Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest

Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest

Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest

                                                       

Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly explains to the Coordinating Committee why he disagrees with the Cabinet decision about Forest Schools and Healthy Homes 18th September 2014 Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall

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 following is meant as satire. Obviously Cllr Stuart Kelly is not Robin Hood and Councillor Phil Davies is not the Sheriff of Nottingham. You can watch the meeting from beginning to end, however the video clips below are of the part of the meeting described below that video clip.

Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had gone into Nottingham’sWirral’s castle as he disagreed with the plans of Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies. The plans Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” had were about the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs.

Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly regularly appeared in articles in the local newspaper the NottinghamWirral Globe and was known for being a “thorn in the side” of the Sheriff.

In the recent past he had argued with the Sheriff as the Sheriff was charging the poor peasantspeople (who didn’t have computers) of Wirral an extra £5 to have their garden rubbish removed in brown bins. The Sheriff had disagreed with Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly then. As far as the Sheriff was concerned, the bins tax was fair (and although not stated obviously fairer than the bedroom tax which the Sheriff was against).

After the Sheriff had heard at a meeting recently that any of the peasantspeople of Wirral could go into one of its many 24 libraries (on which a consultation on reducing the opening hours was now taking place on the orders of the Sheriff) and sign up to pay the “bin tax” online (completely failing to mention the irony of Cllr Foulkes’ plan to close half of the libraries which was stopped a few years ago by Sue Charteris, the Labour government and the people of Wirral).

One of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s colleagues Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry (who is not Maid Marian despite also having the initials MM) told Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly that he had five minutes only to make his case. Thankfully she did not add that if he exceeded his time she would call the guards of the castle and have him dragged off to the dungeon (formerly the Mayor’s wine cellar) for having the gall and brass neck to try to upset the Sheriff.

Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly of Oxton explained the many hardships the peasantspeople were suffering. He wanted the children of Wirral to visit the forests! He wanted the people to have warm homes and not be cold in the winter ahead! He was doing this all for the people! He disagreed with Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies as he felt that it was wrong to try to stop or cut how much was spent on these matters as if they did the people would suffer!

Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then called Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” to speak, again for up to five minutes.

Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was keen to show he wasn’t as bad as Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had painted him earlier. He blamed it all on Prince John Queen Elizabeth II and the Coalition government. He explained that the Forest Schools target was to send 660 children to the forests of Nottingham Wirral over the last two years. In fact at the end of year one it had exceeded its target! Therefore this was why the money was taken away. Yes, classes of fifteen, instead of thirty were now being used but this was all for the be benefit of the children! It was his contention that both on Healthy Homes and Forest Schools that this was prudent financially.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then asked for the witnesses to be called. A senior manager of the forests of Wirral came to speak. She explained what the Forest Schools program was about and how it was run by the rangers. They had decided that classes of fifteen were the best size. The experienced rangers were running the program, with the money used to backfill their positions.

Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said how fabulous the work of the Forest Schools was and how it was better now it was fifteen and not thirty.

Another councillor asked if the budget was cut. The senior manager of the forests confirmed it had. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to a “reduction in activity” followed by Cllr Mike Sullivan again.

Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard described it as a “great project”.

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 effect on the children was talked about as well as how it made a “voluntary mute” “chatty and enthusiastic”. However the officer warned of the effect on places like Bidston Hill which was suffering whilst its ranger was doing this.

Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham asked a question about £18,000? The officer replied that was the underspend in year one. She continued talking about the beneficial effects on the young children and the benefits of it, not just on the children but on others too. The reduction in early years involvement in the Forest Schools program from four events to two was referred to. Various people asked questions and the debate went on.

Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall referred to the fact they might have to lay off rangers, to a rather horrified look from Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who intervened. How much each schools paid to be involved was mentioned, with the poor schools paying less than the richer schools.

Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the benefits, a decrease in school absence, increase in outdoor use and exercise and other benefits. The manager replied. She was thanked by Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who then asked the Healthy Homes witness to come forward.

Lisa told everybody about what the Healthy Homes program was, how it was about healthy lifestyles, smoking cessation and a “whole house” approach (whatever that means). She referred to the NHS, training “champions” and “partner agencies” as well as grants and loans that could be provided to tackles hazards.

Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. The manager referred to “significant progress” as well as the police service and fire service. He asked her another question and she said she could only speak for Wirral Council. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked another question.

Cllr Berry of Moreton West and Saughall Massie asked about the budget cut and when she had been told? Had she been asked for comments about the potential impacts? He referred to numbers of assessments done.

The answer given referred to housing renovation loans, central heating and grants. Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard indicated her question had already been answered. Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to a presentation last year of Ian Platt about the Healthy Homes program and funding. The manager replied to his points using phrases such as that they could “still help everyone”.

Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said the manager was not “Mystic Meg”. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry thanked the witness and called Kevin Adderley.

Kevin Adderley said he was “very pleased” and that the two schemes he was “proud of”. He went into detail about the impacts of the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs and referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.

Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked why he had selected these to be earmarked for savings and why wasn’t the money capitalised?

Kevin Adderley answered that was explained in the Cabinet Report. He went into a little more detail. Mitchell of Eastham asked another question, Kevin Adderley again referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry made a point, Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to all the people who could be helped. Kevin Adderley replied that it was in privately owned accommodation, not registered social landlord and that they couldn’t be expected to knock on 100,000 doors on the Wirral, they had to rely on people coming forward.

Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to that they were in danger of disadvantaging people and that they should be proactive. Kevin Adderley replied that he was sure they wouldn’t want to advertise to private sector landlords and that there was a “fine balance”.

Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the “age of austerity” and that he could only think in terms of his own household’s budget. He disagreed with capitalising the expenditure and referred to cuts and the “prudent financial management” and that they shouldn’t be finding ways of spending money that they haven’t got.

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 Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Fiona Johnstone to come forward as a witness. Fiona Johnstone said she would take questions, but in answer to an earlier question about process it had first been agreed with the Cabinet portfolio holder. Kevin Adderley left for two minutes at this point. She continued by explaining the history of it all and when things had happened and would happen. Kevin Adderley returned. Fiona Johnstone continued on about Forest Schools and other matters. Mitchell of Eastham referred to the benefits to the children. Fiona Johnstone replied that there would be a full evaluation in May or June. However in her view the question was what could they afford to do more efficiently followed by talking about outcomes. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to the review. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry interrupted.

Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to the fact it was public health money. Fiona Johnstone answered that they were waiting till the call in was complete. Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the Cabinet minute about public health spending. Fiona Johnstone replied that they had monthly reports on the budget and in answer to a question as to whether these monthly financial reports went to the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee the answer was “not now”.

Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked a question. The answer given by Fiona Johnstone was that every project had been asked to make an assessment of the impact and those assessments had been received. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked if that was a written assesment? Fiona Johnstone replied that it was for 38 projects. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby & Thingwall asked a brief question to which Fiona Johnstone referred to that there would be a need to understand a proper evaluation.

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 Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to sum up in five minutes. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the ringfencing of the money for public health. He said that the Forest Schools was “knocked into a cocked hat” and was a “victim of its own success”. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the reduction in class sizes from thirty to fifteen and referred to the Healthy Homes scheme.

He was interrupted by others, but Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry told him to “carry on”.

Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to substandard housing and how it had nothing to do with next year’s deficit. He questioned the stability of this year’s budget and how they could say that reducing to fifteen in each class for Forest Schools was a “success”? He referred to twenty-one households who would be affected by Healthy Homes and that how they need to think about priorities as these were small amounts of money.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies to speak for five minutes.

He thanked Cllr Moira McLaughlin, said the project was a pilot project time limited to two years but that it was “something new” and “not a precise science”. Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was not surprised that they had not been able to spend their total amount of funding. In the case of Forest Schools and Health Homes he felt it was “financially sensible” to make savings and think about “how best to use the money”.

He then went to refer to “savage cuts” and how Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was asking for the original budgets to be restored. Even if he did restore the budget he didn’t think it could be spent by 31st March 2015 as the rangers wouldn’t have the spare capacity, he even went so far as to use the word “nonsense”.

In closing he said he would like to see the projects continue, referred to them as “fantastic” and what’s needed was an “enlightened government” (in reference to cuts). He asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to join him in a lobby on the train to number 10 Downing Street to endorse the position of the Cabinet.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked if anyone wanted to debate it. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols left.

Cllr Jerry Williams of Bebington said that the Council was “working well” in “difficult circumstances” and that he knew Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was an “opposition councillor”. He wanted to dwell on the positives rather than being totally negative.

Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby said that it was public health money and they had to remember that it was nothing to do with the challenges.

Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the ringfencing of the money and how the best number of class sizes was fifteen for the Forest Schools program. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham referred to the Forest Schools project being an “excellent project”. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols returned. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham continued by referring to what Ed Miliband and the Labour Party’s spokesperson had said would happen if they were elected in May 2015 and how they would not change anything. He referred to how the Forest Schools program was allowing young people to improve their lives.

Cllr David Elderton of West Kirby and Thurstaston referred to the concerns of Wendy Clements and the ringfencing of the money and that they should leave it alone and not throw the “baby out with the bath water”. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby and Thingwall referred to the money.

Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to Cllr Paul Doughty’s resolution and the three options they had. However the middle one wasn’t applicable. They could refer the matter back to Cabinet or agree to uphold the original decision.

Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton move a recommendation congratulating officers and referring to “prudent financial management”. His recommendation was that the Cabinet decision of 7th July 2014 would stand. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry seconded it.

An amendment was moved by Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby. The amendment was to refer it back to the Cabinet asking them to be careful to evaluate the use of ringfenced funds and retain the projects. This was seconded.

There was a vote on the amendment.

For the amendment (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.

Against the amendment (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.

The amendment was lost.

Voting on the original recommendation.

For the recommendation (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.

Against the recommendation (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.

The recommendation was won and the nine Labour councillors voted to uphold the original decision of the Labour Cabinet (which is led by Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies).

The original Cabinet decision of the 7th July 2014 upheld by a majority vote (the call in related to section (5) of the original decision) was:

RESOLVED: That

Revenue:

(1) it be noted that at Month 2 (May 2014), the full year forecast projects a gross General Fund overspend of £3,137,000;

(2) the increased commitment of £152,000 for Carbon Reduction Commitment allowances contained within the above figure be noted;

(3) that the payment of New Homes Bonus grant of £242,253 which is a general grant received outside of directorate budgets be noted;

(4) the risks relating to non delivery of savings as detailed in paragraph 3.3 of appendix A and requirement for mitigation and actions to be identified be noted;

(5) the mitigation actions being undertaken including capitalisation, reprofiling and use of public health budgets as per paragraph 3.5 (of Appendix A) and reductions to 2014/15 growth as detailed in paragraphs 5.2 and table 5 above (of Appendix A). Further mitigation action will be developed as appropriate during the year;

(6) the application of the additional New Homes Bonus grant against the Carbon reduction commitment and overall overspend to reduce the net overspend to £2,894,747 be approved.

Capital:

(i) the spend to date at Month 2 of £1.3 million, with 16.7% of the financial year having elapsed be noted; and

(ii) the revised Capital Programme of £61.3 million (Table 1 at 3.1 of Appendix B) be approved.

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

Expense claim forms for Councillor Ann McLachlan 2013 to 2014

Expense claim forms for Councillor Ann McLachlan 2013 to 2014

Expense claim forms for Councillor Ann McLachlan 2013 to 2014

                          

Now we turn to the expenses claims of one of my very own Labour councillors for Bidston & St. James ward Councillor Ann McLachlan. Cllr McLachlan is Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement. As you can imagine from such a senior councillor, her expenses claims are quite long.

Her expenses claims refer to trips to the local Gautby Road Play and Community Centre Joint Management Committee in (you’ve probably guessed already) Gautby Road, on which she represents Wirral Council’s interest. In fact I think she’s Chair of that. Yes that’s the committee that is in charge of the play area next to the community centre which is kept padlocked because the last thing we want is children using a play area!, Improvement Board meetings (which ceased in November 2013), Chrysalis (what’s that?), a trip down to London for a pensions conference, Cabinet meetings, a “transformation event” at the Floral Pavilion, Wirral Metropolitan College governors meeting, interviewing job applicants for the Director of Resources post, trade union meeting about redeployment, more job interviews and shortlisting, work on the Member’s (Members refers to councillors) Training Steering Group, the Chrysalis Board (again), a LGA Conference in Manchester, a “Strategic Communications” workshop at the Floral Pavilion, another redeployment meeting, “Visioning Training” at the Floral Pavilion, a meeting of the Democracy Working Party, the LGA Leadership Academy in Coventry (module 3) please, please no jokes in the comments about her being sent to Coventry where she spent £35 on taxis, another Leadership Academy in Coventry (module 2) when her taxi claim was £41.80 (maybe module 2 teaches you leadership skills such as how to get cheaper taxis to the same place), the Beechwood and Ballantyne Housing Association Board, interviews for a Strategic Director, shortlisting for the Director of Children and Young Peoples Department, more leadership training in Coventry where the taxi was only £10.40, the local Area Forum, a meeting to do with the Hoylake Golf Resort launch, full Council meetings, Youth Parliament, well you can see for yourself below how busy she’s been!

Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14

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

Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd

Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd

Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd

A delicious meal (not a school meal which we don't have any stock photos of) prepared for John by Leonora  my wife who also writes for this blog and is a better at cook than I am.
A delicious meal (not a school meal which we don’t have any stock photos of) prepared for John by Leonora my wife who also writes for this blog and is a better at cook than I am.

This is a small part of the Schools PFI contract that Wirral Council has that costs the taxpayer this year ~£12 million a year. This is part of a massive contract that I estimate being between 500 and 1000 pages long.

It relates to the following schools (one primary and eight secondary) plus two City Learning Centres:

Leasowe Primary
Bebington High
University Academy of Birkenhead (formerly called Park High)
South Wirral High
Weatherhead High
Hilbre High
Prenton High
Wallasey High
Wirral Grammar Girls

Wallasey City Learning Centre
Hilbre City Learning Centre

Before I start on quoting from the contract on page 87, I need to first explain what the following terms mean.

“Authority” refers to Wirral Council.

“Schools” are the schools listed above that are part of the PFI contract.

“Category A Consumers” means “school meals supplied to those pupils at a School who pay for meals and/or refreshments taken in the Catering Area of the Schools.”

“Category B Consumers” means “those pupils who have been notified to Projet Co as being entitled to free meals, and who take these meals in the School’s Catering Area.”

Category A Consumers & Category B Consumers are treated as non-business for VAT purposes. To be honest a lot of this contract is about tax!

“Category C Consumers” means “meals supplied to members of staff of the Schools and visitors who have been notified to Project Co as being entitled to a free meal are supplied free of charge by the Authority to the consumer and output tax is not applicable.”

“Category D Consumers” are “meals supplied to persons other than pupils who take and pay for a meal and/or refreshments are treated as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. Project Co shall include the appropriate rate of VAT in the prices charged for such meals and refreshments and supply output statistics and the value of VAT output tax to the Authority within a timetable specified by the Authority which has been agreed with HM Customs & Excise”

Right now onto the bit of the contract about free school meals (pages 87-88), my comments are in italics.

20.4 Free School Meals

(1) The Authority has a duty to provide free school meals to those pupils at the Schools who fall into Category B Consumers. Members of staff and visitors of the School who are Category C Consumers are also entitled to a free meal paid for by the Authority or School.

OK, reasonable so far, restates legal requirement in sentence 1. Didn’t know about sentence 2 though… which is a tad unclear as to who pays.

(2) The Authority will issue to all individuals referred to in Clause 20.4(1) a card (the “Smart Card“) in a design to be agreed from time to time by the Authority and Project Co, but including the person’s name, photograph and the name of the School, which shall be credited with cash equivalent to the number of free school meals that person is entitled to in that Contract Month.

Wow, things have changed a lot since my day. So, just because their parents are on means tested benefits, you’re insisting children have photo ID and presumably present such photo ID every time they get a “free school meal”? Sounds like it’s “free” but with strings attached?! OK, call me a civil liberties person who rejoiced when the Coalition government scrapped the ID card plan, but forcing children from poor backgrounds to use photo ID?? Maybe I’m just old fashioned?

(3) The Authority will, using its own data and confidential information on free meals, prior to the commencement of each Contract Month issue a list to Project Co of the number of persons entitled to free school meals.

So wait a sec, Project Co is being given a list of all children that get free school meals and children also have to present photo ID to get them? What’s the point of the photo ID then??? Why not just ask them their name or am I missing something??? Surely kids know their own name? Yes, it’s “confidential information” so why is Wirral Council handing it over to a private company as part of this contract??? *sentence deleted following editorial meeting* Bristol based Wirral Schools Services Limited was called Jarvishelf 2 Limited prior to 29th December 2000.

(4) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category B Consumers at the Meal of the Day Price together with VAT if applicable.

Eh, I thought page 86 said that Category A&B Consumers were “non-business” for VAT purposes? I suppose I’m not a contract lawyer being paid an extortionate amount to write this stuff though.

(5) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of the each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category C Consumers at a charge pre-agreed with the relevant School together with VAT if applicable.

Free meals for staff and visitors eh? Must be one of the few perks of the job I suppose… mind you teaching staff have to put up with a lot so I suppose a “free school meal” is the least they deserve.

(6) In addition to Clauses 20.4(4) and (5), Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for any function, hospitality or visitors’ meals supplied together with VAT if applicable.

Functions, hospitality, oh dear are we getting into “golf” territory again eh? OK, I can envisage visiting sports teams from other schools needing something to eat, staff from other schools and places, meetings held at the school etc, but how much “hospitality” goes on in a school anyway. I get the impression Wirral Schools aren’t inviting the Mayor of Helsinki over every week to their school for a start (or maybe they are?)

(7) Project Co in its capacity as agent for the Authority (or the relevant Support Service Provider acting on behalf of Project Co) will provide:

(a) to each Category B Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the Meal of the Day Price; and

(b) to each Category C Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5).

Oh dear, cash seems so old fashioned now doesn’t it? What’s “Meal of the Day” anyway? Gruel? Bread and water? Maybe I’m thinking of Oliver (the musical). I find it worrying that even at primary school age kids are forced to use photo ID cards just to get what they’re entitled to although maybe that’s just the way society has changed. It’s enough to drive people to packed lunches! What if the poor child leaves their “Smart Card” at home, do they go hungry? No “Meal of the Day” for them? After all in the days of cash (yes seems I’m old fashioned), your friends could give you (or even lend you) the money if you were short at the till. No more it seems in these contracts for cashless school meals!

(8) If the price of a meal chosen by:

(a) a Category B Consumer exceeds the Meal of the Day Price; or

(b) a Category C Consumer exceeds the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5)

the bearer shall be responsible for crediting its card with the excess via the dining room tills and the Authority shall have no liability in respect of the excess. If the price of a meal chosen by a Category B Consumer or a Category C Consumer is less than the value of the Meal of the Day or the pre-agreed charge (as the case may be) Project Co or the relevant Support Service Provider shall be entitled to retain the excess.

Wow, just wow. Let’s take a hypothetical Meal of the Day price at £2.30 (which this recent article about the Cabinet decision on increasing it helpfully provides). If someone choses items to eat that go over this £2.30 threshold, they have to pay more. If someone choses items that go under it, there is no refund but the “Project Co” (Wirral Schools Services Limited) or “Support Service Provider” gets to keep the difference!!! I suppose that’s what you call capitalism!

Category B Consumers are free school meals paid for by the taxpayer. However, even if the cost of providing such meals (out of taxes) is less than the “Meal of the Day” price, this company charges the taxpayer at the “Meal of the Day” price and makes profit on the difference! Yes, they’re making profit out of school children’s’ meals!!!

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

And so ends the lesson for today on capitalism. It goes without saying that the Cabinet Member for this area at the time the contract was signed in 2004 was Councillor Phil Davies (currently Leader of the Council) doesn’t it?

And yes, there are even more worrying bits of this massive contract (that keeps on running in the gift that keeps on giving for the capitalists for well over another decade) than the minor section on free school meals above, but if I wrote about the but I’m thinking about it would probably lead to questions being asked (even a panic!) and I might be misconstrued due to the millions of pounds that particular bit involves being transferred from Wirral Council to this company to sort out that “mistake”. No wonder the first page is marked “private and confidential”!

However there are some positives about this new approach:

(a) other pupils can’t do the faux pas I did when I was 10 and transferred schools in year 6 (last year of primary school). The new school I transferred to was in a “working class” area, whereas where I had come from was “middle class”.

I reminded a friend of mine (I still remember this embarrassing conversation twenty-four years later although I hope the other guy has forgotten it by now) he’d forgotten to pay at the till for his school meal for him to look extremely embarrassed and have to explain that he hadn’t forgotten to pay and that he was on free school meals. I then committed a second faux pas as I had to ask what “free school meals” actually meant as at age ten I didn’t know why (strangely but perhaps understandably my education (paid for by Wirral Council) had been somewhat lacking to this point on the intricacies of the UK welfare benefits system in 1991, free school meals and other such matters). Such matters were communicated by schools in mind numbing detail to parents in long detailed communications, but concepts not really understood by ten year old children such as myself (the guy I was talking to understood but not me). Maybe these days children have a better understanding of such things than I did then or maybe they don’t.

In the approach above (as outlined in the contract) all kids are issued with a photo ID card and presumably the children on free school meals don’t have “FREE SCHOOL MEALS” emblazoned in large capital letters written on the card.

(b) it reduces the risk of bullying of kids for their lunch money as the card has a photo on it. Unlike money the photo ID cards (unless you happen to be identical twins and I remember the identical twins when I was at school playing all kids of jokes on the adults as their fellow children could tell them apart but the adults couldn’t) can’t be transferred between people easily if the photo is compared to the person using it.

(c) all this bureaucracy is why some parents then and now probably just opt for the simpler option of packed lunches (although if your family is entitled to free school meals this might be ruled out on terms of cost). The upside is no queuing, parents know what their children are eating and fewer profits going to companies making money out of the taxpayer and others.

(d) free school meals have been introduced for all primary school children this month by the Coalition government for under 7 year olds (1.5 million children). The fact all children on this age group (and not just those on means tested benefits) get an entitlement to free school meals should cut down on a lot of bureaucracy.

To put it simply, it is far easier from an administrative perspective giving everyone an entitlement to a free school meal from school age to age seven, then having to process each form detailing the benefits that qualify a family (who may have one or more children at one or more schools) for free school meals, checking that said benefit is now claimed and if so over which dates, tracking said child through the school system if they move schools and sorting out the paperwork, et cetera, et cetera. The current system is a minefield of bureaucracy and takes a lot of staff time who could be using their time to do things that are more use to society than shuffling paperwork around (not to say that isn’t important).

It’s also been a lot of work for schools, a lot of work for the LEA too, which has reduced somewhat now, although a lot of questions have been asked before and after this change about the knock on effect of how the “pupil premium” is calculated as this is a measure whereby schools get extra money based on how many children there get free school meals.

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

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

                                                    

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

Now for what I promised earlier with a story about children’s centres. Basically Cabinet is going to have to decide tonight whether or not to proceed to a six-week consultation on recommendations for the early years service and children’s centres.

The proposals which may/may not go out to consultation is to try to save £2 million. Staff at risk of losing their jobs (if a decision to go to consultation tonight) will also be consulted.

Admittedly the report has the odd type, for example at 6.1 it refers to the 2104 budget which should read the 2014 budget as Wirral Council officers don’t tend to consider the budgetary implications in ninety years time of their decisions! 😀

The proposals that may/may not go out to consultation would involve the closure of at least eight children’s centres with four being downgraded to satellite/outreach. The outright closure of some could result in a grant clawback of the money Wirral Council got to build them.

Of course if the Labour Cabinet does decide to go down this path of consultation on closure, eventually a decision will have to be made.

I’m sure at that stage or even before (if consultation is agreed tonight) the Conservatives will be reminding Labour of the election leaflets they’ve put out in recent years that told the people of Wirral that the children’s centres are not safe in Tory hands so please vote Labour. 😀

Oh dear, and what will the local newspapers make of it all?

The report on that item and revised appendix can be found by following these links.

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

Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter

Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter

Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter

 

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

Below this is a copy of the multi page legal advice written by Surjit Tour on the 11th July 2014 and distribute to all 62 councillors present at the Council meeting on 14th July 2014 on the Lyndale School motion.

This was provided (rather surprisingly to me as it must mark a change from the past towards more openness and transparency) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request of mine made on the 14th August 2014.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

ADVICE NOTE

PRE-DETERMINATION, PRE-DISPOSITION AND BIAS

COUNCIL MEETING – 14 July 2014

Notice of Motion – The Lyndale School

(Council Agenda Item 11 (ii))

  1. Purpose

  1. In view of the Notice of Motion relating to The Lyndale School being debated at Council on 14 July 2014, I have set out below some advice for your consideration in relation to the issues of ‘Pre-determination’, ‘Pre-disposition’ and ‘Bias’ given the significance and high profile nature of this particular subject matter.

  1. This Note is intended as guidance only and provided to help you in your consideration of these issues in the context of The Lyndale School Notice of Motion arising at Council on 14 July and thereafter.

  1. Pre-determination and Pre-disposition

  1. Pre-determination is defined as:

“occurring when a Member has fixed views on a matter and retains a closed mind when it comes to making a determination”.

  1. Pre-disposition is defined as:

“a Member being open to the possibility that, however unlikely, they will hear argument during the debate about the issue that will change their mind about how they intend to vote. As long as they are willing to keep an open mind about the issue they are entitled to take part in any vote on it”.

  1. In National Assembly for Wales v Condron and another [2006], the court recognised that there is a two stage test for pre-determination:

First – the behaviour complained of has to be relevant to the issue.

Second – the situation has to be one where a notional fair-minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, would consider that there is a real risk that the decision maker has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument.

  1. In summary, there are no restrictions on a Member holding a provisional view on an issue (pre-disposition) but there is a problem if he/she acts with a closed mind on a subject (pre-determination).

  1. The pre-disposition can be strong and can be publicly voiced. It might be in favour of or against a particular point. The expressing of an intention to vote in a particular way before a meeting (pre-determination) is not the same as when a Member makes it clear he/she is willing to listen to views of all sides before deciding on how to vote (pre-disposition).

  1. Pre-disposition in decision making is fine.

  1. Whereas, decisions made by Members later judged to have pre-determined views have been quashed by way of judicial review.

  1. Bias

  1. Bias is defined as:

‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents impartial consideration of a question; prejudice’.

  1. The test is outlined in the case of Porter v. Magill [2001] where Lord Hope said that:

‘…the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.’

  1. It is therefore important that each Member considers his/her stance from the position of a ‘reasonable onlooker’ and decides whether there would be or could be the appearance of bias.

  1. Only you can say whether you are biased or not.

  1. Localism Act 2012

  1. Section 25 of the Localism Act states that a Member should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because he/she has previously said/or acted in a way that may have directly or indirectly indicated the view he/she may take in relation to a matter.

  1. Section 25 does not attempt to change case law in respect of pre-determination and bias, but it has attempted to clarify it.

  1. The section applies if there is an issue about the validity of a decision, as a result of an “allegation of bias or pre-determination”, or “otherwise” and it is relevant to that issue whether the decision maker, or any of the decision makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision. Thus it is drafted so as to catch as many cases as possible in which an allegation of pre-determination might be made which might affect the validity of a decision.

  1. Section 25 catches allegations of actual, and apparent, pre-determination (however tenuous).

  1. The provision is also widely phrased in another sense. It applies to views not just about the subject matter of the decision in question, but to anything a Member has done which might show, directly, or indirectly, what view he/she takes, or would take, or might take, about any matter which is relevant to the decision.

  1. The explanatory notes to the Localism Act 2011 in relation to section 25 state that ‘Predetermination occurs where someone has a closed mind, with the effect that they are unable to apply their judgement fully and properly to an issue requiring a decision.

  1. Section 25 is set out on pages 4 and 5 below for your reference.

5. Summary

  1. In summary, Members are asked to consider the above advice when considering all items of Council business requiring Members to make a decision; however particularly so in relation to the Notice of Motion re: The Lyndale School.

  1. Members are aware that no firm/final decision has been taken by the Administration in relation to The Lyndale School and therefore the Council’s Executive decision making arrangements have yet to be administered and concluded. These arrangements also include options that are still relevant to non-executive Members and accordingly you are advised to consider the implications/impact of pre-determination, pre-disposition and bias on the decision making arrangements relevant to this subject matter.

If you have any queries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Surjit Tour

Head of Legal & Member Services

and Monitoring Officer

11 July 2014

LOCALISM ACT 2011

Section 25

(1) Subsection (2) applies if—

(a) as a result of an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise, there is an issue about the validity of a decision of a relevant authority, and

(b) it is relevant to that issue whether the decision-maker, or any of the decision-makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision.

(2) A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because—

(a) the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter, and

(b) the matter was relevant to the decision.

(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a decision-maker only if that decision-maker—

(a) is a member (whether elected or not) of the relevant authority, or

(b) is a co-opted member of that authority.

(4) In this section—

co-opted member”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—

(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or

(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority, and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided a any meeting of the committee or sub-committee;

decision”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a decision made in discharging functions of the authority, functions of the authority’s executive, functions of a committee of the authority or functions of an officer of the authority (including decisions made in the discharge of any of those functions otherwise than by the person to whom the function was originally given);

elected mayor” has the meaning given by section 9H or 39 of the Local Government Act 2000;

member”—

(a) in relation to the Greater London Authority, means the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member, and

(b) in relation to a county council, district council, county borough council or London borough council, includes an elected mayor of the council;

relevant authority” means—

(a) a county council,

(b) a district council,

(c) a county borough council,

(d) a London borough council,

(e) the Common Council of the City of London,

(f) the Greater London Authority,

(g) a National Park authority,

(h) the Broads Authority,

(i) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

(j) a parish council, or

(k) a community council.

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