Expense claim forms for Councillor Harry Smith 2013 to 2014
Expense claim forms for Councillor Harry Smith 2013 to 2014
Councillor Harry Smith is a Labour Party councillor for Bidston & St. James ward. During the period these expense claims cover, he was Cabinet Member for what is now called Highways and Transportation but was previously called Streetscene and Transport.
His expense claim forms cover his work as a Cabinet Member (referred to by the initials CM on the forms), work on Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee (which manage the Merseyside Pension Fund worth billions of pounds), conferences & training, housing association meetings (where he was a Wirral Council representative), an employment appeal (the trade unions are still in dispute over this being decided by officers now and not councillors and this looks like it may have been one of the last decided by councillors), the Beechwood Joint Management Committee (on which he was a Wirral Council representative), full Council meetings, a Cabinet “Away Day” in July 2013 with the Chief Executive Graham Burgess, a meeting of the North Birkenhead Development Trust (which runs the St James Centre in Laird Street), a leadership program meeting in Acre Lane, a site visit in his role as Cabinet Member and a meeting at the Floral Pavilion about the flooding in New Brighton.
The sixteen pages of claim forms covering this period are below.
Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 15Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 16
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Expense claim forms for Councillor Ann McLachlan 2013 to 2014
Expense claim forms for Councillor Ann McLachlan 2013 to 2014
Now we turn to the expenses claims of one of my very own Labour councillors for Bidston & St. James ward Councillor Ann McLachlan. Cllr McLachlan is Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement. As you can imagine from such a senior councillor, her expenses claims are quite long.
Her expenses claims refer to trips to the local Gautby Road Play and Community Centre Joint Management Committee in (you’ve probably guessed already) Gautby Road, on which she represents Wirral Council’s interest. In fact I think she’s Chair of that. Yes that’s the committee that is in charge of the play area next to the community centre which is kept padlocked because the last thing we want is children using a play area!, Improvement Board meetings (which ceased in November 2013), Chrysalis (what’s that?), a trip down to London for a pensions conference, Cabinet meetings, a “transformation event” at the Floral Pavilion, Wirral Metropolitan College governors meeting, interviewing job applicants for the Director of Resources post, trade union meeting about redeployment, more job interviews and shortlisting, work on the Member’s (Members refers to councillors) Training Steering Group, the Chrysalis Board (again), a LGA Conference in Manchester, a “Strategic Communications” workshop at the Floral Pavilion, another redeployment meeting, “Visioning Training” at the Floral Pavilion, a meeting of the Democracy Working Party, the LGA Leadership Academy in Coventry (module 3) please, please no jokes in the comments about her being sent to Coventry where she spent £35 on taxis, another Leadership Academy in Coventry (module 2) when her taxi claim was £41.80 (maybe module 2 teaches you leadership skills such as how to get cheaper taxis to the same place), the Beechwood and Ballantyne Housing Association Board, interviews for a Strategic Director, shortlisting for the Director of Children and Young Peoples Department, more leadership training in Coventry where the taxi was only £10.40, the local Area Forum, a meeting to do with the Hoylake Golf Resort launch, full Council meetings, Youth Parliament, well you can see for yourself below how busy she’s been!
Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13Cllr Ann McLachlan expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Council valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
Wirral Council valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
One of the issues that was raised during the consultation on Lyndale School (and the call in) was how much The Lyndale School would be worth to Wirral Council as an asset if in the future the school was closed, declared a surplus asset and sold by Wirral Council? The 2012/13 asset register assigns a value to the buildings of £1,788,103.00 and land of 908,000.00 (total £2,696,103.00) valued on 22nd February 2013 (as part of its regular quinquennial or five yearly valuation).
A summary of the responses given by David Armstrong at the meetings I was at (such as the consultation meeting in June and the February call in) was that he personally had deliberately not visited the site to avoid the rumour spreading that Wirral Council was disposing of the site and that there were hoops Wirral Council would have to jump through before even getting to that stage, three of those being a decision that the school would have to close, then declared a surplus asset by a politician/s and permissions from the Secretary of State too before even reaching the stage where they could dispose of it.
The issue of the extra capital work on other schools (which costs the council money) to provide extra places for the Lyndale School children if it closed was known and quantified as obviously building work has to start well in advance of being completed due to obtaining planning permission, contract tender rules (such as getting quotes and bids for the work) and the fact that building work on schools tends to be done during school holidays to prevent disruption to what schools are there to do.
What’s interesting is in a recent response to a Freedom of Information request to former councillor Ian Lewis, Wirral Council have (finally) released the 2012/13 asset register. I read the 2012/13 asset register this morning and it does contain an entry for The Lyndale School. Bear in mind this is for the 2012/13 local authority year (1/4/2012 to 30/3/2013) which was audited as part of the audit of that year (12/13)’s accounts at some point between 1/4/13 and 30/9/13.
As is well known already, formal plans to close the Lyndale School became known to the public around December 2013 but there were rumours of closure plans before then. The entry for The Lyndale School is as follows:
RAM Ref Building 000341 RAM Ref Land 000342 NLPG 42069200 Address The Lyndale School Street Lyndale Avenue Town Eastham Postcode CH62 8DE Description Special School Controlling Department CYPD Asset Type PPE Status Land and buildings Valuation Basis (See below for definitions) FV(DRC) Buildings Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 1,788,103.00 Land Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 908,000.00 Value (Applies to MV entries only) Asset Value 2,696,103.00 Value addition check ok Asset Life Years (Required for DRC & EUV valuations only) 30 Date of revaluation 22/2/2013 Date assets physically verified (if not – state reason) 22/2/2013 Valuer Sarah Duncan Comments Valuation year 2012/13 Valuation required 12/13 y Valuation reasons Quinquennial Disposal reason Disposal proceeds Revisions made y Is property held solely to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both? Is property used in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrative purposes? Is property for sale in the ordinary course of operations? Is earning rentals the outcome of a council policy (e.g. regeneration policy)? Is the property social housing? Investment Property Classification Not Investment AHFS Criterion 1: Available for immediate sale, etc? AHFS Criterion 2: Sale highly probably, etc? AHFS Criterion 3: Actively marketed? AHFS Criterion 4: Expected to qualift for recognition as a completed sale within 1 year of date of classification? AHFS Classification Not AHFS
This entry in the asset register of course raises a lot of questions. A regular five yearly revaluation was done on the Lyndale School in February 2013. Any valuation (if a further one was done) between 1st April 2013 and 30th March 2014 would be on the 2013/14 asset register.
The 2012/13 asset register was audited as part of the 2012/13 accounts over the period 1st April 2013 to 30th September 2013. However the asset register would’ve been available for management purposes well before this audit was complete. Within two months of that audit being complete the public became aware of the plans to close the school.
So management at Wirral Council would’ve had the Lyndale School valuation from February 2013 available in informing their plans (whether they asked for this information to be provided is another question though).
However, as the school and land that The Lyndale School is on is an asset of Wirral Council now used for education (and specifically adapted for use as a special school), surely it makes no economic sense to close it down?
If it’s closed, the costs of the building (Council Tax, maintenance etc) will still be there.
If it’s closed, the children would be moved to another school so staff costs would stay, Wirral Council would be paying for building costs on two buildings then, the school they move to and Lyndale School sitting empty.
If we look back to the closure of Cole Street Primary School in Birkenhead, there was a very long time between the school being closed and it being sold. During this time it appeared to be unused each time I passed it especially after it was declared surplus to requirements.
There is another question this raises though.
Do the capital works on buildings to increase places elsewhere in the schools system so the Lyndale School children have somewhere to go to should the school close exceed the valuation of the Lyndale School?
If they do, then don’t these plans not make any economic sense whatsoever (unless I’m missing something)?!
The Cabinet decision on 4th September to go ahead to the next stage on closing Lyndale School was “called in” by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors yesterday (lead signatory Cllr Paul Hayes (Conservative)) and will now not be implemented until there is a future meeting of the Coordinating Committee soon to decide what to do next.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Below this is a copy of the multi page legal advice written by Surjit Tour on the 11th July 2014 and distribute to all 62 councillors present at the Council meeting on 14th July 2014 on the Lyndale School motion.
This was provided (rather surprisingly to me as it must mark a change from the past towards more openness and transparency) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request of mine made on the 14th August 2014.
In view of the Notice of Motion relating to The Lyndale School being debated at Council on 14 July 2014, I have set out below some advice for your consideration in relation to the issues of ‘Pre-determination’, ‘Pre-disposition’ and ‘Bias’ given the significance and high profile nature of this particular subject matter.
This Note is intended as guidance only and provided to help you in your consideration of these issues in the context of The Lyndale School Notice of Motion arising at Council on 14 July and thereafter.
Pre-determination and Pre-disposition
Pre-determination is defined as:
“occurring when a Member has fixed views on a matter and retains a closed mind when it comes to making a determination”.
Pre-disposition is defined as:
“a Member being open to the possibility that, however unlikely, they will hear argument during the debate about the issue that will change their mind about how they intend to vote. As long as they are willing to keep an open mind about the issue they are entitled to take part in any vote on it”.
First – the behaviour complained of has to be relevant to the issue.
Second – the situation has to be one where a notional fair-minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, would consider that there is a real risk that the decision maker has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument.
In summary, there are no restrictions on a Member holding a provisional view on an issue (pre-disposition) but there is a problem if he/she acts with a closed mind on a subject (pre-determination).
The pre-disposition can be strong and can be publicly voiced. It might be in favour of or against a particular point. The expressing of an intention to vote in a particular way before a meeting (pre-determination) is not the same as when a Member makes it clear he/she is willing to listen to views of all sides before deciding on how to vote (pre-disposition).
Pre-disposition in decision making is fine.
Whereas, decisions made by Members later judged to have pre-determined views have been quashed by way of judicial review.
Bias
Bias is defined as:
‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents impartial consideration of a question; prejudice’.
‘…the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.’
It is therefore important that each Member considers his/her stance from the position of a ‘reasonable onlooker’ and decides whether there would be or could be the appearance of bias.
Only you can say whether you are biased or not.
Localism Act 2012
Section 25 of the Localism Act states that a Member should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because he/she has previously said/or acted in a way that may have directly or indirectly indicated the view he/she may take in relation to a matter.
Section 25 does not attempt to change case law in respect of pre-determination and bias, but it has attempted to clarify it.
The section applies if there is an issue about the validity of a decision, as a result of an “allegation of bias or pre-determination”, or “otherwise” and it is relevant to that issue whether the decision maker, or any of the decision makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision. Thus it is drafted so as to catch as many cases as possible in which an allegation of pre-determination might be made which might affect the validity of a decision.
Section 25 catches allegations of actual, and apparent, pre-determination (however tenuous).
The provision is also widely phrased in another sense. It applies to views not just about the subject matter of the decision in question, but to anything a Member has done which might show, directly, or indirectly, what view he/she takes, or would take, or might take, about any matter which is relevant to the decision.
The explanatory notes to the Localism Act 2011 in relation to section 25 state that ‘Predetermination occurs where someone has a closed mind, with the effect that they are unable to apply their judgement fully and properly to an issue requiring a decision.
Section 25 is set out on pages 4 and 5 below for your reference.
5. Summary
In summary, Members are asked to consider the above advice when considering all items of Council business requiring Members to make a decision; however particularly so in relation to the Notice of Motion re: The Lyndale School.
Members are aware that no firm/final decision has been taken by the Administration in relation to The Lyndale School and therefore the Council’s Executive decision making arrangements have yet to be administered and concluded. These arrangements also include options that are still relevant to non-executive Members and accordingly you are advised to consider the implications/impact of pre-determination, pre-disposition and bias on the decision making arrangements relevant to this subject matter.
If you have any queries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
11 July 2014
LOCALISM ACT 2011
Section 25
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) as a result of an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise, there is an issue about the validity of a decision of a relevant authority, and
(b) it is relevant to that issue whether the decision-maker, or any of the decision-makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision.
(2) A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because—
(a) the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter, and
(b) the matter was relevant to the decision.
(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a decision-maker only if that decision-maker—
(a) is a member (whether elected or not) of the relevant authority, or
(b) is a co-opted member of that authority.
(4) In this section—
“co-opted member”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—
(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority, and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided a any meeting of the committee or sub-committee;
“decision”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a decision made in discharging functions of the authority, functions of the authority’s executive, functions of a committee of the authority or functions of an officer of the authority (including decisions made in the discharge of any of those functions otherwise than by the person to whom the function was originally given);
“elected mayor” has the meaning given by section 9H or 39 of the Local Government Act 2000;
“member”—
(a) in relation to the Greater London Authority, means the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member, and
(b) in relation to a county council, district council, county borough council or London borough council, includes an elected mayor of the council;
“relevant authority” means—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a county borough council,
(d) a London borough council,
(e) the Common Council of the City of London,
(f) the Greater London Authority,
(g) a National Park authority,
(h) the Broads Authority,
(i) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(j) a parish council, or
(k) a community council.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings
Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings
Future Council Wirral logo
Ed – Update 14:55 9/9/14 to fix 6 incorrect links to the budget options that was helpfully pointed out by a reader.
Yes, it’s another annual consultation on savings from Wirral Council that began yesterday and runs from yesterday to the 31st October 2014. What’s this one on? This is on £2.5 million of cuts that Wirral Council need to make in 2015/16.
Although the documentation refers to £4 million of budget options this seems rounded to the nearest million (the options total £3.75 million). Out of these options about £2.5 million will be chosen (two-thirds by total value).
The options are then in various “themes” and are below by theme (I’ve also included the amount in pounds next to each option for financial year 2015/16 if that option is chosen).
This means some of the larger savings options are almost certain to go ahead which are those involving community libraries, the all age disability service, youth and play, preventative maintenance (highways and parks), Council Tax Over 70s discount and Girtrell Court.
These six options total £2.566 million of the £2.5 million savings required.
The other eleven options seem less likely to meet with public approval as they will be opposed by (in some cases) large sections of Wirral’s society. Some of them have already been rejected in earlier years following consultation such as charging for car parks at the country parks, school crossing patrols etc.
With the options below I’ve briefly included a sentence or two explaining what it’s about.
Reduce library opening hours to four hours (10am to 2pm) with these libraries opened either two or three days a week. This option does not seem to apply to the four central libraries or combined libraries/One Stop Shops whose opening hours remain the same.
This option involves services to disabled children and families (such as the Willow Tree overnight short breaks) as well as adult social care. Detailed consultation is also going to happen with children and families affected.
Put up fees for allotments, bowling greens and football pitches over the next two years. Transfer management and ownership of some bowling greens to bowling clubs.
Staffing changes and 10% increase in fees for domestic and commercial services provided by Environmental Health. Charge for pest control services relating to rats and cockroaches.
Girtrell Court is a ‘short break’ respite service for adults with disability with 20 beds (15 respite, 5 permanent). This forms a separate consultation with the 130 people that use it. Proposals are to have some beds there for use by the NHS (presumably charging the NHS) and to increase its usage.
There are files for the seventeen options listed above which are all linked to.
This is the link if you want to complete the questionnaire.
After the consultation closes, councillors will discuss the options, Cabinet will make its recommendation to Council and then all Wirral Council councillors will discuss it and have a vote on the 2015/16 Budget.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
