was given by Cabinet to demolish the buildings of the former Foxfield School site in Douglas Drive, Moreton. Foxfield School has moved from Douglas Drive to a new site in Woodchurch that opened in March. Wirral Council hope to sell off the former site for Foxfield in Moreton and are applying for government permission to do so.


Cabinet agreed a recommendation to confer Freedom of Entry status on the Wallasey Sea Cadets (TS Astute) and HMS Astute (a nuclear powered submarine). A decision on Cabinet’s recommendation will be made at a future special meeting of Council.


Making it clear that this was “not a proposal to sell of the municipal golf courses” Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to look for a “delivery partner” for its golf courses (except Hoylake). Wirral Council subsidises its golf courses by £330,000 a year and Cabinet hopes that in future the subsidy won’t be needed. A report will come back to a future Cabinet before any further decision is made.


A policy on smoking that bans smoking (including e-cigarettes) “anywhere on any Council site by all staff, contractors, visitors and the public” was agreed. The new policy extends the ban on smoking to outside as well as inside Council buildings.

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

An update on what’s been happening at Wirral Council about Lyndale School (and other matters)

An update on what’s been happening at Wirral Council about Lyndale School (and other matters)

An update on what’s been happening at Wirral Council about Lyndale School (and other matters)

                                                    

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

It’s time for a brief round-up on latest developments on Lyndale School.

The draft minutes of the call in on Lyndale School held on the 2nd October 2014 were published a few days ago and come to twenty-nine pages long. The meeting itself was about five hours long with a short adjournment part way through which explains the length of the minutes. They make for interesting reading.

The draft minutes of the call in meeting on 2nd October 2014 about Lyndale School go to tonight’s Council meeting to be approved (agenda item 10 (Matters Referred from Policy and Performance Committees)).

There are also many different minority reports tabled to do with recent call ins that have been heard. The minority report from the Conservative Group about Lyndale School is here.

In addition to the minority report on Lyndale School there are a further three minority reports about matters unconnected to Lyndale School:

Lib Dem Group (about the call in to do with concessions for the Armed Forces at leisure centres) proposed by Cllr Phil Gilchrist.
Conservative Group (about the call in to do with concessions for the Armed Forces at leisure centres) proposed by Cllrs Chris Blakeley, Wendy Clements, Mike Hornby, Steve Williams and Gerry Ellis.

Lib Dem Group (Health Homes/Forest Schools call in) proposed by Cllr Stuart Kelly.

So because of the minority report submitted by the Conservative Group there will be a further vote of all councillors on Lyndale School tonight. Whether the report will trigger a debate or not I’m unsure.

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

9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections

9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections

9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections

                                                                                                                           

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.

I will start by declaring an interest in this story as I have a friend who is now a Lance Corporal in the Armed Forces and was recently mentioned in this Telegraph article.

Last month (23rd September) there was a review (by the Coordinating Committee) of a Wirral Council Cabinet decision made on the 7th July 2014 to change the concessions provided at Wirral’s leisure centres to former Armed Forces personnel.

The decision had originally been scheduled to be decided by the Coordinating Committee on 7th August 2014, however the meeting on the 7th August 2014 was adjourned because on 7th August 2014 key Wirral Council officers involved in the decision were on holiday and couldn’t be present to answer questions. So the meeting of the 7th August 2014 was adjourned to the 23rd September 2014.

There was then an interesting meeting on the 23rd September 2014 (which was in part a repeat of the adjourned meeting on the 7th August 2014). Councillors discussed the impact of the proposed changes to the policy and witnesses were heard from and questioned.

The motions at the end of that meeting were:

1) “That Cabinet minute 37 – 7 July 2014 (Transformation of Leisure Services Sports and Leisure Facilities Pricing Structure) be upheld” (proposed by Cllr Moira McLaughlin and seconded by Cllr Paul Doughty)

and the proposed amendment (proposed by Cllr Chris Blakeley and seconded by Cllr Mike Hornby) was

2) “That this Committee, having heard evidence this evening, stands unconvinced that any potential saving (the achievement of which remains dubious) made by implementing the decision at paragraph 3 of the Cabinet report, outweighs the harm this decision will do to Wirral’s reputation as an Authority which takes seriously its duties under the Military Covenant and as an Authority that does all it can to actively uphold and advance the Covenant.

Therefore, this Committee urges the Cabinet to reconsider its decision and restore the free Leisure Passes to all the veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

The vote on the amendment was 6 votes for (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem) and 9 votes against (9 Labour councillors).

The amendment was therefore lost.

The vote on the original motion was 9 votes for (9 Labour) and 6 votes against (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem).

The original motion/recommendation was therefore carried.

At the start of the meeting both Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Walter Smith declared interests as former members of the Armed Forces.

The Cabinet Member (not part of the committee but a witness) Cllr Chris Meaden declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces.

Cllr Paul Doughty (the Vice-Chair) declared an interest as his late father had been in the Armed Forces.

There is then an “anomaly” (as Surjit Tour would put it) identified at this point.

Cllr Chris Meaden (the Cabinet Member) declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces at the Coordinating Committee on the 23rd September 2014 which reviewed the earlier decision of Cabinet (of which she was one of the Cabinet Members present) on the 7th July 2014.

However the agreed minutes of that Cabinet meeting show that she was present and spoke on this agenda item and contain no record of her declaring an interest at that meeting either during the agenda item itself or earlier.

Certainly the video (below) of that Cabinet meeting in July shows Cllr Chris Meaden both present and speaking on that item which fell under her portfolio.

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 video footage of declarations of interest was earlier in that meeting (see 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.

However in Cllr Chris Meaden’s defence, this item did come near the end of a long Cabinet meeting held in the evening. Politicians do get tired and overlook things. She [Cllr Chris Meaden] referred to a conversation with Surjit Tour (who is Monitoring Officer) at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September. By the way she was talking then she seems to realise it was an oversight on her part and was trying to make amends by declaring the interest instead at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September, when it should have happened at the Cabinet meeting on the 7th July.

Declaring interests is one of the few bits left of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct on which separate legal provisions apply. It’s also a personal legal responsibility of politicians, so they can’t pass the buck to someone else or blame them. The guidance from the DCLG titled Openness and transparency on personal interests A guide for councillors issued in September 2013 states in reference to councillors starting at the bottom of page 4:

“One of these is the principle of integrity – that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.’”

By my reading of the rules, this interest would be classed as a “personal interest” not a “prejudicial interest”. Therefore even had she declared this on the 7th July 2014, she would still have been able to take part and vote in that agenda item. Had it been an undeclared pecuniary/prejudicial interest it would be a much more serious matter.

This is what the existing Code of Conduct states on such matters.

Personal Interests

4.2 You have a personal interest in any business of the Council where it relates to or is likely to affect:-
(i) any body of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council;
(ii) any body:-
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes; or
(c) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party), of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management.

4.3 You also have a personal interest in any business of the Council:-
(i) where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the
majority of other council taxpayers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision, or,
(ii) it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests you have registered as a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Sensitive Interests
4.4 Where you consider that disclosure of the details of an interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation, and the Monitoring Officer agrees, if the interest is entered on the Register, copies of the Register which are made available for inspection and any published version of the
Register will exclude details of the interest, but may state that you have an interest, the details of which are withheld.

Disclosure and participation
4. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

5. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters.

Just in case someone thinks I’m singling Cllr Chris Meaden out for criticism. At a recent meeting last week Cllr Leah Fraser was present at a meeting of the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group when a decision (following a recommendation from the Merseyside Police) over whether to spend money on Ian Fraser Walk in New Brighton was made. As far as I can as I was present throughout the whole of the meeting, I don’t remember her declaring an interest in that agenda item (although I may not have heard her if she did).

Ian Fraser Walk is in fact named after her late father-in-law but she didn’t declare an interest. However whether Cllr Leah Fraser should have to declare a personal interest in whether money is spent on a stretch of promenade named after her late father in law is another matter.

If I wend through all the times councillors had failed to declare personal interests, it would be a very long list! Some are like the last example somewhat subjective. It’s more when councillors actually fail to declare prejudicial interests and then speak and vote on agenda items, which are the kind of major abuses that should be tackled and not happen in the first place.

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