Category: Lib Dems

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

                        

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

The start of this story goes all the way back to my teenage years when a Labour government was elected in 1997 having used the slogan “education, education, education” during their election campaign. A few years after being elected, Labour’s Estelle Morris, a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment brought in legislation called The Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999. As explained in the explanatory notes, “These Regulations make provision for representatives of parent governors at maintained schools to be included in the education committees of local education authorities” and “Regulation 10 sets out the voting rights of a parent governor representative. Such a person may vote, broadly, on any matter related to the local education authority’s schools and pupils, save that he may not vote on the determination of the authority’s budget.”

Two years after these regulations became law, there was a judicial review case involving them Transport and General Workers Union and Hilary Hollington v Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 452. Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s Education and Community Services Committee had voted eleven to nine to outsource the school meals service to P Martin & Sons (Trefonen) Limited which had previously been provided by the Council’s Direct Services Labour Organisation. The parent governor representatives (numbering three) had been told at the meeting that they couldn’t vote on the catering contract decision, but had wanted to vote against contracting the service out. If the parent governor representatives had been allowed to vote the result would’ve been different.

The result of this case was that the High Court Judge in the case quashed the decision of the committee and granted a declaration that the contract between Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council and P Martin & Sons (Trefonen) Limited was void. Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council (as the losing party) had to pay the other sides’ legal costs of £15,649.83 and permission to appeal was denied.

Wirral Council is a local education authority and its Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee has the legal minimum of two parent governor representatives (with voting rights on education matters). The Church of England diocese representative is currently vacant but it also has one Roman Catholic representative with voting rights.

When the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was called in (there are previous blog posts on the original Cabinet decision and some reasons why it should be called in) under the new constitution agreed by Wirral Council last year, the call in (at least at the point of writing) is down to be reviewed at a meeting of the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February.

The Coordinating Committee (comprising 15 councillors) has a split of 9 Labour councillors, 5 Conservative councillors and 1 Lib Dem. The Labour Chair also has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote.

The Families and Wellbeing Committee (comprising 15 councillors plus co-optees) has a split of 9 Labour councillors, 5 Conservative councillors and 1 Lib Dem. There are also two parent governor representatives (Mrs Nicola Smith and Mrs H Shoebridge both of them have voting rights) and a Roman Catholic Diocesan representative Mr Damian Cunningham (who also has voting rights). The Chair (who has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote) is a Conservative.

If the call in goes to the Coordinating Committee, the nine Labour councillors can just vote to uphold the Labour Cabinet’s decision as nine is a majority on a fifteen person committee.

However if the call in goes to be decided at the Families and Wellbeing Committee, then Labour councillors only have half the votes (nine out of eighteen) on that committee. If the call in went to this committee and Labour councillors voted to uphold the Cabinet’s decision that would be only nine votes. If the Conservative councillors, plus the Lib Dem councillor, plus the parent governor representative and Roman Catholic Diocesan representative voted to send the decision back to Cabinet to be changed, then there would be a deadlock of nine votes either way. In this case the Conservative Chair would have a casting vote, which is usually used in the same way that that councillor originally voted.

Regulation 3 of the Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 states “A local education authority shall appoint at least two but not more than five parent governor representatives to each relevant committee of the authority” and “relevant committee” is defined as here as “a committee appointed by a local authority, or by two or more local authorities, in accordance with section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions which are conferred on the local authority or authorities in its or their capacity as a local education authority or authorities, but it does not include any committee the decisions of which are subject to scrutiny by another committee which is itself a relevant committee.”

So, is the Coordinating Committee making a decision whether or not to uphold the Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School a function conferred on Wirral Council in its capacity as a local education authority? Yes it is.

Does the Coordinating Committee have parent governor representatives on it? No.

Regulation 10 of the Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 seems to be quite clear:

Voting rights of parent governor representatives

10. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a parent governor representative shall be entitled to vote on any of the following matters—

(a) matters which relate to schools maintained by the local education authority;
(b) matters which relate to pupils who are educated in schools maintained by the local education authority, or who are educated by the local education authority otherwise than at school.

(2) A parent governor representative shall not be entitled to vote on the determination of the local education authority’s total revenue expenditure on education or the determination of its total capital expenditure on education.

So I handed the following letter to the Chair of the Coordinating Committee Cllr Stuart Whittingham on the evening of 29th January, who has passed it to Surjit Tour. I had a brief discussion with Cllr Stuart Whittingham after the end of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee. Despite reading my letter, he felt confident that the call-in would be decided by the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February.

Strangely a new meeting of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee appears in the calendar for the 6th February, however as no agenda has been published I cannot say whether this is related to the call in.

Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral,
CH43 7PH

29th January 2014

RE: Lyndale School call in

Dear Cllr Whittingham,
I notice that a meeting of the Coordinating Committee is scheduled on the 5th February to consider the Lyndale School call in.

The Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 require each “relevant committee” of Wirral Council to have between 2-5 parent governor representatives with voting rights.

“Relevant committee” is defined as a committee that discharges any functions conferred on the authority through it being a local education authority. The Coordinating Committee has no such parent governor representative on it, therefore why is this call in not being decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee?

I would appreciate an answer to this point as soon as possible. My email address is john.brace@gmail.com .

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

So far at the time of writing this (on the afternoon of the 30th January) I have not yet received a reply.

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

The letter Wirral Council wrote gagging Councillor Gilchrist

The letter Wirral Council wrote gagging Councillor Gilchrist

The letter Wirral Council wrote gagging Councillor Gilchrist

                         

Just before Christmas started I published a letter from Cllr Phil Davies to Cllr Jeff Green that was also published on Wirral Council’s website.

To recap it involves a male senior councillor in the Labour Group who made an “adverse comment” about an unnamed senior employee at Wirral Council. The councillor admitted he did make the comment and a report was written detailing that this Labour councillor had breached the Code of Conduct.

Previously if there’s been a report detailing a councillor has breached the Code of Conduct, even if officers recommended the report be exempt, the Standards Panel have decided to make the report public as you can see from that previous blog post detailing a seven page report and two page appendix into an allegation that former Councillor Denis Knowles breached the Councillor’s Code of Conduct in relation to a comment he made online.

Since then, in the Summer of 2012 the legislation regarding complaints made about councillors breaching the Code of Conduct has changed. This explanatory note on Wirral Council’s website explains some of the changes, but basically there are now two legal requirements on Wirral Council. The first on Wirral Council is that it “must promote and maintain high standards of conduct by Member and Co-opted Members” (Members in this context means councillors and Co-opted Members means people co-opted to Council committees). The second legal requirement is that they must have arrangements in place for investigating allegations and making decisions on allegations. The policy on this is here, the new Code of Conduct here and a an online form for people to use is here. Wirral Council has also appointed four independent persons that have a role in determining whether complaints made are worthy of investigation.

The letter to Cllr Phil Gilchirst basically asking him to sign a commitment gagging him from talking to anyone about what was in the investigator’s report can be read by following that link and to my knowledge is published for the first time in full on this blog (although there is a Wirral Globe story headlined “Wirral Council accused of ‘over the top’ secrecy” that quotes from it).

So do you think we should return to making investigator’s reports public if they have a finding that a councillor (and he acknowledges that he did in this case) breached the Code of Conduct? Surely if the “senior officer” wants their name kept out of it, the report could be released with their name redacted and does not naming the councillor involved make people think that Wirral Council takes its legal obligation that it “must promote and maintain high standards conduct by Member and Co-opted Members” seriously? Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts on these questions.

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

Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Parliamentary ping-pong, “democracy dodgers” and the £556,789 in “forgotten cuts” at Wirral Council

Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Parliamentary ping-pong, “democracy dodgers” and the £556,789 in “forgotten cuts” at Wirral Council

Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Parliamentary ping-pong, “democracy dodgers” and the £556,789 in “forgotten cuts” at Wirral Council

                         

Shortly before Christmas Wirral Council had a “budget options” meeting after the What Really Matters consultation. At this meeting cuts, based on the public response to the consultation for 2014/15 were in principle agreed to. Strictly speaking it was a new budget and policy framework that was agreed to. The budget for 2014/15 is to be decided in March 2014, based on the assumption that Council Tax on Wirral would rise by 2% in 2014/15.

So just to recap, the Labour administration have ruled out a Council Tax referendum. The reason they give is that the large cost of the referendum that would fall on Wirral Council (if you can remember the amount they quoted please leave a comment about what it was and who said it). This is despite the law (The Local Authority (Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases) (Date of Referendum) (England) Order 2013) that states a Council Tax increase referendum would have to be held on the 22nd May 2014 (the same day as the joint European & local Council elections). I’m not sure if the estimated figure a councillor quoted last year for a Council tax increase referendum took into account the reduced cost of the referendum due to holding other elections on the same day (or whether the cost quoted assumed the referendum would be held separately to other elections in which case the estimate is too high).

Labour’s budget assumption therefore assumes that Council Tax will rise by 2% (without the need for a referendum) to lessen the need for further cuts they’d have to make if the rise was any lower or Council Tax was kept the same. The Labour administration have also ruled out accepting a Council Tax Freeze grant equivalent to a 1% rise if they agreed to keep Council Tax the same as last year.

However Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP has different plans and according to an article last week in the Guardian based on leaked Cabinet letters wants to reduce the threshold to 1.5% and refers to councils that rise Council Tax by only two percent as “democracy dodgers” and “believes they need to be punished to show the government is trying to control the cost of living”. Furthermore Pickles states “he wants to stop councils or police bodies being able to exempt some spending from the cap.”

This article in the Bristol Post before Christmas also quotes the Rt Hon Eric Pickles from a statement in relation to council tax increases “as being particularly open to representations suggesting that some lower threshold be applied to councils, given the strong need to protect taxpayers wherever possible from unreasonable increases”.

So what has this got to do with Parliamentary ping-pong? Well the Local Audit and Accountability Bill is heading to its next to the last stage (starting on 21st January) called “parliamentary ping-pong” before the last stage “Royal Assent” and it becomes law. Crucially the section on Council Tax referendum calculations (s.41) comes into force (see s.49) when the act receives Royal Assent and changes the formula of how a yearly Council Tax increase is arrived at.

In future once the Local Audit and Accountability Bill becomes an Act, the calculation of Council Tax rise includes not just Wirral Council’s share of the Council Tax bill, but also (if I’ve read the bill correctly and please leave if a comment if I’m wrong) the other levying bodies that form part of Council Tax bills too. This means the yearly increase in Council Tax requirements in the budgets of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside would affect what the percentage increase would be.

It looks from the wording of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill (and a lot of recent regulations) that this will come into effect for the 2014/15 financial year. As the basis by which a Council Tax rise is calculated will change, £556,789 is my rough estimate of what changing the threshold from 2% to 1.5% will be as the true amount of extra cuts will depend on what the Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner’s and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s Council Tax requirements for 2014/15 are.

At Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee meeting (held yesterday at the time of writing), in item 8 (policy update), councillors on the committee will have read in their papers on page 2, under Implications for the Local Audit and Accountability Bill “Budget Strategy considerations may also be impacted by the changes to the Council Tax threshold for triggering a referendum.”

Yet curiously not one of the councillors of the fifteen on the Coordinating Committee asked how much changing the Council Tax threshold for triggering a referendum would affect the budget strategy considerations or to my recollection anything at all about how a change to the Council Tax threshold would affect the 2014/15 Budget.

So is this £½ million of cuts at Wirral Council that councillors seem to be unaware of going to result in a further twelve-week consultation (or will the responses to the What Really Matters consultation be reused)? If any of these further cuts require ninety days consultation with the trade unions will this mean that they will only be realised as part-year savings in 2014/15?

There does seem to be one concession the Liberal Democrats have received though. Any regulations the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP decides to do with council tax increase referendums has to by law be also agreed with Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP first.

So what do you dear reader think? Will Cllr Phil Davies be saying of the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP something similar to the famous Laurel and Hardy quote “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”. With exquisite timing, Wirral Council’s Labour administration will have to agree the budget for 2014/15 around the end of February 2014 meaning these extra cuts will probably feature in the local election period in the lead up to polling day on the 22nd May.

Certainly this apparent lack of a plan B will have to be explained when the Improvement Board returns in March. As the Rt Hon Ed Balls MP (Labour’s Shadow Chancellor) said last October about Labour’s economic competence, “we are going to win based upon our experience, our track record, our credibility”.

Oh and if you think the projected underspend of £884,000 will mean a further £½ million of cuts won’t have to be made in 2014/15 you’d be wrong.

£250,000 of the underspend will probably be agreed tonight to go towards the clean up and repairs to infrastructure in New Brighton following the bad weather. A further £519,000 of the underspend has been earmarked for future restructuring costs leaving (at current estimates) only a projected underspend of £115,000 that can count towards an estimated a £½ million of cuts required if the Coalition government reduce the Council Tax increase referendum threshold to 1.5%.

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

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

                                 

Before I go any further I will point out the following. This is with regards to Martin Morton’s statutory complaint of the 9th February 2010 involving Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Pat Williams. This was superseded by a more detailed complaint on 26th February 2010 which also included former Cllr Ann Bridson. This is about the former complaint, not the latter.

Ultimately the Standards Board for England in August 2011 issued decision notices on the complaint for Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson. All decision notices stated that no further action should be taken.

In each decision notice Standards for England stated “I would comment that it may be for the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to examine the findings of the investigation into the charging policy when if concludes and then consider the role of individual members.”

However the Anna Klonowski Associates report states on page 52 at 6.8.3/6.8.4 “A separate standards complaint had been submitted to Wirral Council’s Standards Committee in relation to certain Member conduct issues associated with this group and was referred to Standards for England” and “Whilst this matter was being investigated by Standards for England the consultant was specifically instructed by the Council not to prejudice the investigation, therefore matters relating to the conduct of Members in relation to this matter were deemed outside the terms of reference for this review.”

In a letter dated 31st March 2011 from Surjit Tour to Standards for England (reference ST/SfE2010/04) he states on page 2 “Following the May 2010 elections, the new Leader of the Council commissioned an inquiry into, inter alia, the issues raised by Martin Morton concerning the manner in which charges were raised by the Council. The Panel’s Chairperson was of the view, having liaised with members of the Initial Assessment Panel sitting on 8 April 2010, that the circumstances and facts involved in Mr Morton’s complaints, would overlap with those likely to be considered by the inquiry. Accordingly it was considered appropriate to await the outcome of the inquiry given that one of the options available to the Panel, namely to refer the matter for investigation, could potentially conflict with the inquiry.”

However back to what was alleged that councillors had done in Martin Morton’s original complaint. I’ll first deal with question 4 which is basically “Please explain in this section (or on separate sheets) what the member has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct.” Below is verbatim what was put in answer to that question.

I contacted Monitoring Officer Bill Norman seeking guidance in relation to this matter on 24th December 2009, having failed to elicit a response I have contacted Standards for England who have advised me to submit this complaint in accordance with Wirral Council procedures.

The full extent of the complicity of the named Councillors in the institutional financial abuse of people with learning disabilities has only recently become apparent following discovery of relevant documentation and by recent declarations of interest at Council meetings (see links below).

The specific details of my complaint are as follows:

Unlawful charges (currently identified at £241K but in reality at least double that sum) that were imposed upon people with learning disabilities at supported living establishments in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and were levied with the full knowledge of the three Councillors identified in this submission.

However it should be noted that although many Councillors are implicated in this case Cllrs Williams I McLaughlin and Roberts are particularly culpable in terms of the Code of Conduct for Members for the following reasons:

An email sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the director of Social Services on 27th January 2005 on behalf of the Director of Social Services at this time (Kevin Miller) indicates that he has chosen Cllrs McLaughlin, Williams, Roberts and Leslie Thomas to be part of “a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options”.

The minutes of the Charging Policy Consultation group dated 22nd August 2005 (see minutes) firmly establishes that each of the 3 Councillors were aware that the “Special Charging Policy” applied at the 3 properties named above were deemed as “unfair” (and therefore “unlawful”).

None of these Councillors saw fit to suggest that the people who had been unlawfully charged should be reimbursed and accepted that there was “unfairness in the system”* (Mike Fowler – Head of Finance DASS).

*It should be noted that this “unfairness” involved in some cases charges in excess of £100 per week and took place over a number of years. Meanwhile other vulnerable people in the same circumstance paid NOTHING.

That financial abuse took place has been firmly established following the publication of a Public Interest Disclosure Act report by the Audit commission in August 2008 and the unravelling of a cover-up at subsequent meetings of the Audit & Risk Management Committee between September 2008 – November 2009, however the specific substance of this complaint is as follows:

Cllr.Williams (ineptly) chaired a Grievance Appeal Hearing in July 2007 where one of the main issues of my grievance/whistleblowing allegations was the unlawful charges outlined above.

She failed to declare an interest despite her participation in ,the charging policy working group and should NEVER have chaired my Appeal “hearing” .

Her bias at this hearing is evidenced by the following opening exchange (there are partial minutes of this meeting corroborating this exchange):

Cllr W: “What outcome do you want from this hearing?”
Myself: “An external investigation by the Audit Commission” (which is
ironic because I eventually achieved this and was vindicated in ALL
aspects of my complaint)
Cllr W: Mr.Miller do Mr.Morton’s complaints warrant an investigation by
the Audit Commission
Kevin Miller: No they don’t
Cllr W; There, you have your answer Mr.Morton
Colin Hughes ( Wirral Council: Legal Dept) : Well I think we need to hear
the case first ….. ..

Subsequently (and revealingly) Kevin Miller on his last day of employment with Wirral Council on 31 st October 2007 left a “file note” on my personnel file stating thus:

“I can confirm that following the withdrawal of his grievance to members appeal by Mr Martin Morton I offered the Councillors who were on the appeal panel the opportunity of a briefing after the hearing.

At a later dated (sic) I briefed Councillor P M Williams to ensure that any concerns that she and her fellow members may had regarding issues raised by Mr Morton were not ignored. I also took the opportunitY to arrange for Maura Noone, Head of Service, Commissioning, Health and Wellbeing to join us to answer any queries”.

When I requested the same privilege that had been afforded to Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and that I was given the opportunity to meet with Cllr.Williams and to disabuse her of the notion that there was nothing to be concerned about However this was DENIED to me in a letter dated 7th December 2007.

Cllr Williams recalls the briefing with Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and states:
“During that briefing I was satisfied that the officers in the Adult Social Services Department had dealt honestly and competently with some very difficult problems ….. “.

As subsequent events have proven Adult Social Services senior management did not demonstrate honesty or competence in this particular case.

However what I did not know at the time was that Cllr.Williams had known about the unlawful charge since 2005 and was therefore was both implicated the institutional financial abuse of vulnerable people.

I therefore maintain that in failing to declare a prejudicial interest Cllr.Williams was complicit with a cover-up of financial mismanagement and gross maladministration.

I would suggest that Cllr.McLaughlin appears to have a friendship which precludes her from undertaking her role with due impartiality.

Wirral Council website records how Cllr.McLaughlin declares an interest at Council meeting 15/12/08 and Cabinet 6/11/08 on the following grounds:

“Prejudicial- due to a friendship with a potentially interested party”

This friendship has ears to preclude her ( as the Cabinet Member) from contributing to any debate relating to the financial abuse of vulnerable people, thereby sidestepping the issue that once again she was aware of the unlawful charges as part of the charging policy review group organised by former director Kevin Miller, whom I am suggesting is the friend to whom Cllr.McLaughlin refers to In her declarations of Interest.

Therefore Cllr.McLaughlin clearly regards her personal friendship to take precedence over her responsibility as Cabinet member to uphold the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Cllr.Roberts has only recently declared an interest.

She certainly didn’t declare an interest at full Council meeting on November 2nd 2009 where she moved an amendment to deny a full independent investigation into the abuse case with a speech (which she has kindly forwarded) which includes the following statements:

“We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished …………… we are dealing ,in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being
placed in Special measures …… This is not to excuse what happened …….. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise ……… There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another Investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively
covered by the Council”.

Needless to say Cllr.Roberts fails to declare her involvement with the charging policy review group and the fact that she knew about the unlawful charges during this speech.

Moreover there has NEVER been an investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council”.

If they had Cllr.Williams, McLaughlin and Cllr.Roberts complicity would have been uncovered.

Cllr.Roberts motives becomes even more questionable when you consider that she has only recently declared an interest (alongside Cllr.McLaughlin at the Health and Well Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2010) both citing “their friendship with an interested party”.

Consequently I believe that all three of the above Elected Members are in serious breach of ALL the The Ten General Principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Members.
Additionally I would make specific reference to the general provisions of Wirral Council’s code In relation to:

5. “you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute”
12c. “you must not seek to improperly to influence a decision about that business”

Cabinet report of 1 December 2005
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewagenda.asp?mtg=1577#20
Social Care Select Committee of 14th Feb 2005-
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1518

Select Committee of 18th January 2005 –
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1476
Cabinet 24 January 2007
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.aso?mtg=1959#231

In answer to question 6 “Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are looking for or hoping to achieve by submitting this complaint.” Mr. Morton put “Consequences that are commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations, This ultimately means only one course of action: resignation.”

Attached to the complaint was the email below, speech of Cllr Roberts (also below) and the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group.

Mike
For information
Jan
—-Original Message—-
From: Jan Johnson (Social Services)
Sent: 27 January 2005 14:09
To: Moira McLaughlin (Councillor); Patricia Williams (Councillor); Leslie Thomas (Councillor): Denise Roberts (Councillor)
Subject: CHARGING POLICY REVIEW GROUP
Importance: High

Sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the Director of Social Services

Dear Councillors
The Director has asked me to arrange a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options (minuted at the last Select Committee). I would be grateful if you could let me know your availability for Tuesday 8th February following the Lib Dem briefing around 6.00 – 6.30 p.m.

Many thanks.

Jan

Jan Johnson
PA to Director
Tel: 0151 666 3650
Fax: 0151 666 4747

Denise Robert’s speech

This matter has now been the subject of intensive investigation by the Audit Commission and by the Council’s own Internal Audit.

A number of key reports have been produced and there are further reports for consideration on the Agenda of the Audit and Risk Management Committee tomorrow.

Let’s be quite clear what we are dealing with here, and what we are not dealing with.

  • We are not dealing with intentional fraud.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken in malice.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken for personal gain.
  • We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished.

What we are dealing with, quite frankly, is a mess that needs to be sorted out.

  • We are dealing with honest decisions on charging taken at a time when there was no national guidance, which, in hindsight, could have been different.
  • We are dealing with decisions which were intended to improve the life of those moving from residential accommodation, where they had little disposable income, to supported living, where they had higher levels of disposable income.
  • We are dealing with decisions that, none the less, may have set charges too high, and then failed to review them.
  • We are dealing with people trying to do the best job they could, and that best job just not being good enough.
  • We are dealing with decisions not taken when the first opportunity to change things presented itself.
  • We are dealing with decisions taken, but not fully implemented.
  • We are dealing with a lengthy delay from the introduction of national guidelines on charges to their implementation in practice.
  • We are dealing, in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being placed in Special Measures.

This is not to excuse what happened. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise.

It is right and proper that these failings should be properly investigated, and we have formally thanked Mr Morton for bringing these to the Council’s attention.

It is also right and proper that every effort is made to ensure these failings cannot happen again, and that procedures are put in place so we can be absolutely sure they won’t happen again.

It is also absolutely right and proper that any individual who may have been overcharged should be compensated for that overcharging.

A recommendation has already been made by the Audit and Risk Management committee to reimburse service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton for overcharging between April 2003 and February 2006 and we welcome that.

A further report is being heard by members of that committee tomorrow night which looks at whether or “not compensation should be paid for the period between 1997 and April 2003.

There is also a detailed report on the agenda from the Director of Social Services setting out the progress made in addressing the failures identified and ensuring they cannot happen again.

There have been allegations made of bullying against the whistleblower and Cabinet has already instructed the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to initiate an investigation into these allegations and this will be carried out by an outside, independent person.

There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council.

Measures have now been taken to put things right, and further measures have yet to be considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

It’s time now to move forward, and look to the future and to much of the excellent work now being carried out by the Department of Adult Social Services.

Drawing this process out any further will serve no real purpose.
I urge you to support this amendment.

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

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

 

At the last Council meeting last month, Cllr Pat Williams gave a speech (reported in full on this blog) in which she stated “There is also a lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers and councillors during the period which led to the involvement of the Improvement Board.”

How true that is, Cllr Pat Williams! Appendix 9 to the Anna Klonowski Associates report was the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005. It was heavily redacted with a black marker pen. This was the document I asked Graham Burgess to release without redactions at the public session of the Improvement Board back in November. He hasn’t got back to me on that point so here it is below. I agree with Cllr Pat Williams there has been a lack of accountability, hopefully this will go some way to address it!

Charging Policy Consultation
Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005
Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

Older people’s representative
Service user/carer representative x 2
A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies
Advocacy Services Representative
Councillor Pat Williams (Lib Dem)
Councillor Denise Roberts (Labour)
Councillor Les Thomas (Con)
Mike Fowler (Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)
Breda Dutton (Business & performance Manager)
Hilary Grant (Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended that the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process
Mike Fowler (MF) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation went on to explain why the Council believed changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and MF gave assurance that there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

Notes of User/Carer Consultation

Presentation Discussion and Comment
1. What Services are charged for ?
MF explained the three types of charges. These are (a) for people who live in residential or nursing homes, (b) for people who are helped to live at home, and (c) for meals-on-wheels. Noted
The remit of this consultation is (b) and (c). Charges for residential and nursing care are set by Government and cannot be influenced locally. Noted
MF explained charges for people who are helped to live at home are based on Government guidance ‘Fairer Charging’ which assesses people’s ability to pay (based on their income, benefits and savings) It was noted that Councils do not have to charge, but if they do they must adhere to the principles within this Guidance.
People who receive meals delivered to their homes were charged £1.60 per meal. No account is taken of their ability to pay. In response to a question raised by Councillors, MF confirmed this price had not been changed since December 2000, and if inflation had been applied each year the charge would now be £1.81.
2. How are charges worked out?
MF went through the steps to calculate charges for people supported with a community care package and identified the three bases of charges. These were:- Noted
(a) Charges against disposable income.This is currently 27%. Disposable Income is the amount above the minimum the Government believes is necessary to live on (ie Income Support levels). MF confirmed that (i) people whose only source of income was Income Support were not charged, (ii) carers income was not taken into account, and (iii) Mobility Allowance was not included as income.
(b) Charges against benefits.Currently £5.27 per week for people who receive Disability Allowance (DLA), or £7.27 for higher DLA The group asked for information on the current levels of this Allowance. HG responded £40.55 per week for Medium DLA, and £60.60 per week for higher DLA. Over 80% of claimants receive the Medium level.
(c) charges against savings.Currently £1 per week for every £250 above £12,500. People with more than £20,500 are assessed to pay the full cost of their care MF clarified the £1 was the assumed income from savings to be added to Disposable income in 2(a) above. The Group asked who set these levels and MF responded they are in the guidance but Council’s were free to set higher figures (not lower).
3. Why does the Council think the policy should be reviewed?
MF summarised the ‘Fairer Charging policy, the main principles are:-(a) Charges should take account of people’s ability to pay

(b) Charges should be equally applied across all client groups

 It was acknowledged the current policy does this in accordance with the Fairer Charging Guidance.MF reported there were some groups, and service types, not being charged in the same way. These were (1) Adults with Learning Disability who attend Day Centres, and (2) Adult living in Supported Living services – previously classed as residential care.The Group felt this was unfair, and that everyone should be assessed in the same way, although it was noted the group most affected were not represented at this event.
MF reported the existing policy had not been changed for 5 years Noted
The Council agreed budget savings in 2005-06 of £150,000 from Fairer Charges and £50,000 from Meals Noted
4. Options
MF summarised the options that could be considered by the Council. These are:-(a) Charge more for people with over £20,500 savings (ie raising the full price)

(b) Charge more against disposable income

(c) Charge more against Disability related Benefits

(d) Increase the price of Meals on Wheels

(e) Include people who only receive Day Care or Supported Living Services in the charging policy

 There was concern that people just over the limit would have their savings reduced rapidly. MF confirmed the Council ‘could’ raise the threshold for being assessed to pay the full price.The Council could either change the %-Take figure or increase the minimum level before charges start to apply (eg Income Support + £10)

The Council could change the charge against Disability benefits. Few Councils take all the Benefit in charges, many take between £10 and £15 per week.

The Council can charge up to the full price for meals (currently £2.42)

Most Councils operate the same Fairer Charging policy for these type of services
5. Exploring each option in turn ->
(a) Charge people with over £20,500 more.
The current policy is to charge £6.14 per hour. The actual cost to the Council is between £9 and £11. If the Council raised its charge to £7.14 an additional £75,000 would be raised.		 The Group asked how many people this would affect, MF reported approximately 500 people (there are actually 540 people paying on average £27 per week, which raises £750,000 pa)The Group felt it would be fair to charge people more who were more able to pay because they had more assets, but were concerned people who were just over the threshold would quickly drop below it. There was also concern people would divest themselves of their savings purposefully to avoid paying charges.

MF explained there were few people who were ‘just over’. Most people paying the full price had elected not to reveal the level of their savings and had ‘chosen’ to pay full cost.

The group would like to ask the Council to consider raising the £20,500 threshold to protect those who were ‘just over’ the limit. On this basis, people with more substantial savings would be more likely to accept higher charges; bearing in mind the subsidy that would still remain.
(b)Charge more against disposable incomeThe current policy is to charge 27% of disposable income. MF explained that for every ‘percentage point’ above this the Council would raise an additional £10,000 (eg if the charge was 30%, £30,000 would be generated. MF confirmed there would be 1,200 service users affected by varying the %-Take figure.Many other Authorities charge between 30% and 35%.
(c) Charge more against Disability related BenefitsPeople who get DLA/AA are charged £5.27 per week at the lower level or £7.27 at the higher.

Raising the charges by £1 per week would generate an additional £94,000 per year.

 The Group felt it fair that people should use these benefits to pay for their care as this was the purpose of the benefit.
(d) Increase the price of Meals on WheelsThe current price per meal is £1.60. The average in the North West is £1.85. The price had not changed in 5 years. Raising it to £1.85 would raise an additional £30,000. The Group asked what the actual price of each meal was. MF responded £2.42 taking into account the cost of the meal, regeneration, and transport.The Group still felt at £1.85 it was good value for a two course meal
(e) Charge people in Supported LivingMany people are not charged for Supported Living
Services. Applying the Fairer Charging Policy would raise £40,000 per year		 The Group felt people receiving these services should be assessed to pay charges in the same way as other service users. MF reported up to 80 people would be affected.The other group not currently charged is Adults with Learning Disability who only receive day care. Up to 100 users may be affected and MF reported potential collection difficulties.
MF asked the Group to comment on the current method of payment.Users currently receive a statement against which they can make regular payments using a swipe card The group felt the statements were a good idea but felt regular monthly invoices would be an improvementThe group also felt more use of standing orders and direct debits would aid collection (this needs to be offered as a choice)

The Group asked MF to consider ‘rewards’ for opting for Direct Debits similar to those offered by utility Companies
Summary of messages from the Group to CommitteeMF asked the Group what comments they would wish to make to the next Committee
  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Summary

The meeting ended with the following bullet points to be included in a report to Committees in November 2005

  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Next Stage

MF reported an intent to report the outcome of consultation to the Health and Social Care Select Committee in October and Cabinet in November. However the fact that representatives of Learning Disability services could not attend it was decided to delay the report for one month. This
would also give an opportunity to invite further comments from older people themselves by a postal questionnaire.

Recommendations

Members of the Group are asked to confirm this record as a true reflection of the discussion that took place on the 22nd August and make any further representations they feel appropriate.

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