14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
Knowsley Council filming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 19th September 2014
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 1) agenda items 1-8
At the time of writing Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee will be meeting tonight (22nd September 2014 starting at 6pm in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall) and as well as the emotive issue of car parking (you can read the report of officers and report of the seven councillors who looked into it on Wirral Council’s website, item ten is a verbal update on scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
I was present at the meeting on Friday morning of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority which both myself and Knowsley Council filmed. For a bit of background Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council’s population is half the size of Wirral and all of its 63 councillors since 2012 are from the Labour Party.
Thanks in part to a retweet by the Liverpool Local Enterprise Partnership of a tweet on Knowsley Council’s Twitter account (with ~7,000 followers) and Councillor Phil Davies mentioning it during the meeting itself, Knowsley’s video footage of the meeting uploaded at about 4pm that day has had 129 views. This compares to a total of 21 views of our footage (which is in two parts of the same meeting but unlike Knowsley’s in higher quality HD).
Going briefly into the history of filming at Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meetings, I made a request to film the first meeting held on April 1st 2014 (the request was refused by Knowsley’s Chief Executive Sheena Ramsey as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution puts this decision in the hand of an officer, specifically the Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council). After that meeting, the Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson then went and briefed the Liverpool Echo about how upset he was at not being picked at Chair instead of Wirral Council’s Leader Cllr Phil Davies.
Possibly as a result of this, the next meeting (when they had to pick a Chair again as it was the Annual General Meeting), on the 13th June 2014 the meeting was broadcast live on the internet in HD by Knowsley Council as a Google Hangout. In the interest of transparency at this point I will point out at this point that I receive a small amount from Google in advertising on Youtube videos I’ve filmed. Once again my request to film this meeting was again refused (somewhat strangely considering that Knowsley Council filmed the meeting and broadcast it live).
On August 6th 2014, as regulars readers of this blog will know, the law changed on the issue. A week later a report of Knowsley Council’s Chief Executive proposed a policy on filming which was agreed to by their Leader Ron Round. This decision was made by their Leader as a delegated decision. However the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is a separate body to Knowsley Council.
Obviously they couldn’t stop me filming the meeting last Friday. However a Knowsley Council officer before the meeting referred to the part (still in Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s constitution) that allows their Chief Executive to refuse requests to film. However if they actually did so now it would be unlawful and therefore the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution should be changed to prevent confusion. I did suggest a change, but the response back from the officer concerned was that they won’t recommend to politicians a change the Liverpool City Region Authority’s constitution which is partly why a Scrutiny Panel for the Combined Authority is needed as a check and balance! The Knowsley Council officer I talked to before the meeting did tell me that a policy on filming (although never formally agreed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) had been agreed “that morning” and surprise, surprise is the same as Knowsley Council’s policy on the matter.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 2) agenda items 8-16 (Scrutiny Panel item starts at 1m 55s in this clip)
However back to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, there has been criticism of it by some councillors as it is a “one party state” as it comprises the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside (plus the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership) and all the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside are all from the Labour Party.
What was agreed on Friday morning by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (the report can be read here was creating a scrutiny panel and appointments of councillors to this scrutiny panel have already been made by the Merseyside councils. The first meeting of the Scrutiny Panel is planned for the 19th October, although there will be a training session before that for councillors on it on the 26th September. I presume it will run along similar lines to the Merseytravel Committee (which is since April part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority).
There will be fourteen councillors on the Scrutiny Panel for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Two are nominated from each council on Merseyside, with two extra places to represent opposition parties (one of these two opposition places being Councillor John Hale from Wirral Council to represent the Conservatives and the other, Councillor Haydn Preece from Sefton to represent the Liberal Democrats). The two Labour representatives from Wirral Council are Councillor Anita Leech (Labour) and Councillor Mike Sullivan (Labour).
I’m sure councillors will hear something similar in the verbal update given at tonight’s meeting about scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly explains to the Coordinating Committee why he disagrees with the Cabinet decision about Forest Schools and Healthy Homes 18th September 2014 Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The following is meant as satire. Obviously Cllr Stuart Kelly is not Robin Hood and Councillor Phil Davies is not the Sheriff of Nottingham. You can watch the meeting from beginning to end, however the video clips below are of the part of the meeting described below that video clip.
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had gone into Nottingham’sWirral’s castle as he disagreed with the plans of Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies. The plans Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” had were about the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs.
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly regularly appeared in articles in the local newspaper the NottinghamWirral Globe and was known for being a “thorn in the side” of the Sheriff.
In the recent past he had argued with the Sheriff as the Sheriff was charging the poor peasantspeople (who didn’t have computers) of Wirral an extra £5 to have their garden rubbish removed in brown bins. The Sheriff had disagreed with Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly then. As far as the Sheriff was concerned, the bins tax was fair (and although not stated obviously fairer than the bedroom tax which the Sheriff was against).
After the Sheriff had heard at a meeting recently that any of the peasantspeople of Wirral could go into one of its many 24 libraries (on which a consultation on reducing the opening hours was now taking place on the orders of the Sheriff) and sign up to pay the “bin tax” online (completely failing to mention the irony of Cllr Foulkes’ plan to close half of the libraries which was stopped a few years ago by Sue Charteris, the Labour government and the people of Wirral).
One of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s colleagues Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry (who is not Maid Marian despite also having the initials MM) told Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly that he had five minutes only to make his case. Thankfully she did not add that if he exceeded his time she would call the guards of the castle and have him dragged off to the dungeon (formerly the Mayor’s wine cellar) for having the gall and brass neck to try to upset the Sheriff.
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly of Oxton explained the many hardships the peasantspeople were suffering. He wanted the children of Wirral to visit the forests! He wanted the people to have warm homes and not be cold in the winter ahead! He was doing this all for the people! He disagreed with Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies as he felt that it was wrong to try to stop or cut how much was spent on these matters as if they did the people would suffer!
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then called Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” to speak, again for up to five minutes.
Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was keen to show he wasn’t as bad as Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had painted him earlier. He blamed it all on Prince John Queen Elizabeth II and the Coalition government. He explained that the Forest Schools target was to send 660 children to the forests of Nottingham Wirral over the last two years. In fact at the end of year one it had exceeded its target! Therefore this was why the money was taken away. Yes, classes of fifteen, instead of thirty were now being used but this was all for the be benefit of the children! It was his contention that both on Healthy Homes and Forest Schools that this was prudent financially.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then asked for the witnesses to be called. A senior manager of the forests of Wirral came to speak. She explained what the Forest Schools program was about and how it was run by the rangers. They had decided that classes of fifteen were the best size. The experienced rangers were running the program, with the money used to backfill their positions.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said how fabulous the work of the Forest Schools was and how it was better now it was fifteen and not thirty.
Another councillor asked if the budget was cut. The senior manager of the forests confirmed it had. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to a “reduction in activity” followed by Cllr Mike Sullivan again.
Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard described it as a “great project”.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The effect on the children was talked about as well as how it made a “voluntary mute” “chatty and enthusiastic”. However the officer warned of the effect on places like Bidston Hill which was suffering whilst its ranger was doing this.
Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham asked a question about £18,000? The officer replied that was the underspend in year one. She continued talking about the beneficial effects on the young children and the benefits of it, not just on the children but on others too. The reduction in early years involvement in the Forest Schools program from four events to two was referred to. Various people asked questions and the debate went on.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall referred to the fact they might have to lay off rangers, to a rather horrified look from Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who intervened. How much each schools paid to be involved was mentioned, with the poor schools paying less than the richer schools.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the benefits, a decrease in school absence, increase in outdoor use and exercise and other benefits. The manager replied. She was thanked by Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who then asked the Healthy Homes witness to come forward.
Lisa told everybody about what the Healthy Homes program was, how it was about healthy lifestyles, smoking cessation and a “whole house” approach (whatever that means). She referred to the NHS, training “champions” and “partner agencies” as well as grants and loans that could be provided to tackles hazards.
Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. The manager referred to “significant progress” as well as the police service and fire service. He asked her another question and she said she could only speak for Wirral Council. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked another question.
Cllr Berry of Moreton West and Saughall Massie asked about the budget cut and when she had been told? Had she been asked for comments about the potential impacts? He referred to numbers of assessments done.
The answer given referred to housing renovation loans, central heating and grants. Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard indicated her question had already been answered. Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to a presentation last year of Ian Platt about the Healthy Homes program and funding. The manager replied to his points using phrases such as that they could “still help everyone”.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said the manager was not “Mystic Meg”. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry thanked the witness and called Kevin Adderley.
Kevin Adderley said he was “very pleased” and that the two schemes he was “proud of”. He went into detail about the impacts of the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs and referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.
Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked why he had selected these to be earmarked for savings and why wasn’t the money capitalised?
Kevin Adderley answered that was explained in the Cabinet Report. He went into a little more detail. Mitchell of Eastham asked another question, Kevin Adderley again referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry made a point, Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to all the people who could be helped. Kevin Adderley replied that it was in privately owned accommodation, not registered social landlord and that they couldn’t be expected to knock on 100,000 doors on the Wirral, they had to rely on people coming forward.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to that they were in danger of disadvantaging people and that they should be proactive. Kevin Adderley replied that he was sure they wouldn’t want to advertise to private sector landlords and that there was a “fine balance”.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the “age of austerity” and that he could only think in terms of his own household’s budget. He disagreed with capitalising the expenditure and referred to cuts and the “prudent financial management” and that they shouldn’t be finding ways of spending money that they haven’t got.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Fiona Johnstone to come forward as a witness. Fiona Johnstone said she would take questions, but in answer to an earlier question about process it had first been agreed with the Cabinet portfolio holder. Kevin Adderley left for two minutes at this point. She continued by explaining the history of it all and when things had happened and would happen. Kevin Adderley returned. Fiona Johnstone continued on about Forest Schools and other matters. Mitchell of Eastham referred to the benefits to the children. Fiona Johnstone replied that there would be a full evaluation in May or June. However in her view the question was what could they afford to do more efficiently followed by talking about outcomes. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to the review. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry interrupted.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to the fact it was public health money. Fiona Johnstone answered that they were waiting till the call in was complete. Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the Cabinet minute about public health spending. Fiona Johnstone replied that they had monthly reports on the budget and in answer to a question as to whether these monthly financial reports went to the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee the answer was “not now”.
Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked a question. The answer given by Fiona Johnstone was that every project had been asked to make an assessment of the impact and those assessments had been received. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked if that was a written assesment? Fiona Johnstone replied that it was for 38 projects. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby & Thingwall asked a brief question to which Fiona Johnstone referred to that there would be a need to understand a proper evaluation.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to sum up in five minutes. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the ringfencing of the money for public health. He said that the Forest Schools was “knocked into a cocked hat” and was a “victim of its own success”. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the reduction in class sizes from thirty to fifteen and referred to the Healthy Homes scheme.
He was interrupted by others, but Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry told him to “carry on”.
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to substandard housing and how it had nothing to do with next year’s deficit. He questioned the stability of this year’s budget and how they could say that reducing to fifteen in each class for Forest Schools was a “success”? He referred to twenty-one households who would be affected by Healthy Homes and that how they need to think about priorities as these were small amounts of money.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies to speak for five minutes.
He thanked Cllr Moira McLaughlin, said the project was a pilot project time limited to two years but that it was “something new” and “not a precise science”. Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was not surprised that they had not been able to spend their total amount of funding. In the case of Forest Schools and Health Homes he felt it was “financially sensible” to make savings and think about “how best to use the money”.
He then went to refer to “savage cuts” and how Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was asking for the original budgets to be restored. Even if he did restore the budget he didn’t think it could be spent by 31st March 2015 as the rangers wouldn’t have the spare capacity, he even went so far as to use the word “nonsense”.
In closing he said he would like to see the projects continue, referred to them as “fantastic” and what’s needed was an “enlightened government” (in reference to cuts). He asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to join him in a lobby on the train to number 10 Downing Street to endorse the position of the Cabinet.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked if anyone wanted to debate it. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols left.
Cllr Jerry Williams of Bebington said that the Council was “working well” in “difficult circumstances” and that he knew Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was an “opposition councillor”. He wanted to dwell on the positives rather than being totally negative.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby said that it was public health money and they had to remember that it was nothing to do with the challenges.
Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the ringfencing of the money and how the best number of class sizes was fifteen for the Forest Schools program. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham referred to the Forest Schools project being an “excellent project”. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols returned. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham continued by referring to what Ed Miliband and the Labour Party’s spokesperson had said would happen if they were elected in May 2015 and how they would not change anything. He referred to how the Forest Schools program was allowing young people to improve their lives.
Cllr David Elderton of West Kirby and Thurstaston referred to the concerns of Wendy Clements and the ringfencing of the money and that they should leave it alone and not throw the “baby out with the bath water”. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby and Thingwall referred to the money.
Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to Cllr Paul Doughty’s resolution and the three options they had. However the middle one wasn’t applicable. They could refer the matter back to Cabinet or agree to uphold the original decision.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton move a recommendation congratulating officers and referring to “prudent financial management”. His recommendation was that the Cabinet decision of 7th July 2014 would stand. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry seconded it.
An amendment was moved by Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby. The amendment was to refer it back to the Cabinet asking them to be careful to evaluate the use of ringfenced funds and retain the projects. This was seconded.
There was a vote on the amendment.
For the amendment (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.
Against the amendment (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.
The amendment was lost.
Voting on the original recommendation.
For the recommendation (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.
Against the recommendation (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.
The recommendation was won and the nine Labour councillors voted to uphold the original decision of the Labour Cabinet (which is led by Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies).
The original Cabinet decision of the 7th July 2014 upheld by a majority vote (the call in related to section (5) of the original decision) was:
RESOLVED: That
Revenue:
(1) it be noted that at Month 2 (May 2014), the full year forecast projects a gross General Fund overspend of £3,137,000;
(2) the increased commitment of £152,000 for Carbon Reduction Commitment allowances contained within the above figure be noted;
(3) that the payment of New Homes Bonus grant of £242,253 which is a general grant received outside of directorate budgets be noted;
(4) the risks relating to non delivery of savings as detailed in paragraph 3.3 of appendix A and requirement for mitigation and actions to be identified be noted;
(5) the mitigation actions being undertaken including capitalisation, reprofiling and use of public health budgets as per paragraph 3.5 (of Appendix A) and reductions to 2014/15 growth as detailed in paragraphs 5.2 and table 5 above (of Appendix A). Further mitigation action will be developed as appropriate during the year;
(6) the application of the additional New Homes Bonus grant against the Carbon reduction commitment and overall overspend to reduce the net overspend to £2,894,747 be approved.
Capital:
(i) the spend to date at Month 2 of £1.3 million, with 16.7% of the financial year having elapsed be noted; and
(ii) the revised Capital Programme of £61.3 million (Table 1 at 3.1 of Appendix B) be approved.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
A fictional conversation with our own legal department about Lyndale and other matters
A fictional conversation with our own legal department about Lyndale and other matters
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Legal department: Now, there you go again! Don’t you know when you stop?! We know you’re a good at what you do but there are frankly limits to this you know! What does it take to keep your mouth shut for once!? Why are you meddling in the Lyndale matter again and making waves yet again? Just let it be!
Write about bin collection and Biffa, a consultation on closing children’s centres, Birkenhead Market and the Traffic Regulation Order issue, New Brighton & Neptune, golf (there’s an awful lot you could write about golf), councillor’s expenses, job cuts, even Kevin Adderley if you have to but please anything apart from Lyndale School! Please!!!
John Brace: Because the public have a right to know! Plus there are sound commercial reasons for doing so due to the demographic makeup of our readers/viewers.
Legal department: *sighs* Well let someone else tell them then! There are some things you just shouldn’t put in the public domain or draw attention to at this stage.
Please don’t write anything more about Lyndale connected to that letter. That is the advice.
John Brace: For how long?
Legal department: Just steer clear of anything specific with regards to that letter for obvious reasons!!!
John Brace: But even if the case was “active” (which it isn’t) s.5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 c.49 allows for “a publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest” …. “if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”
Legal Department: Look you indeed wrote the policy on this about keeping your mouth shut when it comes to legal matters. It complicates things. You know the reasons why.
If you write too much before a matter is even put before a court, it tips off the other side in the case as believe it or not people involved with Wirral Council read your blog and the last thing you want to do is complicate things that are complicated enough.
John Brace: True I did. For extremely sound reasons. Thanks for reminding me. However I also wrote an editorial override in that policy which requires two people to agree.
Legal Department: Well you don’t have the approval of two people yet (thankfully). The matter has been somewhat complicated by the call in anyway as the Cabinet decision will now not be implemented until a further meeting of the Coordinating Committee.
John Brace: Who’s the lead signatory?
Legal Department: Councillor Paul Hayes. However 27 other councillors have also called it in.
John Brace: Wow must be a record, so you’re saying write about other stuff?
Legal Department: Yes, or limit yourself on Lyndale to writing just about other people or just merely reporting the facts of what’s going on, preferably facts that are already in the public domain.
John Brace: So for example starting on a transcript of the Cabinet meeting on 4th September 2014 about Lyndale School for the hard of hearing?
Legal Department: That’s ok, as we have protections under libel laws from reporting on public meetings at Wirral Council which is referred to as “qualified privilege”. Anyway there’s already been a request for that. You’ve got a bit behind with subtitling videos anyway.
John Brace: But nobody’s ever threatened us with libel over Lyndale School, just about the Chief Executive’s email about the golf (later withdrawn) but I take your point about subtitling.
Legal Department: Yes, but the impression in some quarters is that you’re putting a bunch of highly inconvenient truths out there in the public domain about Lyndale School that could be easily used for party political purposes (and have been).
John Brace: Oh come on, a politician and party members at the report produced as a result of my disciplinary panel hearing said I was writing a “little read blog” or words to that effect. I’m not really that influential.
Legal Department: Exactly, but that was three years ago. Comparing September 2014 to September 2011 is like comparing apples with pears. There are thousands of people reading this blog each month now, compared with only hundreds of people a month back in September 2011. This is party because since leaving the Lib Dems you’ve spent more time at your “day job”.
Things have changed. Politicians disliked you even back then for telling the public the truth as you saw it as to what was really happening and the Lib Dem ones ended up getting somewhat censured as a result for using Wirral Council resources for party political purposes. Remember what happened to Martin Morton? Don’t end up like him!
Understandably they wanted to bury the truth (which was tied in to a conspiracy of silence on Martin Morton/Anna Klonowski/another disability matter and corporate governance issues) and cover things up for party political reasons. Even though all but one of the things that you were actually accused of were false, therefore the suspension wasn’t legitimate but as a Lib Dem politician (and former Lib Dem politician) had said this to their fellow Lib Dems they could hardly turn round and admit that any of their former politicians told lies (even though they may say that in private) could they? As you well knew at the time, they decided it was best to keep you in the party as a way to control you, as even at that stage you knew too much and you were becoming a nuisance to those in power as how they wanted things to play out.
Yours and Leonora’s resignation from the Lib Dems in January 2012 was somewhat unexpected, but resolved an ongoing conflict of interest about reporting on Lib Dem politicians and let’s face it Labour got exactly what they wanted out of this as four months later when they got a majority on Wirral Council.
Even the version of events that everybody actually agreed upon at your disciplinary panel hearing back in September 2011 was so extremely damaging to the reputation of the Lib Dem Party itself so they understandably took the “shoot the messenger”/ “rewrite history” approach and they took it out on you (as you must have expected on some level that they would do so and if you didn’t perhaps as the youngest party member in Birkenhead you needed to “grow up” and let’s face it one of the older party members at that meeting that made the decision had referred to you as a “baby” in a previous meeting which of course is not “ageist” is it?).
Your attempts at somewhat humourous comments during that meeting (which according to their own constitution and later concluded lawsuit was indeed a flagrant breach of their own party’s constitution to even hold (as you pointed out to them at the time but they once again ignored you)) but hey they’re Lib Dems and it seems that their own rules can be twisted by themselves beyond breaking point in an abuse of power) about a dead dog and a shooting at your disciplinary panel, were in extremely poor taste considering two of the people who had been shot at were actually at the meeting itself. It’s a party that would prefer to forget Jeremy Thorpe and how much of a PR nightmare that was for them (even though he was acquitted in a court) and to be honest with you were somewhat goading them into having to explain themselves because they’d been all instructed to keep their mouths shut and stick to a “party line” when you previously had asked them questions.
Let’s face it you sued an entire party (and won) and took a politician to court (and won)! How many people ever do that? Not many! You’re unusual, even when during the meeting in June 2011 when they tried to suspend you your threats of legal action and “seeing them in court” seemed to them like bluster so one of them laughed (which is partly why you got kicked at under the table and then slapped in the face but then people can lose their cool at party political meetings) and even though you later did have the judiciary intervene, your repeated warnings fell on completely deaf ears because they had (especially the politicians) made their minds up as to what to do before the meeting even started and were going to stick to this agreed party line.
That is part of the reason why you weren’t allowed to attend your own disciplinary meeting. By deliberately starting it late, it gave a chance for the decision to be made before the meeting had even started and in a way where you’d have no influence over the outcome.
You know as well as I do that two former Lib Dem councillors were being used as proxies as part of a renewed Labour plot to blacken your name and make things up about you (because let’s face it you were fast becoming a threat to the Labour Party too and deemed to be less of a threat to them if you weren’t a member of another rival political party) Let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith had already had a right moan to both you and the party about you (including a “With Compliments” Wirral Council slip with his letter) about telling the public in a party political publication delivered to the Bidston & St. James area that he wasn’t (when he was Vice-Chair) at a Pensions Committee meeting of Wirral Council at the time when it was reported that the Pension Fund dropped by around £700 million and let’s face it if the Fund drops considerably the difference has to be made up by the taxpayer).
Cllr Harry Smith felt it was terribly unfair that people were going along to his councillor’s surgery and asking him pointed questions about why (even though he was Vice-Chair of the Pensions Committee) that the Merseyside Pension Fund had dropped by so much. Let’s face it it is a fund that affects over a hundred thousand people and even the local newspapers reported it at the time.
If Cllr Harry Smith wishes to go on holiday, miss a public meeting and not even send a deputy along to a meeting and then somewhat unfortunately get suspended as a councillor (in an unrelated matter) for a week for bullying other people, well as we all know from past experience these type of people are exactly the kind of person the Liberal Democrat Party have to take seriously because they’d rather the likes of Councillor Harry Smith were getting irked at someone else instead of at them!
This goes so far as even if it seems like they’re breaking their own party rules by pandering to another political party’s interests in that process because as we all know Lib Dems love their “due process” even if that results in an “abuse of power” or a “court case”.
John Brace: However in perhaps a flagrant breach of etiquette I will say that during that particular meeting and I won’t state who (other than it wasn’t me or Leonora) said that Councillor Harry Smith moaning about someone else for holding him to account was like “the pot calling the kettle black” and let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith has been referred to by one of his fellow Labour councillors as “royalty”.
That is partly why the renewed plot in 2011 had to be done through two Lib Dem proxies.
Let’s face it if you do anything in politics, you will attract more complaints, even fictional ones. If a party spends hours looking into every fictional complaint however trivial it is time that is not spent delivering leaflets or winning elections.
The actual politicians attracted far more complaints than I ever did (even during my brief years as a politician over in Liverpool) and although they never went so far as to suspending them from the party they did exactly the same thing to them in removing them from all committee positions and blackening their name in public. They tried to embarrass them into toeing a party line and it backfired, just look at how disastrous the libraries matter was handled and the resultant public inquiry led by Sue Charteris. It made the fromer Lib Dem politician that said in public that Wirral Council would be “vindicated” by the public inquiry look to be completely wrong.
But let’s face it if they’re taking the likes of the Labour’s Councillor Harry Smith seriously (even his own party has had concerns about him to put it mildly), it is seriously the thin end of the wedge from a party political perspective.
After all once people start getting beaten up and shot at for political reasons, it’s gone well beyond being politics and become the realms of terrorism. It’s moved well beyond merely political debate into law and order issues.
As I know myself from bitter personal experience in that court case the Lib Dems were not on the side of law and order (hence why the whole political party has a County Court court order against it), they have known links to foreign terrorism, which makes them people better not to associate with if at all possible.
This “paragon of virtue” in Councillor Harry Smith, who of course would never do things for party political purposes, is of course the kind of person the Liberal Democrats obviously have to listen seriously to, take his concerns seriously and let’s face it Cllr Harry Smith seriously wanted me out of the way.
He wanted to be reselected by his local Labour branch and complaining about me and eventually many years later persuading the Lib Dem Party to pick someone else in Bidston & Saint James who was less trouble to him (let’s face it how much trouble are you if you finish last in an election?) which they eventually they did in 2012 is all part of what led to Labour getting a majority on Wirral Council. The easiest way for them to achieve this was to destabilise the Lib Dems (which let’s face it wasn’t too hard and such tactics wouldn’t work as well on the Tories).
During that court case in 2011-2012, one of their party (Lib Dem party) employees that was someone high up in the party in fact he was Chief Executive, being paid the same salary as an MP, was around that time serving out his period of notice. Another party member working in party HQ seemed to want to scapegoat him, which I of course meddled in and prevented from happening by making an undefended application to the court and dragging a Judge in the County Court into the whole matter because to be honest by then it had gone beyond the actions of one person by then into an issue about a extremely badly run organisation. The Lib Dem Party of course want to make this former Chief Executive Chris Fox a member of the House of Lords (which let’s face it if one of the two parties of government pick you it’s pretty likely to happen)!
It’s all highly political and highly party political and perhaps a chapter of my life I’d rather forget! I do have a way of holding people to account that is somewhat unusual, highly unpredictable and not always in keeping with the demands of social and political etiquette because I have to sleep at night. It must be my background and training then.
Legal Department: Partly, but that’s still a complete mystery to us because you’re one of those odd people subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 c.6 we don’t have access to your unredacted personnel file.
John Brace: Ha ha, indeed. Everyone has their secrets eh and you’re right there are things I’d better keep my mouth shut over (for now) after all things can snowball but it’s about time the public knew what really went on in the past but that is a story for another day. At least I got an apology later from one of the Lib Dems, but I suppose the party that extols the virtues of “freedom of speech” until somebody happens to mention something about the Lib Dem Party would accuse me of “breaching confidentiality” if wrote about which one it was! Best not to take politics too personally eh?
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 valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
Wirral Council valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
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
One of the issues that was raised during the consultation on Lyndale School (and the call in) was how much The Lyndale School would be worth to Wirral Council as an asset if in the future the school was closed, declared a surplus asset and sold by Wirral Council? The 2012/13 asset register assigns a value to the buildings of £1,788,103.00 and land of 908,000.00 (total £2,696,103.00) valued on 22nd February 2013 (as part of its regular quinquennial or five yearly valuation).
A summary of the responses given by David Armstrong at the meetings I was at (such as the consultation meeting in June and the February call in) was that he personally had deliberately not visited the site to avoid the rumour spreading that Wirral Council was disposing of the site and that there were hoops Wirral Council would have to jump through before even getting to that stage, three of those being a decision that the school would have to close, then declared a surplus asset by a politician/s and permissions from the Secretary of State too before even reaching the stage where they could dispose of it.
The issue of the extra capital work on other schools (which costs the council money) to provide extra places for the Lyndale School children if it closed was known and quantified as obviously building work has to start well in advance of being completed due to obtaining planning permission, contract tender rules (such as getting quotes and bids for the work) and the fact that building work on schools tends to be done during school holidays to prevent disruption to what schools are there to do.
What’s interesting is in a recent response to a Freedom of Information request to former councillor Ian Lewis, Wirral Council have (finally) released the 2012/13 asset register. I read the 2012/13 asset register this morning and it does contain an entry for The Lyndale School. Bear in mind this is for the 2012/13 local authority year (1/4/2012 to 30/3/2013) which was audited as part of the audit of that year (12/13)’s accounts at some point between 1/4/13 and 30/9/13.
As is well known already, formal plans to close the Lyndale School became known to the public around December 2013 but there were rumours of closure plans before then. The entry for The Lyndale School is as follows:
RAM Ref Building 000341 RAM Ref Land 000342 NLPG 42069200 Address The Lyndale School Street Lyndale Avenue Town Eastham Postcode CH62 8DE Description Special School Controlling Department CYPD Asset Type PPE Status Land and buildings Valuation Basis (See below for definitions) FV(DRC) Buildings Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 1,788,103.00 Land Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 908,000.00 Value (Applies to MV entries only) Asset Value 2,696,103.00 Value addition check ok Asset Life Years (Required for DRC & EUV valuations only) 30 Date of revaluation 22/2/2013 Date assets physically verified (if not – state reason) 22/2/2013 Valuer Sarah Duncan Comments Valuation year 2012/13 Valuation required 12/13 y Valuation reasons Quinquennial Disposal reason Disposal proceeds Revisions made y Is property held solely to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both? Is property used in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrative purposes? Is property for sale in the ordinary course of operations? Is earning rentals the outcome of a council policy (e.g. regeneration policy)? Is the property social housing? Investment Property Classification Not Investment AHFS Criterion 1: Available for immediate sale, etc? AHFS Criterion 2: Sale highly probably, etc? AHFS Criterion 3: Actively marketed? AHFS Criterion 4: Expected to qualift for recognition as a completed sale within 1 year of date of classification? AHFS Classification Not AHFS
This entry in the asset register of course raises a lot of questions. A regular five yearly revaluation was done on the Lyndale School in February 2013. Any valuation (if a further one was done) between 1st April 2013 and 30th March 2014 would be on the 2013/14 asset register.
The 2012/13 asset register was audited as part of the 2012/13 accounts over the period 1st April 2013 to 30th September 2013. However the asset register would’ve been available for management purposes well before this audit was complete. Within two months of that audit being complete the public became aware of the plans to close the school.
So management at Wirral Council would’ve had the Lyndale School valuation from February 2013 available in informing their plans (whether they asked for this information to be provided is another question though).
However, as the school and land that The Lyndale School is on is an asset of Wirral Council now used for education (and specifically adapted for use as a special school), surely it makes no economic sense to close it down?
If it’s closed, the costs of the building (Council Tax, maintenance etc) will still be there.
If it’s closed, the children would be moved to another school so staff costs would stay, Wirral Council would be paying for building costs on two buildings then, the school they move to and Lyndale School sitting empty.
If we look back to the closure of Cole Street Primary School in Birkenhead, there was a very long time between the school being closed and it being sold. During this time it appeared to be unused each time I passed it especially after it was declared surplus to requirements.
There is another question this raises though.
Do the capital works on buildings to increase places elsewhere in the schools system so the Lyndale School children have somewhere to go to should the school close exceed the valuation of the Lyndale School?
If they do, then don’t these plans not make any economic sense whatsoever (unless I’m missing something)?!
The Cabinet decision on 4th September to go ahead to the next stage on closing Lyndale School was “called in” by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors yesterday (lead signatory Cllr Paul Hayes (Conservative)) and will now not be implemented until there is a future meeting of the Coordinating Committee soon to decide what to do next.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
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.
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.
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.
Pre-determination and Pre-disposition
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”.
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”.
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.
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).
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).
Pre-disposition in decision making is fine.
Whereas, decisions made by Members later judged to have pre-determined views have been quashed by way of judicial review.
Bias
Bias is defined as:
‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents impartial consideration of a question; prejudice’.
‘…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.’
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.
Only you can say whether you are biased or not.
Localism Act 2012
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.
Section 25 does not attempt to change case law in respect of pre-determination and bias, but it has attempted to clarify it.
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.
Section 25 catches allegations of actual, and apparent, pre-determination (however tenuous).
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.
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.
Section 25 is set out on pages 4 and 5 below for your reference.
5. Summary
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.
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:
