Category: Cllr Steve Foulkes

When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…

When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…

When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…

                        

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.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Vice-Chair): Can I just explain Stuart Whittingham’s not available tonight, so as Vice-Chair of the Committee I will take over that role. There are a number of substitutions, Denise Realey’s here for Stuart, Wendy you’re here for Steve Williams I believe and John Salter is here for Ron Abbey. That makes up the full complement of the committee.

I mean clearly, clearly is this mike too loud because I’m conscious, getting on people’s nerves.

I’m conscious that this is rather an unusual meeting.

Cllr Moira McLaughlin: That’s near enough I suppose.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Vice-Chair): In as much as there has been some issues in and around the constitution of the committee and our legal obligations to do things correctly. It would appear, ok let me do first things first, any apologies for absence I think I’ve covered those. Code of Conduct Declarations of Interest, are Members declare that there’s no whip? Is that very important and declarations of interest that’s agreed and apologies?

So going back backtracking we’ve found ourselves in a situation where I think in the reorganisation of our constitution, for all good intents and purposes, we have tried to streamline the call in procedure by all agreeing during the set up of the constitution, I don’t think it was objected to that the Coordinating Committee would be the call in committee effectively to deal with all the call ins.

However we seemed to have overlooked those issues where there are educational matters that we may be required to have extra representation given the nature of the debate and obviously in and around education policy we would welcome I think expert and independent observers and those people with voting rights.

So if someone had approached the Committee prior to these call ins raising the issue, I think we would have probably said right it would be a good idea for these representatives in attending the committee meeting, so in a roundabout way I think we’re doing people who are here about the call in a better service than we otherwise would have done so.

However the complications of running a Council and constitutions, means we haven’t got the ability to simply co-opt but that’s not clearly the way the constitution was written, it would have to go to full Council. So it will be a full written proposal where I intend to adjourn this meeting and move to the new date which will be well publicised and advertised.

In the in between stage of that we’d be reliant on full Council to be able to move the necessary constitutional amendment where we will be able to take on board the representation, particularly those who are parent governors and the representatives of the two dioceses. There is a resolution so I think it might be fair to all elected Members to distribute that.

First, the other thing I want to say on behalf of the Authority. We’ve never said this Authority won’t make mistakes or won’t get things wrong. I think it’s how we react to them and how we deal with them is the measure of whether the organisation is better or not. I’ve been greatly enthused by the way that scrutiny has run this year, it’s my first time on scrutiny and I think that…

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

Councillors agree to adjourn Lyndale School call in meeting

Councillors agree to adjourn Lyndale School call in meeting

Councillors agree to adjourn Lyndale School call in meeting

  

The following recommendation proposed by Cllr Steve Foulkes and seconded by Cllr Patricia Glasman was agreed unanimously by those on Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee who were Cllr Steve Foulkes (Vice-Chair, Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Jean Stapleton (Labour), Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour), Cllr Denise Realey (Labour), Cllr Patricia Glasman (Labour), Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour), Cllr Bernie Mooney (Labour), Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour), Cllr Leah Fraser (Conservative), Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative), Cllr David Elderton (Conservative), Cllr Wendy Clements (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr Alan Brighouse (Liberal Democrats).

The same councillors will make up the Coordinating Committee meeting to consider the Lyndale School call in on the 27th February (plus the co-optees with voting rights referred to in the recommendation below).

RECOMMENDATION

Council at its Annual Meeting on 20 May 2013, appointed two Parent Governor Representatives and Diocesan Representatives (as statutory co-optees) to Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee. The Committee is responsible for the scrutiny of education matters and the statutory co-optees are entitled to participate and vote pn such matters.

However, the Council’s Constitution provides that the Policy and Performance Co-ordinating Committee be responsible for dealing with all call-ins. As both call-ins in question relate to education matters, it is appropriate that the statutory co-optees referred to above are afforded the opportunity to participate and vote in respect of both call-ins.

Following the Cabinet meeting on 16 January 2014, the following two decisions have been called in and must be considered by the Policy and Performance Co-ordinating Committee.

  • Cabinet Minute No. 129 – Report Seeking Approval to consult on the Closure of the Lyndale School; and
  • Cabinet Minute No. 140 – Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs

Given that both call-ins relate to educational matters, it is not possible to consider either call-in until the Parent Governor and Diocesan Representatives have been co-opted onto this Committee

It is therefore recommended that:
(1) the Committee notes the two call in notices received;

(2) the meeting be adjourned until 6pm on Thursday, 27 February 2014;

(3) it is recommended that the Council extends the Membership of the Policy and Performance Co-ordinating Committee to include:
(a) Two Parent Governor Representatives; and
(b) A representative of each of the appropriate Diocesan Authorities;
With voting rights, for the purpose of dealing with educational matters

(4) in order to meet legal requirements when considering educational matters the Council be recommended to co-opt onto the Policy and Performance Committee:
(a) the following two Parent Governor Representatives, elected to sit on the Council’s scrutiny committees that deal with education (with voting rights, in respect of educational matters only)

  • Mrs H Shoebridge (until 28 October 2015); and
  • Mrs Nicola Smith (until 8 February 2017)

and

(b) the following two Diocesan Authority representatives (with voting right in respect of educational matters only)

  • Damien Cunningham (representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury); and
  • A representative of the Church of England Diocese of Chester (currently a nomination has not yet been made).

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

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

                         

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service's Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral's Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral’s Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral

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.

Dan Stephens, Chief Fire Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service gave a presentation to Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee on his “least worst operational response options”. He explained that due to budget cuts, if they could get the land (and money from government) to build a new fire station in Greasby that this would lead to the closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton.

He described in detail the various options to save money instead of station mergers, which ranged from only crewing stations during the day to just having firefighters on call (which would lead to a further five-minute delay in responding to emergencies and less time for training).

Dan Stephens in his presentation said that on fire station closures “as much as this is a very unpalatable option it may be inevitable especially in light of forecasted cuts until 2020”. During his presentation at each point he mentioned cuts to the fire service’s budget by the government Cllr Harry Smith (who wasn’t on the committee but just there to watch) heckled with a loud one word heckle of “criminal”.

The Chair asked Dan Stephens a question about how response times would be affected if they closed Upton and West Kirby stations and built a new one in Greasby. Dan Stephens said that it was difficult to predict, but there would be a slight increase in average response time to both areas. Some areas would see a faster response time and other areas would see a longer response. He believed the average response time would increase by an extra ten seconds to five minutes twenty-five seconds.

The Chief Fire Officer was then asked by the Chair about the likelihood of getting capital funding for a new fire station at Greasby. Dan Stephens answered that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service would be bidding for the money along with other fire authorities, however the bids would be judged on projected efficiencies.

Cllr Steve Foulkes thanked Dan Stephens for his presentation. Cllr Steve Foulkes asked why the cuts to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service were more than the cuts to other fire authorities and asked what percentage change in the precept would be needed to prevent the need for any cuts.

Dan Stephens said it would take a thirty-seven percent increase in the precept to prevent the need for cuts. He said that for every one percent increase in the precept they would raise an extra 67 pence per a Merseyside household.

On Cllr Foulkes’ other question he said that after World War II, the fire service moved from central government control to the control of local authorities. At this time they set national standards of fire cover. In the 1950s there had been lots of heavy industry on Merseyside for example docks. Call outs to industrial areas required a response of two fire engines within five minutes and one within eight minutes. The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service was therefore designed to combat the risk that existed back in the 1950s. The Merseyside population in the 1950s was 1.7 million, now was only 1.385 million.

In 2004 the old Fire Service Act was repealed and the standards of fire cover went too. Population based funding came in, which made Merseyside very expensive per a head of population. Although Merseyside got extra funding based on deprivation this didn’t totally offset the loss of funding.

Cllr Brian Kenny (not a member of the committee but Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability) thanked Dan Stephens and asked when they would make final decisions on the cuts. Dan Stephens answered that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would set its 2014/15 budget at its budget meeting on the 22nd February 2014. He explained that although the changes to Wirral’s fire stations wouldn’t happen until 2015/16 that they needed to start now on implementation as it would take between eighteen months and two years to build a new fire station. Dan Stephens said that they needed to look into whether they could secure land in Greasby, once this was established they would go to public consultation.

The Chief Fire Officer estimated that they would know within three months whether they would be able to buy the land for a new fire station in Greasby. After public consultation if a decision was made to go ahead, then it would take a year to build a new station. He said that they were working with Wirral Council to try to secure land.

Cllr David Elderton said that if the two fire stations at Upton and West Kirby were merged at Greasby that he was concerned about the effect on response times to call outs to Hoylake. Dan Stephens said that “Greasby is the best operational location” and explained how some of the alternatives to a merger would also impact response times.

Cllr Steve Foulkes asked what the impact of the cuts would be on fire prevention such as fitting free smoke alarms. Dan Stephens said they had cut ninety jobs which included those in advocacy roles. He explained that with agreement with the Fire Brigade Union that they had changed shift patterns. The savings from this offset the total savings they needed to make. He said they would maximise the amount of time they could spend on fire prevention but that there would still be cuts to this area.

The Chair thanked the Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens for answering questions from councillors.

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

Cllr Steve Foulkes “I daren’t pick on the libraries because of my past”

Cllr Steve Foulkes “I daren’t pick on the libraries because of my past”

Cllr Steve Foulkes “I daren’t pick on the libraries because of my past”

                           

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.

Cllr Steve Foulkes had this to say about the Internal Audit update and its appendix presented to the Audit and Risk Management Committee, which starts at 20:20 in the video above.

He said, “Yeah, well I mean this report is good and it’s followed every month by the updated report on work that’s going on and I’m glad this work’s going on, but I think audit and risk can be a pretty dull committee for its old hands but I think what we should always try to do is put what we’re learning and what we’re investigating back into the real world in many ways.

If you look at the report around the libraries, and I’m not going to go into a debate about that, I’ve got too many scars over that. However, however, I need to be reassured that this isn’t an aspect of the service either because of the changes that have to be made or changes that are coming about or just a general poor management that’s taken place because often things like this are not just a symptom of poor regulatory or financial issues but are lack of morale, lack of motivation, lack of care in the service or a feeling perhaps sometimes of you know well ‘we’re untouchable, nothing else will happen’.

We’ve got twenty-four libraries, I think that the decision has been made that those assets are vital assets and the community have made an opinion about them, but at the same time they have to be run extremely efficiently, like every service that we have to justify what they’re doing and we’re asking them to take on more and more.

There’s no reason why the libraries shouldn’t be part of the front line sort of places where people do business and have trust in. So I’m just sort of saying that this has been investigated. If it’s a general malaise or a general lack of management or misunderstanding then certainly you know we are combining one stop shops with libraries, they are coming more along and if we’ve got twenty-four, there again we’d better make sure we get every single pennies worth of value out of them for the future. So I’m, what I would like to do on this is committee is actually use the audit in a broader way to draw attention to what is happening with the rest of the Council.

Likewise in 2.2, the Invigor8 direct debit, one of the ways the Council needs to become more efficient is encourage more people to do things like that with direct debit, the most you know quickest, cheapest form of transaction. So if 100% of the population did everything by direct debit, there would be considerable savings, so when we have a direct debit system that undermines public confidence in the Council and how it delivers those systems it makes alarms bells ring a little bit more in my head and says, ‘Come on, you know we can’t, we’ve got to be so spot on.’

We are actively, I hope actively tempting people to use and address Council services in the cheapest way for us and therefore protect more services that are not available. So I like to look underneath the headlines of you know, we made a mistake there some people I believe got £400 debit as opposed to a £40 debit. How many people will they have told about that? How many people will they say, ‘Don’t do a direct debit with the Council, they get it wrong!’

So my view is that you know these points can’t just be brushed over and say oh well it’s just you know librarians can’t manage money, well they have to if that want to work for the Council. Anybody has to manage money efficiently and our job of the audit is to see those signals and ask some more searching questions about what’s going on underneath.

You know if I just read that one particular site and I’m not saying this now I’m picking on the libraries, I daren’t pick on the libraries because of my past but as I say we’re asking them to become more front line, more proactive if they need to understand anything else. So I’m asking those questions, maybe Mark on my behalf could ask one of the heads of service who might be able to understand what’s going on on the ground.”

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

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

Consultation feedback and questions to Improvement Board (15th November 2013)

                                    

Handed out at last Friday’s Improvement Board meeting were the responses to the consultation received so far, motions passed at the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Coordinating Committee and the questions submitted in advance of the meeting by the members of the public as circulated at the meeting (although some of mine were subtly altered).

I’ve checked the Improvement Board section on Wirral Council’s website at the time of writing, but they haven’t appeared there yet, so here they are instead!

FEEDBACK FROM PARTNERS

Comments on the draft report on behalf of Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.

Wirral Community NHS Trust recognises the significant steps forward taken by the Council over the last two years and agrees with the broad conclusions set out. We also recognise the commitment shown by key personnel, officers and members, and the level of improvement activity which has taken place and which is reflected in the report.

Particular phrases from the concluding pages which resonate with this organisation’s experience working with the Authority over the last year include the reference to a stable, well-led and inclusive organisation, where a change in culture has taken place. We agree that there is a stronger sense of strategic direction, planning and performance management. The grip of the financial position is evident, and there is much greater clarity about the individual roles of senior staff in the new structure, and a strong sense of accessibility.

The Authority is engaging well with key partners and taking a proper leadership role, particularly from our respect, in the health and social care economy.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Council and building this relationship. A key challenge for all public sector partners over the coming years will be our ability to work together to manage the impact of the financial constraints under which we all work, and to ensure that actions taken by individual partners to not impact adversely on the challenges faced by other agencies.

Simon Gilby
Chief Executive
Wirral Community NHS Trust

Thank you for a copy of the Wirral Improvement Board Review report.

I think sharing this document with your peers across the Liverpool City Region is an example of the increased transparency and accountability that you, Cllr Davies your Leader, together with Officers and Members are trying to bring to Wirral.

It is clear that Wirral faced a number of significant challenges and it is to your credit that these have been identified, accepted and acted upon in a way that can only be to the benefit of residents in the Wirral.

The priorities identified by the Improvement Board have set out a clear improvement framework for the Council and the actions taken to date are noted. For me, the priority around political and managerial leadership is key – it sets the example for the Council and all it’s staff and members. This leadership is reflected throughout the other priorities and our challenge now is to build on the cultural changes that are beginning to happen at Wirral so that they become the norm for the future.

It is also to its credit that this improvement has been undertaken in a time of significant financial pressure on the Council, as with the other Councils in the Liverpool City Region. Again the development of a longer term budget and financial plan is noted and will clearly help the Council address current and future challenges in respect of financial settlements.

It would appear that the Council has made significant progress in a relatively short period of time and again it is noted that the Improvement Plan recognises it is not the end but clearly there are further steps that need to be taken to build on what has been achieved to date.

On behalf of St. Helens Council, I would like to congratulate the Leader, yourself and the teamwork of the whole Council on getting to where you are now.

Yours sincerely

Carole Hudson
Chief Executive
St. Helen’s Council

Wirral Improvement Board Review

Merseytravel would like to concur with the view expressed in the report which has recently been published that significant progress has been made by Wirral Council in addressing a number of critical issues that had been raised.

Relationships between Merseytravel and Wirral Council are very open and transparent based on trust. We have a joint agreement on the current transport priorities that will best serve the Wirral, in particular looking at enhancing the connectivity between Wirral and North Wales and Cheshire West. This has been done in the spirit of collaboration at a strategic and operational planning level.

We have developed, and will continue to develop an open and trusting relationship with both the political and senior officer leadership at Wirral Council and have worked collaboratively on the development of a Combined Authority scheme which we hope, when fully implemented in 2014 will see a greater level of outward looking, strategic leadership at City Region level with a very progressive set of revised transport arrangements which will have been developed with collaboration by all parties through which Wirral have contributed significantly.

We also recognise the role of the Leader of Wirral has played in the development of securing European funding within the European programme and we hope to continue to maximise this expertise and the new approach to partnership working between all parties but in particular between Merseytravel and Wirral Council.

I trust that this helps.

Yours sincerely,
David Brown
Chief Executive and Director General

Wirral CCG welcomes this report which clearly demonstrates the significant progress the council has made over the last 18 months. We believe the the correct structures, governance and culture is now in place for us to work collaboratively in the future to deliver integrated services for the population of Wirral.

Dr Phil Jennings
Chair
Wirral CCG

“Congrats! Need to keep up the good work!”
Angela Eagle MP

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 14/11/13 WITH THE SUPPORT OF MEMBERS FROM ALL PARTIES

[Ed – Cllr Simon Mountney voted against which isn’t mentioned here]

Moved by Councillors Pat Glasman/Janette Williamson
RESOLVED:
That this Committee welcomes the report of the Improvement Board, which draws attention to the significant progress Wirral has made in the last 20 months.

It recognises that there are still issues which need to be addressed but believes it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur.

We would recommend the sector-led approach to change and development to other authorities who find themselves in difficulty.

We would like to thank the Improvement Board, all staff and Members who have participated in the change process. It now remains for Members to continue to participate in their own development and not become complacent but ensure that change becomes embedded for the future

Moved by Councillors Steve Foulkes/Pat Glasman
RESOLVED:
That the Committee welcomes the response to critical reports in that it puts the Council’s progress in an accessible and available format.

The issues remain complex and what happened was regrettable. We urge that all outstanding matters should be resolved as quickly as possible and that Members be updated periodically.

RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE ON 13/11/2013
RESOLVED:
That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing the direction of travel.

All Members will be encouraged to engage in the next steps identified within the report.

We must not be complacent as we still need to improve in many areas identified in the report and embed positive changes.

We thank all members of the Improvement Board for their help.

We thank all employees and Members for their efforts in this journey of improvement.

We would recommend the approach adopted by the Local Government Association, in piloting sector led improvement, and would recommend it to others who find themselves in difficulties.

QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC

J YATES

Dear Sir/Madam

I raise an objection to the timing of the Public meeting arranged for Friday 15th 2013 as notified in the Wirral Globe.
I have not received the statutory notice of at least 5 working days and feel I would not be able to attend at such short notice.
I therefore submit that this meeting be re-arranged to incorporate the legally-required term of notice.

JOHN BRACE

The final report of Anna Klonowski Associates Limited was published as part of the Cabinet agenda of the 12th January 2012. Wirral Council also received from Anna Klonowski Associates sixteen appendices (listed below), which apart from appendix G (Standards for England Decision notices) have not been published. If Wirral Council is now “open and transparent” when will the other fourteen appendices be published (except for appendix L)?

A Appendices as Referred to in the Report
B Equality & Human Rights Commission Letter Dated 29 December 2010
C First Improvement Plan
D Care Quality Commission Inspection Report
E Charging Policy for Supported Living Services
F Documents Relating to 27 Balls Road
G Standards for England Decision Notices
H Documents Relating to Reimbursement Claims
I Emails Relating to Supported Living Contracts
J Documents Relating to Service Provider 2
K Documents Relating to Service Provider 3
L Medical Information Relating to Martin Morton (MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE)
M Documents Relating to Service Provider 4
N Minutes of Adult Protection Strategy Meetings Relating to Service Provider 4
O Documents Relating to the Safeguarding Adults Unit
P Minutes of the DASS Monitoring & Development Sub Group Meeting Held on 11 December 2008
Q Employment Dates for WMBC Employees

On the 14th April 2011 Cabinet resolved that Martin Smith’s report be made public, however all the names (presumably of Wirral Council officers and councillors) contained within the reported were redacted before publication. Is publishing the redacted (rather than full) report complying with the spirit of the earlier Cabinet decision? Will Wirral Council to publish an unredacted version of the Martin Smith report?

Presumably some of the blacked out names in Martin Smith’s report would be the names of councillors. As councillors are accountable to the people of Wirral, how can the people of Wirral hold their elected representatives to account unless the full Martin Smith report is published including the names of councillors in it?

Does the Improvement Board understand that the Wirral public will find it hard to believe that Wirral Council has changed when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding these events due to the lack of transparency and accountability?

The Standards Committee of Monday 4th July 2011 discussed an administrative error that had occurred in dealing with the standards complaint made by Martin Morton made regarding Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. He had initially made a complaint about Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin and Pat Williams, but had replaced this with a more detailed complaint involving Cllrs Roberts, McLaughlin, Pat Williams and Bridson. This second complaint mysteriously vanished from Wirral Council’s files. A public apology was made at the time by the Monitoring Officer to Martin Morton and the councillors who were the subject of the complaint. Did any Wirral councillors have access to the revised complaint prior to its disappearance from Wirral Council’s files if so who were they?

A separate and unrelated complaint about one of the four councillors referred to in question five (ref SfE 2010/02) was decided on the 20th December 2010. However the covering report sent to the panel which decided was incorrectly titled “Report of the Monitoring Officer – Case Reference 2010/03″ . This report to the panel also omitted that the original complaint referred to an alleged breach of 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. As an apology was given for an administrative error to the complainant referred to in question 5, will an apology for this administrative error be given to the complainants of complaint reference SfE 2010/02 and the subject of the complaint?

In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?

Although Wirral Council is meeting its target of responding to 85% of Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty days during the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period, a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests have been turned down. If memory serves me correctly, this has been achieved by dedicating greater human resources to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. This raises the questions, are these resources temporary and only for the Information Commissioner Office’s monitoring period (and if so how will the current performance be maintained once these resources are withdrawn) and how does refusing a greater proportion of Freedom of Information Act requests tally with the administration’s stated desire to be more “open and transparent”?

The reports into whistleblowing allegations raised about Wirral Council’s BIG (business investment grants) and ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) have both not been published in full despite being received by Wirral Council in the Spring of this year. The Executive Summary to the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme was published by Wirral Council on the 15th July (the companies referred to in the Executive Summary were anonymised). If the Executive Summary to the ISUS report follows the same format as the BIG report and has also been anonymised, why has this not been published also?

If the Improvement Board decides that it is safe to withdraw, do they think that the Corporate Governance Committee should be reconstituted to ensure sufficient oversight by councillors of the work identified in the “Next Steps” section?

Are the LGA members of the Improvement Board financially renumerated for their work on the Improvement Board and if so, could amounts (whether exact or approximate) of the total cost to Wirral Council over the lifespan of the Improvement Board?

GREG VOGIATZIS

Dear Improvement Board,
As a member of the public living on Wirral I have reviewed your report in the limited time it has been available and would like to comment and seek response as follows.

Your recommendations include

(a) The need for an Improvement Board in its current form is no longer the best way forward for Wirral.
(b) Instead the Council will need to drive improvement through the future actions suggested in the Next Steps sections of the report.
(c) There should be a review of Wirral’s progress overall at the end of the year end as suggested in para 85, on page 30 of this report

I struggle to grasp why these recommendations are appropriate given the significant number of “next steps” that the report suggests are required.

The review proposed at c) is to take place within a relatively short timescale at which point, given the scope of the report, it would be unlikely to establish genuine progress or provide confidence that strategies and changes have been effectively implemented.

I believe that continued external oversight by the Improvement Board is necessary to ensure that “next steps” and changes are in fact implemented and embedded.

There are a number of areas of concern that lead me to this belief.

At para 71 of the report reference is made to community representatives having been recruited for Constituency Committees which are a key plank of neighbourhood working.

This is untrue – Birkenhead, the largest constituency is yet to recruit community representatives and from my own enquiries do not appear to have a process to do so.

I am advised that the meeting of Birkenhead Constituency Committee arranged for 28 Nov 2013 is intended to address this although no agenda has yet been produced.

This does not inspire confidence that your report is accurate in this area and leaves other areas open to doubt.

At para 99. reference is made that the direction of travel is towards amber. This implies the situation is still RED and undermines your position that external oversight/scrutiny is no longer necessary.

At para 107 reference is made to FOI requests and the 85% target being achieved. This is measured over a very narrow timescale and makes no reference to any challenges to response that may have been received.

Give Wirral’s poor performance in this area surely continued oversight is required to ensure this is consistent and representative of anticipated future performance.

I have concerns that the Neighbourhood working structures are flawed and as these are key to delivery of the “new” ways of working and this calls into doubt the validity and credibility of much of the work the Improvement Board have undertaken.

The (published) Equality Impact Assessment for this does not appear to consider any potential negative impacts for protected groups or consideration of socio economic factors when in fact these clearly exist on the basis of £200,000 being equally split between constituencies regardless of their demographic or socio economic need. There is potential that inequality will be increased in constituencies/areas with more ethnically diverse population or younger/older populations.

Even on a simple budget per head calculation unequal treatment could be perceived as existing.
If my concerns are correct then this is something I would expect the Improvement Board to have noticed and addressed given the weight and emphasis placed on Neighbourhood Working.

NIGEL HOBRO

In your report p53 section 184 you write that you are “the first sector-led improvement approach taken to support a Council facing significant governance issues”. In the potted biographies of Joyce Redfearn it is written:

“She has served on two previous improvement boards for Blaenau Gwent and for Liverpool.”

Question 1.
What happened at Blaenau Gwent and Liverpool. I interpret “sector-led” as being led by a peer group rather like the Police investigating themselves. What was different about Mrs Redfearn’s prior appointments to Boards.

Question 2.
Your report refers to external reports 2010-2012 though by contrast WBC writes a response to critical reports 2010-2013. Given that those reports included two from Grant Thornton in 2013 which showed alarming deficiencies in the award of business start-up grants both in working Neighbourhoods, in BIG and in ISUS, how can you make a statement that the Economy was an “area of excellence” for WBC even under the difficult conditions to which you allude?

This is not a complaint regarding those investigations but a query of on what authority can you print such an assertion faced with knowledge of, certainly published in BIG Abbreviated summary, the deep failures of scrutiny over the process shown by WBC?

JON KING

I have two questions to the Improvement Board:

I would contest that the ‘war’ has been won when so many legacy issues remain outstanding, but to ‘win the peace’ when there has been such a breakdown in trust between the local authority and its residents is it not time for the Local Authority to adopt a corporate charter reflecting the Nolan Principles to embrace the expected standards in public life?

To ‘win the peace’ you have to resolve the grievances and issues resulting from the previous periods of poor performance how can the Council assure the residents that these have been investigated and addressed with the appropriate vigour.

ANONYMOUS (DID NOT WANT TO BE NAMED)

The report states that some council members were less engaged with the improvement training and process than others. Is the public allowed to know which ones these were and can anything be done about the persistence of this negative attitude now that the Improvement Board is planning to reduce its level of involvement?

The ‘What Really Matters’ and other previous questionnaires were hailed as a success and yet there were frequent public complaints regarding the loaded nature of the questions and the lack of information regarding the choices they presented (evidenced by letters to the local press, for example). Were these questionnaires actually designed by a reputable and experienced market research company, and if so, which one?

MARTIN MORTON

The Improvement Board will hear from Martin Morton who has requested time to address the 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: