The petition started off just being myself and Leonora, but also attracted 7 online signatures (total 9, 7 online and 2 in paper form).
The petition called for a change to MFRA’s constitution and filming policy and went on the agenda of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting on the 16th of December 2014.
Due to a visit by royalty the time of that meeting was changed from 1.00 pm to 11.00 am. Although I was invited to speak at the meeting I wasn’t told formally of the change of time. So I wasn’t present as I didn’t know the meeting was starting 2 hours earlier than planned.
The councillors at that meeting resolved:
“a) The petition be noted;
b) The Authority’s awareness of the protocol and procedure developed following the introduction of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, and its publication on the website for anyone wishing to attend or record proceedings be noted; and,
c) The Clerk be instructed to include any amendments to The Constitution, including revision of what is acceptable to the Authority as a petition, as part of the annual review, and provide with a covering report to the Annual Meeting 11th June 2015.”
I might point out that (c) was agreed by councillors to prevent a petition of two signatures being on the agenda. It seems to have ignored the fact that their constitution requires 7 working days notice before the meeting, so in those 7 working days the number on a petition can change!
So in the end my petition is likely to have caused a constitutional change (2 and a half years later), just not to the bit of the constitution that myself and the petitioners requested changed!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
Wirral Council’s Standards Panel will meet on the 15th June to decide on a complaint about a councillor
Wirral Council’s Standards Panel will meet on the 15th June to decide on a complaint about a councillor
Council Chamber (Wallasey Town Hall) 1st June 2017 – Does the councillor complained about sit on one of these seats?
I noticed looking through the calendar of public meetings at Wirral Council this month that a Standards Panel meeting is scheduled for Thursday 15th June starting at 5.00 pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall.
However, presumably it won’t be about any of the three councillors that may be on the Standards Panel deciding it (Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative), Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat) or Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour)).
It looks possible that Cllr Paul Hayes could be an Alternate Member at the Standards Panel meeting for the Conservative Group in place of Cllr Chris Blakeley though.
It also won’t be about about Cllr Gillian Wood as she was only elected earlier last month. Therefore there has been insufficient time for any complaint about her to reach this stage.
That leaves a large number of other councillors (sixty or so) it could be about! As the agenda is set to be published by the 7th June 2017 it’s possible I might find out then.
The good thing about it meeting in Committee Room 1 is that it’s possible microphones can be used there. Other people down on Wirral Council’s website as attending the meeting are Shirley Hudspeth (presumably to take the minutes), Surjit Tour (in his capacity as Monitoring Officer) and Professor Ronald Jones (in his capacity as Independent Person).
The agenda to be agreed for Standards Panel meetings is as follows:
1. Appointment of Chairperson of the Panel
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Opening remarks of the Chairperson
4. Panel to determine whether the exemption to exclude the press and public is to be maintained. (Parties invited to make representations)
5. Complainant (or representative) invited to make opening remarks
6. Subject Councillor (or representative) invited to make opening remarks
7. Investigator to present his/her report
8. Parties invited to question the investigator and/or seek points of clarification on the report
9. Panel to question the investigator on her report
10. Complainant (or representative) invited to make final submissions
11. Panel to seek clarification on any points relevant to the Complainant
12. Subject Councillor (or representative) invited to make final submissions
13. Panel to seek clarification on any points relevant to the Subject Councillor
14. Panel to invite the views of the Independent Person for consideration
15. Panel hearing adjourned to allow for deliberation (as deemed appropriate the Panel)
16. Panel hearing resumed for decision
17. If the Panel decision upholds/finds a breach of the Code, the Subject Councillor (or representative) shall be invited to make submissions in respect of any mitigation (including in respect of sanctions) for consideration by the Panel
18. Panel hearing adjourned to allow for deliberation (if deemed necessary by the Panel)
19. Panel hearing resumed for decision on sanctions (if any)
The Chairperson and Panel shall have discretion to vary the above procedure if it is considered appropriate and necessary to ensure fairness to all parties.
The Standards Panel can decide either to determine that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation(s) made (if so and the councillor complained about agrees a media statement is issued about it and if the councillor complained about agrees it is reported to the next meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee) or the Standards Panel can determine that the Members’ Code of Conduct is proven to be breached.
If their decision is the latter, then the Standards Panel can request:
(a) that Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer) write to the councillor concerned,
(b) that the councillor has to apologise tot the Complainant (whether verbally or in writing),
(c) recommend to the Leader of that Political Group that disciplinary action be taken against the councillor,
(d) ask Surjit Tour to arrange training for the councillor concerned, if the councillor fails to turn up to the training then this is reported to the Leader of that Political Group.
If the Standards Panel upholds the complaint, the councillor complained about can choose within 21 days to appeal the decision to the Standards Appeal Panel.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”
What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
On the 5th August 2016 a former Wirral Council employee Martin Morton made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for a copy of a report commissioned from Nick Warren on whistleblowing by former Wirral Council employees.
After Wirral Council had ignored his request for a month, Martin Morton requested an internal review on the 6th September 2016.
Wirral Council completed that internal review and communicated the results to Martin Morton on the 3rd October 2016 refusing to supply the report in its entirety.
The refusal was made by Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36).
Martin Morton then appealed Surjit Tour’s decision to the regulator ICO (the Information Commissioner’s Office).
During the course of ICO’s investigation, Wirral Council apologised for how long it had taken to reply to Martin Morton‘s request, but added an additional reason for refusing some of the information giving personal information (section 40) as a further reason.
On the 27th April 2017 ICO issued a decision notice (FS50649341). The decision notice required some of the information requested to be released to Martin Morton within 35 calendar days as ICO disagreed with Wirral Council and felt there were parts of the report to which neither section 36 nor section 40 applied.
Wirral Council released that information yesterday which comprise paragraphs 1-8 of the report (although part of paragraph 4 is redacted) and paragraph 76. I’ve put in a line break between different pages and in the conversion from print to HTML there may be some minor formatting changes.
I include what has been released below yesterday as it is rather short. A series of XXXX represents the redacted bit. I’ve made two additions. The first is that I’ve linked the words “precise terms of reference” in paragraph 4 to the terms of reference as the report makes more sense when read together with the terms of reference. The second is that I’ve made it clearer that paragraphs 5-75 haven’t been released of the report.
Report
A. INTRODUCTION
This review arises from events which formed part of a dismal decade for Wirral Borough Council (“Wirral”) culminating in a remarkable joint statement from the Leader of the Council and the then Chief Executive (CE) which have accepted a number of failings and recognised the need to improve Wirral’s corporate governance, culture and workforce policies.
Part of the statement concerned the Highways and Engineering Services procurement exercise (“HESPE”). This work was put out to tender; there were bids from the private sector and an in house bid from the Wirral “DLO”. It is convenient to state here some important dates concerning HESPE.
Dec 2007
Announcement in the Official EU Journal.
13 March 2008
Qualifying bidders chosen
2 July 2008
Bidders invited to tender according to a Bill of Quantities.
4 Sept 2008 (later extended to 5 Sept 2008)
Tender return date.
16 Oct 2008
Contract formally awarded to COLAS.
The DLO bid was therefore unsuccessful. This meant that the DLO staff would transfer to COLAS from April 2009.
In November 2008 some employees of the DLO made a disclosure on the advice of their Trade Union to Wirral’s CE. I will refer to them collectively as “the Whistleblowers”. They had all worked for Wirral for many years. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I have been asked to review the treatment of the Whistleblowers. It is not necessary to recite precise terms of reference.
I have interviewed the Whistleblowers and other witnesses and have read a large number of documents provided by Wirral. I thank Wirral staff for the co-operation which I have received. I will not deal with all the evidence because I want to make my report as short and as readable as I can. If required, I can expand on or explore any individual issue.
I have of course used hindsight. That is in the very nature of a review. There is nothing wrong with this provided I do not use it to criticise people or actions unfairly.
B. WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE DONE FOR WIRRAL
It took Wirral about four months to respond to the Whistleblowers. They were dissatisfied and went to the Audit Commission. The Commission took the
unusual step of issuing a public report identifying serious weakness in Wirral’s arrangements for:-
(a) Declaration of Interests. (b) Internal Audit (c) Reporting to Elected Members (d) Dealing with Whistleblowers (e) Evaluating Tenders
As a result Wirral has altered and improved its procedures in these important areas of work. It seems clear that the weaknesses would not have been exposed, nor would the improvements have come about, if the Whistleblowers had not had the courage to speak out. I am not aware that Wirral has acknowledged publicly or privately the contribution which the Whistleblowers thus made to our community.
(Paragraphs 5-75 are redacted).
L. CONCLUSION
The Whistleblowers have not received sufficient credit for exposing poor practice within Wirral. The “informal” nature of the first investigation resulted
in them having to work under great stress for several months. While they were still Wirral employees, their names were disclosed to their new employer as being in some way untrustworthy. Their health and their jobs were adversely affected over an extended period.
Nicholas Warren 6th October 2015.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
Below are pages 45 to 429 of the bundle for the hearing last year.
Since that time, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Services’ planning application has been refused by Wirral Council and a revised planning application submitted earlier this year has yet to be determined.
Photos on the valuation reports written by Hardie Brack have been removed and so has the First-tier Tribunal crest on First-tier Tribunal orders.
There are some typographical errors in the pages below.
Documents originally in colour have been converted to black and white for the bundle.
Despite this matter being ended by consent order in September 2016, eight months later there are sub judice matters involving costs.
I therefore will not be commenting on those matters until they are resolved.
The revised planning application is expected to be on the agenda of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee for a public meeting on the 22nd June 2017 and if the Planning Committee decides on a site visit it will be finally determined at its public meeting scheduled for the 20th July 2017.
Councillors meet next week to discuss fire station mergers project including Saughall Massie
Councillors meet next week to discuss fire station mergers project including Saughall Massie
Land off Saughall Massie Road Saughall Massie 13th December 2016 SAVE OUR GREEN BELT SAY NO TO THE FIRE STATION banner
A public meeting of councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority next week (MFRA’s Wirral Council nominated councillors are Councillor Brian Kenny, Councillor Chris Meaden, Cllr Lesley Rennie and Councillor Jean Stapleton) has as its last agenda item the fire station mergers project.
A report to councillors states that the Prescot fire station will cost a further £145,000 than planned due to “discovery and eradication of Japanese Knotweed; grouting of shallow mining workings; requirement for further boreholes and trial pits due to inaccurately plotted co-ordinates; and the discovery of further asbestos contamination”. A break-in to the site compound over Easter also led to a loss of £2,000 of plant and equipment.
The report states that in St Helens, Pilkington have withdrawn their offer of a two acre site in Canal Street as someone else has offered Pilkington more money than Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, so MFRA have been forced to switch to another Pilkington owned site in the Watson Street works (which may require a further consultation).
A revised planning application for the Saughall Massie site (which is owned by Wirral Council) has been submitted to Wirral Council and the report author had been hoping that it would be decided at the Planning Committee scheduled for the 1st June 2017.
Due to the general election, it looks unlikely that a decision will be made a week before people vote, so Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service have told councillors it will probably go to a Planning Committee meeting to be decided on the 22nd June 2017.
Interestingly, despite an “intention” expressed to councillors in January to appeal the original refusal of planning permission, this has now been changed to an appeal of the decision to the Planning Inspectorate of the revised planning application (should it be refused again).
