Tag: Cllr Moira McLaughlin

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

Why did Martin Morton call for three councillors to resign?

                                 

Before I go any further I will point out the following. This is with regards to Martin Morton’s statutory complaint of the 9th February 2010 involving Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Pat Williams. This was superseded by a more detailed complaint on 26th February 2010 which also included former Cllr Ann Bridson. This is about the former complaint, not the latter.

Ultimately the Standards Board for England in August 2011 issued decision notices on the complaint for Cllr Pat Williams, Cllr Moira McLaughlin, Cllr Denise Roberts and former Cllr Ann Bridson. All decision notices stated that no further action should be taken.

In each decision notice Standards for England stated “I would comment that it may be for the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to examine the findings of the investigation into the charging policy when if concludes and then consider the role of individual members.”

However the Anna Klonowski Associates report states on page 52 at 6.8.3/6.8.4 “A separate standards complaint had been submitted to Wirral Council’s Standards Committee in relation to certain Member conduct issues associated with this group and was referred to Standards for England” and “Whilst this matter was being investigated by Standards for England the consultant was specifically instructed by the Council not to prejudice the investigation, therefore matters relating to the conduct of Members in relation to this matter were deemed outside the terms of reference for this review.”

In a letter dated 31st March 2011 from Surjit Tour to Standards for England (reference ST/SfE2010/04) he states on page 2 “Following the May 2010 elections, the new Leader of the Council commissioned an inquiry into, inter alia, the issues raised by Martin Morton concerning the manner in which charges were raised by the Council. The Panel’s Chairperson was of the view, having liaised with members of the Initial Assessment Panel sitting on 8 April 2010, that the circumstances and facts involved in Mr Morton’s complaints, would overlap with those likely to be considered by the inquiry. Accordingly it was considered appropriate to await the outcome of the inquiry given that one of the options available to the Panel, namely to refer the matter for investigation, could potentially conflict with the inquiry.”

However back to what was alleged that councillors had done in Martin Morton’s original complaint. I’ll first deal with question 4 which is basically “Please explain in this section (or on separate sheets) what the member has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct.” Below is verbatim what was put in answer to that question.

I contacted Monitoring Officer Bill Norman seeking guidance in relation to this matter on 24th December 2009, having failed to elicit a response I have contacted Standards for England who have advised me to submit this complaint in accordance with Wirral Council procedures.

The full extent of the complicity of the named Councillors in the institutional financial abuse of people with learning disabilities has only recently become apparent following discovery of relevant documentation and by recent declarations of interest at Council meetings (see links below).

The specific details of my complaint are as follows:

Unlawful charges (currently identified at £241K but in reality at least double that sum) that were imposed upon people with learning disabilities at supported living establishments in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and were levied with the full knowledge of the three Councillors identified in this submission.

However it should be noted that although many Councillors are implicated in this case Cllrs Williams I McLaughlin and Roberts are particularly culpable in terms of the Code of Conduct for Members for the following reasons:

An email sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the director of Social Services on 27th January 2005 on behalf of the Director of Social Services at this time (Kevin Miller) indicates that he has chosen Cllrs McLaughlin, Williams, Roberts and Leslie Thomas to be part of “a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options”.

The minutes of the Charging Policy Consultation group dated 22nd August 2005 (see minutes) firmly establishes that each of the 3 Councillors were aware that the “Special Charging Policy” applied at the 3 properties named above were deemed as “unfair” (and therefore “unlawful”).

None of these Councillors saw fit to suggest that the people who had been unlawfully charged should be reimbursed and accepted that there was “unfairness in the system”* (Mike Fowler – Head of Finance DASS).

*It should be noted that this “unfairness” involved in some cases charges in excess of £100 per week and took place over a number of years. Meanwhile other vulnerable people in the same circumstance paid NOTHING.

That financial abuse took place has been firmly established following the publication of a Public Interest Disclosure Act report by the Audit commission in August 2008 and the unravelling of a cover-up at subsequent meetings of the Audit & Risk Management Committee between September 2008 – November 2009, however the specific substance of this complaint is as follows:

Cllr.Williams (ineptly) chaired a Grievance Appeal Hearing in July 2007 where one of the main issues of my grievance/whistleblowing allegations was the unlawful charges outlined above.

She failed to declare an interest despite her participation in ,the charging policy working group and should NEVER have chaired my Appeal “hearing” .

Her bias at this hearing is evidenced by the following opening exchange (there are partial minutes of this meeting corroborating this exchange):

Cllr W: “What outcome do you want from this hearing?”
Myself: “An external investigation by the Audit Commission” (which is
ironic because I eventually achieved this and was vindicated in ALL
aspects of my complaint)
Cllr W: Mr.Miller do Mr.Morton’s complaints warrant an investigation by
the Audit Commission
Kevin Miller: No they don’t
Cllr W; There, you have your answer Mr.Morton
Colin Hughes ( Wirral Council: Legal Dept) : Well I think we need to hear
the case first ….. ..

Subsequently (and revealingly) Kevin Miller on his last day of employment with Wirral Council on 31 st October 2007 left a “file note” on my personnel file stating thus:

“I can confirm that following the withdrawal of his grievance to members appeal by Mr Martin Morton I offered the Councillors who were on the appeal panel the opportunity of a briefing after the hearing.

At a later dated (sic) I briefed Councillor P M Williams to ensure that any concerns that she and her fellow members may had regarding issues raised by Mr Morton were not ignored. I also took the opportunitY to arrange for Maura Noone, Head of Service, Commissioning, Health and Wellbeing to join us to answer any queries”.

When I requested the same privilege that had been afforded to Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and that I was given the opportunity to meet with Cllr.Williams and to disabuse her of the notion that there was nothing to be concerned about However this was DENIED to me in a letter dated 7th December 2007.

Cllr Williams recalls the briefing with Mr.Miller and Ms.Noone and states:
“During that briefing I was satisfied that the officers in the Adult Social Services Department had dealt honestly and competently with some very difficult problems ….. “.

As subsequent events have proven Adult Social Services senior management did not demonstrate honesty or competence in this particular case.

However what I did not know at the time was that Cllr.Williams had known about the unlawful charge since 2005 and was therefore was both implicated the institutional financial abuse of vulnerable people.

I therefore maintain that in failing to declare a prejudicial interest Cllr.Williams was complicit with a cover-up of financial mismanagement and gross maladministration.

I would suggest that Cllr.McLaughlin appears to have a friendship which precludes her from undertaking her role with due impartiality.

Wirral Council website records how Cllr.McLaughlin declares an interest at Council meeting 15/12/08 and Cabinet 6/11/08 on the following grounds:

“Prejudicial- due to a friendship with a potentially interested party”

This friendship has ears to preclude her ( as the Cabinet Member) from contributing to any debate relating to the financial abuse of vulnerable people, thereby sidestepping the issue that once again she was aware of the unlawful charges as part of the charging policy review group organised by former director Kevin Miller, whom I am suggesting is the friend to whom Cllr.McLaughlin refers to In her declarations of Interest.

Therefore Cllr.McLaughlin clearly regards her personal friendship to take precedence over her responsibility as Cabinet member to uphold the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Cllr.Roberts has only recently declared an interest.

She certainly didn’t declare an interest at full Council meeting on November 2nd 2009 where she moved an amendment to deny a full independent investigation into the abuse case with a speech (which she has kindly forwarded) which includes the following statements:

“We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished …………… we are dealing ,in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being
placed in Special measures …… This is not to excuse what happened …….. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise ……… There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another Investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively
covered by the Council”.

Needless to say Cllr.Roberts fails to declare her involvement with the charging policy review group and the fact that she knew about the unlawful charges during this speech.

Moreover there has NEVER been an investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council”.

If they had Cllr.Williams, McLaughlin and Cllr.Roberts complicity would have been uncovered.

Cllr.Roberts motives becomes even more questionable when you consider that she has only recently declared an interest (alongside Cllr.McLaughlin at the Health and Well Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2010) both citing “their friendship with an interested party”.

Consequently I believe that all three of the above Elected Members are in serious breach of ALL the The Ten General Principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Members.
Additionally I would make specific reference to the general provisions of Wirral Council’s code In relation to:

5. “you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute”
12c. “you must not seek to improperly to influence a decision about that business”

Cabinet report of 1 December 2005
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewagenda.asp?mtg=1577#20
Social Care Select Committee of 14th Feb 2005-
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1518

Select Committee of 18th January 2005 –
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.asp?mtg=1476
Cabinet 24 January 2007
http://www.wirral.gov.uk/minute/viewmins.aso?mtg=1959#231

In answer to question 6 “Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are looking for or hoping to achieve by submitting this complaint.” Mr. Morton put “Consequences that are commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations, This ultimately means only one course of action: resignation.”

Attached to the complaint was the email below, speech of Cllr Roberts (also below) and the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group.

Mike
For information
Jan
—-Original Message—-
From: Jan Johnson (Social Services)
Sent: 27 January 2005 14:09
To: Moira McLaughlin (Councillor); Patricia Williams (Councillor); Leslie Thomas (Councillor): Denise Roberts (Councillor)
Subject: CHARGING POLICY REVIEW GROUP
Importance: High

Sent by Jan Johnson on behalf of the Director of Social Services

Dear Councillors
The Director has asked me to arrange a members working group meeting to consider charging policy options (minuted at the last Select Committee). I would be grateful if you could let me know your availability for Tuesday 8th February following the Lib Dem briefing around 6.00 – 6.30 p.m.

Many thanks.

Jan

Jan Johnson
PA to Director
Tel: 0151 666 3650
Fax: 0151 666 4747

Denise Robert’s speech

This matter has now been the subject of intensive investigation by the Audit Commission and by the Council’s own Internal Audit.

A number of key reports have been produced and there are further reports for consideration on the Agenda of the Audit and Risk Management Committee tomorrow.

Let’s be quite clear what we are dealing with here, and what we are not dealing with.

  • We are not dealing with intentional fraud.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken in malice.
  • We are not dealing with decisions taken for personal gain.
  • We are not dealing with hidden wrongdoing and corruption that needs to be rooted out and punished.

What we are dealing with, quite frankly, is a mess that needs to be sorted out.

  • We are dealing with honest decisions on charging taken at a time when there was no national guidance, which, in hindsight, could have been different.
  • We are dealing with decisions which were intended to improve the life of those moving from residential accommodation, where they had little disposable income, to supported living, where they had higher levels of disposable income.
  • We are dealing with decisions that, none the less, may have set charges too high, and then failed to review them.
  • We are dealing with people trying to do the best job they could, and that best job just not being good enough.
  • We are dealing with decisions not taken when the first opportunity to change things presented itself.
  • We are dealing with decisions taken, but not fully implemented.
  • We are dealing with a lengthy delay from the introduction of national guidelines on charges to their implementation in practice.
  • We are dealing, in short, with a period of intense stress, high staff turnover, chaos and confusion, dating back ten years or more, some of which led to the Department being placed in Special Measures.

This is not to excuse what happened. There were clearly significant and serious management failings, which we all recognise.

It is right and proper that these failings should be properly investigated, and we have formally thanked Mr Morton for bringing these to the Council’s attention.

It is also right and proper that every effort is made to ensure these failings cannot happen again, and that procedures are put in place so we can be absolutely sure they won’t happen again.

It is also absolutely right and proper that any individual who may have been overcharged should be compensated for that overcharging.

A recommendation has already been made by the Audit and Risk Management committee to reimburse service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton for overcharging between April 2003 and February 2006 and we welcome that.

A further report is being heard by members of that committee tomorrow night which looks at whether or “not compensation should be paid for the period between 1997 and April 2003.

There is also a detailed report on the agenda from the Director of Social Services setting out the progress made in addressing the failures identified and ensuring they cannot happen again.

There have been allegations made of bullying against the whistleblower and Cabinet has already instructed the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to initiate an investigation into these allegations and this will be carried out by an outside, independent person.

There is absolutely no reason to commission yet another investigation into areas that have already been exhaustively covered by the Council.

Measures have now been taken to put things right, and further measures have yet to be considered by the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

It’s time now to move forward, and look to the future and to much of the excellent work now being carried out by the Department of Adult Social Services.

Drawing this process out any further will serve no real purpose.
I urge you to support this amendment.

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

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

Standards Committee agreed to changes to Wirral Council’s constitution in narrow 5:4 vote

                         

The transcript below is from part of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee which met on Tuesday 26th November (item 4 Revisions to the Council’s Constitution). The vote on this item was five votes (Cllr Bill Davies, Cllr Ron Abbey, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr John Salter) in favour of approving the recommendations at 13.1 and 13.2 in the report and there were four votes against (Cllr Chris Blakeley, Cllr Leah Fraser, Cllr Peter Kearney). You can watch the meeting using this playlist (this item starts at 3m 38s into the meeting).

Cllr Leah Fraser said, “Excuse me Chair, before we proceed any further, I actually have spoken to Graham Burgess and apparently if there are any issues that are contentious that we’re not agreeing with to do with the changes to the constitution, then they’ll be referred for consultation. So what I’d like to move is that because there’s so much and the consultation is starting in January, which is only a month away, that we put all this into the consultation.”

Cllr Chris Blakeley replied, “Seconded Chair.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK”.

Cllr Ron Abbey said, “Chair, just on that point, as far as I am aware, these refer to arrangements by the Council to carry out its duties between now and January, which is now… you can shake your head Cllr Blakeley, I didn’t shake my head at”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “Listen! Listen! I’m going to tell you now, this Standards Committee, I am not, I’m telling you now, right from the start, any cross chitchat out of the way. Continue Cllr Abbey now.”

Cllr Ron Abbey said, “I set out to say what I wanted to say, if it’s right or wrong I’m asking for this particular point to address this.. but I am led to believe whether it’s true or not, I’m not sure whether the Head of Law will be able to advise me whether I’m correct or not. These are interim measures which allow us to operate the Council in its proper format till January when full consultation will be taken on the constitution going forward. If I’m uncorrect then I’ll stand corrected, that’s why …response.. if I’m not then fine I’ll take … my place.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK. Surjit, do you want to give some advice for other people?”

Surjit Tour replied, “Chair, if it assist… just to provide that clarity it may help. The report essentially sets out two schedules. Schedule one which refers to amendments that this committee I believe can deal with and indeed it can move as part of its powers delegated to it through the power to make minor amendments to the Council’s constitution. Schedule two however outlines in more detail changes which the report it’s to be recommended that this committee recommends that Council approves because of the nature of those changes.

So in terms of the little point that’s been raised by the councillor. Councillor, the position is that they’re not interim changes that would be made at this committee. If approved the changes in schedule one, they would be changes that would be permanent to the Council’s constitution until changed by Council or this committee in the future whereas schedule two changes as proposed would require Council’s approval before those changes would take effect. Then again, they could be subsequently changed there also if Council so chose to do so.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK. Thank you, Councillor Blakeley.”

Cllr Chris Blakeley said, “Thank you Chairman, I had a conversation with the Chief Executive .. this evening and had a conversation with the Head of Law earlier this afternoon. The Chief Executive made it very clear to me that if there were any contentious issues and any disagreement then they should be referred to the full consultation. I suggested last night that the Chief Executive spoke to the Head of Law and remove the items that were contentious and allow the other ones that weren’t in contention to go through. That clearly hasn’t happened and that’s why we are moving the whole report be deferred to consultation. A very strange thing happened last night, the Chief Executive agreed with me. That’s the first time since he’s been in post.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK, now I’ve got Cllr McLaughlin, you want to comment briefly, Cllr McLaughlin?”

Cllr Moira McLaughlin said, “Very briefly, it’s just a comment. A significant number of amendments doesn’t actually mean that they are either anything more than minor or that they are contentious and I agree that there are a significant number, but that doesn’t in itself make them contentious. The other thing is that as far as I understood, these have been approved by the party leaders as the well, … that was my understanding that this has been approved by the party leaders and certainly I was only suggesting that we move ahead to facilitate the smooth running of the Council and to continue …..”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “OK, …”

Surjit Tour said, “Chair, if I can also clarify, I’ve also spoken to the Chief Executive this afternoon about these matters. The Chief Executive’s view is that if, it’s a matter obviously for this committee, if they are matters which the committee is minded to unanimously agree on these proposals then I think the committee would want to refer those the wider review and have those debated obviously. If Members feel that it is, if whether certainly if Members require further debate or discussion, my view is that there would be no particular issue with regards to that being an appropriate course of action either for this committee. Clearly where there’s unanimous changes or the changes are relatively minor in detail then I almost think that they could be dealt with a recommendation to Council to approval, but where there are matters which require further debate and discussion, then the Chief Executive’s view was that subjecting those particular proposals to the wider review that’s going to be taken in due course.”

Cllr Bill Davies (Chair) said, “Councillor Harney.”

Cllr Tom Harney said, “Right, thank you Chair. I have one or two things to say, first of all I’m declaring my interest, I haven’t spoken to Mr. Burgess today, this week or even this month and I’m sure how he comes into all this. He seems to be able to read minds of Members and what the Members are going to be minded to do, maybe that’s a reflection of the whole of this constitution we have, I don’t know.

I would like to say some papers and some comments and I’m sorry if I offend anybody but there we are. That is life. I’ve got these papers here, I’ve got this paper here which was put on the table today. There is no coherence as far as I can see, I am not happy to be given this. This is a Standards Committee, I’m totally unhappy with it. I can’t even find schedule one, maybe it’s my eyesight, maybe it’s my age, I don’t know but I can’t find it, it must be somewhere and we’re being asked to agree amendments, some of them it seems may be minor and so on but there has been no steer as to what on earth it’s all about, apart from the fact it seems to have been discussed by the party leaders, who presumably have some new role in this Council which is not really defined by the constitution although I think it’s referred to. Well when we’re …. is it of importance? I do think that since this is a Standards Committee, we should have things done meticulously and sensibly.

The reality is and I will accept this having been a councillor for a number of years and that is that our record on adhering to or having a sensible set of standing orders which are actually adhered to is dismal in this Council over many, many years. …. keep on suspending standing orders and I’m afraid that I remember our previous Head of Legal Services who came along trying to get us to change and was shouted down basically almost. He was certainly outvoted.

He said ‘This is all wrong.’ and we said, ‘No, we do it this way, this is Wirral.’ So I do accept and I do think it’s important that we get our constitution right and our standing orders and so on right and we adhere to that, but we can only do that if we as a Council start to put ourselves thoroughly understand what the issues are and I’m not happy that.

I mean I know some things may be urgent and I will accept that and I’d like to be told what and why briefly preferably, I don’t think spending half an hour on it and then I would like the suggestion that we vote and then I suggest we go home and I do not think that from my point of view, and I’m quite willing to accept that everybody else is thoroughly dissatisfied and I’m not and I don’t know how I can vote without any of that and I just root through these and we have a rather what’s the word bad tempered discussion at the end of the day because we lose patience with each other, after all it’s not our job to write paperwork for the committee.”

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

Standards for England email about missing councillor in Martin Morton complaint

Standards for England email about missing councillor in Martin Morton complaint

Standards for England email about missing councillor in Martin Morton complaint

                                

I realise as this is over two years ago this is probably regarded now as ancient history, but as far as I remember the name of the former councillor that was missing from the complaint of Martin Morton that Wirral Council incorrectly sent to Standards for England has not before been made public. Here’s an email from Standards for England that states who it was and refers to how they initially reached a decision on one councillor because with regards to the information sent by Wirral Council that they “were not provided with evidence to show that the complainant had made a complaint about her”.

from: Lori Holden “Lori.Holden@standardsforengland.gov.uk”
to: “john.brace@gmail.com”
date: 7 July 2011 11:02
subject: RE: complaint referred to Standards Board for England by Metropolitan Borough of Wirral with regards to Cllr Bridson, Cllr Williams, Cllr Roberts and Cllr McLaughlin made by Mr. Morton

Hi John,

Thanks again for you latest email. As previously confirmed, Standards for England received a referral from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s Standards Committee’s Initial Assessment Panel relating to Councillors Moira McLaughlin, Denise Roberts, Pat Williams and Ann Bridson on April 1, 2011.

Standards for England made a decision, in accordance with section 58(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended, that no further action be taken on the allegation in relation to all four councillors based on the information provided to us by the local authority.

However, with regards to Councillor Ann Bridson, we stated that we reached our decision of no further action on the basis that we were not provided with evidence to show that the complainant had made a complaint about her.

In relation to the referral we received on June 14, I have been advised that initial assessment of this complaint is still in progress. I would advise contacting me again by mid-week next week for an update and, if I hear of any developments in the meantime, I will let you know.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Lori

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

Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee (Wirral Council) 9th July 2013

A report on the Families and Wellbeing Committee held in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall on the 9th July 2013

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.

Video footage of the first meeting of Wirral Council’s Families and Wellbeing Committee (that replaces both the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee) can be watched above with a playlist of all parts here. If you’d like to be notified each time I upload a video, simply subscribe to my Youtube channel.

The agenda and reports for the meeting are as usual on Wirral Council’s website. In a meeting that lasted over two hours what was actually decided? Well they agreed the minutes of the previous two meetings of the Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the previous meeting of the Children and Young Peoples Committee.

They noted a report and presentation on their terms of reference (which had previously been agreed at the last Extraordinary Council meeting back in April). They noted (and received a report on) the policy and performance procedure rules (which had already been agreed with minor amendments by the Coordinating Committee a week ago). All this (which along with a few interests being declared at the start of the meeting) took a staggeringly long thirteen minutes. These last two reports were something the Committee have no say over as it falls outside their terms of reference.

Then they went onto discuss the role of co-optees. There are ten co-optees on this Committee, some required by law, others were transferred over from the Families and Wellbeing Committee’s predecessor committees. Curiously none of the ten co-optees had been invited along to the meeting where their very existence was debated. I’ll point out here that who the co-optees are is decided by Council, not the Families and Wellbeing Committee. After much umming and ahhing as well as correction by Fiona Johnstone of the mistaken belief by one councillor (who shall remain nameless) that the Chief Executive of Arrowe Park Hospital and a doctor from the Clinical Commissioning Group had been co-optees of the former Health and Wellbeing Committee, Cllrs Moira McLaughlin, Denise Roberts, Mike Hornby and Pat Williams decided to meet in a task and finish group to mull over the co-optees’ future.

So after twenty minutes of noting reports and discussing things that fell outside their remit, did they finally at agenda item seven get to something within their committee’s remit and that it was worthwhile having fifteen councillors (plus two Cabinet Members) and about a dozen senior officers present for? Item seven was another Powerpoint presentation on the “Directorate Plan” given by Claire Fish, Julia Hassall and Chris Begya (in place of Graham Hodkinson).

The slides went on and on, the jargon and management phrases flowing seamlessly from senior officer’s lips. “We’re operating in a challenging fiscal environment” was said instead of the simpler “We’re making cuts”, “synergies” was used instead of cuts, “commissioning approach” instead of privatisation. Julia Hassall told councillors that that they had been “imagining where they’ll be in 2016” and invited them into her “vision of the future”. She then got onto slides about pyramids. You may think Ancient Egypt is way, way outside the remit of the Committee, but these weren’t Powerpoint slides about crumbling relics, these were “pyramids of need”.

Words cannot express how mind-numbingly dull it was watching the admittedly enthusiastic Julia Hassall explaining which children went where on each level of her “pyramids of need”. However it was, yes you’ve guessed it, more code for cuts as confirmed at the end by her saying that they had a balanced budget and were well on track to finding £11.4 million of cuts.

Cllr Williams complained that it was difficult to take in the information from the Powerpoint slides and could they have copies? Cllr McLaughlin also asked this (as well as a question about educational outcomes). Whilst Cllr McLaughlin was asking Julia Hassall a long question, Julia Hassall stood there nodding, seemingly doing a good impression of the Churchill insurance dog but without the “Oh yes”. When she wasn’t nodding, she had her head tilted to one side as if she was a teacher being asked a question by a pupil who hadn’t been paying attention. In a long answer with many, many, many hand gestures that really should’ve had their own accompanying music, Julia Hassall mentioned the Corporate Parenting Group and agreed in response to a question of Cllr McLaughlin that she would circulate the minutes of its last meeting to councillors (which was the subject of a recent FOI request of mine that was refused by Wirral Council on the basis it would take too long). Various other councillors asked questions or made comments, then Chris Begya of the Department of Adult Social Services gave her presentation.

This again was jargon heavy, “safeguarding peer challenge”, “Care Quality Commission” and “national sector led improvement organisation” peppered her talk which again was basically along the theme of the previous one, a hundred and one way to mention cuts without actually using the word. Bad budgets were mentioned, so were savings, so was a “more transparent leadership” and on that final point the Director of Adult Social Services was so transparent he wasn’t even there! As before councillors made comments and asked questions finishing with the Chair thanking Claire Fish, Julia Hassall and Chris Begya.

Claire Fish briefly (yes senior officers can actually be brief) talked about item eight, the Families and Wellbeing dashboard, but spent a lot longer fielding questions from councillors on it. A large print version of item nine (public health dashboard) was circulated to councillors, with a long summary from Fiona Johnstone, which again attracted questions from councillors (along with some very long answers).

Moving to item ten, the end was almost in sight! Cllr Povall gave a brief summary as to where the Task and Finish Group on the Francis Report had got to, there was a long discussion on the work program (eventually they agreed that the Chair and spokespersons would meet up to decide it), there were no questions on item twelve and finally after just over two hours in the sweltering heat of Committee Room 1 the meeting finished.

Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Declarations of Interests, Minutes, Chairman’s Announcements, Minutes of Meetings, Collaboration Agreement for the National Police Air Service Part 1

Merseyside Police Volvo
Merseyside Police Volvo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The papers for this meeting can no longer be found on the Merseyside Police Authority website as Merseyside Police Authority was abolished in November 2012 and replaced with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Some of the pages handed out at the meeting itself can still be found on this blog, Item 5 (Joint Report of the Chief Executive and Chief Constable) National Police Air Service: Collaboration Agreement (4 pages) (Page 1 of 4, Page 2 of 4, Page 3 of 4, Page 4 of 4, item 4G (minutes of the Grant Making Panel (Police Property Act Fund) of 23rd August 2012) (5 pages, Page 1 of 5), and 4H (minutes of the Transition Committee of the 23 August 2012) (3 pages). Copies were available at the meeting itself.

The former Mayor, Cllr Moira McLaughlin arrived in plenty of time at 1.39pm, as the meeting started a few minutes late at 2.04pm. Including the Police Authority Members (and staff), Merseyside Police officers (and staff) and public there were about forty people present.

The Chair, Cllr Weightman (Labour, Knowsley Council) welcomed Members of the Police Authority and public to the meeting. He asked for apologies.

Apologies were given for the only Conservative Councillor on the Police Authority, Cllr Blakeley (Wirral Council), Labour Cllr Frank Prendergast (Liverpool City Council), Mr Tom Kelly (Independent) and another Member of the Police Authority.

1. Declarations of Interest

The Chair, Cllr Weightman  asked for any declarations of interest.

A Member of the Police Authority declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 4G (minutes of the Grant Making Panel (Police Property Act Fund) of 23rd August 2012) as his interest was regards to one of the grants.

A Member of the Police Authority declared a personal interest in item 4F (minutes of the Estate Strategy Committee of the 16th August 2012) because it referred to the Joint Command and Control facility as Sefton Council may sell the Police Authority the land.

The Chair said these interests were noted, where there any others?

2. Minutes (Merseyside Police Authority, 21st June 2012)

The minutes of the meeting held on the 21st June 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

3. Chairman’s Announcements

The Chair said he had three things to raise. The first was that at the beginning of 2011, they had commissioned a training provider called The Learning Curve for management training. He said their aim was to build on existing skills that staff had, with an emphasis on organisational change and transferring to the new governance scheme. The Chair continued by saying that there had been the opportunity to do a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Management at level seven, which was a diploma consisting of two management units with a choice of optional subjects which counted as points towards the award. Cllr Weightman said it was equal to a Masters Degree and three staff (who he named as Paul Caton, June Hackett and Mark Turley) had gained this qualification, he congratulated them for taking the time to increase their qualifications.

Professor Alf Zack-Williams (Independent) also offered them his congratulations and said it was the essence of a good employer to have training facilities. He gave the example of a female cleaner, who within five years of starting work had gained a BSc (Hons) within five years after starting on an access course. Prof Williams said they were leaving a good legacy for the successor [to the Merseyside Police Authority].

The second announcement the Chair wanted to make was to remember Cath Kane who had retired after thirty-six years service. He said that Cath had written to him and mentioned the close relationship, hard work and dedication of Members of the Merseyside Police Authority. He proposed that they invite her to the next meeting to give a small presentation and hoped Members would support and agree to this.

The third announcement the Chair made was about the proposed farewell dinner and the issue of internal correspondence. He said it had been decided closed, but one Member had put this on the internet and was claiming credit for stopping the dinner. The Chair felt that this was not true as it had been a decision of Members of the whole Authority, an all-Member Authority decision, not the decision of one individual Member, which he wanted recorded in the minutes.

He moved the meeting onto agenda item 4.

4. Minutes of Meetings

4A The minutes of the Transition Committee of the 5th July 2012 were moved and agreed.

4B The minutes of the Service Improvement Committee of the 19th July 2012 were moved and agreed.

4C With reference to the minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee minutes of the 26th July 2012, on page 18, agenda item 5, resolution (iii) he wanted them to write to the Local Authorities with regards to changes in Council Tax Benefit and asked them to accept this change? They did.

4D The minutes of the Community Partnership Committee of the 2nd August 2012 were moved and agreed.

4E The minutes of the Performance Scrutiny and Review  Committee of the 9th August 2012 were moved and agreed.

A Member of the Police Authority having previously declared a prejudicial interest in item 4G left at this point.

4F The Chair asked for an amendment to the minutes of the Estate Strategy Committee meeting of the 5th July 2012 in respect of item 4. He wanted (a) to read rejects and (b) to read instructs the Chief Constable for a full and comprehensive report to the next meeting of this Committee. Another Member of the Police Authority said the amendment was in line with the mood of the meeting. The Chair asked if people were happy and the amendment and minutes were agreed.

4G The minutes of the Grant Making Panel meeting of the 23rd August 2012 were moved and agreed.

The Member of the Police Authority having declared a prejudicial interest who had left the room returned. The Chair thanked Julie for calling him back.

4H The Chair moved on to the minutes of the Transition Committee meeting of the 23rd August 2012 and drew people’s attention to item 13 which set up an Audit Committee and referred also to minute 12. The minutes were moved and agreed.

The Chair moved the meeting on to agenda item 5.

5. Collaboration Agreement for the National Police Air Service (Joint Report of the Chief Executive and Chief Constable)

Paul Johnson (Chief Executive/Treasurer) introduced the joint report (agenda item 5) of himself and the Chief Constable on the National Police Air Service: Collaboration Agreement.  He said that back in October [2011] they had had representations from Hampshire Constabulary regarding their willingness to enter a national collaboration, which they had agreed in principle.

A significant step had been to join the regional support air group which had led to savings. He wanted to clarify external perceptions with the public over the perceived loss of a helicopter. A major consideration had been the future of [the helicopter] G-XM11, as there was the expectation that they would donate it to the national pot, to be used as a general cover aircraft, but not as a free gift, but it would remain an asset on their balance sheet and be paid for. Paul Johnson had asked for a valuation and it had been valued at £800,000 to £900,000.

NPAS [National Police Air Service] had come back with a national agreement, but in June [2012] they had signed an agreement with the Norwegian Government on behalf of the Oslo Police Department, which had removed the final obstacle to signing up to NPAS. Beryl Heath and Chris Mar were going through the final agreement and they were more or less there, with the original deadline being tomorrow (the 31st August 2012), officers were working on the detail and there was confirmation on the third page at item five of the financial position. The lease to Norway, was not threatened by the NPAS agreement and NPAS had been helpful at approving the Norway situation. He was asking the Police Authority to authorise him and the Chief Constable to sign up to the agreement, once some small minor issues had been sorted.

Paul Johnson said that compared to other areas in the country it had been a wise decision to enter into regional arrangements, which had been ironed out last year. The issue of the redundant helicopter had been sorted out and hopefully there would not be a repeat of things suffered last year [in Norway]. He asked for authority from the Merseyside Police Authority.

The Chair said that there was a lot more to this for the region, but they wouldn’t be bullied by the Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP and the Home Office, they had done a deal with the Norwegian Government and got money back that they wouldn’t have received in the first place because it was old. All of the North West had gained as it had been extended from eight to twelve years, so the North West had got a good deal as Merseyside [Police Authority] had led the way. He said it was a “fait accompli” as a [statutory] instrument by the government said they had to, they could take out a lengthy court case but it would just waste money. The recommendation in the report was agreed.

The Chair then moved to agenda item 6 (Chief Constable’s Annual Report).

Continue to Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Part 2 Item 6 – Chief Constable’s Annual Report, 2011-12, Item 7 – Merseyside Crimestoppers Annual Report 2011/12 Part 2

Related articles