Category: Wirral Council

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

Surjit Tour tells Wirral Council’s councillors that they have to accept filming at their public meetings

                         

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

In an update to the blog post headlined Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?, something seems to have happened “behind the scenes” as Surjit Tour had this to say to councillors on the subject at last night’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on an item about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (the bit he says about Wirral Council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity is the relevant part):

“Thank you Chair, just very briefly taking you through this particular report. It’s a report that’s already been considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 14th March and the report seeks to summarise the key provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

On the 13th August of 2010 the government announced its intention if you recall to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a decentralised process and arrangements with regard to the audit of public bodies. This Act seeks to set out the necessary framework in relation to the audit arrangements and I’ll turn your attention if I may to page fifty-seven of the report and that provides an explanatory note in terms of the key features of the current and new arrangements that are being introduced.

Paragraph 2.1 sets out and highlights features of the new arrangements and notably the abolition of the Audit Commission and with a view to arrangements being put in place. Under the new arrangements public bodies will be required to appoint an external, independent auditor on the advice of an independent audit panel. The audit panel which the Council must have in place and each local authority is required to have that audit panel in place to discharge their responsibilities, the appointment of an auditor. Various other… may be deferred on that particular panel by the Secretary of State.

The make up of that particular panel it talks about in the report of the recommended changes in the explanatory forward. The actual amend to the legislative framework with regards to council tax referendums and the revised measures to ensure local authorities’ compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

The Act also then introduces greater transparency and openness to meetings of Council meetings in particular by allowing local residents to film, tweet, blog and access the information in relation to decision-making in those committees. So it goes further than just the filming and the arrangements that we currently have.

We also then have arrangements and changes with regards to any local audit, taking account value for money elements which needs to be also factored in and we have a transfer of responsibilities of setting a new code of audit practice going now to the National Audit Office as part of these arrangements. So you see that in a bit more detail in paragraph three some of those provisions there in more detail.

In terms of our current arrangements, there are outsourcing arrangements in place and as you know we have Grant Thornton who is the external auditor for Council and that arrangement continues until 2017 at which point arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of a new local auditor and this is where the new local auditor panel will be engaged in the procurement of that particular body.

There will be a series of approved, accredited firms that will be able to do that and they will be made subject to assessment and criteria by the Financial Reporting Council and relevant professional accountancy bodies who are regulated in the provision of local government services.

In terms of the panel itself, details of its make up are set out in paragraph six of the explanatory note and this is where we need to have a panel which would consist of a majority of independent members and it would be chaired by an independent member. Now our Audit and Risk Management Committee can act as the Council’s auditor panel under the act if so required and if we need to appoint individuals then there’ll be a process that’ll need to be gone through.

You’ll recall that the Audit and Risk Management Committee, in fact it happened last year, indicated that it wished to be a majority of members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be independent and there will, arrangements are in hand to make those necessary arrangements. However the Secretary of State is still yet to publish regulations in relation to this particular Act, particularly the criteria and it needs to be expanded on what appears in the Act itself. So the draft regulations are not complete in terms of what the criteria will be for the appointment of independent members and as such a decision has been taken to await the Act or indeed those final regulations to ensure that any appointment that is made is compliant with those regulations.”

The Chair said, “Thanks Surjit, any questions, comments? Pat?”

Cllr Patricia Glasman said, “Paragraph 2.1.5 access information relating to the decisions made in those meetings, I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on that specifically the Pensions Committee we have attachments which are not available to the public. It’s business meetings and I just wondered was there any change to really the way those are treated?”

Surjit Tour replied, “No, there’s no, those changes with regards to information at committees considering the exempt schedules, the schedules before them so those provisions remain unchanged. This is very much the ability to report in open session at committee meetings, individuals being able to not only film, but to tweet, blog information in real-time and as decisions are made.”

The Chair said, “If there’s no further questions, can we agree the recommendations on page fifty-five, 11.1 agreed?”

The Committee agreed the following recommendation:

That the Committee notes the Report and Appendix 1 concerning the changes being introduced by the Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and its implications.

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

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” Council Chamber and the LGA

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” council chamber and the LGA

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” Council Chamber and the LGA

                         

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014) (an example of the sort of public meeting covered by the new regulations)

The Department of Communities and Local Government have today responded to the Freedom of Information Act request I made a month ago about consultation responses (although DCLG refers to it as a “sounding exercise” and not a consultation) about the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (this is the proposed law about filming of public meetings) which is now in draft form but expected to move from draft form to having the force of law in the next month or two. Once it becomes law I’ll be able to film public meetings of the Combined Authority or its Merseytravel Committee without facing resistance to such requests from the bureaucracy.

Some of the responses raise interesting points. My comments centre on the filming aspects of this, however these draft regulations cover filming and some other matters.

Alton Town Council
My first thought was where’s Alton? It’s about ten miles east of Newcastle. Alton Town Council were against the requirement to allow oral commentary during public meetings (something I must admit I was against too as I had visions of filming a meeting with journalists either side talking into tape recorders and completely drowning out what was being said). This requirement has since been dropped in the version of the draft legislation laid before Parliament as many of the responses were against it.

Alton Town Council describe their opposition to such a requirement thus “One person trying to speak over another person is rarely helpful in a debate, as I’m sure members of the House of Commons are aware.” However they also state in their response “As a general principle I don’t have an issue with the idea of filming or recording meetings, or tweeting or posting comments during meetings.”

Unknown Parish Council
Unfortunately DCLG have redacted this response so I don’t know which parish council this was from. They state that they hire a room in the local public house for their meetings that “lighting is far from perfect at present and I doubt if it would be adequate for recording (filming) purposes”. They further point out that “electrical sockets are limited”.

Their response goes on to state that they have between seven and fifteen members of the public at their meetings (I wonder if this is partly because they’re held in the local pub). The last point they raise is about privacy, not about councillors or officers but of members of the public. They pose the point of if somebody objected to the filming, given the recording would not be the responsibility of or in the control of the council, what would the position be?

Personally I think the concept of privacy at a public meeting (and I’ve been to at least one recently at Wirral Council where there have been over a hundred people there at least) doesn’t really exist. You’re in a public building at a public meeting in a public place, there should be no expectation of privacy in such situations.

Transport for London
Although not on the subject of filming, Transport for London insist that compliance with the new regulations will require hiring seven to ten extra full-time employees and that they don’t have time to do this before the new regulations will come into effect. Good news though if you want a job working for Transport for London!

Lord True CBE (Leader, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames)
Lord True’s response sent on House of Lords stationery thinks that the regulations are disproportionate, intrusive and will lead to “additional unnecessary costs” for local government.

He states that at his Council they already stream live over the internet meetings of all their councillors and Planning Committee meetings and other meetings if there is “a specific expression of public interest”. However they don’t stream all meetings “in view of the costs involved”.

Lord True however is however concerned about the “need not to disrupt” (in fact so concerned that he underlines the phrase in his letter. He sees no reason why anyone should be prevented from filming, photographing (preferably without flash) or filming but is against the idea of “oral commentary” which he deems to be “unnecessary and potentially disruptive”. He describes a council chamber as being “frequently intimate” and states that their gallery is so close that you can “touch those on the front row”.

He goes on to state that construction of a “sound proof box” (which is what happened to the public gallery in the House of Commons and House of Lords since the “flour bomb” incident) would be expensive and he asks that the oral commentary requirement in the regulations be removed.

His views go on to include the rather worrying phrase that shows perhaps the rather unhealthy desire at times that politicians have to control the press “I think it is absolutely essential in the interests of democracy and fair debate that Councils are not able to obstruct access, but are able to control the way in which recording is done”. He states that filming from the public gallery would give an advantage to the councillors nearer to it, that the Council does its own filming from behind the Mayor which gives equal treatment to councillors on both sides. He goes on to state that he thinks it would be better to just have the Council filming meetings, with the recording made available to anyone who wanted it as opposed to separate recordings of the same meeting.

Lord True goes on to state that he thinks that requests to film or record should be made in advance. This seems to ignore the point that when the new regulations come into effect such a request couldn’t be turned down therefore what is the point of making it? He states “I think in the interests of fairness and good order requests to film or record should be made in advance, or at least subject to control by the Chair, on advice from the proper officer.”

His last point is that the new regulations won’t include Neighbourhood Forums and states that these bodies will have “extensive planning responsibilities”. On the Wirral this would be bodies such as Hoylake Life, Devonshire Park Residents Association and Unity in the Community. Perhaps someone who has a greater knowledge of these bodies or connection to these three could leave a comment about the filming issue, but from memory Devonshire Park Residents Association still has to have a referendum before it formally becomes a Neighbourhood Forum and I would guess that the other two are also at the early stages of development too. Lord True’s view is that these bodies should be opened up to filming in the same way that “Council planning committee now are (or will be)”.

Local Government Association
The Local Government Association also responded stating that they are “committed to the principles of transparency and openness in local government and to continuous improvement”. They state that most of the proposals in the draft regulations are already taking place in the vast majority of councils, either on a voluntary basis or in compliance with existing legislation.

They even accept that there is “room for improvement”, however refer to the regulations as “completely contrary to the principles of localism” and of being “micro-management of the sector”. The LGA states that instead of a legal requirement on all councils to comply they’d prefer government issue guidance to councils instead. The Local Government Association states that they would “welcome a meeting with you to discuss” “concerns relating to the areas covered by the draft regulations”.

The response from the Local Government Association (sent in the name of Carolyn Downs its Chief Executive) finishes by stating “Finally and separately it would be helpful to have a conversation about “soundings” as opposed to consultation.

If we read what was said by by Baroness Stowell who was at the time Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government after referring to how the filming issue had been dealt with in other parts of the country said on the 21st November last year “Noble Lords raised important points about risks, and the measures necessary to mitigate those risks, to ensure that proper conduct is able to continue. I re-emphasise that we will carry out a process of consultation on these regulations and ensure that we take account of the points that have been made. We will not lay the regulations until we have completed that consultation. However, we are talking about a matter of months in terms of bringing those regulations forward. We do not want delay on this.”

Generally people would think that a “process of consultation” means a consultation, yet the Department of Communities and Local Government doesn’t regard this as a “consultation” but instead as “soundings”. However whether it was a consultation or soundings is about as worthwhile as discussing the answer to the question, “How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?”. The draft regulations will become law in a matter of weeks.

I’ll continue at a later date going through some more of the responses. The regulations place a legal responsibility on councils to provide “reasonable facilities”. In the days of newspaper journalists needing a table to sit on that was generally what was interpreted as reasonable facilities. However some of the responses I’ll go through in detail tomorrow ask if “reasonable facilities” could be interpreted as providing free wireless internet access to those wanting to film, tweet, blog etc. It’s an interesting idea, I know in another part of the country a blogger used the public wireless internet access there provided to the press to stream a Council meeting on Youtube earlier this year.

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

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

                         

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

The point in the video above of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting where the “community newspaper” proposals starts is at 21:28

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

Prior to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting held on the 10th April that decided to go ahead with the “community newspaper” idea, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) would have received this letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government about council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

I won’t include the letter here as you can click on the link and read it in its entirety yourself, but I will quote some sections “The background to the new power is that whilst the majority of local authorities comply fully with the Publicity Code’s provisions, it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature or continuing to publish newspapers more frequently than stated in the Code’s provisions. The Secretary of State being able to direct compliance with the Publicity Code is a means whereby these concerns can be addressed” and “The Secretary of State intends to adopt the following approach to this consideration. Where on the basis of any material or information currently available to him, the Secretary of State considers that there is some evidence of non-compliance since the Publicity Code was issued in March 2011, and there is no current unambiguous evidence available to him that the non-compliance has ceased and that there is no risk of future non compliance, he will be minded to give a direction to the authority concerned.”

So what does the code state on frequency?

Section 28 quite clearly states “Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, news-sheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly.”

So what frequency was approved by the Birkenhead Constituency Committee? I quote from the report on it, “It was proposed to produce a monthly publication to include information residents want to read about.” and later on it describes the frequency of the issues as “The pilot would be to produce an 8 page publication, bi-monthly for 6 months (3 editions) working in partnership with Lairdside Communities Together.”

Moving to the bit in the letter that states “it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature” the report to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee states “The content of the publication would be devised from the committee and community requests.” Everyone on the Birkenhead Constituency Committee is a politician (whether councillor or MP), does the public expect their requests for what goes in it not to be political. As there won’t be any advertising in the first three editions personally I don’t think there will be enough “community requests” for three eight page editions so the majority of the content is likely to be suggested by politicians.

Here was what was said at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on this item which starts at 21:28 in the video above.

=======================================================================================================DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
The second item on this Councillor Doughty talked to last time was around a local publication, so we’ve done some further thinking around this and just to clarify what this will be, it will be a community focussed publication supporting people with what’s on in the community. The data shows that the feedback that a lot of Members get is not all our residents get the local newspaper currently.

It will be a focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.

What we’re asking from the Committee is a pilot of three editions to see if it works and to monitor that pilot there will be two subgroups and one will look at it will be an editorial board that will ensure the content is non political and it’s what people want to read on the feedback we’re getting.

It’ll aim to recruit an apprentice for nine to twelve months and involve the community around the community news and how that’s developed. So we’re talking as people have been appearing through this there’s been a really positive feedback from some, from a lot of people saying we’ve had for example a few of have been today at a conference around food planning and how people are struggling accessing food and what, there’s massive support out there with people saying I don’t know where it is around initiatives such as somebody wrote to Councillor Kenny saying that we’ve got an initiative around supporting to access free bikes and that’s the sort of information to go in there. Any questions?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Questions on that? Yes please, yep?

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
Did you find out about whether the Council actually paid additional money to have the newspapers circulated everywhere? Did that actually happen?

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
My understanding was that it used to happen, it doesn’t happen now.

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
So it’s too late to have any redress for it?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Phillip I think we should actually follow that up, it’s a serious point. Can we actually have that in the minutes please and follow it up? What happened to that?

COUNCILLOR CHRIS MEADEN
As I understand it, that’s what we used to do.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
What we have got since the last meeting is a breakdown of where it is going and where it isn’t going so we can help with that.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
So what we’re going to be doing, again it comes back to this whole point what does the contract say and is it actually being fulfilled, if not what do we do about it? (At this point he looks at officers to his left and says sotto voce “answer this evening”)? Really, thanks.

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

What’s interesting is Dawn Tolcher states that the community newspaper will have a “focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.”

There’s something called the Wirral Public Service Board. Last year I made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the agendas and minutes of their meetings over the previous year. That request was refused by Surjit Tour under s.36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act stating that releasing the agendas and minutes would (or would be likely to) inhibit “the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.” and have a “chilling effect” on their discussions. He also refused it on the basis that the minutes would contain the names of people (data protection grounds).

So just to recap, Wirral Council won’t release the agendas and minutes of meetings held with other public sector organisations at which the decisions and discussion about joint working are made. However they plan to write articles about the decisions made at these meetings and the joint work that Wirral Council is doing in a publication they plan to send out to 39,823 properties in Birkenhead? Oh and after the third edition Wirral Council will charge these other public sector organisations to include details about these projects in their “community newspaper”?

I don’t believe there is as much support for this community newspaper idea as was claimed at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting. I previously wrote about this proposal and included a poll. The poll’s question was “Do you think Wirral Council should spend £22,500 to start a community newspaper in Birkenhead?” with the three following answers to choose from yes, no and don’t know. At the time of writing nineteen people had answered the question. The results were clear, eighteen said no and one answered don’t know.

So did Wirral Council’s Chief Legal Eagle Surjit Tour point out Eric Pickle’s new legal power (which has been in force since the 30th March 2014) to direct Wirral Council to comply with the code (which as outlined above the proposal as it stands doesn’t)? No Mr. Tour didn’t (but then he wasn’t asked for any legal advice on this item). The taxpayer pays him a salary of £73,352 a year. His role (according to Wirral Council’s constitution at 2.3 of Wirral Council’s financial regulations) is defined as follows “The Monitoring Officer is responsible for reporting any actual or potential breaches of the law or maladministration to the Council and/or to the Executive”.

No councillor or MP asked Surjit Tour during the meeting whether aspects of the proposal for a community newspaper were lawful and for his advice. Surjit Tour didn’t say anything during this item and the letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government went to Graham Burgess (so it seems likely that Surjit Tour hasn’t seen it).

The letter from DCLG finishes with “If you have any questions about the new powers, please contact ConductCode@communities.gsi.gov.uk. You can also contact the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly at eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said about the very issue of Council newspapers “The spread of the town hall ‘Pravda’ is manifestly unfair because they offer cut price local news, but mixed in with council propaganda that pours taxpayers money down the drain.

These free-sheets are often confused for the real thing by residents. I want our news to be told and sold under the masthead of an independent and free press, not through a knock-off Rolex imitation.”

The press release goes on to state “Where a council ignores the statutory code, the government or a concerned member of the public could seek a court order to enforce it. Disregard for that would result in contempt of court.”

So is Wirral Council going to change its plans or run the risk of a showdown with the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP over their newspaper plans? The Liverpool Echo also ran a story about this on the 26th March using the headline FURY OVER TOWN HALL PAPER PLAN; Town could see launch of newsletter.

I’d be interested to read your thoughts on this issue which you can leave as a comment (even anonymously if you wish) or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly yourself to let them know your views on what Wirral Council is proposing to do.

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

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

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.

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

                   

Mersey Tunnel tolls have been decided annually by Merseytravel (Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority), however the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority ceased to exist at the start of this month and was replaced by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (also known by its legal name which is the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority). The existing Merseytravel representatives from Wirral Council (along with representatives from the other Merseyside Councils) sit on the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority with the addition of two representatives from Halton.

Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee discussed a motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls, which had been referred to it by the Mayor at the Wirral Council meeting of the 10th March 2014. Prior to recent changes to Wirral Council’s constitution such policy motions were discussed and voted on by a meeting of all of Wirral’s councillors (of which there are sixty-six). The Regeneration and Environment Committee has only fifteen Wirral Council councillors on it.

The motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls was proposed by Councillor Les Rowlands (a Conservative councillor for Heswall ward whose term of office ends this year and will probably be standing soon for reelection). Councillor Les Rowlands is also one of four Wirral Council representatives on Merseytravel (the others representing Wirral Council are Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Ron Abbey and Councillor John Salter). The motion was seconded by Councillor Andrew Hodson (who is also a Conservative councillor in Heswall ward) and a copy is below.

(1) Council regrets the recent tunnel toll increases for all toll classes forced through by the Labour-led Integrated Transport Authority.

(2) Council notes that since the introduction of the 2004 Mersey Tunnels Act, sponsored by former Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas and supported by Labour Members throughout its passage through Parliament, Merseytravel has accrued over £40 million in surpluses which have been used on their pet transport schemes and vanity projects.

(3) Council also notes that Merseytravel have squandered large amounts of money as can be evidenced by the £70 million failed tram scheme colloquially known as ‘Line 1 to Nowhere’ and its extravagance in occupying a half empty building at No 1 Mann Island.

Therefore Council believes

(a) The consistent increases year on year is damaging Wirral’s economy putting further pressure on motorists and businesses.

(b) Council recognises such increases place a greater strain on tunnel users who have to travel to and from work placing an unfair tax burden on Wirral residents.

(c) Council recognises discount toll schemes/free crossings for local residents already exist in other parts of the country and while recognising that fast tag users benefit from a discount, Council believes that regular users should be rewarded with a local discount scheme over and above that afforded by use of the fast tag such as that announced for the Mersey Gateway Bridge of a “local user discount scheme” with up to 300 free journeys per year.

Council therefore requests the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Executive/Director General of Merseytravel requesting an urgent meeting to discuss: if and how the Mersey Tunnels can be reinstated back into the national road network and Tunnel Tolls abolished.

If that is not possible how a ‘local user discount scheme’ over and above that which already exists through the Fast Tag can be implemented to ease the burden on the hard pressed motorists of Wirral.

Video of the first twenty-five minutes of the meeting can be watched above.

The meeting started with Councillor Steve Foulkes asking for legal advice from the “Borough Solicitor” (who is Surjit Tour who wasn’t present but Colin Hughes was present to offer legal advice to committee members) on whether he should declare just a personal interest in the Mersey Tunnel tolls agenda item as a member of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority*.

Councillor Steve Foulkes also pointed out that Councillor Les Rowlands was also a member of Merseytravel and that he “did state he [Councillor Les Rowlands] could take part in the debate”** and asked for clarification over the nature of the interest.

* The Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority had in fact ceased to exist as it had been abolished eight days previously by s.6 of The Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014. What Councillor Steve Foulkes probably meant instead was an interest arising as he is a member of the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

** Whether Councillor Les Rowlands took part isn’t a decision for Councillor Steve Foulkes to make. Councillor Les Rowlands isn’t part of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee but as the proposer of the motion Standing Order 7(6) applies which states “A member of the Council who has moved a motion which has been referred to any committee shall be given notice of the meeting at which it is to be considered. The member shall have the right to attend the meeting and an opportunity of explaining the motion.”

Colin Hughes who forgot to turn on his microphone when replying said, “Yes, I’d declare that if I was you I’d do that.” However Colin Hughes didn’t state whether it was a personal or prejudicial interest, just that Councillor Foulkes had to declare an interest.

The Chair asked if anyone was subject to a party whip (no one replied that they were). The Chair then said the next item was “minutes of the last meeting which was held on the 10th March”.*

*The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee hadn’t met on the 10th March, only Cabinet and a meeting of full Council met on the 10th March.

The Chair said they would change the order slightly and have the second notice of motion (on the Mersey Tunnel Tolls) first. He then said (in relation to Cllr Les Rowlands), “I think I’m right, he was here but he’s not here now but Councillor Les Rowlands doesn’t wish to speak to that.” Other councillors drew Cllr Alan Brighouse’s attention to the fact that Councillor Les Rowlands was in fact sitting on the front row with cries of “He’s here” to which Councillor Alan Brighouse replied, “He’s here is he? I can’t see him!”.

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

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority choose Cllr Phil Davies as Chair

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority choose Cllr Phil Davies as Chair

1 Mann Island, Liverpool where the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority met
1 Mann Island, Liverpool where the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority met for its first meeting

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority choose Cllr Phil Davies as Chair

                                

The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority met for the first time in the Authority Room on the first floor of 1 Mann Island (pictured above).

The meeting started with appointment of the members of the Combined Authority. These nominations had been made by the Merseyside councils, Halton Council and the Local Enterprise Partnership.

Organisation Appointment Substitute appointment
Halton Council Cllr Rob Polhill Cllr Mike Wharton
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Ron Round Cllr Graham Morgan
Liverpool City Council Mayor Joe Anderson Deputy Mayor Roz Gladden
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Peter Dowd Cllr Ian Maher
Saint Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Barrie Grunewald Cllr Gareth Cross
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Phil Davies Cllr Ann McLachlan
Liverpool City Region
Local Enterprise Partnership		 Robert Hough Asif Hamid

These appointments were agreed. The meeting then had to decide who would be the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Authority. Cllr Phil Davies was nominated and proposed as Chair, there were no other nominations and he was elected as Chair.

He said, “Can I just say a few words? First of all thank you to my colleagues for nominating me to this position. It really is an honour and a privilege for me to chair the Combined Authority for the Liverpool City Region. I believe that we have huge potential to take this city region forward around the growth plan that we’ll be talking about a bit later on, how we get more powers, responsibilities and funding from central government and operating in an open and transparent way, the way we are this morning. I’m delighted to see so many members of the public here and I do sincerely believe that together we can be a formidable force in the job that we’ve got ahead of competing with other city regions, not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe. So it’s an absolute delight and pleasure for me to do this role and I thank everybody for their support.”

Cllr Phil Davies invited nominations for Vice-Chair of the Combined Authority. Cllr Ron Round was nominated and seconded. There were no other nominations so Cllr Ron Round was elected as Vice-Chair.

No declarations of interest were made. Cllr Phil Davies invited Angela Sanderson (Monitoring Officer Designate) to present item 4 (establishment of the Combined Authority. She said, “Thank you Chair, on the agenda this is at pages three to 141 and you’ll be pleased to know I don’t intend to go through it page by page. The report outlines the two main documents which deal with how the Combined Authority will operate in practice and from today the Combined Authority is a legal entity in its own right, with its own duties, its own powers, its own responsibilities and in order to ensure that it can meet its duties and exercise its powers in a manner consistent with good governance it’s worked with the other authorities and developed its constitution.

This work has been carried out by legal and democratic services officers from the six local authorities and from Merseytravel. The constitution is included on the agenda from page 9 to page 105 is the outcome. It’s divided into eight parts and much of it will be familiar to members in the constitution of their own local authorities. We recognise the constitution has been developed quite quickly and that its utility can only be measured in the light of experience and it will be kept under review to ensure that it meets the needs of the Authority.

The operating agreement has also been developed by those officers and partners and it sets out the basis that the Authority will run and in particular because the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority no longer exists and the transport functions and policies have been transferred to the Combined Authority by order, the agreement deals with the establishment and membership of the Merseytravel board to deal with the Authority’s transport functions.

The Authority will be asked to review these arrangements on the 1st April 2015. It also sets out several protocols which have been developed by other officers and intend to cover how the Authority covers regeneration functions that the Authority will need to cover. The operating agreement has been approved by the six local authorities and subject to agreement by this Authority steps will be taken to execute the document by all parties.

Finally, the Authority is obliged to legislation to appoint certain officers and also to ensure as an organisation with no employees, it appoints sufficient other officers as officers of the Authority to also implement its decisions. The proposals in respect of this are set out in paragraph six of the report for Members’ consideration. The recommendations are set out in paragraph two of the report.”

Cllr Phil Davies thanked Angela and said that it was document setting out the powers and terms of reference of the Combined Authority and the various committees. He asked if there were any questions on the report? There were no questions, so Cllr Phil Davies moved the following recommendations in 2.1:

2.1 The Combined Authority is recommended to:

(a) Approve and adopt the Constitution of the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral Combined Authority as set out in Appendix One;
(b) Approve and adopt the Operating Agreement for the Combined Authority as set out in Appendix Two;
(c) Establish the Merseytravel Committee as set out in Part 3 of the Constitution;
(d) Approve the appointment of Co-opted Members of the Merseytravel Committee on the basis of continuing with the former Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority appointments, with the addition of Cllr B Woolfall and Cllr J Stockton from Halton Council, until the Annual Meeting of the Combined Authority on 13 June 2014;
(e) Approve the continuation of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority Allowance scheme as a transitional arrangement; and
(f) Confirm the appointment of Officers of the Combined Authority as set out in
section 6.1 of the report.

The recommendations were agreed.

The meeting then considered the following notice of motion proposed by Cllr Barrie Grunewald and seconded by Cllr Rob Polhill.

“The Order to create the Combined Authority identified that the legal name of the organisation would be the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral Combined Authority. This wordy title has been imposed nationally by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, showing his scant regard for the view of local areas.

All constituent Councils have consistently stated that the Combined Authority should be known as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority: this was set out in the Review of Strategic Governance in September 2013 and in Councils’ responses to the Government’s consultation in January 2014.

In the debate to establish the Combined Authority in the House of Commons on 18 March 2014, Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis, under pressure from Knowsley MP George Howarth, stopped short of apologising for this imposition by stating that "The authorities can choose whatever name they want, work under that name, brand it and "logo" it." He went on to say "Under the powers that we have introduced, combined authorities can now choose the brand name that they want to use, whatever it may be, and use it strongly and effectively to represent themselves".

This is a clear u-turn by Government and presents an opportunity for the Combined Authority to be clear on its name from day one by using the existing Liverpool City Region brand.

Therefore, the Combined Authority resolves to:

(i) Adopt the name Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for public purposes; and

(ii) Write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to inform him of this decision.”

Cllr Grunewald said, “Thank you very much Chair. In September 2013 across six councils in the City Region and the Local Enterprise Partnership representing over 1.5 million people agreed to submit a document to the government proposing the establishment of the Combined Authority proposing that it be called the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. No other name was proposed and there was no disagreement between us, all agreed on Liverpool City Region was a attack brand.

Despite that, the government went out to statutory consultation on the proposals calling it Greater Merseyside Combined Authority. In January 2014 once again and in response to the statutory consultation the elected representatives of over 1.5 million people requested the name of the Combined Authority should be called the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. No other name was proposed by any other council, there’s no disagreement between us. Yet again, despite that the government have imposed an unworkable title of Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral Combined Authority.

In doing so the Secretary of State has demonstrated his contempt for the people of the City Region and their elected representatives. The mantra of localism has never appeared more ludicrous. Six councils in the City Region have a track record of working together effectively. This has been demonstrated most recently by the speed with which this organisation has achieved Combined Authority status, something which others elsewhere thought couldn’t be done in the timescales that we worked to.

In working together we have always recognised the value of the attack brand Liverpool City Region. We’ve emphasised this time and time again. We’ve no intention of losing the instant recognition which this brand gives to us across the world but today is so much more about than a name, we need to deal with this now and move on to the vital work ahead.

The Combined Authority will be used as a vehicle to push forward the economic development and regeneration of the City Region and the City Region will have greater pace. There’s no ambiguity or disagreement about our intentions and our ambitions, nor is there any ambiguity or disagreement about our identity. We’re all part of the local City Region and we intend to stay in our own as such.”

Cllr Polhill, the councillor who seconded the motion said, “Thank you Chair, I agree with as set out what Councillor Grunewald has said. Just for the record when Halton Council passed it unanimously and when we had a consultation that was unanimous as well. Liverpool is a well-known brand both nationally but internationally and I’m not going to say otherwise so it’s a no brainer.”

Robert Hough confirmed that the local enterprise partnership had unanimously endorsed the choice of Liverpool City Region and supported the motion.

All seven members of the Combined Authority voted in favour of the motion.

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