9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
I will start by declaring an interest in this story as I have a friend who is now a Lance Corporal in the Armed Forces and was recently mentioned in this Telegraph article.
Last month (23rd September) there was a review (by the Coordinating Committee) of a Wirral Council Cabinet decision made on the 7th July 2014 to change the concessions provided at Wirral’s leisure centres to former Armed Forces personnel.
The decision had originally been scheduled to be decided by the Coordinating Committee on 7th August 2014, however the meeting on the 7th August 2014 was adjourned because on 7th August 2014 key Wirral Council officers involved in the decision were on holiday and couldn’t be present to answer questions. So the meeting of the 7th August 2014 was adjourned to the 23rd September 2014.
There was then an interesting meeting on the 23rd September 2014 (which was in part a repeat of the adjourned meeting on the 7th August 2014). Councillors discussed the impact of the proposed changes to the policy and witnesses were heard from and questioned.
The motions at the end of that meeting were:
1) “That Cabinet minute 37 – 7 July 2014 (Transformation of Leisure Services Sports and Leisure Facilities Pricing Structure) be upheld” (proposed by Cllr Moira McLaughlin and seconded by Cllr Paul Doughty)
and the proposed amendment (proposed by Cllr Chris Blakeley and seconded by Cllr Mike Hornby) was
2) “That this Committee, having heard evidence this evening, stands unconvinced that any potential saving (the achievement of which remains dubious) made by implementing the decision at paragraph 3 of the Cabinet report, outweighs the harm this decision will do to Wirral’s reputation as an Authority which takes seriously its duties under the Military Covenant and as an Authority that does all it can to actively uphold and advance the Covenant.
Therefore, this Committee urges the Cabinet to reconsider its decision and restore the free Leisure Passes to all the veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
The vote on the amendment was 6 votes for (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem) and 9 votes against (9 Labour councillors).
The amendment was therefore lost.
The vote on the original motion was 9 votes for (9 Labour) and 6 votes against (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem).
The original motion/recommendation was therefore carried.
At the start of the meeting both Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Walter Smith declared interests as former members of the Armed Forces.
The Cabinet Member (not part of the committee but a witness) Cllr Chris Meaden declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces.
Cllr Paul Doughty (the Vice-Chair) declared an interest as his late father had been in the Armed Forces.
There is then an “anomaly” (as Surjit Tour would put it) identified at this point.
Cllr Chris Meaden (the Cabinet Member) declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces at the Coordinating Committee on the 23rd September 2014 which reviewed the earlier decision of Cabinet (of which she was one of the Cabinet Members present) on the 7th July 2014.
Certainly the video (below) of that Cabinet meeting in July shows Cllr Chris Meaden both present and speaking on that item which fell under her portfolio.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The video footage of declarations of interest was earlier in that meeting (see below)
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
However in Cllr Chris Meaden’s defence, this item did come near the end of a long Cabinet meeting held in the evening. Politicians do get tired and overlook things. She [Cllr Chris Meaden] referred to a conversation with Surjit Tour (who is Monitoring Officer) at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September. By the way she was talking then she seems to realise it was an oversight on her part and was trying to make amends by declaring the interest instead at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September, when it should have happened at the Cabinet meeting on the 7th July.
Declaring interests is one of the few bits left of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct on which separate legal provisions apply. It’s also a personal legal responsibility of politicians, so they can’t pass the buck to someone else or blame them. The guidance from the DCLG titled Openness and transparency on personal interests A guide for councillors issued in September 2013 states in reference to councillors starting at the bottom of page 4:
“One of these is the principle of integrity – that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.’”
By my reading of the rules, this interest would be classed as a “personal interest” not a “prejudicial interest”. Therefore even had she declared this on the 7th July 2014, she would still have been able to take part and vote in that agenda item. Had it been an undeclared pecuniary/prejudicial interest it would be a much more serious matter.
4.2 You have a personal interest in any business of the Council where it relates to or is likely to affect:-
(i) any body of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council;
(ii) any body:-
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes; or
(c) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party), of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management.
4.3 You also have a personal interest in any business of the Council:-
(i) where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the
majority of other council taxpayers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision, or,
(ii) it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests you have registered as a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Sensitive Interests
4.4 Where you consider that disclosure of the details of an interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation, and the Monitoring Officer agrees, if the interest is entered on the Register, copies of the Register which are made available for inspection and any published version of the
Register will exclude details of the interest, but may state that you have an interest, the details of which are withheld.
Disclosure and participation
4. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
5. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters.
Just in case someone thinks I’m singling Cllr Chris Meaden out for criticism. At a recent meeting last week Cllr Leah Fraser was present at a meeting of the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group when a decision (following a recommendation from the Merseyside Police) over whether to spend money on Ian Fraser Walk in New Brighton was made. As far as I can as I was present throughout the whole of the meeting, I don’t remember her declaring an interest in that agenda item (although I may not have heard her if she did).
Ian Fraser Walk is in fact named after her late father-in-law but she didn’t declare an interest. However whether Cllr Leah Fraser should have to declare a personal interest in whether money is spent on a stretch of promenade named after her late father in law is another matter.
If I wend through all the times councillors had failed to declare personal interests, it would be a very long list! Some are like the last example somewhat subjective. It’s more when councillors actually fail to declare prejudicial interests and then speak and vote on agenda items, which are the kind of major abuses that should be tackled and not happen in the first place.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
What does an election year, Cllr Phil Davies, the Schools PFI contract, Lyndale School and the Wirral Schools Forum have in common?
What does an election year, Cllr Phil Davies, the Schools PFI contract and Lyndale School have in common?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School which was reviewed by the Coordinating Committee on 2nd October 2014 L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Added at 8/10 12:04 In response to a reader comment about this article, I am at the start of this adding a declaration of interest, in that my wife Leonora has the liability for Council Tax at the property we both reside. Council Tax is mentioned in this article. However it is already public knowledge that we both reside on the Wirral.
In August 2014, as part of the 2013/14 audit using a right I have under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, I also requested a copy of the Schools PFI contract.
The next month (September 2014) I was asked to come and collect a paper copy of the contract from a Wirral Council building in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, which it later turns out is incomplete and missing at least a few hundred pages (which I suppose is to be expected when you’re dealing with Wirral Council)!
One of the duller sides of journalism and blogging is the amount of reading you have to do to write properly about the topics you’re writing articles on. An alternative route is to just use a lot of quotes from experts. After all when I write about matters, people leave comments and sometimes ask follow-up questions in the comments or by email so I try and familiarise myself with the topic I’m writing about first so this can be easily done. This contract runs to 2031, costs ~£12 million a year and is with a company called Wirral School Services Limited (and others).
The day before yesterday I ploughed through the rest of the Schools PFI contract Wirral Council has with Wirral Schools Services Limited (at least the bit of it I have and isn’t missing). Some of the is haven’t been dotted and the ts crossed on the pages I have and there is a large chunk of it that is missing there are some bits I am unsure of. I’ve asked for the rest but how long that will take I’m not sure!
The contract has many boring details that even I find dull to read that I hope even you dear reader would not really find particularly interesting, such as details about school boilers, how many square metres rooms are in various schools on the Wirral & what colours the hot and cold water pipes are (although knowing my luck I’ll end up with a comment from an interested heating engineer telling me how much they’d love to read a detailed article about the building maintenance side of schools).
The Schools PFI contract also has the level of detail of the full names, NI numbers, dates of birth and other details of various employees employed to work at these schools such as cleaners and other staff. Wirral Council also runs the multi-£billion Merseyside Pension Fund, so there is an admission agreement with Merseyside Pension Fund to do with pension rights. There are pages and pages of details about staff as part of an admission agreement with Merseyside Pension Fund. I will however not be publishing such detailed information on living people as it would be a goldmine for ID fraudsters and the height of irresponsible journalism to publish dates of birth, NI numbers and names for large numbers of people!
In order to explain, I need to first write a summary about what this Schools PFI contract is about. This is based mainly on the index.
Part of it is a series of leases to Wirral Council for nine schools and other type of educational premises called city learning centres covered by the contract. At the end of the contract (2031 or earlier if the contract is terminated or modified) ownership of the schools and City Learning Centres reverts back to Wirral Council. Part of the contract is also for services provided at the schools and City Learning Centres such as school meals, caretaking, repairs to the buildings et cetera. Some information on this goes to the schools themselves, some to Wirral Council. There is also a joint liaison committee set up with people from Wirral Council and the contractor.
There are also variations within the contract to account for differences between the schools, for example from memory* (*the caveat is I don’t always remember things correctly and haven’t double checked this against the contract again) I think Leasowe Primary School uses a slightly different system for school meals to the other secondary schools.
Some of the contract also relates to transitional provisions from the previous supplier Jarvis. This applied really in the early stages of the contract.
It’s all very long and very complicated and unless you have an interest in the area or are involved with Wirral Council, one of the nine schools (which are Leasowe Primary, Bebington High, University Academy of Birkenhead (formerly called Park High), South Wirral High, Weatherhead High, Hilbre High, Prenton High, Wallasey High and Wirral Grammar Girls) or two City Learning Centres (Wallasey City Learning Centre and Hilbre City Learning Centre) involved or the contractors in some way it’s probably not very interesting to you. It also interestingly falls into the set of contracts that Wirral Council will be legally required to publish at some future stage in the coming weeks.
The contract is so long and heavy (even with the missing pages) that I had to familiarise myself with our manual handling procedures just to figure out how to lift it up (and am grateful to myself that I didn’t drop it on my foot).
The first section marked “Private and confidential” is an agreement between Wirral Borough Council [1] and Wirral Schools Services Limited [2] dated 9/9/2004 and is called “Deed of Amendment and Restatement relating to Wirral Schools PFI project”. Addleshaw Goddard (a law firm) are mentioned at the bottom which are I presume are the law firm that drafted it. This section is 10 pages. This was when it was renegotiated in 2004.
So Section 1 – “Deed of Amendment and Restatement relating to Wirral Schools PFI project” 9/9/2004 10 pages
Then there’s section two, which is a “CONFORMED COPY” of a project agreement dated 27/3/2001 between Wirral Borough Council and Wirral Schools Services Limited which was amended and restated pursuant to the “Deed of Amendment and Restatement” (I’ve just mentioned) dated 9/9/2004. Rowe & Maw or 20 Black Friars Lane, London are at the bottom of the title page, their ref is 617/343/476/27909.1. Rowe & Maw were a legal firm based in London, they then became Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in 2002 and in 2007 shortened their name to Mayer Brown. Apparently now they are the 22nd largest law firm in the world.
Section 2 – “Project Agreement amended and restated pursuant to a Deed of Amendment and Restatement dates 9/9/2014” dated 27/3/2001 198 pages
Schedule 1 (Volume 1 of the schedules) between Wirral Borough Council and Wirral School Services Limited is mainly series of headleases and underleases for various schools:
Pt 1 Bebington Headlease (16 pages and refers to Land Registry title MS435412)
Pt 2 Hilbre Headlease (16 pages and refers to Land Registry title MS435411)
Pt 3 Park High Headlease (15 pages and refers to Land Registry title MS435414)
Pt 4 Prenton High Headlease (8 pages) * note the copy I have been given is partially incomplete as this is missing pg 9 and schedules 1-4
Pt 5 South Wirral High Headlease (15 pages and refers to Land Registry MS435824)
Pt 6 Wallasey Headlease * missing
Pt 7 “Not used”
Pt 8 Weatherhead Headlease * missing
Pt 9 Wirral Girls Headlease * missing
Pt 10 Bebington Underlease * missing
Pt 11 Hilbre Underlease * missing
Pt 12 Park High Underlease * missing
Pt 13 Prenton High Underlease * missing
Pt 14 South Wirral High Underlease * missing
Pt 15 Wallasey Underlease * missing
Pt 16 “Not used”
Pt 17 Weatherhead Underlease * missing
Pt 18 Wirral Girls Underlease * missing
Pt 19 Plans * missing
This comes to only 55 pages supplied out of an estimated 280 which is hardly a way for a Council to comply with its requirements under the audit legislation is it!? Hopefully they treat Grant Thornton (their external auditors better than this)!
Schedule 2 and 3 following it are then completely missing. I wonder at times if Wirral Council can’t do something simple like actually making a copy of a contract for the purposes of the 2013/14 audit without messing it up, what else are they getting wrong (are they deliberately trying to hide something)?
These are:
Schedule 2 Financial Matters * completely missing all parts 1-8
Part 1 Lenders Direct Agreement * missing
Part 2 The Council’s Design and Building Contract Direct Agreement * missing
Part 3 The Council’s Support Services Management Direct Agreement * missing
Part 4 Design and Building Contract Performance Guarantee * missing
Part 5 Support Services Management Agreement Performance Guarantee * missing
Part 6 Initial Senior Funding Agreements * missing
Part 7 Other Initial Funding Agreements * missing
Part 8 Rules for Refinancing * missing
Schedule 3 Works * completely missing parts 1-10 and appendices
Part 1 Design Development Procedure * missing
Part 2 Prohibited Materials * missing
Part 3 Schedule of Key Dates * missing
Part 4 Outline Design Documents * missing
Part 5 The Completion Standards * missing
Part 6 Decant Programme Methodology * missing
Appendix 1 Decant Programme: Park High * missing
Appendix 2 Decant: Further Obligations * missing
Part 7 Handback Requirements * missing
Part 8 Project Programme * missing
Part 9 Construction Site Rules * missing
Part 10 Handback Survey * missing
Schedule 4 between Wirral Borough Council and Wirral School Services Limited is to do with Payments and is split into:
Cover pages (2)
Part 1 Definitions (11 pages, definitions from “Agreed Market Testing Proposal” to “Zone Drawings)
Part 2 Services Contract Payment (5 pages)
Part 3 Performance Deduction Look-up Table (1 page)
Part 4 Table of Service Units per School (1 page) GSUs for each school totalling 28,047 GSUs
Part 5 Monitoring (7 pages)
Part 6 Utility Services (5 pages)
Part 7 Third Party Use (4 pages) dealing with issues such as vending machines
Part 7A Catering (6 pages)
Part 8 Value for Money Testing (12 pages)
Appendix 1 Form of Performance and Payment Report (45 pages) These are examples of the payment reports that go to each school either from Jarvis Workspace FM or Wirral Schools Services Limited.
Schedule 5 is the Accommodation Services Output Specifications (82 pages long)
Schedule 6 is the Support Services Output Specifications
Part 1 Building and Asset Management Output Specifications (12 pages)
Part 2 Support Services Requirements and Performance Tables (59 pages)
Part 3 Service Level Agreements (such as control of pests) (141 pages)
Part 4 Service Level Agreements Alteration Procedure (4 pages)
Schedule 7 Reports and Records
Part 1 Reports (3 pages)
Part 2 Records (2 pages)
Schedule 8 Variations
Variation Notice (1 page)
Schedule 9 Insurance (2 pages)
Part 1 The Part 1 Insurance Period (10 pages) deals with construction all risks, business interruption insurance & public liability insurance
Part 2 The Part 2 Insurance Period (8 pages) deals with property all risks insurance, business interruption insurance & public liability insurance
Appendix 1 Endorsements (4 pages)
Appendix 2 Broker’s Letter of Undertaking (4 pages)
Appendix 3 Business Interruption Insurance – the Authority’s Obligations as Insurer (4 pages)
Appendix 4 Schedule of Insured Parties (2 pages)
Schedule 10 Liaison Committee (4 pages)
Schedule 11 Compensation on Termination
Part 1 Definitions (6 pages)
Part 2 Project Co Default (6 pages)
Part 3 Authority Default (2 pages)
Part 4 Notice by the Authority (8 pages)
Part 5 Fore Majeure, Uninsurability and Planning Challenge (1 page)
Part 6 Corrupt Gifts (1 page)
Schedule 12 Dispute Resolution Wirral Borough Council & Wirral School Services Limited
Cover pages (2 pages)
Dispute Resolution (9 pages)
Schedule 17 Quality Systems
Part 1 Design and Build Period Quality System (24 pages)
Part 2 Operational Period Quality System
Appendix 1 A Quality Policy (1 page)
Appendix 2 B Certificate of Approval (2 pages)
Appendix 3 C Proposed QA Implementation Plan (1 page)
Appendix 4 D Contact Directory (1 page)
Appendix 5 E Local Procedures (1 page)
Schedule 18 Employees
Part 1 Employee Information (6 pages)
Part 2 Terms and Conditions of Employment (1 page)
Schedule 19 Admission Agreements and Bonds
Part 1 Jarvis Workspace FM Limited (Wirral Borough Council and Jarvis Workspace FM Limited and Wirral Schools Services Limited) Merseyside Pension Fund Admission Agreement with Transferee Admission Body (15 pages)
Part 2 Compass Group PLC
(Wirral Borough Council and Compass Group PLC and ??? ) MPF Admission Agreement with Transferee Admission Body (12 pages)
(Wirral Borough Council and Compass Group PLC and ???) Agreement for a bond and indemnity in respect of sums due under an admission agreement arising from the premature termination of a best value arrangement (8 pages)
Part 3 MTL Commercial Limited (22 pages)
Part 3 is an admission agreement to the Merseyside Pension Fund between Wirral Borough Council, MTL Commercial Limited and Merseyside Pension Fund from 2001. This also relates to an unfilled in guarantor (which I will have to assume is Compass Group PLC), MTL Commercial Limited and Wirral Borough Council as well as a bond and indemnity. This admission agreement also relates to Jarvis Workspace FM Limited. This is one of the schedules which includes pages and pages and pages of staff surnames (organised alphabetically by staff surname), initials for staff names, NI (National Insurance) numbers, post titles, pension and birth dates et cetera. However on the copy I was supplied with much has been left incomplete such as the date the agreement was agreed in 2001, the office address of MTL Commercial Limited and much other detail is missing too such as director and secretary signatures.
The end of schedule 19 is an agreement between Wirral Borough Council and MTL Commercial Ltd and ???? which is titled “Agreement for a bond and indemnity in respect of sums due under an admission agreement arising from the premature termination of a best value arrangement”. This too is incomplete and unsigned.
Schedule 20 is a one page staff security protocol which details the information staff have to provide on any criminal matters and also references they have to provide before getting a job. There is also information detailed here that they have to provide to their employer during their employment if things change.
Schedule 21 is “operational site rules” – 19 pages long
Schedule 22 is a “draft transitional services agreement” which is an agreement for the supply of transitional services between Wirral Borough Council and Jarvis Workspace FM Limited which is 145 pages long
Schedule 23 is about the City Learning Centre (8 pages long)
Schedule 24 is the “non moveable equipment schedule of rates” (5 pages)
***
As the contract is so long, has been supplied incomplete and falls within the category that Wirral Council should be publishing within a matter of weeks, I won’t be scanning in the whole contract and publishing it! If there are any sections you would like me to publish though (that aren’t in the missing sections) please leave a comment or send me an email.
Just to make it clear the amount paid under the PFI contract isn’t going up by £2.5 million a year as it’s pegged to increases based on RPI.
The ratio between December 2013 RPI and December 2012 RPI was an increase of 2.674%.
There is then an “efficiency factor” of 10% built into the contract.
So, 90% * 2.674% = 2.4066%
So the yearly increase this year in PFI costs is in the region of ~£289,000 . Next year’s increase will be known when the RPI data for December 2014 is published.
So why ask is the Wirral Schools Forum being asked to make £2.3 million of cuts in year (2014-15), in addition to the £600,000 of cuts earlier this year for the Schools PFI contract then and what is this actually going to fund instead?
Well last year there was a 0% rise in the Council Tax (after a budget was prepared a few months before showing a 2% rise). Yes a freeze on Council Tax means Wirral Council got a grant which equates to a 1% rise. I presume for the financial year 2015/16 based on statements previously made by Cllr Phil Davies that senior officers at Wirral Council are also planning for a 0% rise for 2015/16 (although we’ll all find that out for sure over the next few months at a Council meeting as plans are sometimes subject to change).
It’s also interesting to note that Cllr Phil Davies (who is the Cabinet Member for Finance/Leader of the Council) four year term of office comes to an end in May 2014 so this is an “election year” for him (presuming he wishes to stand again which by all the recent press articles about Cllr Phil Davies related to Birkenhead & Tranmere means it is likely that Labour have picked him as the candidate for this area already). What better way for Cllr Phil Davies to get himself elected by telling the voters of Birkenhead and Tranmere that he has frozen their Council Tax (helpfully leaving out in leaflets to the voters in Birkenhead and Tranmere the inconvenient facts that this will come at the expense of cuts made this year (pending Wirral Schools Forum approval) to the money spent on pupils with a disability, statements, support for Special Educational Needs, maintenance of school buildings, axing funding for the School Sports Coordinator & use of swimming baths (although this two last items may be funded in future by schools directly themselves through the traded services) and other in year cuts to the Schools Budget)? Oh and also another inconvenient truth that thanks to cuts made by his Cabinet to Council Tax support many in Birkenhead & Tranmere are now having to pay 22% of their Council Tax bill whereas previously they had to pay nothing as 100% of their bill was covered by Council Tax Benefit?
After all, if Cllr Phil Davies is challenged between now and the elections in May about why he is making all these cuts by presumably the Conservatives, Lib Dems or Green Party, he based on past experience of his answers to this very question will probably blame the need to make any cuts to Wirral Council’s budget on the Coalition (Tory and Lib Dem) government, which of course absolves himself of any responsibility for these “difficult decisions”. This is of course is conveniently leaving out the fact that:
a) Wirral Council decides itself whether it wants to freeze Council Tax, rise it or decrease it each year. There is a majority Labour administration in charge of Wirral Council since 2012 so they make these decisions on the budget, Labour decided the 2013/14 budget, the 2014/15 budget and will decide the 2015/16 budget. If Labour want a Council Tax rise over x%* (a figure set by the government each year which was set last year at 2%) they have to win a referendum of the people and
b) that these are all locally made decisions over how the money is spent and that he’s the Cabinet Member for Finance (therefore he is the politician with democratic accountability to the public (and other politicians) for tax and spending decisions).
Of course there are some that would also say that these plans have come from senior officers at Wirral Council, not the Cabinet Member himself and will ask well is it a case of the officer tail wagging the Labour dog instead of the other way round? However senior officers at Wirral Council and politicians do surprise, surprise work together! These large in year changes to the agreed budget do also show as Cllr Stuart Kelly (Lib Dem audit spokesperson) quite recently pointed out at a recent public meeting that in his opinion this year’s (14/15) budget isn’t stable if changes are being made in year!
In fact at this point a £3 million overspend is predicted by the end of the year! I’m also curious as to why the date of the next Council meeting has been shifted from the 13th October 2014 to 20th October 2014. I’m sure it can’t be just because I tabled a question and they need an extra week to answer! If anyone knows the answer to that mystery please leave a comment?
Here’s an interesting question that stems from all this though. Despite the flim flam and contradictory statements over Lyndale School, is the price of Cllr Phil Davies getting reelected in May 2015 in Birkenhead & Tranmere the closure of Lyndale School (in Eastham) or is he just “rubber stamping” plans of senior officers?
After all the closure of Lyndale School currently pencilled in for January 2016 (if agreed by Cabinet later this year) won’t actually happen until after the May 2015 elections have taken place.
Can the many Labour councillors on Wirral Council seriously sleep at night knowing all this or are some behind closed doors expressing their disquiet about how this has played out in private meetings (especially the ones facing the electorate in May 2015)? Are Labour councillors worried that being directly involved in a decision about Lyndale (whether Cabinet or call in) will either affect their ability to be reselected by their fellow party members or indeed their future election prospects when they face the public at election time? Does this also explain why so many Labour deputies were sent to the Coordinating Committee meeting about Lyndale School last week? It’s all very mysterious isn’t it as one can only guess at what happens behind closed doors!?
I know the Cabinet decision to consult on axing Children’s Centres (currently on hold due to Conservative councillors calling it in) isn’t going down well with some Labour Party members (to put it mildly). That decision (made in the last few weeks by Cabinet) “called in” by Conservative councillors (Councillor Paul Hayes seems to be fast becoming the “call in councillor” and is going to be reviewed at a special meeting of the Coordinating Committee on the 15th October 2014 starting at 5.00pm (you can read the papers for that decision here).
Will Labour councillors decide that enough is enough when it comes to children’s centres, or will they agree with the Labour Cabinet and agree to start a consultation on closing them?
We’ll just have to wait and see! Please leave a comment on the above as I am interested to read your views!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Isn’t it time Wirral Council got their sums right on Lyndale School?
Isn’t it time Wirral Council got their sums right on Lyndale School?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
I’ve rewritten this blog post a few times as it is connected to tonight’s Coordinating Committee meeting about Lyndale School and the earlier Cabinet decision on the 4th September 2014.
The funding formula the government will use for allocating schools funding in 2015-16 hasn’t been decided yet and is now out to consultation.
It seems Wirral Council officers have for nearly a year been predicting what form the regulations will take. If changes are made to the regulations as a result of the current consultation it is also possible that this will change how much funding Wirral Council will receive in 2015-16 for Lyndale School.
Certainly it seems entirely premature at this stage to go through a consultation on closure when there is uncertainty at this point as to the funding regime.
However, where does this leave Lyndale School? Looking through the proposed regulations for school funding in 2015-16 a few things did occur to me.
There is a set amount, a lump sum that each primary school receives irrespective of its size of places or pupil numbers. This six-figure sum will be lost to Wirral Council if Lyndale School closes and would ultimately result in less money being spent on children.
One of Wirral Council’s arguments for closing Lyndale School, is that the £33,470 Lyndale would receive in inclusion funding in 2015-16 would be shared between the other ten special schools who would each receive an extra £3,347 each.
Actually that’s wrong. This is because £33,470 is a full year allocation and if Lyndale was closed, it would be done part way through the year (January 2016 is about three-quarters through the 2015-16 financial year). So Lyndale School would get about £25,102 for inclusion funding in that year, which would leave £8,368. This would then be shared between the ten special schools (if Lyndale closed) who would each receive a further £836.80 each, not £3,347.
This was an error in the Cabinet report to its meeting of 4th September 2014, repeated in Surjit Tour’s letter of 30th September 2014 and repeated in the papers for tonight’s meeting. The effect of which is to exaggerate the financial case for closing Lyndale School. To my recollection the error wasn’t highlighted during the Cabinet meeting on the 4th September 2014. However I’m sure there are possibly many other errors in Wirral Council’s education department’s arithmetic, with regards to Lyndale School funding, which I haven’t spotted yet (who in a twist of irony actually also have a duty to teach children mathematics).
I wonder if anyone will mention it tonight or has scrutiny died a horrible death at Wirral Council?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
1) How many pupils go to the school and how many teachers and other staff are there at present?
Wirral Council state that there are now 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale School (as of yesterday 30th September 2014). However it is noted that a number of these will reach secondary school age next year and will not be directly affected by the proposed closure in January 2016.
According to the Lyndale School website there are 19 teaching assistants and 3 teachers at the school. However this information might be out of date. It is possible there are other staff too that are not listed on its website. However only The Lyndale School could answer the actual current number about how many teachers and other staff are now employed on this particular day as this number fluctuates. My own guess is that the total number of staff is somewhere between twenty-two and thirty-five (I am assuming you are referring in your question to paid staff and not volunteers).
2) How many different schools are likely to be used for the transfer of the children if the school is closed and would the attention they receive now be diminished in another environment?
Stanley School and Elleray Park have already been named as alternative schools so at least two, however some parents have said they will not send their children to either of those schools if Lyndale School closes. So the number of different schools if it was closed that the children at Lyndale School would go to is likely to be a number between three and six. In theory it could be as high as twelve, but that’s highly unlikely.
In answer to the second part of your question, if the school was closed and the pupils were transferred to either Elleray Park or Stanley School, then Wirral Council plans to spend less money on a per pupil basis than Lyndale currently receives. Currently Lyndale School receives on average ~£33,000 per pupil, this would drop to between ~£17,000 per a pupil to ~£26,000 per a pupil depending on which one of five new bands that particular former Lyndale School pupil is assessed in based partly on their EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan).
However if Lyndale School shut and the former Lyndale pupil/s was transferred to an independent special school, the amount received per a pupil would be uncapped. If the former Lyndale School pupil went to a special school outside of Wirral (bear in mind Lyndale School is in Eastham very close to the edge of Wirral so it is a possibility parent/s would choose placements outside of Wirral) the amount would also be uncapped based on the current policy.
This is because Wirral Council’s current policy is to not have a cap on funding for independent special or out of borough special placements, but they intend to introduce a cap for special pupils in schools on the Wirral Borough from next year assuming they get agreement to this from the various decision-making bodies.
This reduction in funding will probably lead both to less staff time available per a child and/or a reduction in other costs that the school has. That is the view of the parents, some councillors, staff and other people replying to the consultation. However Wirral Council takes a different view on this point.
I do not think it is realistic to state that education would remain the same as they receive at Lyndale School although Wirral Council would disagree with me on that point.
3) Would all children find places nearer or further away from home as at present and would transport be provided for them to go and come back from school each day?
The first part of that answer is impossible to answer until a final decision over closure is made and a parental choice is made about alternative schools. However I remember one parent stating that they moved house so that they could be nearer to Lyndale School, therefore in some cases the places would be further away from their home.
SEN Transport can be provided for pupils to go and come back from school, however some parents choose to take their children to school themselves. If your question is would SEN Transport be provided at the new schools as a choice, then the answer if yes if it was requested. However SEN Transport is not compulsory and results in a cost to Wirral Council.
4) What would happen to the present teachers and other staff if the school was closed?
They would lose their jobs, that is to say they would be made redundant as the school had closed. It would then be down to the individual members of staff to apply for jobs elsewhere if they so wished to do so at that stage.
It is to be noted that Wirral Council made an error in the consultation document in relation to what would happen to the staff if the Lyndale School closed.
Despite how the unimplemented Cabinet resolution of 4th September 2014 is phrased, no jobs are guaranteed. Any decision over employing former Lyndale staff elsewhere would be up to that school’s governing body, the usual legal processes such as filling out application forms, criminal record background checks, interviews etc and the former Lyndale staff would be in a competitive process with other applicants for any new jobs created at other schools.
Due to the funding reduction, even if all the former Lyndale School staff applied for jobs at the places where the former Lyndale School pupils had been moved to, the funding reductions would mean that there would be a reduction in posts compared to current staffing levels at Lyndale School.
5) Would the real saving come from the sale of the Lyndale premises and site?
(a) it was declared surplus to requirements (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)
(b) a buyer was found
(c) there are other decisions that would have to be made by bodies outside Wirral Council in relation to the land and buildings before a sale could proceed as it is a school. It is unknown whether such bodies would agree to it or not. For example multiple approvals would be needed from the government in relation to the land and buildings before any changes such as a sale or change of use were made.
(d) in order to change its use planning permission would be required (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)
It is to be noted at this stage that the Land Registry entry for Lyndale School refers to a conveyance agreement (if memory serves correct 1952) between Cheshire County Council, a limited company and an individual. I note that prior to the creation of Wirral Council in 1974, this piece of land was in the Cheshire County Council area. Although Cheshire County Council was abolished in 2009, in 2009 its functions were transferred to Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East.
I do not currently have access to a copy of this document, which is lodged with Land Registry, Birkenhead. Due to public service cutbacks I have to wait for an appointment with Land Registry in order to view and request a copy of it although either Chester West and Chester or Cheshire East should have a copy when the Cheshire County Council records were transferred.
I have given as full an answer as I can to the above questions, considering that some of the detail is either not known to me, would take too long to collate or would result in me having to make enquiries of others.
There will be a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee on 2nd October 2014 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall to discuss the recent Cabinet decision and decide what to do next.
At the moment implementation of the decision has been put on hold pending the outcome of that meeting.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
What did Wirral Council’s response to my letter about the Lyndale School Cabinet decision on 4th September say?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
I have received a full response to my letter of the 8th September 2014 to Wirral Council about the Cabinet decision on the 4th September 2014 about the decisions on Lyndale School. This letter was received after the 24th September 2014 deadline in the letter of the 8th September 2014, although an earlier letter was also received stating that this letter would happen by the 1st October 2014. I have yet to consider my response to Wirral Council’s letter of the 30th September 2014 which is below.
The letter of 30th September 2014 is included below as is, there are some missing full stops and unnecessary apostrophes which have been printed as they were in the original letter.
For information I include it below. I am considering my options as to what to do next. The protocol states that an “application for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”.
That’s 3 months from 4th September 2014 so a maximum time limit of 4th December 2014. However it would be inadvisable to wait that long as permission would be denied for not being done “promptly”!
Personally I feel that we’re getting soon to the date when “promptly” would be an issue (although maybe that explains Wirral Council’s tactics). The call in has put implementation of the decision on hold until at least the 2nd October 2014.
For the ease of converting to HTML some minor formatting has been lost as to how it was laid out in order to get this published promptly. A line of equals signs represents the end of an A4 page.
(Wirral Council logo)
Department of Transformation & Resources
Joe Blott Strategic Director of Transformation &
Resources
Town Hall, Brighton Street
Wallasey, Wirral
Merseyside, CH44 8ED
DX 708630 Seacombe
Website: www.wirral.gov.uk
date 30 September 2014
By Email and Post
to Mr John Brace
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
your ref
my ref
service Legal and Member Services
tel 0151 691 8569 Please ask for Surjit Tour
fax 0151 691 8482
email surjittour@wirral.gov.uk
Response to Pre-Action Protocol letter
Dear Mr Brace
I write further to your letter before claim dated 8 September 2014. For the avoidance of doubt, this letter constitutes Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) formal response in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
1. The Claimant
The proposed Claimant is Mr Brace; who is unrepresented.
2. The Proposed Defendant
The proposed Defendant is Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
3. Reference details
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: Surjit Tour, Department of Transformation and Resources, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED
The Council’s in-principle decision of 4 September 2014 to publish statutory notices in respect of the closure of Lyndale School (“Lyndale”) from January 2016.
5. Response to the Proposed Claim
The Council denies Mr Brace’s claim for the reasons detailed below.
7. Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
Please address any further correspondence in this matter to Surjit Tour.
8. Background
8.1 Lyndale School is a special school providing specialist educational provision for primary aged pupils, the majority of whom have Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”). There are 21 pupils currently on the roll, nine of whom will be transitioning to secondary school by the end of the 2015/16 academic year. The declining number of students admitted to Lyndale over recent years has drawn into question The Lyndale’s financial viability for the future.
8.2 In 2013 the Department for Education (“DfE”) radically reformed the way in which funding for High Needs pupils is provided. Previously, funding was based significantly on the number of places available at a school rather than the number of pupils actually attending. The new system places a far greater emphasis on the number of pupils attending and their specific needs. Lyndale has set a balanced budget for 2014/15 for 40 places and 23 pupils. Applying the new intended future DfE funding arrangements, Lyndale may only be funded for 23 places, a reduction of £170,000. This shortfall would only increase as the number of pupils reduces. Funding this shortfall would not be possible without a significant reduction in funding for other schools in the area.
8.3 In addition, there are two other primary schools, namely Stanley and Elleray Park which are rated as providing good and outstanding education to students with complex learning difficulties, some of whom will have PMLD.
8.4 The Report presented to Cabinet details why the option to expand Elleray Park and Stanley Schools was the most viable option and therefore we do not propose to go into any further detail here.
8.5 The report to cabinet on the 4th September 2014 contains information on the background history of CLD/PMLD provision. The report also details the responses to the consultation and the independent consultant’s report. A link is provided for your information:
8.6.1 (1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
8.6.2 (2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
8.6.2.1 Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
8.6.2.2 That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually with
children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
(a) – Elleray Park Special School
(b) – Stanley Special School
(c) – Another appropriate school
8.6.3 In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
8.6.4 The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
8.6.5 A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
8.6.6 The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
8.7 I respond to each of your proposed grounds of challenge as below.
9. Cabinet meeting notice requirements
9.1 You state in your letter that the Council has not complied with Regulations 8-9 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 set out below as the document specified in Regulation 9 was not published.
9.2 Regulation 8
9.2.1 (1) In these Regulations a “key decision” means an executive decision, which is likely–
9.2.2 (a) to result in the relevant local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the relevant local authority’s budget for the service or function to which to which the decision relates; or
9.2.3 (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area of the relevant local authority.
9.2.4 (2) In determining the meaning of “significant” for the purposes of paragraph (1) the local authority must have regards to any guidance for the time issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 9Q of the 2000 Act (guidance).
9.3 Regulation 9
9.3.1 (1) Where a decision maker intends to make a key decision, that decision must not be made until a document has been published in accordance with paragraph (2), which states–
9.3.2 (a) that a key decision is to be made on behalf of the relevant local authority;
9.3.3 (b) the matter in respect of which the decision is to be made;
9.3.4 (c) where the decision maker is an individual, that individual’s name, and title if any and, where the decision maker is a decision-making body, its name and a list of its members;
9.3.5 (d) the date on which, or the period within which, the decision is to be made;
9.3.6 (e) a list of the documents submitted to the decision maker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the key decision is to be made;
9.3.7 (f) the address from which, subject to any prohibition or restriction on their disclosure, copies of, or extracts from, any document listed is available;
9.3.8 (g) that other documents relevant to those matters may be submitted to the decision maker; and
9.3.9 (h) the procedure for requesting details of those documents (if any) as they become available.
9.3.10 (2) At least 28 clear days before a key decision is made, the document referred to in paragraph (1) must be available for inspection by the public–
9.3.11 (a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
9.3.12 (b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.
9.3.13 (3) Where, in relation to any matter–
9.3.14 (a) the public may be excluded under regulation 4(2) from the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed; or
9.3.15 (b) documents relating to the decision need not, because of regulation 20(3), be disclosed to the public,
9.3.15 the document referred to in paragraph (1) must contain particulars of the matter but may not contain any confidential, exempt information or particulars of the advice of a political adviser or assistant.
9.4 It is accepted that the “in-principle” decision is a “key decision” under Regulation 8 and therefore the Council must comply with Regulation 9.
However the Council has fully complied with Regulation 9 by publishing the Forward Plan for the period of August 2014 to November 2014.
9.5 The Forward Pan specifically identifies the “Outcome of Lyndale School Consultation” as a key decision and therefore complies with Regulation 9(1)(a) and (b).
9.6 Further, in compliance with Regulation 9(c), page two of the Forward Plan lists the names of the Cabinet members who would be making the decision. It also identifies that the decision is expected to be taken in September 2014 in compliance with Regulation 9(d).
9.7 In relation to Regulation 9(e)-(g), therefore were no reports available at the time the Forward Plan was published, however they were made available in advance of the Cabinet meeting.
9.8 For these reasons, the Council considers your point here to be without foundation.
10. Cabinet decision take by the wrong people
10.1 Your letter states that regulations require a member from the Church of England and Roman Catholic diocese to be appointed to the Council’s Families and Wellbeing Policy Committee and Coordinating Committee (“the Committees”). These committees review, amongst other things, the Cabinet’s decisions on education matters. As such they are “education overview and scrutiny committees” as defined in Regulation 13(1) Local Authorities (Committee System)(England)(Regulations) 2012 and must therefore comply with the requirements in the Regulations.
10.2 Specifically, Regulation 13(2) states that the “committees must have at least one qualifying person” which is defined in Regulation 13(3) as “the person nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for any Church of England diocese.” Regulation 13(4) and (5) has the same provision in relation to Roman Catholic diocese. This is accepted by the Council.
10.3 However, you further state that as a Church of England diocese member was not appointed to the Committees, a member should have been appointed to the Cabinet. This is not required by any of the Regulations quoted in your letter, nor any other statutory provisions.
10.4 You claim that a Church of England diocese member was neither appointed to the Committees nor the Cabinet when the “in-principle” decision was made on 4 September 2014 that such decision is in someway invalid or defective. We set out below why the Council considers this is completely unfounded.
10.5 Firstly, Table 1, Point 18 of the Council’s Constitution states that the Executive has the authority “to consider and determine statutory proposals relating to the establishment and discontinuance of schools.” As you are no doubt aware, the Executive is comprised of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet. Secondly, as referred to above, Diocese members are only required to be appointed to the Committees whose function is to review decision relating to decision. Furthermore, the role of the Committees is to scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet and, if necessary, recommend that Cabinet reconsider the decision. The Committees have no authority to nullify the decision of the Cabinet.
10.6 The Cabinet was not required by any regulation or statutory provision to appoint a diocese member and had absolute authority to take the decision in this matter. Any claim to the contrary in entirely without foundation.
10.7 However, as stated, the Council is aware that it is required to have a Church of England diocese member on the Committees. To this end, we have contacted the diocese on numerous occasions in order to receive an appropriate nomination from them. As yet, a nomination has not been received despite the Council’s best efforts. This is due to no fault of the Council and as stated above, this anomaly does not invalidate the decision taken by the Cabinet on 4 September 2014.
11. Human Rights
The Council is fully aware of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and ensures that all decisions it makes are fully compliant with these.
The Council refutes any suggestion that there has been a breach of the human rights of any children by the decision under challenge, for the reasons set out below.
11.1 Protocol 1 (Article 2) – Right to education
11.1.1 The assertion that the Council is denying the children of Lyndale the right to an education is entirely without merit. Article 2 of Protocol of the ECHR does not provide a pupil of an educational institution with the right to receive an education or be taught at a specific institution. It merely provides that a pupil must have access to the education system. No child currently at Lyndale is being, or will be, denied access to an education.
11.1.2 In addition, case law has established that local authorities have the discretion to allocate resources how they deem fit when arranging education provision, provided that a pupil is not denied access to the education system, which has not happened in this case.
11.1.3 No final decision has been made in relation to whether to close Lyndale or not. No child will be denied the right to continue their education and so will not be denied access to the system Therefore, there is no legal basis for this alleged ground of challenge.
11.2 Article 2 – right to life
11.2.1 To establish that this Article is engaged, you would have to demonstrate that either; a) the Council were deliberately trying to end the lives of the pupils; or b) we ought to be aware that there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of the pupils were they to be moved to alternative educational provision.
11.2.2 No decision has yet been made in relation to any specific pupil transferring to an alternative educational provider. Therefore this ground of challenge is entirely baseless.
11.2.3 Any suggestion that the Council are deliberately trying to end the lives of the children is simply untenable and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a real and immediate risk to their lives given that no decision has been made to transfer any child to an
alternative educational provider. This ground of challenge is therefore completely unfounded.
11.3 Article 3 – prohibition of torture
11.3.1 The Council denies that the children of Lyndale would be subject to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.
11.3.2 Torture is defined as “deliberate inhumane treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.” It is refuted that the children of Lyndale would be subjected to any suffering, let alone serious or cruel suffering or otherwise.
11.3.3 Inhumane treatment is defined as treatment “causing intense physical and mental suffering.” There is no evidence to suggest that any children will be subjected to physical or mental suffering.
11.3.4 Degrading treatment is “treatment or punishment” which “humiliates and debases” the victim. The Council’s in-principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice cannot in any way be described as a decision designed to humiliate or debase the children of Lyndale.
11.3.5 You have provided no evidence to substantiate this claim and is it entirely without merit.
11.4 Article 11 – freedom of assembly
11.4.1 Your reference to this Article is unclear and the Council considers that the Article is not engaged in this matter in any event.
11.5 Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination
11.5.1 This Article is only engaged if a breach of another Article is proven. Given the difficulties, set out above, that you would have to sustain an argument that any of the above Articles have been breached, the Council denies that Article 14 is relevant.
11.5.2 You suggest in your Letter before Claim that the political views of the parents were discounted and that this, in some way, led to Article 14 being engaged. This is denied given the points raised above however we wish to point out that the views expressed by the parents during the consultation process were taken into account in this matter as demonstrated by the summary of the responses considered by Cabinet (which is publicly available online). The Council refutes the suggestion that differing political views affected the decision and denies that any individual or group has been discriminated in any way by its “in-principle” decision.
11.5.3 Further, your reference to children being born disabled is unclear.
12. Equality Act 2010 (“Equality Act”)
12.1 Section 13
12.1.1 You have provided no evidence to sustain an allegation that less money would be spent on the education of the Lyndale children if Lyndale were to close, therefore the Council considered this allegation unfounded.
12.1.2 As mentioned in the Cabinet Report, the net result of a potential closure of Lyndale would be a £33,470 budget surplus. If the Council made a final decision to close Lyndale after completing all of the 5 stages of the statutory processes this could be shared across all remaining schools who would stand to gain £3,347 additional funding each.
12.1.3 The Council does not hold any information relating to the protected characteristics of any staff members of Lyndale. If you require this information we suggest you make further contact with the School direct.
This information is not held by the Council but the governing body of the school
12.2 Section 15
12.2.1 The aim of this process is to secure the highest standard of education possible for the children of Lyndale. In order to secure this, the Council has a duty to ensure that the provision of the education is affordable in the long-term. Your assertion that this is not a legitimate aim for the purpose of the Act is without foundation.
12.2.2 The Council has consulted extensively with interested parties, including staff, parents, Governors and the general public with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale and will continue to invite representations from such parties during the representation stage of the Statutory process. Having considered these views and the report which considered the SEN Improvement Test which was applied to a range of different options it has been decided, in principle, that the closure of Lyndale is the most proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim set out in the 4th September cabinet report.
12.3 Section 19
12.3.1 This argument is legally flawed as, pursuant to s.19(1) Equality Act, the parents would have to possess a relevant protected characteristic. You have provided no evidence of this.
12.4 Section 26
12.4.1 The allegation that the Council has in any way violated the dignity of the persons affected by its decision, whether the children or otherwise, is entirely misconceived and without foundation and is not supported by any evidence.
12.4.2 Further, there is no evidence that any current or previous members of staff at the school have been intimidated by any members of the Council.
12.5 Section 27
12.5.1 For this section to be engaged, the Council would have had to have subjected the parents to a detriment directly because they have threatened legal proceedings. As far as the Council is aware, no legal proceedings have been issued.
12.5.2 You have provided no evidence of this and therefore your claim is unfounded. In any event, the Council denies that any parents have been subject to a detriment.
12.6 Sections 85 and 86
12.6.1 Your claim in relation to these sections are also without foundation as you have provided no evidence to suggest that any children will be subject to a detriment as a result of this decision.
12.6.2 Furthermore, the Council has consulted a wide range of interested parties on a number of different options to ensure that all consultees were aware of the different proposals that the Council wished to consider prior to making an appropriate “in-principle” decision that would lead to the children continue to receive the highest standard of education.
12.6.3 In addition, the decision to commence the statutory process to publish a closure notice to close the school from 2016 is not determinative that the school will be closed or that the children will be moved to another school which is specifically designed to provide education to pupils with special educational needs and other disabilities. On that basis, the children will suffer no detriment as a result.
12.6.4 Further, the allegation that children are being penalised for their parents’ opposition to the proposals, or for any other reason, is entirely without foundation. This is simply incorrect and there is no evidence to support such a spurious allegation.
12.7 Section 112
12.7.1 The Council strenuously denies any breach of the Equality Act, therefore your point in relation to this section has no legal foundation.
12.8 Section 149
12.8.1 For the reasons set out at paragraph 14 below, the Council has clearly discharged its public sector equality duty under the provision of the Act.
12.9 Section 158
12.9.1 The Council accepts that the pupils at Lyndale have educational needs that are different from the needs of pupils in mainstream education. However, you state in your letter that pupils with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”) form a small minority of the school population. This is not the case, there are 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale, 18 of which are diagnosed as having PMLD.
12.9.2 In dealing with your point, we reiterate that the level of education provided to the children will not be affected by the proposals.
===================================================================================================================
13. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“DDA 1995”) and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005
13.1 I do not propose to respond in detail to the provisions referred to in the above Acts given that both were repealed by Schedule 27(1) Paragraph 1 of the Equality Act.
13.2 As a gesture of goodwill, I have listed below the points you have raised in relation to these Acts that are covered by the new Equality Act.
13.2.1 Sections 21B, 28B, 28C and 28F DDA 1995 are now covered by s.13 Equality Act.
13.2.2 Sections 21D and 49A DDA 1995 are now covered by s.149 EA 2010.
13.3 I have responded to the points raised under the new provisions above.
14. Equality Impact Assessment (“EIA”)
14.1 As mentioned above, the Council is fully aware of its public sector equality duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons with a protected characteristic and those without.
14.2 In order to comply with this, the Council commissioned an EIAs which commenced on the 6th December 2013 and further reviewed on the 6th August 2014. The purpose of the EIA was to ensure that the Cabinet was fully aware of any equality implications when considering a proposal that Lyndale may close before making an in principle decision to public a statutory closure notice.
14.3 The EIA, which is publicly available online, assesses the impact that the proposals could have on pupils; staff at both Lyndale and other schools; and the parents of children affected by the decision. The EIA refers to the potential positive impact that the proposals could have on the children concerned, for example they may be provided access to new and varied opportunities, and steps that can be taken to ensure there are no negative consequences.
14.4 The members of the Cabinet had access to the EIA documents and reviewed both of them prior to making its decision of 4 September 2014. As such, it is clear that the council has had “due regard” to its’ public sector equality duty under the Equality Act.
15. SEN Improvement test
15.1 The Council is fully aware of its obligation to apply the SEN Improvement test to the decision in this matter. To assist compliance with this duty, the Council instructed an independent consultant to assess all the options.
15.2 Specifically in relation to the points you raise, Table 1 and Part 7.7 of the independent consultant’s report referring to the SEN Improvement Test (which is also publicly available) indicate that both alternative schools, Stanley and Elleray Park have at least as good Ofsted judgements. This demonstrates that if in due course it is proposed that Lyndale pupils are placed in either of these schools it will not limit their access but will improve their access to high quality education and services.
15.3 The two alternative schools are special schools with staff that are suitably qualified to teach and support children although no decision has yet been made that a particular child will move to either of these alternative schools. Furthermore, if in due course the Council decides to implement a decision to close Lyndale it will look to support staff at The Lyndale in finding alternative employment. However, no decisions in this regard have been made, so this particular ground of challenge is extremely premature. However, the Council wishes to point out that no pupil’s access to specialist staff will be affected.
15.4 Part 7.7 of the Report also states that the first alternative school, Stanley, has new accommodation specifically designed to cater for children with PMLD. In particular, it has 12 large classrooms, a hydrotherapy pool and sensory facilities. The second alternative school, Elleray Park, is currently being expanded to enhance the specialist facilities that pupils with PMLD require. As such, it is clear that if a decision to close Lyndale is made in due course, pupils at Lyndale will be able to access suitable accommodation facilities at other schools in the area. This may include Elleray Park or Stanley Schools whose capacity has recently been increased.
15.5 On that basis your assertion that there will not be an improved supply of places is unfounded.
15.6 Further, reiterating what has already been mentioned in this letter, both Elleray Park and Stanley schools are special schools and are therefore more than able to receive pupils with PMLD and other complex needs.
15.7 Referring to the point you raise regarding funding, the Report clearly states that this is a viable option. Most other options lead to a budget deficit of between £26,000 and £168,000 which is financially unsustainable and would lead to a significant reduction in the quality of education provided to the pupils at Lyndale, which you will agree, is not a viable option. This proposal indicates there would be a surplus of £33,000.
16. Premature Challenge
16.1 In addition to all of the reasons stated above, the Council regards your threat of Judicial Review as being extremely premature. As is clearly stated in the Cabinet minutes, this is merely an “in-principle” decision to proceed with the statutory process.
16.2 There are still several stages of the statutory process to undergo which includes a stage whereby any person or organisation will be invited to make further representations to the Council in response to the statutory notices. The Cabinet is under a statutory obligation to consider such representations before making a final decision. It is possible, that the Council may decide not to close Lyndale School.
16.3 As these processes have not yet been completed and no final decision on the matter has been made, it is the Council’s view that any suggestion of a way of challenge by way of Judicial Review at this stage is extremely premature and unnecessary.
17. Further information
17.1 At section nine of your letter you outline numerous requests for further information. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
17.1.1 The Council’s Cabinet Report of 4th September 2014, its appendices and the record of the Cabinet decision of 4 September
2014 sets out fully the Council’s reasons for its “in-principle” decision.
17.1.2 The Council does not hold statistical information relating to staff at Lyndale. It is possible that Lyndale may hold such information and it would therefore be appropriate for you to deal with Lyndale direct in relation to this request
17.1.3 You have requested information relating to statistics on any protected characteristics of the Council’s workforce. The Council does hold such information, but cannot see the relevance of this request in light of the proposed grounds of challenge. Any such information is held purely based on information employees have provided about themselves to the Council as their employer and is not relevant to the in principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice.
17.1.4 In relation to your request for statistics on pupils at Lyndale – the Council can confirm that currently 21 pupils are listed on the admission the roll at Lyndale. 18 children have been diagnosed as having PMLD, three have complex learning difficulties, two are of Asian (Indian) origin and the remainder are White British.
17.1.5 The Council believes that the financial information that is publicly available as part of the Cabinet report fully discharges its duty of candour in relation to the request for a three year projection of Lyndale School’s budget.
17.1.6 Any earlier draft of the report detailing the outcome of the consultation are not relevant as officers continued to consider their report in the light of feedback and responses
18. Documents you request
18.1 At Section 10 of your letter you request a number of documents that you consider relevant. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
18.1.1 Please refer to Appendix 6 of the Cabinet report (which is publicly available) which contains a summary of the responses received during the consultation.
18.1.2 The Council’s response to your request for these documents is detailed at Paragraphs 17.1.5 and 17.1.6 above.
18.1.3 Six public meetings which formed part of the Council’s consultation process were held, to which all interested parties including staff and trade unions were invited to attend. Notes of these are published with the Cabinet report at Appendices 5-7.
18.1.4 As part of the Council’s consultation process it met with the Chair of governors of Lyndale and the whole governing body in separate meetings.
18.1.5 There was no report commissioned from a Principal Educational Psychologist.
18.1.6 Details of how the Council think the preferred option meets the SEN Improvement test – this is detailed extensively in the Cabinet Report, its’ appendices and Paragraph 15 above.
19.1 For the reasons set out at paragraphs 9 and 10, the original Cabinet decision of 4 September 2014 was entirely valid and therefore your request that the Council issue an undertaking to postpone proceeding with the statutory process is unreasonable and inappropriate.
19.2 Any further Cabinet meeting that takes places that considers any decision associated with the decision made on the 4 September 2014 will, of course, comply fully with the regulatory and constitutional requirements, which the Council is subject to.
19.3 The Council is committed to openness and transparency about its decision-making and from the nature of the information that is publicly available all interested parties are able to determine the full range of information the Council took into account, including the different options considered, before the decision of 4 September 2014 was made. The Council is satisfied that its decision making process to date has been transparent and open, and does not consider that a further meeting would be beneficial particularly in light of the fact that the early stages of the statutory process have not yet completed and no final decision with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale has been made.
If you are still minded to pursue a claim for Judicial Review, the Council will vigorously oppose any proceedings and seek to recover its costs of defending such proceedings. We consider the threat of such proceedings to be premature, wholly misconceived and entirely without merit for all the reasons set out above.
Yours sincerely,
(signature of Surjut Tour)
Surjit Tour Head of Legal and Member Services and Monitoring Officer
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
