Category: Labour

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:

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

                                                      

Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28

Above are three of the recent monthly invoices to Wirral Council from Biffa Waste Services Limited for November 2013 (£1,036,840.28), December 2013 (£1,032,201.28) and January 2014 (£1,032,201.28).

I did not request the invoices for other months during that financial year (2013/14), but I would assume that the other nine are for similar amounts of around a million pounds. So why am I writing about this and what does Biffa Waste Services Limited actually do for it’s ~£12 million it receives each year from the taxpayer?

Well as shown on the invoices it’s for collecting the bins, cleaning the streets and extra amounts for working on a Bank Holiday. I’ll be looking more closely at the current contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited (which runs to 2017) tomorrow morning (if all goes well).

However there is some political news on the Biffa front, in fact Wirral Council seems to be bolstering itself for a bit of bad press coverage judging by the Cabinet papers for tonight’s Cabinet meeting (only tonight if you happen to reading this on the 11th September 2014).

If you’re interested in reading the papers yourself on Wirral Council’s website, it’s the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item which is item 4 on Cabinet’s agenda.

I remember Mark Smith (a Wirral Council officer who is Head of Environment and Regulation) getting a grilling by the Chair (Rt Hon Frank Field MP) at a recent Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting about what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to see as a lack of openness and transparency in the area of how Wirral Council manages the Biffa contract.

In the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s view (from my memory of the meeting) he wanted (rather reasonably some might say) to know exactly what the public were getting for the ~£12 million a year that the taxpayer pays Biffa Waste Services Limited through Wirral Council. Sadly there was no one present at the meeting to answer for Biffa Waste Services Limited and Mark Smith seemed to struggle a little to give the kind of answers that Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to want to hear. However moving on from the frustrations of Birkenhead’s MP/Chair of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee to more local politics (although isn’t all politics local)?

Rather helpfully Appendix 5 to the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item contains the following two entries on the risk register (copied below):

Risk No Description of risk Risk category Risk Owner Gross likelihood Score Gross impact score Total Gross Score Net Likelihood Score Net Impact Score Total Net Score Proposed Controls Responsibility Target date RAG Status
1 District Audit scrutiny on decision process likely Legal / Regulatory Tara Dumas 3 4 12 3 2 6 Member decision based on thorough analysis of risks. Best value comparison work to be undertaken – Local benchmarking plus APSE/Audit commission comparison Update on market position sought from previous consultants contracted to review Biffa contract. Process to be reviewed by internal audit TD
TD
TD
MGa		 07/07/14
completed
07/07/14
07/07/14		 G
C
G
G
2 Negative political and
media attention		 Political/societal PR team – Kathryn Green 5 3 15 3 2 6 Proactive approach by PR with press releases Confirm offer not linked to service/workforce changes LF Post decision 31/5/2014 G
C

In other words, Wirral Council know (before any decision is formally made tonight to enter into negotiations) that it will cause all kinds of trouble. They’ve already decided (it seems) on a public relations line of telling the press it won’t lead to job losses/workforce changes and giving them the “gift” of a press release in the hope that most of the media will just print the press release more or less verbatim and not ask too many awkward questions about the matter.

They even know their external auditor (Grant Thornton) will be asking them a whole bunch of questions to do with it too but surprisingly there are even bigger risks than the media and Wirral Council’s auditors to tackle, although read the risk register at appendix 5 and hopefully you’ll see what I mean.

So how can I sum up what is proposed to be decided tonight quickly? The current contract will Biffa Waste Services Limited will end on March 2017.

The impression I get from reading between the lines of the Cabinet papers, (a lot of the detail has been kept deliberately secret by officers who are recommending to politicians to keep it secret too on grounds of commercial confidentiality) is that Biffa Waste Services Limited seemed to be somewhat concerned that if their multi-million pound 11 year contract ends on March 2017, that they would have to bid in a competitive tender against other companies and organisations for the new contract.

There’s then uncertainty (from Biffa’s perspective) over whether they would end up being the successful bidder or not. It’s called “competition” and is generally required for such large multi-million pound contracts because of all kinds of laws I won’t go into at this point and competition is therefore required for a whole bunch of good reasons.

So someone as Biffa Waste Services Limited has read through the contract they have with Wirral Council and found a caveat. There was a part in the contract that could extend it a further ten years (current prices of ~£12 million a year but yearly increases and variation are usually built-in). This contract covers “all household waste and recycling collections, street cleansing and fly tip removal, waste collection from schools and council offices and wheeled bin deliveries.”

All Biffa had to do to get a further ten years (at ~£12 million a year) was make a formal offer to Wirral Council (which they did) and have this agreed to by Wirral Council (which hasn’t happened yet with the earliest date expected being October 2014).

Due to the size of the amounts involved it has to be a decision made by politicians, specifically Wirral Council’s Cabinet and the councillor with responsibility for this area is the new(ish) Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability Councillor Bernie Mooney (who replaced Brian Kenny earlier this year when he lost an election in May to the Green Party councillor Pat Cleary).

However what’s in the currently exempt appendices?

Well appendix 1 covers the “value and suggested terms of the formal offer from Biffa in return for the Council extending the contract to 2027. In summary the proposal offers the Council a one-off saving split between 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 followed by a continued annual reduction in the core contract price throughout the remainder of the extended contract period to the equivalent value. Officers asked Biffa to clarify the benefits to Biffa if the contract extension was agreed.”

I’m not allowed to link to appendix 1 (as it’s currently a big secret and you’d get an “access denied” type message from Wirral Council’s website if I did), but as the language used by a Wirral Council officer is rather opaque, it has to boil down to how I imagine a summary of what Biffa offered Wirral Council … “give us a further ten years and we will give you very good price if you pick us. Our price is very reasonable, many savings to be had, very good price, you buy from us again we treat you well. We are very good supplier and will take your bins to tip and keep streets clean for another 10 years for a very reasonable price.”

Wirral Council officers asked Biffa to clarify what Biffa would get out of extending the contract a further ten years.

Biffa responded to this on the 10th February 2014. Again I’m not allowed to show you Biffa’s response either on the instructions of Wirral Council officers!

The summary of this response is again in rather opaque language “Biffa indicated that the savings they could offer arose from avoiding future procurement and mobilisation costs, the ability to re-finance their operations and a reduction in overheads due to the stable nature of the contract. The discount is not linked to any service changes.”

In other words Biffa are saying “grant us a monopoly, save us the cost of having to retender for the contract in 2017, Wirral Council will save money from having to retender the contract” (which is a bit of a debatable point really anyway considering the extra costs this will cause doing it this way) “and Biffa will be able to borrow money cheaper because we’ll have a longer contract.” To be honest I don’t agree entirely with Biffa’s point about overheads being significantly lower to justify this.

Another letter from Biffa (exempt appendix 3) is also currently being kept secret by Wirral Council officers (pending a decision by politicians). This letter is about an offer to redesign the fleet of bin lorries from 2017 to collect things such as food waste (to meet Wirral Council’s recycling targets).

However Biffa make it clear that this is absolutely Biffa’s final offer (well unless Wirral Council’s Cabinet say no to negotiations or no to the offer in October 2014 and Biffa have to bid for the new contract starting in 2017)!

Wirral Council officers seem very keen to have the Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to Biffa’s plan. “80p cheaper per a Wirral person than Liverpool” they state in the report, but strangely 15p more per a person than in Sefton!

Of course Wirral Council’s Cabinet could just choose to reject Biffa’s proposal and decide to bring the service in-house from 2017.

The recent street cleansing cuts to the contract, have been the source of both political and media attention in the recent past. However, what’s the officer’s recommendation?

Oh and before I get to that, Wirral Council asked Eunomia (are they consultants?) in 2012 to look at the Biffa contract, the consultants in fact suggested the contract should be retendered! Eunomia also suggested that if Wirral Council did agree to extend the contract by a further ten years than there should be changes to “contract clauses relating to indexation, labour cost inflation and future efficiency gains” which would be extremely sensible to do considering the current contract is linked to RPI (and let’s face it inflation is quite high)! However the Eunomia assessment is now two years out of date and things have changed somewhat since then.

As Wirral Council officers freely admit in 5.3.4 of this report, they don’t really know if this will save any money at all versus retendering the contract, it all just seems to be educated guesswork and unknown quantities.

The estimated savings have been listed, but surprisingly (and isn’t this usually the case?) not the increased costs (such as an increased audit bill from Grant Thornton for extra work).

It’s the report gets to “legal implications” that things start to get interesting!

Here’s a quote from 10.2 “The Legal colleagues have highlighted that it is necessary to limit the amount of material changes to the contract in order to minimise the risk of the Council being challenged on the legalities of the extension.”

In other words, do it right otherwise one of Biffa’s competitors, or in fact anyone could sue Wirral Council over how it was done.

Then entering into catch 22 territory the legal advice continues:

“Due consideration has been given to establishing whether the Biffa proposal offers Value for Money (Sections 4 and 5 refers) as required under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. However, it is important to note that the only decisive way to determine whether a more advantageous contract could be secured by the Council would be through retendering the contract.”

In other words, Wirral Council don’t know whether this saves them money without retendering the contract in 2017, but if they agree to Biffa’s proposal they won’t be retendering the contract in 2017 so they’ll never really know or be able to prove “value for money” to their external auditors Grant Thornton.

However let’s see, what do officers want? They want politicians to agree to them to enter into negotiations with Biffa, more specifically the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment (currently Kevin Adderley) and then report back to Cabinet no later than October 2014.

Personally (and this is just an opinion) I think politicians on the Cabinet will probably agree to enter into negotiations with Biffa tonight (even though Labour’s tendency in the past has been to bring back services in-house), if only just to keep their options open in October 2014. Quite what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s views on this latest development in the Biffa saga are at the time of writing unknown.

Coming up next today: What Wirral Council’s Cabinet is planning to do about Children’s Centres.

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 publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School

Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School

Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School

 

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

The author of this piece has sent a letter following the pre-application protocol for judicial review to Wirral Council. However as no case has yet been filed, the matter is not sub judice. I felt it was however best to mention this as an interest in the below piece.

Wirral Council has published the draft minutes of the special Cabinet meeting held on the 4th September 2014 to consider the future of Lyndale School.

Councillors have between the date the draft minutes were published and the 18th September 2014 to decide whether they wish to “call in” the Cabinet decision and have it reviewed by a meeting of the Coordinating Committee as long as a minimum of six (out of sixty-six) councillors call for it to be called in.

A copy of the draft minutes for the Cabinet meeting are below.

 

40. Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

Members of the Cabinet are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.

Minutes:

Councillor S Whittingham declared a personal interest by virtue of his appointment as a school governor at Millbrook Special School.

 
41. Minutes

The minutes of the last meeting have been printed and published.  Any matters called in will be reported at the meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION:  That the minutes be approved and adopted.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the last meeting held on 7th July 2014 be approved as a correct record.

 
42. Chairs Announcement

Minutes:

The Leader of the Councillor indicated that following requests received, prior to the consideration of TheLyndale School item, the Cabinet will be  show a video from The Lyndale School first
43. Council Referral: The Lyndale School

At its meeting held on 14 July 2014, Council considered a Notice of Motion proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes in relation to The Lyndale School.

Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.

(Minute 18 is attached)

 

Minutes:

At the meeting of the Council held on 14 July 2014 (minute 18 refers), the attached Notice of Motion, proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes and seconded by Councillor Jeff Green, in relation to The Lyndale School, was debated.

 

Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to the Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Notice of Motion in the relation to The Lyndale School be noted.
44. Outcome of Lyndale School Consultation

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of the item the Cabinet considered a video which had been submitted by Ms D. Hughes.

 

The Leader of the Council, having welcomed everyone to the meeting, invited Ms Zoe Anderson, Parent Governor and parent of a child at The Lyndale School to address the Cabinet. Ms Anderson, spoke on behalf of the staff and parents of the school and spoke of the particular needs of the children at The Lyndale and gave a personal account of her own child’s needs and experiences which she felt could only be provided for at The Lyndale School.

 

Speaking on behalf of parents Ms Anderson made representations in strong support of retaining The Lyndale School, the consultation responses, the expert report and the proposed options.

 

Ms Anderson specifically stated that the staff at The Lyndale had gained the trust of all the parents to look after their child’s medical, physical and educational needs – which was the fundamental concern. Ms Anderson highlighted the excellent support, care and education provided all the children at The Lyndale School. The school had excellent facilities including very good outside space to which the children had full access. Ms Anderson commented that The Lyndale School provided the children with a wonderful sensory environment that was safe and relaxed. She asked that a full review be undertaken of the care given to each individual child by staff at The Lyndale School.

 

Ms Anderson commented that the school’s staff provided specialised care, support and education; they were adept at communicating effectively with the children – skills which took many years to perfect. She stated that it took time to build up trust, and it was unfair that staff did not know what was to happen from week to week. The school played an integral part in the community, and interacted and participated with other neighbouring schools. Ms Anderson shared/circulated a Parents Survey that had been undertaken that showed parents wanted their children to remain at The Lyndale School.

 

Within her representations, Ms Anderson asked that the funding bands be revisited to reflect the needs of each individual child that attended the school. She highlighted that the school had previously asked for the Schools Forum to revisit the schools banding due to the change in circumstances.

 

In relation to the consultation document, Ms Anderson reiterated that The Lyndale School was not looking for the Council to enhance the funding but to maintain the funding that was already in place. Ms Anderson stated that parents had confidence in the school but not the process that the parents were involved in. She reminded Cabinet Members that the Council had a legal obligation to listen to the parents under the SEN Test. Ms Anderson drew an analogy with medical consultants who always ask parents for their views and thoughts.

 

Ms Anderson stated that consultation responses clearly showed overwhelming support for The Lyndale School to be retained. Comments were also made in relation to the consultant (Ms L Wright) and her report.

Concerns were expressed that the ethos of The Lyndale School would not be replicated at either the Stanley orElleray Park Schools, not least because the children attending these schools had different needs. Ms Anderson stated that the suitability of expanding these two schools was based upon assumptions, which was not evidence; and that simply providing training to staff was no substitute for experience. Concerns were raised over health and safety issues and the need for both schools to be upgraded at considerable cost.

 

Ms Anderson concluded by stating that experienced and effective staff would leave due to the uncertainty and proposals. There would be no investment in The Lyndale School and it would instead stagnate; and parents would not want or be willing to subject their children to such an outcome.

 

The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Hughes for her informative video and Ms Anderson for her representations. He acknowledged and confirmed that he appreciated the time and effort expended by everyone in supporting the school and pupils. He indicated that Members of the Cabinet had read all reports, representations and the feedback received in relation to The Lyndale School and had also met with parents and staff. He sincerely thanked all staff and parents.

 

Introduced by the Director of Children’s Services, the Cabinet considered the report from the Director of Children’s Services which detailed the outcome of the consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School.

 

The report outlined the responses received during the consultation, reviewed alternative options identified, as well as detailing the outcome of the SEN Improvement Test.

 

The report indicated that, on 16 January 2014 (Minute 129 refers) Cabinet agreed to undertake a consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School.  The consultation closed in June 2014.  The report recommended that Cabinet considered the contents of the report and made a decision on this matter.

 

The Director of Children’s Services commended the care, quality and passion of the staff at The Lyndale School which was endorsed by Ofsted and noted their excellent quality of care towards all pupils who attended the school and indicated that she along with her Department would be working closely with all staff and parents to end the uncertainty surrounding the future of The Lyndale School and bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible for both children, parents, and staff.

 

In relation to consultation, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had met with parents,’ school staff, school governors and an MP; Councillors had also undertaken site visits to the schools and various public meetings had been held to encourage consultation and feedback.

 

In relation to concerns raised by parents regarding health and safety at Elleray Park and Stanley School these were sent to both Headteachers of the schools who responded to the Council who then responded to the parents questions.

 

In relation to staff, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had spoken to all staff at The Lyndale School when she visited as and reiterated that those affected would be fully supported throughout the transition as far as the Council can do.

 

In response to comments from parents, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that there had been no evidence to suggest that parents had been steered away from The Lyndale School by Children’s Services officers although accepted that due to the uncertainty that surrounded The Lyndale School this could be a contributing factor.

 

In relation to the option in which it was proposed that The Lyndale School close and a new PMLD base be opened on the new Foxfield site, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had recently spoken with theHeadteacher of Foxfield School who had spoken with his Chair of Governors and the Headteacher indicated that it would be inappropriate to have a primary setting even in a separate unit, therefore this option could not be considered.

 

The Chair welcomed Ms Lynn Wright, Independent Consultant, who had been appointed to consult on the proposal to close The Lyndale School, the options, including those which had emerged throughout the consultation period, and give her view on the SEN Improvement Test.

 

Ms Wright gave feedback on her findings in relation to each of the options considered; the full report was attached as an appendix.

 

In response to the Council’s intention to increase the closure period from 2015 to 2016, Ms Wright advised against this as this would have huge implications for the pupils and staff that already had gone through a long period of uncertainty. Ms Wright indicated that the funding system had changed nationally and that schools that were no longer viable or sustainable should not be allowed to continue.

 

The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Wright for her detailed report and feedback on the considered options.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services thanked all staff and parents for their comments and feedback and indicated that the Cabinet had considered all options in a transparent manner and had listened carefully to what had been said. Cabinet Members were reminded to have regard to the Council Referral under the previous Agenda Item in considering this matter. The Cabinet Member reiterated the need for stability at The Lyndale School and that this had been looked at for both financial and educational reasons, which had to be taken into consideration due to the funding formula changes introduced by Central Government.

 

Councillor T Smith moved the following motion duly seconded by G. Davies:

 

(1)  Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;

 

(2)  Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:

 

  • Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
  • That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:

 

  • Elleray Park Special School
  • Stanley Special School
  • Another appropriate school
  • In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
  • The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
  • A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.

 

and outlined the following reasons for the motion.

 

Having looked at all the options, and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is our opinion that, while we recognise the special place that The Lyndale School has in the affection of parents and children, the continued operation and maintenance of a school of this size will not meet the future educational needs of the children, nor is a financially viable option, especially when there are good alternative options available.

 

The Council has a responsibility to ensure for the sustainable future provision of education for the pupils of The Lyndale School. In addition, we have to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population.

 

This was a difficult decision to make, and we would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the families and the children affected, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.

 

Councillor P. Davies moved an amendment, duly seconded by Councillor Mooney, that an additional point be included in the motion, namely:

 

  • The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.

 

which was carried unanimously.

 

IT WAS RESOLVED: That

 

(1)  Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;

 

(2)  Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:

 

  • Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
  • That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:

 

  • Elleray Park Special School
  • Stanley Special School
  • Another appropriate school
  • In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
  • The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
  • A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
  • The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.

Supporting documents:

 

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: