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:

Filming public meetings on Merseyside (Open Democracy – Phase 2) Fire Authority is best, Liverpool Council is worst

Filming public meetings on Merseyside (Open Democracy – Phase 2) Fire Authority is best, Liverpool Council is worst

Filming public meetings on Merseyside (Open Democracy – Phase 2) Fire Authority is best, Liverpool Council is worst

                                                                            

Left an unknown Liverpool City Council councillor talks about filming locations at a meeting of its Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September 2014 Right Cllr Sharon Sullivan Labour
Left an unknown Liverpool City Council councillor talks about filming locations at a meeting of its Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September 2014 Right Cllr Sharon Sullivan Labour

Since the law changed on filming public meetings on the 6th August 2014 as part of our “Open Democracy” project, I have filmed a number of public meetings of various public bodies on Merseyside to try to get a better understanding of differences in cultural approaches towards the issue.

Here is the list of public bodies I filmed meetings of:

Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (Wirral Council)
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Merseytravel Committee)
Liverpool City Council

Note: the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel whose host authority is Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council was originally on this list but dropped due to changes to shift patterns due to a special meeting on the same evening.

I now have a better understanding of what makes up both best practice both for these public bodies and the media.

I could give a detailed score for each but these are all based on a particular public meeting for each public body. However I will briefly detail below what was the best and what was the worst and explain why.

Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority (the best)

This was a meeting of their Consultation and Negotiation Sub-committee held on the 2nd September 2014 starting at 1pm.

Out of the five different public bodies, in my opinion it is this one that went the best, despite a technical problem with our camera which meant filming had to be done in VGA and not HD.

Each councillor on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, fire officers and union representative had individual microphones that were tested before the meeting started. Agendas/reports were provided (on request) before the meeting started so that the press/public could follow the meeting. Agendas and reports are also available electronically through the Modgov iPad app. Councillors (and others speaking) knew how to use the microphones. Although some people arrived late, this could be because the room the meeting was held in was changed at short notice.

The receptionist was professional and the organisation itself came across as well run. The atmosphere both before, during and after the meeting was pleasant and friendly. The issue under discussion (industrial relations between the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and the unions) was one that attracted great public interest and much interest when published.

The room the meeting was held in was well-lit and despite being held on the first floor had a working lift. I have no criticisms of the staff but only compliments.

Footage from this meeting can be viewed 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.

Merseytravel Committee (part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority)

This was a meeting of the Merseytravel Committee held on the 4th September 2014 at 2.30pm. Each councillor and officer had and used microphones (a plus). Atmosphere was pleasant and friendly. The filming location was good as there was light from the nearby window. We were granted access to the room in plenty of time to set up a tripod and camera.

However the meeting room itself seemed dark due to shades put across some of the windows and at times those speaking didn’t always correctly use their microphones. Due to the design and layout of the room, the spot where the public sit is suboptimal for filming from a sitting position due to sight lines (although filming from a standing position would have overcome some of these difficulties). Meeting was not available on Modgov iPad app. Agendas/reports were provided on request.

Footage of this meeting can be viewed 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.

Wirral Council

This was a meeting of the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group held on the 6th August 2014 scheduled to start at 6.00pm. Microphones were not provided for this meeting. Access to the room was provided in advance of the meeting for setting up camera and tripod. Meeting was at times hard to follow, however filming location was optimal.

Background noise from an outside car park, noise from shipping from the nearby River Mersey and other types of background noise including from a tea/coffee machine in the room itself sometimes drowned out what was being said.

There were times when there was crosstalk during the meeting and unusually the meeting started without a Chair. Meeting was available on Modgov iPad app.

Footage of this meeting can be viewed below.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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


Liverpool City Council (the worst)

This was a meeting of the Constitutional Issues Committee starting at 3.00pm on Monday 8th September in the West Reception Room, 1st floor, Liverpool Town Hall, Liverpool.

Upon arrival we were questioned by a private security guard working for a private security firm contracted by Liverpool City Council as to our purpose for being there. She summoned a junior Liverpool City Council employee.

The junior employee had to get his line manager to deal with our query causing a further delay as his line manager was not immediately available.

His line manager said that filming wouldn’t be allowed in the building as he hadn’t received “instructions” and referred to a “bylaw” (on latter reflection it seems this was actually a reference to an unchanged part of Liverpool City Council’s constitution which is not a bylaw but should’ve been changed by Liverpool City Council before the regulations coming into force on August 6th 2014). He insisted that permission was still required. Access to the meeting room before the meeting to set up a tripod and camera was originally denied by building staff line management.

During the conversations with these two people I asked if Liverpool City councillors would be stopped from proceeding to the meeting room upstairs before the meeting started at 3pm and was told they wouldn’t be as they were “regular visitors” to the Town Hall.

I was also told rather curiously that if they allowed filming in Liverpool Town Hall it would open up the prospect of people filming at swimming pools. If anybody could give me an example of a public meeting of a local council held at a swimming pool please leave a comment!

The issue of mobile phones was also brought up with me in a long explanation in the context of filming/recording. This was a rather long and curious explanation to say to somebody that doesn’t own a mobile phone though and had no mobile phone on him. The building staff manager explained that mobile phones couldn’t be confiscated as they were “private property” which is a bit of a moot point if you don’t have one!

A further conversation was had later between myself and the junior employee about how this was at odds with the documentation for the meeting (see page 1 “This is a legal duty for the Council to follow the new provisions” and page 2 “The Councils [sic] is required to provide “reasonable facilities” to facilitate reporting.”) and accompanying appendix 2 “In line with national legislation, the filming and recording of public meetings is permitted.”

He requested his line manager (again) but there appears to have been somewhat of a misunderstanding over the junior employee’s reply to this.

Another conversation was had with the line manager and reference was made to the reports and agenda for the meeting (which ironically was discussing the filming issue and change to the legislation). We found out later during the public meeting that Liverpool City Council had been allowing filming at its meetings for over a month yet nobody had told this building manager it seems!

The response then was (in a stark example of silo mentality at a local council) that these reports were the responsibility of another part of Liverpool City Council “Committee Services”, who had only booked the room in the Town Hall and not staff such as himself who were managing the building (referred to as an “important building” by the person he line managed) where the room was being held.

I then gave much explanation about regulations, House of Commons, House of Lords, how laws were made and how Liverpool City Council had to comply with its legal obligations whatever its constitution stated in a level of excruciating detail I have never had to do before or since.

Eventually the position somewhat changed and we were escorted by the line manager to the room where the meeting was held in advance of it starting at 3pm. We were directed to a spot to film from (the only time out of this series of meetings this happened) and told if it was good enough for ITV Granada (who had according to a plaque on the way in had been awarded Freedom of Entry by Liverpool City Council) then it should be good enough for us. A socket was provided for electricity, but not required as we use batteries.

However when the meeting was held filming from this spot involved filming straight into direct sunlight due to the west-facing windows on the other side of the room (therefore from a technical perspective unprofessional and problematic). Filming from this spot into direct sunlight also caused our batteries to run out six times faster than usual. After the friction earlier, we frankly didn’t have the will left to quibble over what location we filmed the meeting from and although an alternative location was suggested, this was ruled out by us on access grounds (which as one of the councillors arrived in a wheelchair we were proved right).

Before the meeting started there was a loud noise of sawing from outside the room which thankfully stopped by the time the meeting started but was somewhat unnerving.

We were put in an alcove of the room, which affected sound quality. Sound quality during the meeting itself was also affected by background noise from other parts of the building as a nearby door was left open (later shut during the meeting).

An agenda and reports for the meeting were requested (they have a legal duty to supply them) but we were told that there were no copies for the public, but that if a councillor didn’t turn up we could have the copy (which did happen a few minutes before the meeting started which gives little time to read it in detail).

Although some councillors used their microphones correctly during the meeting itself, others did not. One councillor arrived approximately half an hour late.

WiFi was available, but not known about in advance. Although a plus, during the meeting itself, this was referred to as a negative by a councillor who felt that the use of mobile phones or tablets during public meetings by officers and councillors was unprofessional and disrespectful to the meeting as it gave the public and press the impression that they weren’t paying attention to what was going on.

Strange accents of councillors during the meeting itself were at times hard to follow. However this is probably due to our unfamiliarity with the various Liverpudlian dialects rather than a problem per se.

The meeting itself was at times bad-tempered and there seemed to be the impression given of the Labour Group of councillors picking on a councillor from another political group during the public meeting itself during the last agenda item. The fine line between party politics and politician seemed to be somewhat blurred at Liverpool City Council. In fact the councillor who was not from the Labour Group who was subjected to this, looked so upset that I thought he was about to walk out of the meeting before it came to an end.

There was crosstalk at times during the meeting and an atmosphere that was not conducive to good decision-making.

Some councillors were unaware or misinformed (by the statements they made) as to some of the detail as to what they were discussing on the filming item due to (in part) deficiencies and omissions in what an officer/s had provided them in the paperwork for the meeting.

We were both glad when the meeting ended and we left and have no current desire to go back to a place that seemed to not make us feel welcome (although I’m not sure whether that was the intent behind their actions)!

Footage of this meeting can be viewed 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 these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

                                                       

Future Council Wirral logo
Future Council Wirral logo

Ed – Update 14:55 9/9/14 to fix 6 incorrect links to the budget options that was helpfully pointed out by a reader.

Yes, it’s another annual consultation on savings from Wirral Council that began yesterday and runs from yesterday to the 31st October 2014. What’s this one on? This is on £2.5 million of cuts that Wirral Council need to make in 2015/16.

Although the documentation refers to £4 million of budget options this seems rounded to the nearest million (the options total £3.75 million). Out of these options about £2.5 million will be chosen (two-thirds by total value).

Here are the documents and links:

Final Full Consultation Pack (this is a 21 page document which covers all options).

The options are then in various “themes” and are below by theme (I’ve also included the amount in pounds next to each option for financial year 2015/16 if that option is chosen).

This means some of the larger savings options are almost certain to go ahead which are those involving community libraries, the all age disability service, youth and play, preventative maintenance (highways and parks), Council Tax Over 70s discount and Girtrell Court.

These six options total £2.566 million of the £2.5 million savings required.

The other eleven options seem less likely to meet with public approval as they will be opposed by (in some cases) large sections of Wirral’s society. Some of them have already been rejected in earlier years following consultation such as charging for car parks at the country parks, school crossing patrols etc.

With the options below I’ve briefly included a sentence or two explaining what it’s about.

Customer Contact

Reduce library opening hours to four hours (10am to 2pm) with these libraries opened either two or three days a week. This option does not seem to apply to the four central libraries or combined libraries/One Stop Shops whose opening hours remain the same.

Delivering Differently Theme

Close four satellite youth centres & end funding Play Scheme.

Managing Demand

Remove 41 school crossing patrols.

Income and Efficiency

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

A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation

A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation

A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation

                                                  

Marvin the Martian from Disney's Looney Tunes
Marvin the Martian from Disney’s Looney Tunes

The below is a fictional interview with Marvin the Martian about Lyndale School. Marvin the Martian is trademarked to Warner Brothers Entertainment. Our legal team point out their trademark doesn’t actually cover its use on blogs but in case they try to argue this blog is an “entertainment service”, it isn’t, so no laughing! Yes I mean it, not even a smile! We also point out it’s not an infringing use of class 9 of this trademark as that refers to its use on goods rather than virtually.

We rely on s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and class this as “fair dealing” due to the acknowledgement above. When the The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations 2014 come into force in October, we’ll probably rely on them too and the new section 30A on parody.

JOHN BRACE: Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed about Lyndale School.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: You’re welcome. We have watched your news broadcasts about this school and are frankly confused. Back on Mars we would be asking our politicians to resign if they behaved as yours do. Why do your politicians think they can get away with being like this?

JOHN BRACE: Well they don’t operate under Martian law for a start. British law gives them wide latitude to do what they like within reason.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well our politicians always tell us they’re on the side of the people, how come yours aren’t?

JOHN BRACE: Well that’s difficult to say. The yellow, blue and green politicians have said they are. The red ones are being careful not to express an opinion.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: “Not to express an opinion”! If we had politicians like that it would spark a revolution!

JOHN BRACE: We’re too polite for revolutions here, the most the British tend to do if they’re cross is write a grumpy letter.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Does that work?

JOHN BRACE: Sometimes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So getting back to Lyndale, can you explain it simply in terms we can understand?

JOHN BRACE: If someone could they would have. Money is taken off the people in the form of taxes. These taxes are then used for services such as education and schools such as Lyndale.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Yes, we have schools for our young Martians too.

JOHN BRACE: The politicians decide how the money is spent and what on. They’ve decided to spend it on Lyndale this year, but have yet to make their minds up about next year.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what’s changed?

JOHN BRACE: Well, there’s been a consultation about closing the school. This is because of lack of money, but everyone’s also been told it won’t save any money and could in fact cost more.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: That sounds very confusing.

JOHN BRACE: It is. The other reason given is that the school is small.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s the problem with small schools then?

JOHN BRACE: Seems the bureaucrats don’t like them. More schools means more problems for them.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So this is being done to suit the bureaucrats?

JOHN BRACE: Well no, the politicians decided on this.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?

JOHN BRACE: Because the bureaucrats told them too.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: These bureaucrats sound like they have more power than the politicians.

JOHN BRACE: Well we’ll leave that discussion for another day. The bureaucrats blame it on the government.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s “the government”?

JOHN BRACE: Another set of politicians.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So let’s recap, one set of politicians “the government” is used as a reason by the bureaucrats to persuade another set of politicians to close the school?

JOHN BRACE: Almost right, but “the government” deny that they want to close the school.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again.

JOHN BRACE: So am I.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wouldn’t it be easier if we just invaded Wallasey Town Hall and promised not to close the school?

JOHN BRACE: Maybe it would, but sadly as you’re a fictional character it won’t happen.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: A shame, I was looking forward to invading your planet. So going back to Lyndale, apart from confusing arguments about money and its small size is there any other unstated reason why they want to shut it?

JOHN BRACE: Well the person in charge of special educational needs left and a new guy came in. Some people don’t like him.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why don’t they like him?

JOHN BRACE: For a wide variety of reasons I won’t go into because it’ll probably lead to another libel threat.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s that?

JOHN BRACE: Where Wirral Council threaten to sue you for telling the public the truth.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Can they do that?

JOHN BRACE: No they can’t, our laws don’t allow it but sometimes they get a little cheesed off with me.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would they have issues with someone telling the truth about them?

JOHN BRACE: Because they have been known in the past not to tell the truth, if the public hears two mutually contradictory versions of the same thing they tend to assume Wirral Council is lying.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why would they lie?

JOHN BRACE: The less the public know about what goes on, the easier it is for them to do things. If the public do find out they can get quite grumpy and ask the politicians to do something about it.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, so the public have been asking the politicians to do something about Lyndale?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So if the red politicians are so gung-ho about closure that must mean lots of people have asked them to close it?

JOHN BRACE: No, quite the opposite the majority of people have told the red politicians not to close it.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again, I thought the politicians were supposed to be on the side of the people.

JOHN BRACE: Well you’d hope so, but not always. Generally the public don’t get a say in political decision-making, it all gets carved up by the establishment.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who or what are the “establishment”?

JOHN BRACE: People with the connections to make sure the decision-making always goes their way.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wow, they sound very powerful.!

JOHN BRACE: They are.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t the “establishment” just listen to the people?

JOHN BRACE: Well in public they say they do, in private things are a little more complex. Sometimes different sections of the public ask for two completely different things.

MARVIN THE MARTIN: So they have to use their own judgement on matters?

JOHN BRACE: Yes, but getting back to Lyndale.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh yes Lyndale. You have red, green, blue and yellow politicians who individually don’t seem to understand the “big picture”.

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who all say they’re on the side of the public?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The green, blue and yellow politicians all say they’ll do their best with Lyndale knowing it’s only the red politicians that will decide?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The red politicians are doing this because the bureaucrats told them that they’d have to because of a different set of blue and yellow (but not green) politicians?

JOHN BRACE: Sort of.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But it’s not about money.

JOHN BRACE: Different answers have been given to that one.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what is it really about?

JOHN BRACE: Well the school is for disabled children, some of whom thankfully have a sense of humour and laugh at all this.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good for them, but it’s no “laughing matter”?

JOHN BRACE: You got it it’s a very serious matter.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t they just let the children decide?

JOHN BRACE: It’s a novel suggestion, but the red politicians wouldn’t allow it no.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Is there another reason why the red politicians could be doing it this way?

JOHN BRACE: Well another red politician called Alison is in a battle with the blues to carry on as a politician.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So is she on the side of the reds or the people?

JOHN BRACE: She would say both. However it would be breaking the rules to use such issues for party political gain.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But that could explain why the red politicians are keeping quiet?

JOHN BRACE: The red politicians just do what they’re told.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: By who?

JOHN BRACE: The red leader and the Cabinet Member.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?

JOHN BRACE: Because if they didn’t, they’d be causing trouble and nobody wants to be seen to rock the boat.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So they have to vote for something they may not personally agree with?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Sounds strange, I thought they were supposed to represent the people.

JOHN BRACE: At election time yes, but they also represent their party too.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what will happen about Lyndale?

JOHN BRACE: A solution will have to be found that means the red politicians save face.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What does that mean?

JOHN BRACE: Well they will need to both blame what’s happened on someone (something they’ve had a lot of practice doing) and come out of it smelling like roses.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But the public think something stinks?

JOHN BRACE: Yes they do, but as I said before the public aren’t the establishment.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I see, so it’s terribly complicated isn’t it? The blue, green and yellow politicians can say what they like because they don’t make the decisions. The red politicians do make the decision but won’t talk. The bureaucrats have told the red politicians it’s all the blue and yellow politicians’ (but not green politicians’) fault. The shadowy “establishment” always gets its own way and basically the wishes of the children, staff, public are pushed to one side and politely ignored?

JOHN BRACE: In a nutshell, but it’s a little more complicated than that. There’s also a group called the media or press that is powerful too.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, you haven’t mentioned them yet!

JOHN BRACE: Well I’m part of them so I have. The broadcast (TV), print (newspaper), online (blogs) have all decided to side with the school.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why’s that?

JOHN BRACE: Well the media don’t have to give reasons, but they think the politicians are being unfair by picking on people that can’t stick up for themselves.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But they are!

JOHN BRACE: That’s a matter of opinion.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Only a coward would pick on someone that couldn’t fight back.

JOHN BRACE: Indeed. However the media are powerful because they influence how people think.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, including the politicians, the establishment, the bureaucrats and the people.

JOHN BRACE: Yes, however there are wider international considerations too. Nobody wants another war.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would picking on disabled kids and closing a school start a war?

JOHN BRACE: On its own no, but pandering to society’s prejudices towards the disabled, coupled with the purple party talking about immigration and other factors could.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh there’s a purple party too!

JOHN BRACE: Yes but they really don’t feature in this tale. They have politicians at the European level but not national or local.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good as we’re starting to run out of colours.

JOHN BRACE: As I was saying, the fragmentation of society by playing off people against each other and scapegoating minorities leads eventually to war.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Oh dear. Has that happened before?

JOHN BRACE: Yes. Many times which is why measures were put in place to prevent things getting to that stage.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So will these “measures” prevent Lyndale being closed?

JOHN BRACE: Who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Continues at A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation (episode 2).

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

Councillors discuss schools, free school meals and 4 Wirral schools in special measures

Councillors discuss schools, free school meals and 4 Wirral schools in special measures

Councillors discuss schools, free school meals and 4 Wirral schools in special measures

                                 

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.

Last night’s meeting of Wirral Council’s Attainment sub-committee started off well enough. Before the hour of six o’clock had even been reached, Cllr Moira McLaughlin was chomping at the bit to be made Chair. As there was only one Conservative councillor present and many, many Labour councillors, it was hardly likely she wouldn’t become Chair.

The Labour councillors then agreed to Cllr Wendy Clements being Vice-Chair.

The Chair, Cllr Moira McLaughlin pointed out that Cllr Alan Brighouse wasn’t present, but decided to continue the meeting anyway. To be perfectly honest I’m glad as if every meeting waited until Cllr Alan Brighouse was present things would never start on time as like another councillor he has a reputation for poor timekeeping.

Apologies were given for Julia Hassall who would be late. Declarations of interest were given as some councillors were school governors.

The minutes were agreed. The Chair said that the main thrust of the meeting would be a presentation from Deborah Gornik (who wasn’t there). The Chair was informed that Deborah Gornik would also be late as she (and presumably Julia Hassall) were “at another meeting”. Were they meeting each other? What was this other meeting about? Who knows?

The one officer (apart from the one taking the minutes) that had turned up on time, Sue Talbot gave her report on standards (which is not often a word you hear at public meetings of Wirral Council).

However this was about standards of education for at the Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 level, with a focus on raising standards and what happened to the education of those in local authority care (adopted or fostered). The phrase “good news story” was repeated by Sue Talbot many times.

Cllr Alan Brighouse was the first to speak and used words like “pretty fantastic improvement” followed up by a question about falls in numbers of children eligible for free school meals. The answer given was that the eligible benefits for people for apply for free school meals had changed which partly explained the drop and in answer to a further question that the officer preferred to use numbers of children rather than percentages.

The Lib Dem spokesperson (as the only Lib Dem he’s therefore the spokesperson) continued to talk about primary schools becoming academies (at this point I wondered if he was going to explicitly mention Lyndale). Sue replied that Wirral Council still had legal duties towards academies and mentioned the academy representatives on the Wirral Schools Forum and Sue went on to say the good relationship that Wirral Council has with primary schools (which if you’ve been following the Lyndale story is a matter of opinion).

Cllr Wendy Clements then asked about floor targets, the officer replied that no schools triggered all four triggers but they had banded schools (sound familiar?) and there were four schools in band four… followed up by her favourite phrase again “good news story”. Cllr Clements asked a follow up question and the answer given was that they were keen to track children who come out of care but admitted that sometimes they don’t keep an eye on those children.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin asked a question about whether children subject to care orders were monitored. The officer replied not yet, but said that once the virtual headteacher role was shared that id would help. Cllr Walter Smith asked about intervention strategies. Sue Talbot gave a detailed reply going into detail about how two of her team concentrated on early years, one on english and one on maths. She said that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate had highlighted a problem they had with British working class boys and went into detail as to what her team does.

Cllr Walter Smith asked if nursery provision had any effect on children going into primary school. The answer given was yes as long as it was good quality. Cllr Tony Norbury referred to his work as a school governor and asked how the changes to school meals in primary schools would affect free school meals? The officer answered that schools were proactive at doing this as it led to additional funding through the pupil premium for them. Cllr Tony Norbury asked two follow up questions, to which the answers were “too early to tell” and “pupil’s circumstances change”.

Cllr Phillip Brightmore asked about free school meals too. The answer given was that how they encouraged people from September could be different as all infants would get free school meals. The councillor referred to the table and referred to the Wirral West figures. Sue Talbot referred to “pockets of deprivation” in Wirral West in her answer. He then brought up the results for Pensby High. Sue Talbot said that the results might change as the school had sent the whole cohort back for remarking therefore the figures were provisional.

Cllr Tony Norbury asked about English as a second language and the strategies there. Sue Talbot referred to the Ethnic Minority Achievement Service and how they need to support schools, however kids with English as a second language seemed to be better at phonics that people who had English as their mother tongue. She referred to Polish teaching assistants and Urdu speakers.

The Chair Cllr Moira McLaughlin moved the meeting to item 8 (OFSTED reports). Sue Talbot gave a brief introduction and talked about the four schools that were being monitored by OFSTED due to previously poor inspections. One was becoming an academy so would not be in special measures due to this as special measures status disappeared when a school became an academy.

Cllr Phillip Brightmore pointed out that such things “doesn’t help the kids”. Cllr Wendy Clements referred to a “clean start” followed by a comment by Cllr Alan Brighouse.

The officer explained that new academies were given twelve months to become established. A further inspection could happen any time after twelve months. There was an academy planned to start on the 1st September, but it hadn’t happened but the school had changed its name to Kingsway Academy. The delay had been caused due to complexities caused by the PFI contract.

At this point nearly half an hour into the meeting (at agenda item 8 out of 9), the Director of Children’s Services Julia Hassall and Deborah Gornik arrived.

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