Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

                                                          

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee 2nd December 2014 L to R Unknown, Cllr Mahon (Chair), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Unknown, Cllr Robertson
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee 2nd December 2014 L to R Unknown, Cllr Mahon (Chair), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Unknown, Cllr Robertson

Present (Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee, 4 out of 5 councillors were present, quorum is two):
Cllr Jimmy Mahon (Labour, Chair)
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Labour)
Cllr Linda Maloney (Labour)
Cllr Tony Robertson (Lib Dem opposition spokesperson)

Also present:
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer)
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer)
Janet Henshaw (Clerk to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Monitoring Officer)
Fire Brigade Union guy 1
Fire Brigade Union guy 2
Union guy 3
Union guy 4
Two members of the public (of which the author of this blog post John Brace is one)

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

The Chair started the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting by stating in the event of a fire alarm sounding where the nearest fire exits were and people were to assemble at the assembly point across the car park in the event of a fire. Smoking would not be permitted during the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting and the toilets were further down the corridor on the opposite side to the meeting room.

If anyone was requested to leave the meeting for whatever reason, recording was to not continue outside the room. He asked people not to leave on display anything that was private or confidential items on display.

There were no exempt items on the agenda for this meeting so the press and public wouldn’t be asked to leave. He asked if any of the two “observers” present had any objections to being filmed (one of whom is the person writing this). Neither of us (including myself) did. He asked people to have their mobile phones on silent, told people he was Councillor Mahon and declared the meeting open.

1. Preliminary Matters

An apology was given by Cllr Tony Robertson for Cllr Lesley Rennie.
An apology was given by the Chair for the Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan.
The Deputy Chief Fire Officer pointed out he was present.

No declarations of interest were made.

There were no items that the press and public would be excluded for.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of the consultation and negotiation sub-committee meeting of the 2nd September 2014 (the blog post Labour councillors blame government for strikes in 1st ever film of a Merseyside Fire Authority meeting refers to this meeting) were agreed.

3. Industrial Relations Update

The Chief Fire Officer, Dan Stephens introduced his report (CFO/124/14) on matters of negotiation and consultation with the trade unions since the last meeting on 2nd September 2014.

He referred to 45 service instructions issued since 2nd September, most had been agreed but nine were outstanding. Dan Stephens referred to the ongoing talks with the Fire Brigades Union and that the Fire Brigades Union did not agree with the health and fitness instruction as well as an ongoing national dispute. However there had been talks in London on the 10th and 11th of September and a further meeting in Liverpool on the 29th September.

The Chief Fire Officer on behalf of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service thanked Phil, Mark and Kevin for getting to the point where they had reached an agreement.

He referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of his report about 24-hour shifts, the impact of station mergers versus outright closure and the mitigation he had recommended to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. With regards to the pensions dispute it was outside his influence and totally outside his sphere of control, however he hoped to maintain constructive dialogue and Merseyside was testament to strong industrial relations between the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

There was notification by the Fire Brigades Union of a 24 hour strike from 0900 on the 9th December 2014 to 0900 on the 10th December 2014. An Early Day Motion by Hilary Benn MP had attracted 236 signatures so far. However the pension regulations had been laid before parliament and the 40-day period would conclude on the 11th December 2014, which was the reason for the timing of the notification of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union.

If the pension regulations were agreed by Parliament they would come into effect on the 1st April 2015. He said he would take any questions.

The Fire Brigades Union representative referred to the service instructions and the enormous body of work it had entailed. They had put it forward to the national Fire Brigades Union to be recognised as a template. He agreed with the Chief Fire Officer that it was much better to have an agreed outcomes and agreed introduction.

He referred to the policies about aiding sick and injured firefighters rather than punitively punishing them and accepted the reassurances about the issue of 24-hour working. Rather than death by a thousand cuts, he wanted to deal with the issues now to give a relative period of stability moving forward. Finally he pointed out to everyone at the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service that it was a national pensions dispute and he wanted to reiterate that there was excellent industrial relations locally in that they could talk about thorny issues without either side finding it offensive.

Cllr Maloney said that as an Authority they hadn’t got a clue as to what was going to happen.

Cllr Byrom said that during the strike period relationships on Merseyside had been cordial. Other authorities hadn’t seen this so he was grateful. He said that they “stand on the brink of considerable change”. In the tours they had been doing of fire stations, he’d been able to say to firefighters and members of the public it’s not the cheapest way of working but a better way of working to retain a full-time method of operation.

If they lost control of the agenda, the way to save money would be to move to retained. He said, “We don’t want that.” However, working closely with the staff and the public they serve, he wanted to put forward the message that it was safe, a good speed of response, a good weight of response and that the crews when they get there were prepared and trained.

The representative of the Fire Officers Association referred to the financial difficulties, the staffing model and how everyone was integral to providing an emergency service. He too referred to the 24-hour shift system. On the pensions issue he said that the government wasn’t moving and that they had got to persuade ministers and civil servants as there were issues that hadn’t been fully considered by the government.

He wanted (in reflection of the 236 MPs that had signed an Early Day Motion) a debate, otherwise there was something seriously wrong with politics. The union representative suggested that they address their MPs and ask them to sign the Early Day Motion apart from the one who is a government minister.

Referring to the MP for Wirral West, the Rt Hon Esther McVey MP, he said that she, “certainly doesn’t seem to live in the real world, doesn’t seem to want to know the impact of the cuts that are happening on this [Merseyside Fire and Rescue] Service”.

Although the Fire Brigades Union had said not to respond to the Adrian Thomas review of conditions of service and questionnaire, he had seen a tweet from the Deputy General Secretary encouraging members to respond to this. He had retweeted it, because he thought it was important as it affects all members.

He wanted Adrian Thomas as the independent person undertaking the review to fully understand and appreciate the concerns and issues of members. Looking forward to the budget proposals in February, the mergers were the big issue, he wanted to make sure that any cuts protected the frontline.

Cllr Tony Robertson (Lib Dem opposition spokesperson) that he agreed over the fulltime issue. He referred to his union background as a branch secretary and how there was a huge amount of respect on both sides. Although he was only a recently appointed member of the Fire Authority, he had read about it prior to becoming a member. He said that industrial relations were a hugely important issue as poor industrial relations would lead to a poor service. Cllr Robertson also said he had “no enthusiasm for city region government”.

The Chair referred to the disputes from 2003 and the £100,000 cost of getting the Green Goddess and how in the past the trade unions had told them what to do and how bad it was in the past. He compared how it was in 2003 to the improved industrial relations in 2014.

The Chief Fire Officer said to respond to Cllr Hanratty, that all MPs on Merseyside, bar the MP for Wirral West had signed the Early Day Motion, which included the Rt Hon John Pugh MP for Southport who is a member of the coalition.

The recommendations were agreed. The Chair said that the next meeting would be the 24th March 2015, he thanked people for their attendance and wished people a safe journey.

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

I’ve started a petition calling on the Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority to delete the part of its constitution that requires permission to film each public meeting following the legal change in August 2014. Please if you agree with it then sign it.

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

Marvin the Martian returns to talk about closure consultations involving Lyndale, fire stations (2) and libraries

Marvin the Martian returns to talk about closure consultations involving Lyndale, fire stations (2) and libraries

Marvin the Martian returns to talk about closure consultations involving Lyndale, fire stations (2) and libraries

                                                  

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

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

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

If you are reading this from the UKIP party and are planning to leave a comment questioning the immigration status of Marvin the Martian or disagreeing that he should have any say whatsoever about British politics, we humbly point out that although is not British, he is a fictional character and figments to people’s imagination do not have to have permission to come here.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The Martian High Command have asked me to survey the Wirral to try to understand its people and politics and write a report back but I find it all very confusing.

JOHN BRACE: Good luck with that! Even I don’t fully understand the Wirral people and its politics.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well we have a few areas we are unsure of. Let’s start with Greasby.

JOHN BRACE: Yes, Greasby, I know where that is.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well, we are very confused. We hear reports on your media of a consultation meeting in Greasby about fire stations, but people turned up but weren’t allowed to go to it? What sort of consultation on closure is that?

JOHN BRACE: I wasn’t there, I was covering a public meeting of Wirral Council at the time. Had I turned up I wouldn’t have been allowed in either as the place has to be able to be safely evacuated in case of a fire so has a set capacity. There is however a little irony there as it’s the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service who are doing the consultation. However the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service have informed the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority before that not many people at all turn up to their other fire station closure consultation meetings. So maybe they’re not used to large numbers of people turning up to public meetings?

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well don’t Wirral Council own the land in Greasby that has the library, the Children’s Centre and other well-loved buildings on? Haven’t they offered (subject to the outcome of the consultation, a further decision and planning permission) a lease?

JOHN BRACE: Yes it does and that’s the Chief Fire Officer’s currently preferred site for the new fire station if Upton & West Kirby close. Yes, they have offered them a lease (subject to the outcome of the consultation, a further decision and planning permission).

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why do the people of Greasby have a problem with their library closing?

JOHN BRACE: It’s historical, see your historical files on Earth. The Labour government minister at the time requested a public inquiry into library closures in 2009 so Labour councillors and the Lib Dems councillors were forced into a U-turn. Wirral people seem to still remember that and libraries for a number of years after libraries became a sacred cow of Wirral politics. However Cllr Foulkes said in the recent past that libraries shouldn’t be spared from the cuts and scrutiny.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And what else is happening on libraries and children centres?

JOHN BRACE: Well on libraries there’s a proposal to reduce opening hours at certain libraries. The decision to consult on the closure of children’s centres has been “called in”, the committee met to consider the “call in” then got adjourned. The committee is planning to meet again on the 12th November 2014 at 6.00pm. However its Labour Chair Cllr Moira McLaughlin was cheered up by some news.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What news would that be, a U-turn on closing the children’s centres?

JOHN BRACE: No, the news that Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative spokesperson) has left the call in committee and been replaced by a different Conservative councillor.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would she be pleased?

JOHN BRACE: They have a history of, well how do I put it as diplomatically as possible without taking sides, arguing passionately with each other in public?

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So let me get this straight, they had a public inquiry into Wirral’s library closures which had been driven through by the then Leader of the Council Cllr Steve Foulkes at the Floral Pavilion chaired by Sue Charteris?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Then a few years later Wirral Council made Cllr Foulkes Mayor in exactly the same room Mayor, also at the Floral Pavilion?

JOHN BRACE: Yes.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wow. This Cllr Foulkes guy sounds interesting. However back to Greasby. Which political party has the three local councillors in Greasby, Frankby and Irby?

JOHN BRACE: The Conservatives.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And the MP in Wirral West?

JOHN BRACE: The Conservatives.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And political control of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority is in which party’s hands?

JOHN BRACE: Labour.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ha, ha, ha. So Labour want to close a few fire stations in Wirral West to cause trouble?

JOHN BRACE: Labour will say they blame the Conservative/Lib Dem government or alternatively they’ll let the unions say roughly the same thing. However the unions have already gone on strike.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I thought politicians weren’t allowed to be “party political”, however isn’t Esther McVey some type of government minister too?

JOHN BRACE: Yes. She’s currently the Minister for Employment so you can imagine how the public sector unions such as the Fire Brigades Union and other unions feel about that.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Isn’t she facing a General Election in about six months time in what is a marginal seat?

JOHN BRACE: Yes, the unions/Labour Party are already trying their best to replace her with the Labour candidate. See fracking and other issues.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: That’s enough about Greasby, libraries, children’s centres and Esther McVey though, what’s happening in Birkenhead?

JOHN BRACE: The Rt Hon Frank Field MP is telling people that antisocial behaviour is a bad idea.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Really, is he referring to Cllr Phil Davies and his plan (currently out to consultation again) to close Lyndale School?

JOHN BRACE: Don’t be silly! He’s doesn’t mean it like that! He doesn’t mean his own Labour Party! By the language used in press articles he’s referring to young people.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh so the Rt Hon Frank Field MP isn’t picking on the disabled but he’s picking on young people, why do politicians always scapegoat young people? Isn’t Alison McGovern MP, MP for Wirral South in fact younger than you are?

JOHN BRACE: Now you’re making me feel old! Yes she is. Politicians scapegoat young people to play to their base. Politicians of all parties do it. Political parties have a history of having major political disagreements with their own party’s youth wing. See Lib Dems and tuition fees as a recent example of that. However the youth wing of political parties also represents the future of that party, so annoying them can be very short-term thinking.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And Alison McGovern is the MP where Lyndale School is?

JOHN BRACE: Yes. She’s MP for Wirral South, another marginal seat.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And as a Labour MP, if the Labour Cabinet decide to close Lyndale School before the election in May 2015 does that harm her chances of reelection next May?

JOHN BRACE: It would make it look (to some voters) if that happened like she had little influence over her own political party’s decision-making process (which isn’t entirely true but that would probably be how it would be spun in the press by her opponents).

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, but I thought officially the Labour Cabinet on Wirral Council had an “open mind” on the subject of closing Lyndale School?

JOHN BRACE: Please don’t get me started on that topic. There is a second consultation on it now, but I doubt Wirral Council would accept consultation responses from fictional characters.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So to sum up, there’s an election coming where everyone that can vote will get two votes, one for councillor, one for MP?

JOHN BRACE: Yes, “vote early and vote often (but no more than twice)” I could write if I was being slightly flippant!

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And in the lead up to elections you get election promises, vote for me and I’ll do this (or my party will do this)?

JOHN BRACE: Yes, even promises they know they can’t possibly keep after the election.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Are you implying party political candidates would deliberately lie about themselves and their own political party?

JOHN BRACE: I’d probably get sued or face an injunction if I answered that honestly! However you can’t libel a political party or a local council. Elections at their heart are a popularity contest and a battle for hearts and minds, so political parties will tell people what they think they want to hear.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Oh dear. So after the election a lot of people will be disappointed?

JOHN BRACE: They always are, before, during and after. Some of them have even given up on voting or being engaged in the political process.

MARVIN THE MARTIAN: That’s sad really. Well I’ll put all this in my report to the Martian High Command. Thanks for the interview!

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

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

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

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

                                                      

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However what’s in the currently exempt appendices?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then entering into catch 22 territory the legal advice continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

 

Phil Ward (Wirral Council's SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June)

Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June and is referred to in some of the consultation responses)

Well the papers for the special meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on the next steps about Lyndale School have appeared on Wirral Council’s website.

Despite an officer refusing a month ago my Freedom of Information request for the consultation responses on the basis that they would be published (which implies that they would be published as part of the papers for the special Cabinet meeting) the consultation responses (a majority of responses are against closing the school) aren’t included in the papers for the Cabinet meeting.

In an exclusive for this blog I did publish them on Tuesday, but that’s not really the point.

I hate to labour the point, but this is how consultations are “supposed to work”. An idea or policy is proposed, you have a consultation on it, you then publish the consultation responses in an open and transparent way so that the decision makers take them on board.

Not including the consultation responses with the Cabinet papers for the special meeting, gives the impression that officers don’t want material published that would lead to say “awkward questions”. Surely doing consultations isn’t rocket science, surely Wirral Council has run so many consultations they know how to do it by now?

The “bureaucratic machinations” go beyond just this “oversight” of not including the approximately three hundred pages of consultation responses. After all some of those responses are very critical of the way the consultation was actually run.

Let’s take how officers deal with the large petition. This gets a brief mention in appendix 5 on the last page.

I quote “A petition was received in support of Lyndale School containing 10,692 entries, of which 2,580 were duplicates, illegible or un-named, missing or non-existent addresses and 3,178 were resident outside Wirral. The remaining 4,935 entries comprised 702 “written” entries and 4,233 “epetition” entries.”

Last time I checked, Wirral wasn’t its own country with a big twenty-foot wall on the border and rumours of “barbarians” outside Wirral that well, you don’t have to listen to. The school is in Eastham which is on the edge of Wirral! Of course there are going to be people outside of Wirral are going to sign the petition (some of whom will probably live far nearer the school than I do living in Bidston). To callously state or imply that the views of over three thousand people don’t count because they don’t live here, I mean well doesn’t this sum up an attitude that has caused some of the problems and got Wirral nicknamed the “insular peninsula”? Family members of those attending the school could be living outside the Wirral, so could staff or other people closely associated with the school.

Moving on to duplicates, there was a written petition and an e-petition, obviously some people will have signed both versions. As to “illegible or un-named, missing or non-existent addresses”, well (I’m writing this as someone who has in the past gone door to door collecting petition signatures but I’ll point out not this petition) there are many adults in today’s society that couldn’t write their own name and address even if they wanted to (a sad reflection of our education system). It doesn’t mean their views don’t count!

The report goes on to state “Note that the Wirral Council Petition Scheme says a valid e-petition entry requires name, postcode and e-mail address. The e-petition was submitted as part of the consultation with name and postcode but without e-mail address”, so basically what this is saying is that out of 10,692 petition signatures, a Wirral Council officer only classes the 702 on a written petition as “valid” and feels happy enough to just disregard the views of the other ten thousand people.

There is a breakdown of the petition signers by ward, obviously the ward where the school is based Eastham attracts the highest number.

However moving on to the crucial question of what is the actual recommendation of officers as to what to do next (and what’s the result of the independent report into whether the options meet the SEN Improvement Test)?

Well in a U-turn from previous statements about being minded to recommend closure, page 19 states “In January 2014 Cabinet agreed to undertake a consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School, the consultation closed in June 2014. This report recommends that Cabinet considers the contents of this report and makes a decision on this matter.” which probably to most people is a recommendation that is about as clear as mud as to what officers want but at least they’re trying to be impartial.

The reason given is “The Council has a responsibility to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population. We would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the children and families affected by any recommendations, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.”

I will translate these two into plainer English for those not as familiar as myself with “Council speak”:

“In January* politicians decided to ask the public for their views on closing Lyndale School. Consultation with the public happened and finished in June. This report (written from the perspective of officers) tells you what we think happened during that consultation and it’s now time for politicians to make a decision.”

* Note: since January the politicians on the Cabinet have changed as Brian Kenny lost his seat in the May elections to the Green Party and Cllr Harry Smith has also left meaning there are two different Labour councillors taking these places (Cllr Stuart Whittingham and Cllr Bernie Mooney).

“It is about money, but don’t blame us senior officers for all this as we’re trying to put children first.”

So, what’s likely to happen and which of the options have been ruled out as they don’t meet the SEN Improvement Test?

Well this is detailed in the “independent” report.

This report states in section 5.2 “In reality the only viable course of action is Option 7, to close the Lyndale
School and expand Stanley School and Elleray Park School to provide 220/230 places.”

However the report is more detailed than that. Let’s analyse each of the options in detail:

Option 7.1 which are variations on retaining Lyndale

Retain Lyndale and change funding bands

The report states that it is unlikely that the funding bands will be reviewed until after the end of financial year 2014/15, which let’s face it by the time a review and consultation is undertaken on this, Lyndale could’ve been closed down. Even though the banding decision is a political one that politicians could change their minds (if they so wished) on at any time and a final decision on next year’s school budget has yet to be made. The independent report refers to the deficit, but many schools operate with a surplus or a deficit (they don’t get earmarked for closure though). As this is “no change” option, the SEN Improvement Test is met.

Retain Lyndale School and restrict places at Elleray Park and Stanley

The report author seems to be against this option on grounds of parental choice “Restriction of places at either of the schools will restrict parental choice. This may result in appeals by parents to the SEN Tribunal. Restriction of places also goes against Government policy which encourages the expansion of popular schools.”

Retain Lyndale School and extend to full range of CLD

The report author states that if Lyndale School took on children with CLD then these would be children they would receive less money for (per a child) than the children with PMLD which would worsen their financial situation rather than improve it.

Retain Lyndale School and school commits to take full range of CLD. Stanley and Elleray Park admissions kept to place numbers

This option also includes changing the funding bands for children at Lyndale. There aren’t any major quibbles the report author seems to have with this option and quotes statistics (based on July 2014 figures) of Stanley with 100 children and ninety places, Elleray Park has 94 children and 90 places. So both schools are currently oversubscribed based on their places.

It mentions that Stanley School could take as high as 120 children and once the building work at Elleray Park is completed in September 2015, that its capacity will increase to 110.

Option 7.2 Lyndale becomes a 2-19 school

The report author goes into detail as to this option, but points out that it could take about seven years for numbers to reach about fifty. The report author sees this as a “high risk option” as it would require capital investment in the school and run the risk of not working out. Four parts of the SEN Improvement test are quoted as not being met for this option. Although this is an option parents want, it seems highly unlikely this will happen.

7.3 Federate (hard or soft) with another school with Lyndale remaining on current site

There is nobody obvious that Lyndale would federate with and this option is ruled out as not meeting three of SEN Improvement Test requirements.

7.4 Co-locate Lyndale School with another special school (which also covers co-locate and federate with another special school)

As with 7.3 there’s no-one obvious that Lyndale would federate with, this option is looked at in detail and ruled out as not meeting three of the SEN Improvement Test requirements.

7.5 Lyndale becoming an Academy/Free School

Such a decision is for the Department for Education and parents, the report author still thinks that Lyndale will have problems with funding but cannot demonstrate how it would/wouldn’t meet the SEN Improvement Test.

7.6 Close Lyndale School. Open two SLD bases in Primary schools for 6/8 pupils each. Expand
Elleray Park and Stanley schools to 100 each

This has a number of sub options which are

Close Lyndale
Close Lyndale and open SLD bases in two primary schools
Close Lyndale, open SLD places in two primary schools and expand Elleray Park and Stanley to 100 each
Close Lyndale and open a PMLD base on the new Foxfield site

However this is ruled out as it doesn’t meet four of the requirements in the SEN Improvement Test.

7.7 Close Lyndale. Expand Stanley/Elleray Park schools to provide 220/230 places

This option also contains the option “Close Lyndale and expand either Stanley or Elleray Park”.

The report author considers the first option as meeting the SEN Improvement Test (however doesn’t go into much detail). The second option is considered to not meet the SEN Improvement Test because of parental choice grounds.

7.8 Close Lyndale School but retain the site making another school a split site school. The Lyndale site would be retained for as long as felt necessary

The suboptions are “until children currently at the school had left” and “until the receiving school no longer required it”.

This is ruled out as not meeting four of the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test.

So the options Cabinet will be considering next Thursday that aren’t ruled out as they breach the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test (which can be quite subjective but this is based on the report author’s opinion are):

Option 7.1 Retain Lyndale

This is further split into sub options such as retain Lyndale and change funding bands, retain Lyndale School and restrict places at Elleray Park and Stanley, retain Lyndale School and extend to full range of CLD and retain Lyndale School and school commits to take full range of CLD. Stanley and Elleray Park admissions kept to place numbers.

Option 7.5 Lyndale becoming an Academy/Free School

The author can’t say one way or the author as to whether this option breaches any of the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test.

Option 7.7 Close Lyndale. Expand Stanley/Elleray Park schools to provide 220/230 places

This is the option that people associated with Lyndale School don’t want. However if Cabinet chose this option it would trigger a further consultation and a future decision to be made following that consultation.

So therefore the three options that aren’t ruled out by in some way breaching the SEN Improvement Test (according to the report author) are:

1) various options on the theme of keeping Lyndale,
2) the Academy/Free School option (which depends on the Department for Education agreeing to it) or
3) closing Lyndale.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet will meet in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall in Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm for a special meeting just to make a decision on Lyndale School (which will be a public meeting).

If you would like to contact the people who will be making the decision, contact details are below (although it is always possible that some of these people will not be able to make it to the meeting, however even if not present at the meeting they are bound by collective responsibility for decisions taken). Please note the addresses below are home addresses in case you want to write to them in advance of the meeting by post.

The papers for this meeting have been published on Wirral Council’s website and the consultation responses can be read here.

Councillor Phil Davies (he chairs the Cabinet meetings) phildavies@wirral.gov.uk/ 0151 625 3320 / 07720 073154 / 16 Westbourne Grove, West Kirby, Wirral, CH48 4DL

Cllr Ann McLachlan (she often chairs Cabinet meetings if Cllr Phil Davies is not available) annmclachlan@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 522 0299 / 27 Danefield Road, Greasby, CH49 3BP

Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 653 4265 / 07713 644330 / 46 Shamrock Road, Claughton, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 0EQ

Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 9050 / 10 Elmswood Road, Seacombe, Wallasey, CH44 8DB

Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 9050 / 07853 042243 / 10 Elmswood Road, Seacombe, Wallasey, CH44 8DB

Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 645 1729 / 07738 824130 / 19 Inglemere Road, Rock Ferry, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH42 4QL

Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 1543 / 07771 972302 / 7 Wood Lane, Wallasey, Wirral, CH45 8QP

Cllr Tony Smith (he is the Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services whose portfolio Lyndale School falls under) tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 677 1384 / 27 South Drive, Upton, Wirral, Merseyside, CH49 6LA

Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 200 8089 / 07811 060891 / 30 Brompton Avenue, Liscard, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 0BD

Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 653 5539 / 16 Fender Way, Prenton, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH43 7ZJ

All of the above ten politicians are members of the Labour Party. If you wish to contact one of your three local councillors (assuming that you live on the Wirral) their contact details are here, but it will only be names listed above (assuming they can make it) who will be making the decision at the special Cabinet meeting about Lyndale School.

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 text of the emotional handwritten responses to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation

The text of the emotional handwritten responses to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation

The text of the emotional handwritten responses to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation

                                      

Phil Ward (Wirral Council's SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June)

Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June and is referred to in some of the responses)

Further to the publication of the ninety responses to the Lyndale School closure consultation on this blog this morning, below is the typed text of the handwritten responses and one text response that is very hard to read because of poor contrast with the background.

The first is from pages 9-10 of the file marked Lyndale parents.

     Lyndale is a vital service to children with the most difficult lives.

     They can’t cope with moving schools, because for the most part their health is very fragile.

     I want to see a 2-19 facility at Lyndale School so that the children there can continue to receive the care they so desperately need. No other school on Wirral can provide this.

     See ‘Parents Response to the Lyndale Consultation Document’ for a further explanation of my views.

Name, address, telephone number and e-mail address is all blacked out apart from Wirral in the address field.

From Page 17 of the Lyndale parents file:

PLEASE SEE OUR SEPARATE SHEET ENCLOSED WITH OUR FEEDBACK COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

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

These are from the file marked Lyndale others starting at page 3.

member of the friends of Lyndale School association

Having helped with fund raising and attended events at the Lyndale School I have always been impressed by the ‘can do’ attitude of the staff and the calm and the happy atmosphere of the school.

Because of the very special and complex needs of these children I do not believe and neither do their parents that these needs can be met at the other special schools on the Wirral. I feel that the welfare or even the lives of these children may be endangered.

I would ask the Council not to sacrifice these very special children for ???? ???? of financial criteria or rationalisation process that is not in their best interests.

Surely the mark of a civilised society is the way that they care for its most vulnerable members

Contact details blacked out apart from Wirral.

From page 27:

I write this as a grandparent to my 3 year old granddaughter who has PMLD. I have witnessed the amazing progress she has made since she began attending Lyndale School. She has clearly benefitted from the range of professional skills of the staff team based there.
It seems cruel to uproot her from the school to another of two schools which appear to be oversubscribed. It is also devastating for the parents of Lyndale School, whose lives are tough enough dealing with their childrens complex needs, to have to endure the uncertainty facing their childrens schooling.
Keep Lyndale School open to maintain a geographical spread and encourage more parents to send their children there, to benefit from all the outstanding resources on offer

Contact details blacked out apart from MERSEYSIDE in address field.

======================================
From Stanley others file (page 3)

Having read the consultation document, if both Elleray Park and Stanley have the capacity to offer an additional 40+ places, then ideally, the children from Lyndale should be offered these places.

This will only be an issue if the numbers of children requiring specialist provision increases within the borough.

(Other staff section from page 7 onwards)

Member of staff ticked “THE OBSERVATORY SCHOOL” written in Other.

Whilst I understand all the reasons for the closure of Lyndale School, I would hope the opinions and feelings of the parents and carers of the pupils attending the school are listened to sensitively and with genuine regard for them.

Personally, I have real affection for the Lyndale School but also acknowledge the amazing provision offered by Stanley and Elleray Park schools.

I would love to see all three schools continuing to provide for CLD/PMLD children but understand Elleray Park and Stanley School can provide for Wirral’s children and also understand the financial implications and issues. I am confident that the correct decision will be made and know that this consultation will be well supported. I wish Wirral Cabinet well in their decision-making process.

Name is blacked out. Address: THE OBSERVATORY SCHOOL, BIDSTON VILLAGE ROAD, BIDSTON, WIRRAL Postcode: CH43 7QT. Telephone and e-mail address blacked out.

Page 9 onwards

Other: HEADTEACHER BHSC

1. Logically keeping a small school open in an area where alternative provision is available of equal quality of provision is not a feasible option. I base this judgement on financial basis, community flexibility, breadth of staff experience, staff workload.

I agree that Lyndale should close and students reallocated.

2. I agree that any financial savings must be redirected into receiving schools to ensure no detriment to student provision.

3. Other options proposed:-

– Restricting places at Elleray + Stanley would lead to possible under occupancy and therefore no financial security

– 2-19 is an interesting option worth a feasibility study.
– Federation can lead to leadership issue and lack of focus for all schools in the federation including competing agendas – not feasible
– colocation is possible but why? when alt schools can accommodate demand
– Academy or free school does not alter the facts at present re student numbers or finance. If Lyndale improved to to this change there are only so many students to go around + the issues are only deflected into alt schools
– Additional places at Elleray + Stanley + closure of Lyndale is the most sensible option financially and educationally

Name blacked out Address: Bebington High Sports College Wirral Postcode CH63 2PS Telephone and e-mail address blacked out.

====================================
From the Others file starting at page 57:

I HAVE LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSIONS FOR AND AGAINST THE CLOSURE OF THE LYNDALE SCHOOL. TO PUT TO ONE SIDE THE EMOTIONAL ISSUES THAT THE THREATENED CLOSURE HAS CAUSED, IN MY VIEW THIS IS A MEDICAL POSITION. THE CHILDREN REQUIRE SUCH INTENSE ONE TO ONE ATTENTION THAT SOME HOW THE MONEY MUST BE FOUND, POSSIBLY JUSTIFIABLY INTO A 5TH BAND THEREBY QUALIFYING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. ANOTHER OPTION IS TO APPEAL TO THE D OF E FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING DUE TO THE CHILDRENS’ VULNERABILITY. SURELY THERE MUST BE A MORE HUMAN APPROACH TO CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY RATHER THAN BASE THEIR NEEDS ON CALCULATIONS.

This is not a handwritten response but is very hard to read due to a lack of contrast with the background (from page 59 of the other responses):

Dear Councillor

I am writing to tell you how worried I am about the possibility that the Lyndale School in Eastham may close. This is because the children at the school are very vulnerable and need to be with people they know well. Their fragile health means they will not be able to cope with losing all that they know and adjusting to a new environment.

The staff at The Lyndale School have years of experience, knowledge and expertise in caring for and educating children with a very high level of special needs. They create a very special environment where each child is valued and given the support they need to enjoy a good quality of life and achieve their potential. Parents feels that no other school on Wirral can provide the same safe and caring environment.

The children who attend Lyndale have many challenges to face in their everyday lives and their families are there alongside them. But this threat of the Lyndale closure is a challenge too ??? and many of the families are feeling under great strain at this time, worrying about having to send their children to schools that they know won’t be suitable for them.

The Lyndale School provides a service that is really needed both now and to future generations. It supports and gives hope to children and their families through some of the most difficult times in their lives. Will you please pledge to support the school and prevent its loss as a valuable asset in our community.

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